[ Page 2151 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

College and Institute Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 15). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 2151

Oral questions

Renovation of Queen of Prince Rupert. Mr. Mitchell –– 2151

Unemployment. Mr. Stupich –– 2152

Government cash and investments. Mr. Stupich –– 2152

B.C. Systems Corporation tenders. Mr. Levi –– 2152

British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board. Mrs. Wallace –– 2153

Committee of Supply: Premier's Office estimates

On vote 9

Mr. Chairman (ruling) –– 2153

Mr. Leggatt –– 2154

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2154

Mr. Hall –– 2155

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2156

Mr. Macdonald –– 2156

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2156

Mr. Leggatt –– 2158

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2159

Mr. Levi –– 2160

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2160

Mr. Hall –– 2161

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2162

Mr. Leggatt –– 2163

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2163

Mr. King –– 2163

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2165

Mr. Nicolson –– 2166

Division on motion that the committee rise –– 2168

Mrs. Wallace –– 2168

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2169

Mr. Lea –– 2169

Mr. Howard –– 2171

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2171

Protection of Privacy Act reports. Hon. Mr. Williams –– 2177

Appendix –– 2177

TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. MAIR: In the members' gallery today is one of my favourite constituents, my daughter Cindy, who is sitting with my wife Patty. I would like the House to make them very welcome.

MR. KEMPF: With us in the gallery this afternoon are Mr. and Mrs. Russell Tiljoe, their daughters Marian and Kathy, and their son Dean. Mr. and Mrs. Tiljoe reside in that marvellous little community of Houston, in the great constituency of Omineca. I would ask the House to make them all welcome.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We have in the galleries today a group of students from the David Thompson Secondary School in Invermere, accompanied by Mr. and Mrs. Chris Elford. I'd like the House to join in welcoming them.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are two friends from Prince Rupert, Ole Chittaro and his wife Venus. With them and with us, I'd ask you to make a special welcome to Ole's brother, visiting from northern Italy, Oliviero Chittaro, and his wife Mary. Please make them welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, just arriving in the gallery is a long-time friend, Mr. Lloyd Burgart and his wife Joanna from the great constituency of Boundary Similkameen. I'd like the House to bid them welcome.

MR. SEGARTY: In the gallery this afternoon are Mrs. Moira Clancy, Ailleen Devine, John Brian and, visiting from Ireland, Mr. Anthony Nolan. I'd like the House to welcome them.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon are students from Eric Hamber Secondary School, accompanied on this occasion by their teachers and their vice-principal. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, visiting with us today from Delta is a friend of mine, Mr. Paul Masse, I would ask you to bid him a warm welcome.

Introduction of Bills

COLLEGE AND INSTITUTE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled College and Institute Amendment Act, 1980.

Bill 15 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

RENOVATION OF
QUEEN OF PRINCE RUPERT

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Labour. On April 17 I asked a question on asbestos contamination of the Queen of Prince Rupert. Yesterday the minister filed a report from the Workers' Compensation Board dated April 21. This report was only dated up until the time of April 18, which is approximately three days after the incident. I would like to ask the minister what steps he is taking to ensure that the workers working today on the Queen of Prince Rupert are working in safe conditions.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, my inquiries within the last week have indicated that most of the problems have been handled. Whether or not they are being handled adequately, I cannot really inform the House. If you recall, the answer which I filed yesterday indicated — and I don't have a copy of the response I filed — that there were notices of violations filed on more than one occasion. The information which was passed on to me was the most recent information in recorded form, and I filed it with the House. I have not since had any more problems brought to my attention other than what the member may be implying by virtue of his question.

MR. MITCHELL: Could I make a slight comment? You know the report indicates that two orders for improvement had to be re-issued by the Workers' Compensation Board, which indicates that the vessel is still unsafe.

Mr. Speaker, I have a second question I'd like to ask the minister. Asbestosis is a lung disease. It's caused by breathing air that is saturated with or has asbestos fibres in it. I want to know if any air samples have been taken. This is nowhere in the report.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised that point with me yesterday and I have tried to secure an answer. I received some information that didn't satisfy the inquiry I had made. I will give him my undertaking to attempt to secure an answer which will be satisfactory.

MR. MITCHELL: I have received information that air samples were taken one week after the incident causing the contamination of the vessel. I wish it would be followed up as to why it wasn't taken immediately the incident was brought to attention.

I would like to ask a supplementary. Reports have been received that the internal air-conditioning unit of the vessel is contaminated. Has the minister any intention of checking the internal part of the air-conditioning unit?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I presume the hon. member, is making reference to the fact that there was, I believe, an attempt to try to clean the air by utilization of air-conditioning or some similar system. The concern that he is expressing, as I understand his question, is whether or not the asbestos fibre is now circulating within the system and whether or not any efforts will be make to cleanse it. I will attempt to secure an answer for the member as soon as possible.

[ Page 2152 ]

MR. MITCHELL: I have a new question, to the Minister of Health. It is reported again that the carpets, furniture and internal ventilation system are thoroughly contaminated with asbestos dust. Will the minister assure this House that crew working on that ship and the passengers riding on it will be protected? Will proper tests be made before the ship is put into operation?

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, Mr. Speaker, nobody could give that assurance — not even God — but I certainly will undertake to follow up....

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: Oh, yes. Sorry. With one exception, Mr. Speaker. But I certainly will undertake to work with my colleague the Minister of Labour to make sure that this very serious problem is looked into and that insofar as we're able safe conditions will prevail on that vessel.

MR. MITCHELL: I have one follow-up question, Mr. Speaker. It has been three weeks now, and we have not had one report on the air samples of that ship. I think it's about time something was released by the department.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Statements are not permitted in question period, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: A supplementary to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. It is clear that because of the contamination of the internal ventilation system of the Prince Rupert that it has to be dismantled to be cleaned. Is the minister's target date for the middle of May for the Rupert to be in service still applicable?

HON. MR. FRASER: I don't know whether I agree with the first part, but on the target, yes. We intend to use the vessel in approximately the middle of May.

UNEMPLOYMENT

MR. STUPICH: I have a question to the Minister of Finance. Having regard for the increasingly serious level of unemployment in the woodworking industry and the construction industry, and since the federal government spokesman said yesterday that the shortage of residential accommodation was a problem for B.C. and therefore not a federal problem, I wonder whether the Minister of Finance is planning any action on the part of the provincial government.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The government is very keenly aware of the problem with respect to the matters which the hon. member has mentioned. Indeed these questions are dealt with on a continuing basis.

GOVERNMENT CASH
AND INVESTMENTS

MR. STUPICH: I wonder if the minister could tell us how much the government had on hand in cash and investments in the general fund as of March 31, 1980.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I look to you for a ruling. I would think that the tradition of this House suggests that that is more properly a question for the order paper.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is quite proper to make that observation, hon. minister.

B.C. SYSTEMS CORPORATION TENDERS

MR. LEVI: I have a question for the Minister of Finance regarding the Systems Corporation. Will the minister inform the House whether it is still the practice of the B.C. Systems Corporation to hold an open tender for all new equipment?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Insofar as I know, they do. If there is a specific problem which he wishes to bring to my attention, here or in writing, I would be happy to look after it. To reiterate, as far as I am informed the practice is that tendering is utilized wherever practicable.

MR. LEVI: Can the minister advise the House whether he was informed by the Systems Corporation of a recent lease of a second IBM 333 computer at a cost of approximately $4 million? Is he aware of that?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The British Columbia Systems Corporation is expanding its equipment on a continuing basis. I would not want to give a straight yes or no at this moment. I'm trying to learn the language that is associated with the business of that corporation. I could take the question as notice.

MR. LEVI: I'd like to translate it for you, Mr. Minister. Have they got a second IBM 333? In respect to the second IBM 333 which they have, can the minister tell the House why no tenders were called?

HON. MR. CURTIS: In order to assist the member I would have to research that carefully and report to the House at the earliest opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEVI: In view of the comments by the minister's predecessor that the future expansion of BCSC would go to the private sector, can the minister indicate what BCSC intends to do with an increase of 75 percent in its computer capacity?

HON. MR. CURTIS: In answering the question, Mr. Speaker, I would not want to imply acceptance of the percentage increase of capacity which the member has offered. But certainly the activities of British Columbia Systems Corporation are increasing, and I think that that is completely in line with the mandate for the corporation, which was established by this government and initiated by my predecessor as the Minister of Finance, responsible for the corporation until the change of portfolios in November 1979.

I am satisfied that the increase that does take place with respect to capacity of British Columbia Systems Corporation equipment — if I may use a layman's word for the installations which are occurring there — is fully in line with the requirements which have been identified by various ministries and other client agencies of government.

[ Page 2153 ]

MR. LEVI: The minister should be aware that on the introduction of the original bill there was an undertaking that after two years of operation the British Columbia Systems Corporation would, in fact, go to the private sector. I would like to ask the minister this question: has the minister decided that the British Columbia Systems Corporation will compete with the private sector for contract computer services?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, Mr. Speaker. The British Columbia Systems Corporation board of directors, chosen from individuals around the province, is, in my view, an extremely competent board not only following the mandate provided in the legislation to which the member has referred but also with a very keen interest in the progress of the British Columbia Systems Corporation and in ensuring that it is functioning in a manner acceptable not only to the government of British Columbia but, more importantly, to the people who pay the bill.

MR. LEVI: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the policy direction enunciated by the minister's predecessor was that after two years of operation they would then look to the private sector to do some of the work. I would now ask the minister, who I understand is a member of the board, if this has now changed.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, at this moment I think that I would want to check very carefully, not the point made by the member but rather the complete veracity of the position which he has drawn for the purpose of the question. I would be happy to do that and to report again at another opportunity in the near future, or in the course of this summer when my estimates are dealt with.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Oh, I'm now informed that it will be fall.

Mr. Speaker, the questions are obviously very important to the member, who has taken a very real interest in the B.C. Systems Corporation since it was established. I share his concern. Yes, I am on the board of directors of BCSC. I would like to carefully review Hansard when the Blues are available, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps assist the member further at that time.

BRITISH COLUMBIA
BROILER MARKETING BOARD

MRS. WALLACE: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, and it relates to the B.C. Marketing Board, often referred to as the "superboard," and the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board. I understand the B.C. Marketing Board has made certain recommendations to the minister re the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board. My question is: has the minister discussed these recommendations with members of the B.C. Marketing Board, and if so, which of the recommendations has the minister decided to accept?

HON. MR. HEWITT: With regard to part of the question, Mr. Speaker, yes, I've had discussions with the B.C. Marketing Board concerning a proposal. With regard to which proposal I intend to accept — or the government does — that's future policy.

MRS. WALLACE: Has the minister decided whether or not he is going to accept any of these? Has he made a decision regarding those recommendations?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I would just comment that making a decision regarding the proposals would come in due course after proper review. I would like to comment, though, if I may, for the benefit of the member, that the B.C. Marketing Board's role is supervisory. It was concerned with and dealt with some complaints with regard to the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board. There have been some recent news items which have caused considerable concern in the agricultural community, because the press reports, however they obtained the information — because the discussion of the proposals was on a confidential basis — have caused concern. I can tell the member that my staff and I have been in discussions with various sectors of the agricultural community. Hopefully we can put to rest the concern that's being aroused by, first of all, the leakage, I guess, of a confidential proposal, which was there only for discussion purposes with the associations and the broiler board. Secondly, we'll have the opportunity to discuss it further with the various associations in the future.

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.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, prior to recognizing the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), yesterday in committee the guidance of the Chair was sought to the extent, if any, that items of expenditure presently referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs might be discussed in Committee of Supply. In order to reach some conclusion, it is desirable that the basic functions and powers of these two committees be examined.

The committee on public accounts is appointed for the examination of the accounts showing the appropriation of the sums granted by the Legislature to meet the public expenditure and to consider the report of the auditor-general. The main function of this committee is to make sure that the parliamentary grants for each financial year have been applied to the object which the Legislature prescribed, and to consider the matters brought to the notice of the Legislature in the reports made by the auditor-general and the comptroller-general. "The calling of witnesses, researches made by the committee and the presenting of the committee's report to the House ensure. on behalf of the House, an effectual examination of the public accounts." May, sixteenth edition, pages 682 and 683.

"The committee on public accounts is in effect a committee of inquiry. On the other hand, the ordinary function of the Committee of Supply, being a Committee of the Whole House, is one of deliberation." Beauchesne, fourth edition, page 196.

The fourth edition of Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedures and Practice describes the principal purpose of the Committee of Supply to be "the consideration and criticism

[ Page 2154 ]

or approval of the estimates before the committee." When the estimates are under consideration in the committee, it is the duty of the minister whose estimates are under consideration to explain each item that appertains to his ministry. In this way the House is able to come to a conclusion as to its necessity. The whole management of a ministry may be discussed in a general way when the committee is considering the first item of the estimates for that ministry. The administrative action of a ministry is open to debate, and in the case of a minister his performance of executive duties, as distinguished from policy-making, is open to debate.

Notwithstanding that standing order 61(2) states that speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item under consideration, some latitude by our practice is traditionally conceded when a minister's salary vote is under consideration. Arising from this practice, the constant problem confronting the Chairman of the committee is to determine how far that latitude may be extended. It is only natural that the exigencies of the moment will cause hon. members to urge upon the Chairman a greater or lesser degree of our traditional latitude.

In any event, having regard to the proper functions of the respective committees of supply and public accounts, it is the conclusion of the Chair that insofar as the activities of any official of a ministry may be relevant to a discussion of the executive duties of a minister, such debate would be in order. It would not be order in Committee of Supply to debate the specifics of any expenditure presently referred to the committee on public accounts, because consideration of whether or not a particular expenditure has been made for the purpose for which the funds were appropriated is a question for consideration and report by that committee. In so concluding, the Chair has also considered the general rule that debate on a subject matter referred to a committee may be allowed, but reference to evidence presented to that committee is not allowed prior to its report.

MR. LEGGATT: Of course, I am not arguing with your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I did want some clarification of the ruling. One of the points in your ruling was that where an account has been dealt with by the public accounts committee.... This particular account that we have been dealing with has not been referred in any way for deliberation by that committee. It would, perhaps, in the routine course of that committee's business, get there, but at this point it is simply an account in the public domain that has been filed with the Chairman of that particular committee. In fact, the account itself hasn't been filed, but a reference to it has been filed; I have been able to obtain a copy of it.

Therefore the first question surrounding your ruling which I would like clarification upon is: when an account has not been referred to that committee, where the committee has an opportunity to deal with it, is that also a part of your ruling that it cannot be dealt with specifically in this House during the estimates of any particular minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes is the answer to your question, hon. member.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, yesterday, in exchanges back and forth across the House concerning this particular account.... I am now reading from the Blues. I'd like to quote the Premier, who said this: "In a sincere attempt to deal with the questions from the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), 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" — which refers to that specific account. I took that, Mr. Chairman, as an undertaking to the Legislature and to the House. I am wondering if the Premier is now prepared to complete his undertaking today and provide us with the specifics surrounding that particular account.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I believe the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has made that information available.

MR. LEGGATT: I had the opportunity of being in the House most of yesterday afternoon, and of reviewing the Blues, and I still haven't had a specific explanation as to what service was performed for that $2,500 invoice. Unless I've missed it, I haven't seen an explanation of what specifically the Provincial Secretary paid $2,500 for.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It was my understanding from the Provincial Secretary's remarks that he would provide such information at the rising of the committee and table it in the House.

MR. LEGGATT: When dealing with this particular subject generally.... One of the reasons that this subject arose was of a survey done in 1978 by the Deputy Attorney-General, Mr. Vogel, in his ministry. For the sum of $116,000, Goldfarb Consultants provided a survey for that particular ministry surrounding attitudes in the corrections field. I want to read you the question that was asked on that particular survey paid for by public funds. The question asked in that particular survey was this: "If a provincial election were to be held today would you likely vote for (1) Social Credit Party, (2) New Democratic Party, (3) Liberal Party, (4) Conservative Party, (5) other — please specify?" What that had to do with figuring out people's attitudes to the subject of corrections I've never been able to fathom.

The reason that we raised the question of this particular account and this particular invoice is that the public have a right to know what the questions are that are being asked by Goldfarb Consultants. We want to know whether those are the same kinds of questions that went out following this meeting or this consultation in August and September of 1978. Were the surveys made? Was that consulting fee of $2,500 the initial step in an account that came to $259,000 — as we see in Public Accounts — paid to Goldfarb for doing government business — not party business but government business? That line was crossed once already in the Attorney-General's ministry, when that questionnaire went out for $116,000. This government was able to get a survey dealing with public attitudes towards their particular political philosophy and their particular political party.

What this House now needs is assurance that that $2,500 invoice that went to the Premier's office — not to the Provincial Secretary, but to the Premier's office; and it was the Premier's office that hired Goldfarb Consultants, not anybody else; I don't know anybody in the business of providing professional service who bills somebody other than who ever hired them, because that's where the contract lies — was not the first step in a survey, on the public purse, to find out what the people of British Columbia thought about the government's performance.

[ Page 2155 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, hon. member, before proceeding I would advise you of the information that I just finished bringing forward to the House regarding this committee, and that of public accounts, and the clear responsibility of each to deal with separate matters.

MR. LEGGATT: I appreciate that. I want to make it clear that what I'm dealing with at this point is not your ruling. What I'm dealing with is the undertaking given by the Premier yesterday to this House — and I'll repeat it: "In a sincere attempt to deal with the question for the member, who I believe was sincere, I said I would attempt to bring such information if it was appropriate and had to do with that expenditure of $2,500." That wasn't to a committee; it wasn't to the public accounts committee. It was the Premier's personal undertaking. I understood that he would come to this House and give us a full explanation of the account. Now he's telling us: "I'm not going to give you an explanation of the account. I'm going to leave it to the Provincial Secretary to some day down the road come in front of the public accounts committee."

HON. MR. BENNETT: It was my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that I said I would bring it if it was appropriate during these estimates; if not the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe).... Later the Provincial Secretary stood and said he'd make the information available. It was my understanding that he'd make the information available to the House. I can seek the statement the Provincial Secretary was to give and perhaps make it available to the member, if he hasn't done that. It was my understanding when he stood in the House that that's what he said.

At that time, as you remember, Mr. Chairman, I used the words "whether it should be discussed in these estimates" and "we're awaiting your ruling on what was appropriate during estimates." That information should be readily available. I'll find out if the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) is in the building and if he has it; I know he's been at meetings with the group from the International Bureau of Expositions, but I know very well that I've heard the Provincial Secretary during the estimates. There again, rather than broaden what might be an unclear area, I've readily said that the information would be available.

MR. LEGGATT: Well, Mr. Chairman, the business of this province should be done in this House, not with private little meetings between me and the Provincial Secretary around this matter. This account has been raised in the public domain, and I expect the answer should be given in the public domain.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that he was going to make the information available to the House.

MR. LEGGATT: Well, I just want to clarify this now, Mr. Chairman. Neither I nor any member on this side has received any explanation whatsoever surrounding that particular account. Our request was quite simple: we want an explanation for the account. We've had the Provincial Secretary stand up and say: "Oh, I've got something here, folks, and we'll let you know later. I might be coming in front of Public Accounts." We have the Premier, who must know what the account was about after all this time. He surely consulted with the Provincial Secretary; he's even had a chance to pick up the phone and talk to Goldfarb about it, I'm sure, if he wished to. The information is all there; why not simply tell us today what the bill is all about?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, as soon as the Provincial Secretary gets back, I'll get the information and make it available.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in your ruling. As you well know, I'm the Chairman of the public accounts committee, and I think I can speak for the members of my committee that at the various meetings they will indeed be investigating the kind of thing which you indicate is a correct and proper course of action for them to take. However, I don't think your ruling should at all impede the rightful duty and responsibility of the members of this House to determine from the first minister of this province what his attitude is; what his policy is; what his instructions are to those treasury benches regarding the use of public moneys and the inquiry into public attitudes and public awareness. That's what we're trying to ascertain.

What my colleagues sought to do yesterday was to suggest to the minister that failing an explanation of why a consultative fee to Martin Goldfarb in the amount of $2,500, it is surely left to the imagination to see how that develops into a total expenditure to that company on behalf of the government — our tax money — of over a quarter of a million dollars. A $2,500 submission for consultation, Mr. Chairman, has suddenly ballooned, blossomed into a quarter of a million dollars worth of expenses to that company.

I think the House is entitled to receive from the Premier an explanation of how he views the use of that kind of service, that kind of technique, that kind of modern sampling methods. Indeed, the Goldfarb company is well known. It's not the only company that's been used by the government. I think that the public has got to be served by the opposition and by other members of the House in finding out what that money has gone for. We want to rest easy and feel assured in dealing with, for instance, the expenditure of some $68,000 in another ministry under the general catch-all expression of a "view from the marketplace," that indeed political questions aren't asked in those questionnaires.

Mr. Chairman, if I read to you the titles of some of those studies, I think you'd agree with me that we're entitled to ask the Premier: what is his policy? What has he laid down? He's talked about ethics, conflict of interest, blind trusts, and all sorts of things. What's his policy about polling? What's his policy about spending taxpayers' money on behalf of the Social Credit Party, in effect, not the real aspirations of the ministry, of the policies and programs of the government? What, indeed, are ''drinking driver counterattack surveys" for? What are "views from the marketplace" for? What are all these other consulting fees for? What's "consumer awareness and attitude" — $45,000 — for? How do we know there aren't piggyback polls on who do you vote for, what am I looking like, what's my image, do you trust me, and all of those things asked in those questionnaires? I think we're entitled to ask those questions, regardless of the fact that a public accounts committee is going to deal with the authenticity of those bills. That's the kind of question.

Now already in another province the first minister has got

[ Page 2156 ]

himself into hot water. I don't think you should do the same thing, Mr. Premier; with respect to you, don't do the same thing. Why don't you tell us what these things are for? Why are they all scattered through? Why isn't there a clean and forward common-sense statement regarding the use of Canadian Facts, Gallup poll, Goldfarb and all the rest of them? That's what we're asking for, and I think I wanted to say that and get it on the record as the Chairman of the public accounts committee. I in no way view the examination of that policy aspect as an interference with the work of my committee dealing with the authenticity and the correctness of the expenditure of the money.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Again the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) brings up that he's interested in specific areas, I think he said in the Attorney-General's ministry — that would be quite interesting, but in the information services of government there's nothing to say they can't use modern research techniques to ensure that public information programs are meeting the test of providing information to the public, and that the programs are clearly understood. Such modern tools would be useful to and be used by government and business and perhaps even associations. I've said that if a ministry develops a concern in an area or a number of areas over their information programs, I'm sure they would want to make sure, through information services, that they are in fact reaching the people or meeting public expectation with the programs. So, obviously, all tools are now available to ministries if they have a ministerially inspired program of research, and that would be the responsibility of the ministry.

The second member for Surrey has identified his concern about a specific ministry or a research title. He read out a number of them. I'm sure he has the opportunity during estimates to deal with it.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether the Premier has missed the point here or we're just playing a game. The services provided by Goldfarb were ordered by the Premier through Dave Brown, who was then his employee.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, don't make statements that are not true.

MR. MACDONALD: Am I not right in that? Well, tell us: did your office ask for the provision of these services by Goldfarb which cost $2,500? It seems obvious, Mr. Chairman, that we're not debating the authenticity of the account or the payment; that's a separate matter. It seems obvious from the bill that the Premier ordered these services out of public funds. The bill comes back on December 28, 1978, from Goldfarb Consultants of Bathurst Street in Toronto, and it doesn't provide any details as to what the services ordered were. It simply says: consulting fee and travel costs, $2,500.

Now these were ordered by the Premier. I don't think there's anybody in this House who, after we've asked these questions now for a day, does not agree with me when I say that the Premier knows exactly what we're talking about. You know what those services were. Will you tell us? If you nod your head to that, I yield the floor, gladly. Then we'll pass on to other business. Would you tell us what services were ordered from Goldfarb?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the second member for Vancouver East has attributed some sort of orders to the Premier of the province. Again he is incorrect. The information coordination in the government would collect information being sought by a number of ministries on their own budgetary account to help coordinate the type of research that may do that. I don't get into the day-to-day business of government programs. I am in on the policy of government programs. The ways in which the ministries operate is within their own budget or research and development of programs, and the expression of information on those programs would, of course, be their own development tool. But we do have the opportunity for coordination, which we described yesterday, in the mandate of the ministry of the adviser who came under the executive council vote. If the member is concerned about any of the research done by any firm for a specific ministry, it's quite clear that they can deal with that either in the minister's estimates or in Public Accounts, depending on your wishes, your direction or your advice, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MACDONALD: I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier is being cute about this question. He knows perfectly well what this was for.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I think you knew all along, and I'm sure that you know today. I think you knew back in December 1978. I think that Dave Brown came to you and said: "Let's consult Goldfarb." About what? Now supposing he did it on his own; nevertheless he is your — what does he call himself? — communications planning adviser. You are responsible for the actions of your own employees in your own office. So you ordered these services, and the public of British Columbia is going to pay for them. This initial order isn't very much; it's only $2,500. But we're talking here about accountability.

Just to put it once again on the record, when the question of the account comes up there is a question as to whether it was politically audited. The message came back from Dick Fetherstonhaugh on January 31, 1979 — that's a month after the bill came in. He said: "We lack sufficient detail to properly audit this account." So does the House. So do the people of British Columbia, Mr. Premier. They have a right to know and they lack sufficient detail about this account.

"I refer this for info since the area is politically sensitive." Now would all hon. members in this chamber put up their hands if they can say, in all good conscience, that the Premier doesn't know what it was that was ordered in December 1978? How many hands would go up?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not a one.

MR. MACDONALD: I can't refer to the galleries, but I.... You mean this was politically sensitive and you don't know anything about it? Ah, come on, Mr. Premier! For heaven's sakes, square level with the people of the province of B.C. That's what your estimates have been all about. It isn't the particular questions of whether there is misconduct here, misconduct there, good conduct here or good conduct there so much. The thing is that you're not levelling with the Legislature and, in effect, not levelling with the people of the province of British Columbia. I don't

[ Page 2157 ]

know of any other Premier who has done that in the history of B.C. or in the history of Canada.

Oh, I'm going to just....

HON. MR. BENNETT: You don't want me to talk?

MR. MACDONALD: I've never hit that 30-minute bell yet, and I don't intend to.

I want to be very specific and very clear about what I'm saying. The issue isn't even credibility; it's refusal to account. Oh, there's a credibility issue that's come up in your estimates too, and there's no accounting, you know, on the business about the uranium sales to....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, that was a credibility issue, and there should be an explanation. It remains a credibility issue when there is no explanation. It must be so. But this isn't. This is straight refusal to account for what your office did to the people of British Columbia. I don't see how any responsible opposition can back away and say: "Well, the Premier won't account; let's go home." I don't see how we can say that.

I just want to put a simple question, having persuaded the Premier to be a Premier. To be a Premier means to account, show ministerial responsibility and to answer the question which everyone knows he has the answer to. I simply ask him what the services were that were ordered by his office in the sum of $2,500, for which the invoice was received in December 1978. The Premier's going to answer.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Again, Mr. Chairman, the second member for Vancouver East makes a statement that is not correct. He says "services ordered." As he knows, the executive director of planning and information services works for the executive council to coordinate information activities for the executive council. They came in along with the intergovernmental vote, the Premier's vote and executive council. But the second member for Vancouver East has had some experience, I believe, in the executive council of this province, recognizing that there are a number of ministries that make up the executive council.

He also knows what coordination means. Coordinating activities that have been initiated among different ministries would be one of the things. I'm sure by now you've taken the time to refresh yourself with the mandates of that position, and what it was called upon to do and carry out to bring some efficiency and to provide better information and government services so the people could take advantage of government services and utilize government services.

One of the things, as the member knows when he works each weekend in his constituency office in Vancouver East, as I do in Okanagan South, is the number of requests that come from constituents who don't know about government programs. There's help there; they don't know how to get it. One of the things is to try and provide a better information system. Obviously, then, the research that would go into providing better public information through the ministries.... Each ministry is responsible for developing their programs and their program information. The fact that it does come under some coordination in a number of ways.... I pointed out one of them yesterday.

One of the coordinations is in government advertising programs. This coordination program on information is to allow for public bid rather than allocating the largest portion, or an undue amount to, say, a firm like Dunsky's, which was not a British Columbia firm. The Canadian Advertising Council has supported that type of coordination. They've supported that type of bidding in public advertising. It's all part of the coordination of information.

Now such a coordinator has a responsibility to the executive council. The total executive council, and that includes the staff that sat on cabinet committees and took minutes and things, obviously had to come under some vote. It came under a vote related to my estimates. I think we can deal with that, Mr. Chairman, so I've provided that the research tools of coordination and proper public information are available — that's what it was all about. Obviously each ministry, should they have developed a program that called for a particular type of research or particular type of information campaign, can make available for the public, during either their estimates or through Public Accounts if it's a matter of some time ago, that information which the member talks about.

MR. MACDONALD: The Premier referred to the fact that I'd had ministerial office. It seemed to me that I was glad to — certainly people like the hon. minister over there made sure I did — answer any questions as to matters on my salary vote where I'd been involved.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, you did. You insisted we answer, and we were glad to. All right, we'll leave that alone.

The second point I have to make is that a Premier who is a leader is glad, if he has half a chance, to answer questions as to what's been done on behalf of his government. Now this bill was submitted not to the executive council, Mr. Chairman, but to David P. Brown, Communications Planning Adviser, Office of the Premier. But before it was paid it was discussed with Mr. Brown by the comptroller-general. The Premier has implied that I've suggested that his office ordered this. Is he saying flatly to this Legislature that the Premier's office and/or Mr. Brown did not order these services? Is he saying that?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm saying that the communications planning adviser to the executive council would both respond to and initiate techniques of research and program development and information. It was a coordinating effect.

MR. BARRETT: Who ordered it?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Both members for Vancouver East now are here. One has taken the floor, the other speaks from his seat, both are concerned about the techniques of government. I suggest you have ample opportunity under the Provincial Secretary's estimates to do with information....

MR. BARRETT: Who ordered it?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, would you ask that member, who is only brave when there's great distance and yourself to protect him....

[ Page 2158 ]

MR. BARRETT: What do you want to do? Step out in the hall and tell me? Come on, let's go. I'll go anywhere to get the answers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, you've had the answer. Your reputation out there has preceded you.

MR. BARRETT: Just answer the question.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the question has been answered. Obviously the second member for Vancouver East and his friend on the left are not happy.

MR. BARRETT: I'm not happy.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You've got nothing to be happy about. If I were you I wouldn't be happy either.

MR. BARRETT: Watch your back, Bill.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Leader of the Opposition says to watch my back. Mr. Chairman, I'm not worried about watching my back or watching my front, either. It's being diverted to the left that worries me, in the development of public policy.

Anyhow, the members have the answer. I'll be getting from the Provincial Secretary the information that I understood he committed to bring to the House, and that information will be made available. Again, the accountability of public accounts in each minister's office, in the latitude of their ministry, will be available to the members of this House. I noticed the groans....

MR. LAUK: Tell the truth.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I always tell the truth. I wonder about the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) when they use the word. But we presented the information.

I've been in this House, both on the government side and on the opposition side, and I had a chuckle when the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) talked about the great accountability and answers he gave when he was in government. He brought the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing to his feet. I remember days of no answers to real questions of public importance — not political questions or silly questions or questions that could appropriately be asked elsewhere, not the time of delaying actions so they could go out and make their forays and say, "Boy, oh, boy, are we tough. We kept the Premier in the House for so many hours," which they're doing.

Obviously the government is proceeding. Work is proceeding, and the government policies are being carried out with great effect in this province and will continue to be. How they budget their time in the opposition and what their priorities are as to public business they'll have to be accountable for. All information is readily available, and I'm sure the members will be happy. The only thing is, they're disappointed because they can't find anything wrong. That's the problem. You know that, Mr. Chairman, and so do most of the members in this House, and, I think, even secretly, deep down, so do they. I have a feeling that they come to this House to play politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, they might come to this House to play politics. That's what they say.

AN HON. MEMBER: Political politics.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The worst kind.

It's like the mating dance of something. They have to go through these gyrations every session until they settle down and their research gets organized and they get on with the issues of the day. The most important issues may differ with the policies being carried out by the government right at the moment. Our policies are designed to meet some of the concerns we have both in a provincial and a national way at this time in Canada. They may think that by dealing with areas outside the Premier's office and areas that could be dealt with elsewhere or in dealing in no areas at all, they are fulfilling their mandate. What they are fulfilling is the expectations we had for them all along, and that's nothing.

MR. LEGGATT: I still find it passing strange....

AN HON. MEMBER: Passing strange?

MR. LEGGATT: Yes, passing strange. Do you like that? It's a new one and I hope it catches on.

Mr. Chairman, regarding your ruling this afternoon, which dealt with the specific specific appropriates, I want to deal with the question of the Premier's estimates and his capacity to administer the Premier's office. That's a different function and a different question, but it's one that you have to deal with when you look at this particular account. I want you to imagine the first minister of the province getting a bill from somebody called Goldfarb Consultants. Everybody else in Canada knows who Goldfarb Consultants are and I'm sure the Premier does.

The Premier gets a bill which says only this: "Consulting fees and travel costs, $2,500." Now either the Premier or Mr. Brown didn't have the wit to pick that telephone and phone Goldfarb and say: "What in God's name are you doing sending us this bill without a single specification on it and without any reference to the government's business?" Knowing that political parties all across this country use Goldfarb services for political purposes, I say, Mr. Chairman, this is a piece of very sloppy work at the very least.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I think I'd like to draw to your attention standing order 43. We've listened to this line of questioning most of yesterday afternoon and it appears that we're embarking upon additional tedious and repetitious argument by the members opposite. I would hope that you would remind the members, who consistently repeat the same arguments that we've heard hour after hour and ask the same questions which have been answered, that they are becoming very tedious and repetitious. I hope you will bring this to the attention of the members.

MR. HOWARD: With respect to that last point of order, I think probably the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing is only half right, as is characteristic of him. Yes, there has been tediousness and repetition in this House. The tedious-

[ Page 2159 ]

ness and repetition has come from the refusal on the part of the Premier, not only yesterday afternoon but consistently day after day, to answer legitimate questions. That's what should be drawn to the attention of the Premier, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEGGATT: I just wanted to complete this point, which is a slightly different aspect from the ones that have been raised around this particular account. I again ask reasonable people to put themselves in the position of managing and running such an important office as the Premier's office and imagine they receive an account from Goldfarb Consultants. It is an account which says nothing as to what the service is. It just says: "Consulting fee and travel costs, $2,500. " I would think any reasonable person, whether politician, Premier or otherwise, would have picked up the telephone or had someone in their office pick up their telephone and say: "Put down what that's for. I want to make sure there's no cross-over in regard to these kinds of billings."

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, again the member for Coquitlam-Moody is talking about an invoice submitted to government that was sent to the communications and planning adviser for the government and not to me. I don't run the accounts or verify all the invoices for government. It is foolish for any member, particularly that member, who was supposed to bring a breath of fresh air to that party.... We know the tactic they used when Bob Strachan retired as leader and they chose a new leader. We remember the style of personal attacks that was developed in the House from that change of leadership, but that member doesn't.

This is an invoice sent to the communications and planning adviser of government responsible to the executive council, coordinating information programs of the executive council from the various ministries. Who else would know where to allocate any program?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Prince Rupert on a point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've never had a point of order in your life.

MR. LEA: It's a real of point of order. The Premier has stated that this bill was involved with the executive council — working for the executive council. I'd just like the Premier to know — and he can check this on an order-in-council if he wants — that he's the president of the executive council, and therefore he's responsible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, with due respect to all members, it is most unfair for a member to rise on a point of order that is not a point of order, particularly during an address by another member. It's one thing to rise on a questionable point of order at the conclusion of any member's speech, but to do so while a member is speaking is certainly not behaviour conducive to the furthering of this assembly.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, thank you for your words of wisdom in guiding the House and particularly the member for Prince Rupert.

Again, that would be a logical place. The allocation of spending belongs in the estimates of the ministries. Any ministry that required service or was responsible for various expenditures or responsibilities, whether total information programs, programs, say, of forestry belonging to Forests or of the Attorney-General belonging to the Attorney-General — there again that's where a bill incorrectly sent would end up. Who would better know the appropriate spot than the communications and planning adviser?

In the coordination of government, the Premier is the president of the executive council, but the executive council is the ministers, who are going to be dealing with their estimates. The executive council is the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and so on. That is the executive council, and traditionally in estimates.... I wonder, Mr. Member, if you would recognize that the tradition in estimates is to deal with each member of the executive council. Yes, it's a group; each opportunity is there.

The communications and planning adviser was a coordinator trying to bring some sense to the type of information, trying to make it more efficient for information of government programs. It's obvious to all people that the millions of dollars or whatever spent with Dunsky weren't appropriate for providing the public with information. All of us in our constituency offices have found constituents coming to us for help who are asking for help provided under existing government programs; they just don't know about them. Obviously then the Dunsky approach that was taken by the NDP of a single advertising agency getting the largest amount of government business was neither equitable nor fair. Some might put some other descriptions on what that account meant or the way it was delivered, or how it was handled, or what special relationship there was.

Changing to a new method of allowing a number of information or advertising agencies to bid on government programs was an innovation of this government, from the report to government that talked about a better way to correct the deficiencies, the lack of knowledge that the people had about available programs of government; the type of research that's a modern tool, today's technology. Obviously any modern government is going to use them. We're not going to do the ads with a quill pen in the basement. Obviously the upgrading of the Queen's Printer machinery was an important part of that report.

So the member's question can be dealt with with an executive council member in a bill that was paid by the Provincial Secretary's ministry. Yesterday the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) said he would provide that information to the House. I’ve sought him out to provide the information for you, to make the information available. I'm not going to broaden my estimates and make it difficult not only for the Chairman today but for Chairmen in the future, because you may want to set a precedent of broadening the scope of discussion under the Premier's estimates. You may ask questions which are inappropriate during this period, and it is not a refusal to answer but a reason to stay by the rules which I saw imposed both when I was in opposition and when I was out of government, watching the Legislature perform. I'm breaking no new ground, really. I think if that member really takes a look he'd find you've been allowed more latitude this year, obviously. But that information will be

[ Page 2160 ]

forthcoming. There is nothing secret. It will be forthcoming. The Provincial Secretary has responded to the request. I'd hoped he would have made the information available to the House by now.

MR. LEVI: Now I'll just speak to the Premier in quiet, calm tones, because he just gave us a very interesting lecture on how not to be responsible for your ministry. He says he's not breaking new ground. He is breaking new ground. He keeps insisting that he doesn't have to answer questions for the actions of a man who was in his ministry. Now as we understand it — and I'm sure the Premier does — Mr. Brown was receiving a salary under the Premier's vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that true or not?

MR. LEVI: Well, that's the first question, yes. If we can get the Premier's attention, because the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom)....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Momentito, por favor.

MR. LEVI: Momentito, right.

Now let's ask the Premier the first question: was Mr. Brown paid under the Premier's vote when he worked there?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes or no.

MR. LEVI: Yes or no. That's a fair enough question. Because — let me put it to you this way, Mr. Chairman — if he wasn't paid under that vote, then we're entirely on the wrong line of questioning. If he was on that vote, then that's when we can ask questions. That's very simple. That's been the practice in this House since 1871 and even before then.

The other question I want to ask him is this. We simply want to know what Mr. Brown had done that cost $2,500. Now that's not a very serious question. What did he have done? I understand that somebody flew out from Toronto; they discussed something and they went back. That's $2,500; that's a very expensive consultation. Presumably what might have been left behind was some kind of report, some piece of paper which made reference to this particular expenditure.

Now the Premier said at the beginning of the afternoon that we really should deal with this in Public Accounts. Well, he's dead wrong, because we're not just asking him about the $2,500; we would like to know what the $2,500 was for. I spoke to the comptroller-general of this province last week and I said to him: "You make available to us the vouchers for expenditures in the government; your office facilitates that for the members of the public accounts committee, as to the people we're interested in." Now I'd like the Premier to listen to this, because he keeps complaining about a new line of questioning. I'd like him to listen to this. I said to the comptroller-general last week: "Your function is to provide the public accounts committee with vouchers" — and he does that — and then I asked him: "Can you provide us with the reports or any other documents that relate to the expenditures?" His answer to me was: "I cannot do that; you'll have to ask the minister." Those were the words of the comptroller-general. As a matter of fact, I think you, Mr. Chairman, were present when I asked him. Are you not on the public accounts committee? Oh, you are not, okay.

Well, that was his reply, that in respect to anything that was done in terms of the money — reports, and that's what I was asking about.... "Can you give us a copy of the report?" He said: "No, you've got to ask the minister." Now we're asking the minister.

Yesterday the Premier was asked: "Will you go before the public accounts committee?" He said: "Surely I don't have to do that." Okay, he doesn't want to go before the public accounts committee. Is he prepared to give this House a copy of the documents relevant to the expenditure of $2,500? Because we cannot get them from the comptroller-general.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. LEVI: The comptroller-general said very specifically in Public Accounts: "I'll give you the vouchers, but if you want the reports and documents, you must get them from the minister." Here we are in the minister's estimates, and I'm asking the minister: "Will you provide this committee with the documents related to the $2,500?" Our line of questioning with respect to going to the Public Accounts is completely spurious. We're asking for some documentary explanation of what this expenditure was, and you cannot get it in Public Accounts, because we have it from the word of the comptroller-general. Will the Premier table the documents?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I have no documents to table, if the member is talking about anything that may be related to an expenditure paid by the Provincial Secretary. I wonder if he would ask the Provincial Secretary in his estimates if he has anything further besides the voucher.

MR. LEVI: I can't call him "slippery." That's not parliamentary. I don't know what we're going to call him. I mean I just asked you a question. Either your IQ slipped dramatically and you didn't understand what I was saying or your sense of perception is all wrong. I'm not talking about the Provincial Secretary, because we've had a long dissertation from the Premier about the role of the coordinator. Last week and the week before it was "window on the Pacific." This week it's "coordination." He's going to tell us about coordination. All right, we accept that coordination is a good thing, and that coordination is done by Mr. Brown, and Mr Brown is in the Premier's office and gets paid under his vote.

Now the Premier has yet to tell us — and maybe he'll answer this — whether Mr. Brown got paid under his vote when he worked for him? Is that a valid question? Was Mr. Brown paid under this vote when he worked for you?

HON. MR. BENNETT: If there are any additional files relating to the communications and planning adviser, if they were continuing, they would be in the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary, which pays his salary this year — especially if they dealt with an invoice that was paid two years ago by the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Yep, we're making real progress. Let me go back and say this very clearly.... You know, I have real trouble with this. I spent 17 years as a social worker, advising

[ Page 2161 ]

people about little bits of communication; now I think we've got to talk to the Premier. First of all, you've got to get his attention. He's got to look over in their direction, or at least listen to what people are saying. My question simply was: was Mr. Brown paid, when he worked for you, under the particular vote that we're dealing with now — that is, your vote? We are not dealing with the present situation. I'm not interested in what Mr. Brown does now. We are discussing the fiscal year 1978-79. Was he working for you?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The question was: would he be dealing with the vote we have now? No, he dealt with the executive council, which is now being paid for under the Intergovernmental Relations ministry. Don't you read?

MR. LEVI: Yes, I do read. I don't care whether it's under the executive council; tradition in this House has been that the Premier answers questions about the executive council.

HON. MR. BENNETT: This is so bad.

MR. LEVI: Yes, well, it is so bad. Not only is it so bad, Mr. Chairman, but for the people in the gallery it's going to look darned stupid that the leader of this province is behaving that way.

Last week he complained about the fact that he couldn't get enough money in his office. I said at that time that we would be quite prepared to give him all the money he wanted if he was prepared to hire people to help him, because he obviously needs help. But, no, he hasn't done that. It seems to me that if he can call Ron Grieg on the phone, interview him, and do what he said he did last week, it should have been possible for him, in the last 24 hours, to pick up the phone and say to Mr. Brown: "I'm having trouble in the House. What was that $2,500 for? Oh, is that what it was? Good. I'll tell him, and that's finished."

Now that's a simple, responsible, reasonable way of handling this problem. That's the way to do it — simply tell the truth, get the facts, and let's get on to something else. But, no, he wants to play games. Well, if that's the kind of game he wants to play, we are simply going to have to continue to insist. The very avenue through which he suggests we can get this information is closed to us. The comptroller-general has no jurisdiction to produce any kind of documents related to that expenditure; only the minister of the department can do that. And you're the minister. You say that there aren't any documents in relation to this.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I don't have them.

MR. LEVI: You don't know. The important thing for you to say is that you don't know, not that there aren't any.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's what I said.

MR. LEVI: He said he doesn't know. Fine. So in 24 hours you haven't found out a thing. Okay, you're consistent. You don't know.

Yesterday at the beginning of the day you said that Mrs. Pat Paulsen was in the hallway, available for any kind of information that we asked for. Did you ask Mrs. Paulsen to go down and find out about this? Did you send her a little note? No, you didn't send her a little note. You figured to yourself: "They're not going to find out anything from me."

And all he's been doing is just sitting there, playing a big stonewall game. You can't use Public Accounts as an avenue for you not to tell us about this $2,500. There's no jurisdiction in any way, unless we can get you before Public Accounts and ask you to bring the documents. That's all. Or send Mr. Brown. But don't tell us that this should properly be dealt with in Public Accounts, because it can't be dealt with.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member keeps putting words in my mouth, or saying things that aren't correct — the Mrs.-Paulsen-was-in-the-hallway sort of thing, waiting upon the Premier and being able to provide information. He adds those little words that always add a little bit of colour, with his usual ability to distort.

What we have is that the information is being sought. Now I've been trying to help the opposition. Obviously the expensive researchers the government provided you don't help you. Yesterday I said it was a question appropriately asked under the Provincial Secretary, in an attempt to help you get the information. I can't help it if you ask the question in the wrong spot. I'll help you get the information. I sent out for the Provincial Secretary; he came back and said he would provide it. I don't know what more you want. He's going to give you the information, and I'm sure he'll provide it. He said he would provide it for you. That's fairly simple. But apparently the opposition needs a lot of time to ask the same question after the assurance of information has been made to them.

Quite frankly, I can stay with this, I guess, and keep giving you the same answer, and the Provincial Secretary can provide the information to the public, as he said he would do. Then you'll look just a little bit sillier than usual, but that's your choice, not mine.

MR. HALL: It is my opinion that the statement of policy that I asked the Premier for earlier today has not been forthcoming; he has not, in my view, cleared up the policy of his government surrounding the use of polling — the use of public moneys by companies such as Goldfarb, Canadian Facts, Gallup, etc. It was a simple request by the second member for Surrey for such clarification. We haven't had that. What we've had is an invitation to proceed to ask the Provincial Secretary and other ministers the questions about the individual studies that they may or may not have done during the past 12 months. I don't think that's good enough. That was a sort of qualitative question on my behalf: what is the policy?

Not only do those companies appear in Public Accounts; not only have we heard yesterday of the worries of senior public servants regarding the correctness of passing some of those bills for payment, which will be dealt with in the public accounts committee but I have a second reason now for asking that kind of question, which is a quantitative reason. Those of us who study the accounts of the government will be more than passing curious over the fact that.... Take the company Canadian Facts. There was no billing by that company to this government in its first year of office, there was no billing in the second year of office, but there was a billing in the third year of office, coinciding with the election. Canadian Facts didn't get a dollar out of this government in 1976-77; not a dollar in 1977-78; they got $27,000, which as you know, Mr. Chairman, was a considerable amount of polling, in 1978-79. What about Gallup? Nothing in the first year of office, $10,000 in the second year of office, and a

[ Page 2162 ]

similar amount in the third year of office, an election year.

What about Goldfarb, the one we're asking about? Not a penny-piece was spent in the first year of office for all of these things that the Premier is worried about; not a penny-piece for all of those things the ministers have put down as titles to those investigations of $50,000, $60,000, $45,000 and $30,000, liberally sprinkled throughout the Public Accounts of this province. Not a penny-piece went to Goldfarb, you'll be interested to know, Mr. Chairman, in the second year of their office. But when they were getting ready for an election, when you were out there in Prince George fighting the good fight, what did they spend with Goldfarb, this government on the other side of the House polling, analyzing, asking questions, leading up to an election? They spent over a quarter of a million dollars. That's the quantitative reason why the Premier must stand up and tell us what the government's policy is on the use of these companies, on the use of this technique and the kinds of questions they're asking.

The Premier talks to us about Mr. Brown. I know Mr. Brown. He talked to us about Mr. Dunsky. I know Mr. Dunsky. Let me ask the Premier: where did Mr. Brown come from? Mr. Brown came from Lovick. Who was Lovick? Lovick got almost every single nickel of advertising money in this province from the Socred government from 1952 to 1972. Mr. Brown was retained as an adviser to the Leader of the Opposition then. Mr. Brown did a study in his first year in 1976, and became, in effect, the result of his own study. I congratulate him for it. It doesn't always fall to us to plot our own destinies to that meticulous a degree.

At the same time, the Premier always said that the policy of information services was not good; that they had to do something. The first thing they did, Mr. Chairman, in 1976, was completely disband an information service that was in operation: Ask B.C. They disbanded it; wrecked it; sacked them. That's what you did in 1976. Gone! They were a picked group of people representing language skills, employing handicapped people, all sorts of people in a proud and efficient team of information dispensers, all of them dedicated to the service of this province, and you dumped them. Don't tell me about information services.

All the Premier has done in his defence of this is to say: "Ask somebody else. Give me vote 9 and let me get out of here. I won't be back. Ask these other jokers what they've been doing." Well, that's not good enough.

I think that we should insist on knowing whether or not any of these studies, consultations, visits, or anything at all to do with Gallup, Canadian Facts and Goldfarb have anything of a political nature about them. Until we get that assurance, and we see the evidence, we see the questions that were being asked, this side won't be satisfied.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the second member for Surrey made quite an interesting point, saying that this government didn't spend some money in 1976 or 1977 in particular ways. We couldn't. You had spent it all when you were government. Not only had you spent it all, you had left the province in debt. You know that. It's not surprising that money wasn't spent on a number of things and the economy was affected in a number of ways. It would be the wrong time to talk about better information, new programs and new ways, when you had spent all the money.

The member has selective recall about what the condition was in 1976. He forgets not only about an empty treasury but a big IOU left by that government — the former Premier and the former Minister of Finance. When we got there the cupboard was bare. That has been well documented. They still argue with chartered accountant firms. They still argue with Public Accounts. They still argue with all that. They would think that by their protestations they could change history. I don't blame them for wanting to change it. Their mark on the history of this province wasn't very good.

The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) says: "If you tell a big enough lie it will work." I guess that is what you'd have to do if you were trying to counteract the public accounts of the province, the comptroller-general of the province, the dedicated, loyal, reliable public servants who deal with the public accounts of the province, and, over and above them, the authenticity of outside chartered accountant firms. I've got to tell you, Mr. Chairman, you would have to employ a very unusual technique, such as suggested by the member for Skeena, to counteract that evidence. Maybe he has tipped us off as to what his plan is.

I have to say that so far we have been very willing to try and get information from various ministries, put them on the alert and get their assurances that those things can be made available to the members at the appropriate time. The members can insist on asking the wrong question in the wrong place — and even silly questions in this chamber. Obviously it is a tactic of theirs.

The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has made a statement to the committee. Obviously they are disregarding his statement, the information that he would provide. It shows that they are not serious. It shows the negative type of attack with no constructive criticism that they have developed, not just this year. But now, in their concerted bid for attention, it is becoming a trademark of that party. It is sort of sad.

I sat here as a youngster in the days of the Winches; they never hoped the province would go down the drain so they could attain power. Ernie Winch would never have gone to eastern Canada and said things were bad in British Columbia and he was glad, hoping it would give him power, not suspecting that newspapers would report it. Ernie Winch and Harold Winch, a father-and-son team, made a very strong contribution. But that was a different day, a different time. Now we have a different standard. Public business isn't being thwarted by this tactic. Obviously it is the only thing the members of the opposition know.

Information is available, as the Provincial Secretary told the committee when the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) was here, so he knows the information is coming. I'm sure you'll wait; I'm sure you'll give the Provincial Secretary an opportunity. He said he would give it. I had anticipated it as well. The member for Coquitlam-Moody does not talk just for the sake of talking, as his colleagues do. He knows that the Provincial Secretary is, I guess, tied up with the Bureau of International Expositions but will be here.

That is an important pre-investigation team for Transpo '86, which will be taking place in this province. I would suppose it may not be supported by members of the opposition — they may not support the provincial and Vancouver bid to host Transpo '86 — and it may be that part of their tactic is to frustrate our ability to deal with the pre-inquiry team. It's been my experience that after assurances are given on information, word is taken. However, it may be that the opposition can't develop a new tactic and they have to stay with the old one.

[ Page 2163 ]

All I can say is that the information has been given in a number of ways on a number of subjects in this area. The Provincial Secretary got up and made a statement. I think that pretty clearly puts in perspective the opportunities for accountability and information.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, again, I appreciate what the Premier said — that this information may be forthcoming from the Provincial Secretary. What the Provincial Secretary cannot, and only the Premier can, give us is the recollection of how this particular invoice was handled by his office, because this invoice was directed to the Premier's office, not to the Provincial Secretary. Someone in the Premier's office obviously said: "This shouldn't be paid by us; this should be paid by someone else." I tried previously to make the point that the Premier of the province — or Mr. Brown, on his behalf — could have made a long distance phone call to ask for clarification of this account. The Premier has had this information for a considerable time now. Surely we could have an explanation of the Premier's role in relationship to the bill. It has been a very important part of this questioning whether there was any conversation between the Premier and Mr. David Brown about the appropriateness of the account, whether there was some specific service that was provided for this consulting fee, and what that particular service was.

Perhaps the second part of this, to which the Premier rose earlier, when I suggested it was sloppy practice, having just received an account like this, to simply have someone in the office.... I'll agree, of course, it's a matter that might not be specifically on the Premier's desk; but certainly someone who is responsible to the Premier clearly had this account. When it comes back a second time and people in the comptroller-general's office specifically say it's a politically sensitive bill, I would have thought it might have come to the Premier's attention. What I want to know is whether in fact this bill came to the Premier's attention when the comptroller-general said it was politically sensitive and a conversation was held with Mr. Brown. All I want to know is whether Mr. Brown then at last went to the Premier and said: "Look, we've got a hot one on our hands. Let's make sure this is properly handled. "

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding from the invoice that they talked about it being sent to the communications and planning adviser. That's what I understood you to say.

MR. LEGGATT: Why don't you answer the question?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, that's his mail. If somebody sends a letter to your secretary, saying "Office of Stu Leggatt," do you want to read her mail? Do you read her mail?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No. Just a second. It's a ridiculous statement. I just think we should put it into perspective. He's asking about invoices that wouldn't be handled by the Premier and which are sent to someone else whose residence is in that wing of the Legislature, which encompasses three floors. It's not like numbers of people in a small room; each branch is in different rooms, dealing with its own business. In this case, obviously, it was executive council business. I see nothing unusual about it or wrong with it. What bothers the members is they can find nothing wrong with it. The Provincial Secretary said they can have the information. And there you are.

I get a kick out of the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) saying that this government cut out a great information group which he'd set up. Well, I'll tell you what was disbanded when we became government. That was the Ask B.C. group, which cost $250,000 plus the cost of space and phone bills. He was essentially duplicating the efforts of the ministries. They'd receive a phone inquiry, get the answer from the ministry, and then phone the inquirer back — rather than the people phoning the ministry directly. That's why that was removed; that was one of the biggest expenses. It did not meet the requests, and it not only cost money, but it also created extra work for the public service. That's what the second member for Surrey set up when he was the Provincial Secretary. Sure it was cut out. Part of the Brown report to government was to try to rationalize government information services.

The very ridiculousness of that last request as to whether I check bills sent to various offices in the government, no matter where they reside! No, I don't do that, and it's foolish to suggest it. It just pinpoints the obvious attempt and the frivolousness of this type of debate.

Now obviously the much-vaunted research group that the New Democratic Party has coming into this session, paid for by the public, has not performed and they're unable to compensate for it. When the Provincial Secretary said he would provide the information, they don't know how to develop a new line of questioning.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, the member for Skeena, if I heard him correctly, called across and said: "At least we don't write phony letters like you do." I'd like to ask him to withdraw that or tell me that I heard him incorrectly.

MR. HOWARD: We know there's something wrong with the Premier's hearing now. He can't hear the questions as posed to him. What I said with respect to the research staffs which the Premier was talking about was: "At least ours doesn't write phony letters like yours did."

HON. MR. BENNETT: Again, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the member for Skeena to withdraw, because....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Never!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It is offensive to the rules of this House for a member to offend another member. However, the Chair has not heard a member being offended in the last statement.

MR. KING: The Premier commented on Ernie Winch and his contribution to the province of British Columbia. I would like to identify with the Premier's remarks and confirm that we have great respect for the people who went before us in our party and set a great example in terms of integrity and morality in government. Our party pursues that great tradition. We have never been accused, nor has any of

[ Page 2164 ]

our staff been accused, of writing phony letters, falsifying signatures, forgeries. We have never been accused of being a party, either directly or through our staff, to attempts to manipulate the media or pull any other sharp tricks that may in any way impinge upon the electoral laws of this province. I'm glad the Premier recognizes that tradition in our party. We also have an obligation while we serve in opposition to require that the government answer to the public and be accountable.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) keeps interfering with me.

HON. MR. MAIR: I want you to tell us about the nomination papers you signed for the Conservative Party.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: I consulted with a carpenter in the riding of the Minister of Health last week and asked him about the minister's health. The carpenter observed that he thought the Minister of Health was about half a bubble off plumb. Perhaps that's the reason he has trouble entering into debate but continually intervenes and intrudes when intelligent remarks are being made in this House.

The Premier skirts around the questions; he refuses to address himself directly to the questions asked of him. I want to say to him that we don't need a great deal of research from our staff or anybody else to establish the issue that is in controversy here before the House today. Here are the estimates for the years 1977-78: executive council, Premier's office. We find a position listed — communications planning adviser — and for the year 1977-78 the estimate to be paid for that position, through the Premier's office, was $36,432.

We have on December 28, 1978, a communication directed to Mr. David P. Brown, Communications Planning Adviser, Office of the Premier, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, B.C. V8V 4R3. It's the identical address to the person listed under the Premier's vote who was paid $36,432 from public funds in the year 1977-78. This bill directed to the Premier's planning adviser, functioning out of the Premier's office, has this brief comment on it: "Re August and September 1978. Consulting fee and travel costs, $2,500." It it wasn't paid, but was sent back with this notation: "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 has also advised that the term of the contract was not to exceed two months." And back came another little note from Dick, the comptroller-general, directed to Mike. He says: "We lack sufficient detail to properly audit this account. I refer this for information since this area is politically sensitive."

Now here is a guy who works in the Premier's office and is paid under the Premier's vote. He receives a bill from Goldfarb Consultants, a famous, nationally known poll-taking firm who conduct political polls in the province and in the nation as one of their main functions. The Premier says, despite the fact that this bill was directed to his employee in his office, that he doesn't know anything about it.

At this point we're not arguing whether or not it was appropriate for the government to use Goldfarb. It may well have been; maybe it was a legitimate function. We are simply arguing that the Legislature of British Columbia should not write blank cheques to someone on the basis of a bill submitted for "consulting fee and travel costs." In connection with what? What was the function? For the Premier to now say, "Oh, go to the Provincial Secretary's ministry and ask him," is surely, openly and patently evading his responsibility as the minister out of whose office Mr. Brown functioned. Mr. Brown apparently was the one who retained Goldfarb; certainly he was the one to whom the bill was directed.

Mr. Chairman, to try and make the Premier understand the dilemma a little bit more clearly, let's imagine that a bill such as this was directed to the Bennett hardware store in the Okanagan Valley. Let's assume that Mr. Russell Bennett was the manager of that hardware store which had various different departments. Some departments sell barbed wire, some sell tools and some sell garbage cans. For the purpose of public relations and advertising a PR firm has been retained by the Bennett hardware store. They do work for the various component branches and departments of the store, and in comes a bill to the assistant manager of the store. It says: "Travel expenses and consulting — $2,500." Do you think the approving officer at Bennett hardware store would approve that account? I don't think so. I think he'd want to ensure that value was received for that statement of account, and I'm sure that Russell Bennett, as the manager of that store, would demand more information than simply consulting fees and travel expenses. He would say: "Well, what was the program? Did it bring a fair return? Did it bring a fair value to this store for the money that they're asking us to pay out?" I'm sure that Russell Bennett would be prepared to account to his board of directors' meeting when a question arose about a vague account like this that was approved without explanation after being described as inadequate in terms of being audited, and then after that being described as confidential and politically sensitive.

Don't you think that great private entrepreneur over there would demand, at a board of directors meeting in a private firm such as the Bennett hardware store, an accounting that this money was spent for a service that returned value for that expenditure? I don't think that's too hard to understand; I don't think that's too difficult to understand. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that members of the Legislature and the public of British Columbia have a right to expect the same standard of accounting from Russell Bennett's brother, who happens to be the Premier of the province and to deal with public funds.

It's not good enough for the Premier to get up and say: "Well, we have PR. We have government coordination that does work for other government departments." Fair enough. And there's probably some valuable work to be done there. The fact of the matter is this bill was directed to the Premier's office, to his employee. He's identified in the Premier's estimates. He was paid $36,432 for the fiscal year in which this invoice was received. The Premier says that the man was his own employee. He cannot deny that the voucher was directed to his office. He can't deny that the comptroller-general found the bill insufficient to pay the first time it was submitted to him, and he sent it back for further explanation. Mysteriously, it was paid — on whose instructions? Mr. Brown submitted it the first time, and it was not accepted. Did the Premier get involved and say: "Look, pay this account"? Well, the civil service of the province of British Columbia was not prepared to accept it on the flimsy evidence that we find in the voucher. That's the only informa-

[ Page 2165 ]

tion and the only evidence that the members of this Legislature have before them today.

We would be absolutely remiss in our duty if we failed to take the same course of action that the comptroller-general's office took. He said: "I'm not paying it until you provide more supporting evidence that Goldfarb, in billing the Premier's office for $2,500, performed a service that was worth that amount of money — performed a service that was legitimate in terms of a public expenditure." We don't know that. It's up to the Premier to answer for his office and his staff.

I can only conclude, very reluctantly, that when the Premier stonewalls — shades of Gordon Liddy, Colson and a variety of other people of recent political fame — he has something to hide and he doesn't want to lay before the Legislature the purpose for which Goldfarb Consultants billed the Premier's office for the sum of $2,500. I have to, very reluctantly, conclude that the Premier wants to keep secret from the Legislature the purpose for that billing to his office. He got up and talked about the NDP term of office. He's gone back into history about various other things. He talked about the Provincial Secretary's ministry. He'll talk about everything but the specific question that he has a duty and an obligation to answer in this Legislature.

The Premier's twitching around and he's jumping to his feet. I'd be very much inclined to yield the floor to him if I felt that the Premier was forthcoming and candid with the House, but I'm afraid that his performance up to this point does not give me any great confidence in a forthright answer from the Premier. I suspect, Mr. Premier, again with some chagrin, that we're going to be treated to a diversion, to a round-about series of excuses to avoid addressing the central issue here. What was the work that Goldfarb did for the province of British Columbia, ordered and paid for through the Premier's office, that cost the taxpayers of this province $2,500?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm telling you again, Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, that there's nothing very secret, and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) says he'll deal with it. It has to do, probably, with technique.

I got a kick out of the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke's (Mr. King's) interesting analogy about bills. He talked about an invoice being sent. Well, let's say, in another instance, an invoice is sent to Bill King, care of the CPR in Revelstoke. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the invoice couldn't possibly be handled by Mr. King, who could probably deal with his immediate supervisor...whether it would have to be sent to Mr. Sinclair or.... Say he'd lost his gloves or something, and they became a condition of employment, and they billed them to Bill King, care of the CPR. I'm sure they would deal with the appropriate way in which it would be paid. Obviously an invoice sent to the communications planning adviser, which is coordinating for the whole executive council.... Anything sent to him would be dealt by him if it belonged in any of the appropriate ministries he dealt with. But what I want to say again is that there is nothing mysterious about the bill. The Provincial Secretary says he will provide that information, and I think the information he's going to provide is fairly straightforward.

So what we have is a lot of supposition while they wait, hoping that something's wrong with the information. I'm hopeful that the Provincial Secretary gets here pretty quick and can end their pins and needles, because it will prick their balloon. I would guess they're going to be sorely disappointed in what he has to tell them, from the type of attack and all sorts of imaginings that they seem to have built up in the Legislature today. So they can't wait for the information: they want to try to guess what they think it might be. I only hope that he gets here soon and ends their anticipation. It will probably disappoint them. They've built up such great imaginings. But they can do nothing more than that.

Obviously the information will be provided. There is nothing secretive about a government that brings in all sorts of accountability for the public, such as an auditor-general, which the previous government refused to do. They didn't believe in it. They had three and a half years as government. They refused to bring in an ombudsman. They wouldn't do it. They refused. They were against it.

The information has been promised by the Provincial Secretary. Any other group of members would take the Provincial Secretary's word he's bringing the information, except them. They want to know what it was for; he says he'll tell them.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to the Premier by saying, look, if I received a bill to my name, and that bill was a legitimate one, I would pay it. But if I received a bill from any corporation, any company or any individual saying "consulting fee and travel costs," I think I would ask what this is in connection with. I would demand a more full accounting than that before I would accept the bill and pay it. If the Premier implies that that bill was on behalf of my employer, certainly I would refer it to the appropriate authority with my employer, who in turn, I know, would demand a full explanation of the bill that they were being asked to accept responsibility for. That's pretty fundamental. I would think the Premier would understand that. He's fond of telling us what a great businesslike government he runs.

There's a report in the Vancouver Sun; apparently Mr. Fetherstonhaugh was contacted. I believe he's in the comptroller's office. It says here:

"Fetherstonhaugh, contacted at home, said his memo to Churchill might have been a poor choice of words. 'I'd rather not elaborate on that, okay? I didn't balk at paying it. I merely brought it to the attention of my superiors because it was not clear what the payment was for.' He said he never did find out. 'As long as my superior okays it, I pay it.' Asked why he thought the fee might be politically sensitive, he replied: 'Anything to do with the Premier's office could be politically sensitive.'"

I would suggest that with this particular Premier, Mr. Chairman, that's a very accurate appraisal. But here we have evidence that the man who finally authorized payment still doesn't know what the services were that Goldfarb Consultants were contracted for. It was ordered to be paid. By whom? Who has got enough political clout in the government of the province of British Columbia to order payment despite questions raised by the comptroller-general's office as to whether or not this voucher is an appropriate one to pay? I would think that the Premier is certainly one of those people.

Who gave that final approval? Mr. Fetherstonhaugh still doesn't know what the services were. The Legislature of the province doesn't know what the services were. Why is the Premier so reluctant to spell out precisely the services that Goldfarb was contracted to undertake for the government, and paid $2,500 for?

[ Page 2166 ]

We have to conclude that the Premier is trying to hide the substance of that contract from the people of British Columbia. We have to make that conclusion. The bill was not directed to the Provincial Secretary's ministry. It was directed to Mr. David P. Brown, Communications Planning Adviser, Office of the Premier.

We don't ask the Provincial Secretary to assume responsibility during discussion of the Premier's estimates for expenditures which were made by his staff. That would be out of order, Mr. Chairman. It would be out of order to ask any other minister to account for expenditures made through the office we have before us for consideration and debate at this moment. I don't know why the Premier won't answer. Maybe it was a political poll that Goldfarb was doing for the Social Credit Party. Maybe that's why it was politically sensitive.

Goodness knows, the Premier's colleagues have said that his credibility is slipping. The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) said: "Yes, the Premier has a credibility problem. He doesn't sparkle in debate; he's too stiff." The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) said: "I wish the Premier were more open. I'd like to be more responsive and answer more directly. It's a matter of style." He also observed that the Premier's credibility was impaired.

Maybe that's what Goldfarb was doing, taking a political poll to see whether the Premier had any credibility left whatsoever. If the Premier wants to commission such a poll, that's okay; but he shouldn't ask the people of British Columbia to pay for his partisan political polls. Let him pay for that out of the slush funds that Austin Taylor Jr. provides to the Social Credit Party, which are apparently also administered out of the Premier's office.

That's another question I believe we have the right to know the answer to. It was revealed that Austin Taylor Jr. collects money for the Social Credit Party and those funds were administered from the Premier's office. Another employee of the Premier, Mr. Dan Campbell, was running around paying for things during the election with thousand dollar bills. Who was the other signing authority for the slush funds generated by Austin Taylor Jr.? Was it the Premier? Was it David Brown? Or is he going to suggest that we ask the Provincial Secretary about that too?

We have here a Premier who stubbornly refuses to be accountable to the people of British Columbia. He persists in showing contempt for the legitimate process of the Legislature. That's what a discussion of estimates is all about. That is the one time in each year that the opposition has the opportunity and the obligation to have government ministers justify their expenditures. Here we are still on the first minister's estimates, and he sets the example and the benchmark for all of his colleagues on the executive council. He just digs in and won't answer the question. He'll get up and double-talk; he'll evade the issues and evade the questions.

I'm glad Russell is running the hardware store. I think it's probably in better hands. But I'm not too happy with the lack of performance with respect to the people's business in the province of British Columbia. Just a little candour, just a little forthright attitude in answering questions would suffice, and we could get onto other business.

I ask the Premier once again: what was the precise work that Goldfarb was commissioned to do that cost the taxpayers $2,500?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Thank goodness, I finally got an answer from the Provincial Secretary. This is the answer provided to the Hon. Evan Wolfe, Provincial Secretary. It says:

"The invoice from Goldfarb Consultants in the amount of $2,500 that has been the subject of discussion in the House relates to a professional consultation between Mr. Brown, communications planning adviser to the executive council, and Mr. Goldfarb on the use of research to evaluate government communication programs, and the ways in which research could be employed to ensure that government advertising expenditures are effective to the greatest possible degree.

"There was no political aspect to this discussion, and any inference drawn by an employee of the comptroller-general that the work involved was 'politically sensitive' was purely a statement of personal opinion, probably resulting from a layman's confusion about the role of research as a management tool, which leads some to think of polling when the words 'research' and 'government' are linked together.

"The use of research to test major campaign themes is now standard practice in the preparation of government advertising programs, a device with no more sinister purpose than to ensure that the public receives and understands information regarding government."

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I hope the Premier will table that statement. I'm not sure who it came from. If it came just as a statement from the Provincial Secretary, that's hardly adequate. We want some evidence in terms of what this firm was retained to do. A statement from the Provincial Secretary, which may be designed to politically support a colleague in trouble, is hardly evidence that the opposition would attach great weight to.

I would like the Premier to table the statement. I think we have a right to call for something specific in terms of the contract that Goldfarb entered into. Surely there must have been a signed agreement for the work that Goldfarb entered into. Surely there must have been a signed agreement for the work that Goldfarb was going to do, or some terms of reference. Were they just given a wink and a nod, and told: "Go out and improve our communications"? It's hardly good enough. I would like very much to see the document that the Premier referred to before I comment too much further on it. I want to say that if it's just a statement from the Provincial Secretary that's a pretty anemic response and a pretty anemic excuse, as far as I'm concerned.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I think we've had a rather lame performance by the Premier in response to this. To labour so mightily and come forth with such a statement, and I didn't quite get the name....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Lorne, the deputy will take some notes. I just have to make what would be a normal....

MR. NICOLSON: Okay.

Throughout this it appears that the Premier has been

[ Page 2167 ]

trying to dissociate himself from the work of Mr. David Brown. Yet in the press clipping which the member just quoted, obviously the person in the comptroller's office felt that this was something in the Premier's office. That was part of his excuse in assuming that the nature of the work was political and in explaining his statement that "we lack sufficient detail to properly audit the account; refer to this, since the area is politically sensitive; signed, Dave." Further explanation which came in today's paper indicates that he felt that because he felt many items emanating from the Premier's office are politically sensitive. It does indicate that it comes from the Premier's office.

For the Premier to try to put some distance between himself and Mr. Brown is really quite incredible, because I have several pieces of correspondence. I have a letter from Mr. Brown to me. I believe it was dated June 22, 1978, on the letterhead of the office of the Premier. I have letters from the Premier, who would lead us to believe that he doesn't get involved in little financial details in his office. Yet an incident occurred in the Premier's office earlier than this particular item which we are referring to, in which Mr. Brown, on November 29, 1976, signed several travel vouchers claiming per diem expenses for every working day of September plus Labour Day, 22 days at $25 a day, $550; and then every working day of October, except October 21 and 22, but including Thanksgiving Day, which amounted to 19 days, or $475; and every working day of November, 22 days at $25 for $550. In addition to that he submitted bills for payment for 91 days' accommodation at very....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Again we are getting into rather a specific detailed discussion which could more appropriately, and better be discussed, for example, in the public accounts committee, as opposed to....

MR. NICOLSON: No, they can't. With respect, Mr. Chairman, I'm referring to public information dating back to 1976 which is not presently before Public Accounts. It has been ruled and, I think, even voted against — I think there was an amendment proposed earlier this session that we open public accounts for a previous year. We'd have to be examining public accounts for the past three years. But to be helpful to the Chair, I will relate it to the Premier's estimates.

The Premier has made a statement that he does not get involved in fine financial details in his office and talking with comptrollers when things are questioned. But when this was presented for payment the department of the comptroller-general quite naturally questioned these claims and deferred payment on them until more information was forthcoming.

To just sort of sum it up, in 1976, for the months of September, October and November, almost every working day other expenses were claimed, and it indicated that the person was claiming to be stationed in Vancouver but working in Victoria all of those days and therefore claiming travel expenses. So this was questioned. It was rather unusual. On December 17 the Premier directed the department comptroller, Mr. Price, to compensate Mr. Brown for the hotel expenses for the months of September and October, but then consider him as being based in Victoria effective November 1, 1976. I have a copy of that letter to Mr. Price from the Premier here. I guess, to confirm a conversation which was held, he said that it's been agreed that Mr. Brown will be compensated for his hotel expenses for the months of September and October, and obviously not for the month of November. Also he said that his per diem expenses would be paid up to the end of October but not for November, as was previously claimed. However, for purposes of record he should be regarded as being based here in Victoria effective November 1, 1976.

So the Premier made that quite clear, and as a result the second set of vouchers were submitted and payments were made on behalf of this same person, Mr. Brown, who entered the service of the Premier's office by virtue of first being a consultant, recommending that a position be created, then filling that position. He was involved in some expenditures and vouchers which really have never been answered to my satisfaction, but it appears that some compromise has been made as a result of a letter to the comptroller from the Premier of the province.

When a minister puts down in writing to a comptroller the way things are to be, then that does shift the responsibility from the servant of the Crown to the minister who has made the directive. In this case the Premier did not just say: "Well, that's a matter to be worked out, and if they refuse to pay it I guess they refuse to pay it." No, he went in and got very involved in the fine detail. So it leaves us to wonder why, in this instance, when we are informed that the final decisions were made by Mr. Bonnell and, I guess, Mr. Brown, the Premier was not ever consulted. I would like to ask the Premier....

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he?

MR. NICOLSON: Well, he did warn me that he was leaving and that his deputy is taking notes, so I'm not going to be too perturbed about that. The Premier is within the precincts somewhere.

Mr. Chairman, we have seen the Premier come into this House after he had a full day to inquire and come up with what I think could have been a very forthright statement. We've now had a statement that really tells us nothing. It just says: "Trust us." I think we have reached the stage in this where the only way in which this matter can be clarified is for the full matter of polling and the work being done by Goldfarb to be laid before this House in an open way and particularly for the forms of questionnaires to be tabled with this House. I suppose one could argue one way or another about the results, but what is the actual work that has been done? There is obviously the connection between this. The one thing that links everything together is the action taken by Mr. Brown, who is and certainly was back during this period of time an employee in the Premier's office. The Premier was the person who directed Mr. Price in how Mr. Brown's expense voucher should be paid. When Mr. Brown was here working in Victoria just about every day but claimed he was based in Vancouver, so that in addition to his salary he could also collect an extra $25 per diem and have his hotel bill paid, adding up to some thousands of dollars in a three-month period — if the Premier was responsible for him then, when did he cease to be responsible for Mr. Brown? What orders-in-council have been passed? It appears that Mr. Brown not only has been in charge of policy advising, but apparently has also been active politically. He is connected with various actions emanating from the Premier's office, bills for political purposes being sent to the Premier's office, and the whole thing really does start to fit together.

I think the only way in which we can come to some kind of a resolution of this matter is to have a full disclosure of the

[ Page 2168 ]

total activities of Mr. Goldfarb on behalf of the government and the executive council, of which the Premier is the president. We can see if those questionnaires and the directions to the people who conduct those quizzes and who ask those questions were indeed political or simply relating to various attitude inventories concerning such things as travel, housing and various other things. Or were there rider questions in there that were of a political nature, as appears to have been the case in Ontario? We simply don't want some statement which says "trust us." We now want to see — or I certainly want to see — something that indicates just what Mr. Goldfarb has been doing for the government. And if there's nothing to hide, I don't see why the Premier should try to hide behind a very transparent wall of some kind of differentiation between the executive council and his office, which has never existed in this House. The Premier has always been responsible for the executive council; he is the president of it.

It is rather difficult to ask these questions when the Premier himself is invisible. Mr. Chairman, I don't know what has called the first minister away.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS 28

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

MRS. WALLACE: I have had a lot of concerns during the course of this debate, but during yesterday and today my concerns have certainly increased.

We have a series of occurrences, all revolving around the Premier's office, and we have no satisfactory answers. We have now an invoice from.... Well, we don't have an invoice, but we have a letter concerning an invoice. Nobody seems to know where the invoice is, but we have a letter concerning an invoice sent to a very trusted appointee in the Premier's office, one Mr. Dave Brown.

Assumedly that was sent there by the supplier because Mr. Brown or someone else in the Premier's office had ordered a service of some kind from Goldfarb Consultants. Goldfarb Consultants are in the basic business of polling, and particularly political polls, though they do other polling certainly, as well, and they do a great deal of other polling for the government, which is perfectly legitimate. But when you realize that it is very possible to tag onto any other poll looking for any other information a few very simple questions relative to any other topic for a fairly limited sum of money, and when, in fact, there has been some evidence that that has been done in the past, where partisan politically oriented questions have been tagged onto other polls that have been conducted, certainly there is room for a great deal of concern.

Another apparently unrelated item, but one that has been raised many times during the discussion on these particular estimates, is the fact that in the Premier's office there was also operated a fund that was not the taxpayers' money, a fund that was Social Credit campaign funds, if you will. Certainly there must have been such a fund there or the Social Credit Party would not have sent invoices for political purposes to the Premier's office. We know that has happened. We know that one of the Premier's employees has been.... I don't want to use the word "accused," but it has been indicated by persons within this province that that particular employee had been handing out thousand-dollar bills and saying there were no receipts required. In fact, the....

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Does the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) wish the floor? Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, I would suggest that if he just sits in his place for a few moments, he can have the floor when I'm finished.

HON. MR. CHABOT: How long will you be?

MRS. WALLACE: Oh, not more than three quarters of an hour.

We have a series of events here. We have election expenses for the Social Credit Party being paid out of the Premier's office; we have an invoice for something or other being referred to the Premier's office; we have comments that this is a politically sensitive item; and we have no assurance from the Premier or the Provincial Secretary as to what this invoice was all about. If it were simply a completely non-partisan sort of thing that was perfectly legitimate, the Premier would be rushing to tell us what that was and why it was there. The fact that he doesn't rush in and tell us what it's all about concerns me, because it would seem that there's something to hide. If there is nothing to hide, why isn't he out front telling us what it is? Why hasn't the Provincial Secretary tabled the information concerning it in this House? If there were no payments made out of the Premier's office, why hasn't he told us that there were no invoices coming into his office for the Social Credit Party? If that was a mistake, why hasn't he told us? He hasn't told us, Mr. Chairman.

The thing that has concerned me so much during this past day or two of debate has certainly been the possibility that perhaps an error occurred here. Perhaps this invoice from Goldfarb directed to Dave Brown was indeed an invoice that covered a partisan survey which was ordered by the Social

[ Page 2169 ]

Credit Party and forwarded on to the Premier's office for payment, as was done with other invoices. Just perhaps that was the case. And because that appointed official in the Premier's office was the person responsible for approving partisan political invoices and also had authority to approve legitimate expenses in the Premier's office, just possibly there was a mistake. Just possibly this particular bill was intended to be paid by the Social Credit Party but somehow got routed instead to the officials of the Ministry of Finance. Once that happened, it would be very difficult to withdraw that invoice and it would be very difficult to change so they decided to go ahead and pay it. Just possibly that's what has happened, and just possibly if that happened with that invoice it happened with other invoices. Those are the kind of questions which are in the minds of the opposition in this Legislature and in the minds of the voters and the taxpayers of British Columbia.

There is such a gap here in the credibility. You know, there's an old saying, "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive," and this government seems to be caught up in that web. They are not presenting a credible picture in this Legislature or to the taxpayers, because they are refusing to level. If the scenario that I have outlined happened.... If this was a legitimate mistake, if that bill was from the Social Credit Party and was intended to be paid from the Social Credit funds which were operated out of the Premier's office, then, for goodness' sake, say so.

Anybody can make a mistake. Pay back the $2,500 or whatever it is and tell us: "We made a mistake; we've now corrected it. We've taken that fund out of the Premier's office. It's all going through the Social Credit Party elsewhere and it's not going to happen again." But as long as you dodge and dive and refuse to stand up and tell us exactly what happened, why it happened and how it happened, as long as you refuse to give us those kinds of answers about the thousand-dollar bills, about the invoices that came over to your office and who was the signing authority for those invoices, about this particular invoice and how it wound up being approved in a private kind of conversation between a couple of officials — with no explanations as to what it was for — until we know that, we just cannot accept the fact that the Premier of this province deserves the money to operate his ministry. Because he's not doing a job if he's not able to give us the answers to those kinds of questions. He's not doing a job as Premier of this province.

We have a right to know. The Premier's on his feet. Is he going to answer those questions? Are you prepared to answer those questions, Mr. Premier? Certainly I will sit down and give you the floor if you're prepared to answer them.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The answer as provided by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) was given to the House. The answer to your supposition is that you're wrong. The answer to the other two questions nobody knows.

MR. LEA: It really stretches one's imagination when you wonder why it is the Premier won't answer. Obviously we're going to find out. That's just the way things are around politics. Sooner or later we'll find out exactly what it was that Goldfarb was doing on behalf of the Premier's office. We're going to find out. If we're going to find out, you wonder why the Premier won't tell us. Is it because when that man gets those heels dug in — that Premier — he's just so darned stubborn that he won't do it? It's like the guy who would tell a lie when the truth would fit better. I'm not insinuating that the Premier's lying because the Premier hasn't answered.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You know somebody who lies better than I tell the truth, don't you?

MR. LEA: What's he doing — playing peekaboo around his microphone stand?

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...lies more convincingly than others tell the truth.

MR. LEA: The Premier says that members of the opposition lie better than they tell the truth.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, that's not what I said.

MR. LEA: That's what the Premier said.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's not what I said.

MR. LEA: The thing is that after five years they can't seem to get it into their heads, Mr. Chairman, that they're the government and we're the opposition. They can't seem to understand that. Every once in a while they slip and they call somebody over here a minister. They say Mr. Minister instead of Mr. Member because they can't seem to get it through their heads that they are the government. The Premier can't seem to get it through his head that running a government is different than running a business. When you're running a private business it is your business and you can do with it what you will, as long as you obey the income tax laws and the laws of the land.

But in politics one of the things that makes it tick is the historical precedents that we have to go by — that you have to go by, Mr. Chairman, when dealing with the Legislature. So much of the system that we belong to depends on the honour of individual members within the House. In fact, without that honour the system that we're dealing with falls apart. It seems to me that in parliamentary debate the parliamentary procedure — the democratic one that we've chosen — is that the government has the purse. The government is empowered by the Queen as the only group within this House that can institute or initiate a money bill or any spending. They look after the purse. The head guy is the Premier. But when it comes to the estimates of the government then the government is required by tradition and honour to tell the taxpayers of the province how they spent the money. The Premier refuses to do that. I don't think it's so much that he doesn't.... He just can't understand the procedure. He doesn't understand the tradition of parliament. He doesn't understand that it's honour that makes the system tick and that without it it falls apart.

It may be only a small amount of money when you look at $2,500 as opposed to the entire budget for the year in question, which is over $4 billion. We're only talking about $2,500 of it. But what we'd like to know is: did this employee of the executive council and the Premier....? Mr. Brown, according to the Premier, has a two-capacity role. One is that he works for the Premier and the other is that he works for the president of the executive council. The Premier is the Premier, and the Premier is the executive president of the executive council, so no matter how you slice it, Mr. Brown works for the member for South Okanagan, who just happens to be the Premier and the president of the executive council.

[ Page 2170 ]

Now Mr. Brown is the person who authorized in secret the payment of this voucher that was presented by Goldfarb, and we see that in the memo to Dick from Mike. We have to remember that the employee of the Provincial Secretary wrote back to an employee of the comptroller-general. That's when the employee of the comptroller-general wrote to the Provincial Secretary's ministry and said: "Listen, Provincial Secretary's ministry, this is the comptroller-general's department calling. What we'd like to know is.... We have a voucher here from Goldfarb that needs to be paid, or Goldfarb is desirous of getting paid. But when we look at the voucher, it doesn't tell us anything; all it tells us is that Goldfarb wants $2,500, and Goldfarb hasn't told us why they want the money or what service they provided to the government. Therefore, as an employee of the comptroller-general's department, I don't see how we can pay out taxpayers' money on this, because it's so politically sensitive."

Then what happened when the employee of the comptroller-general's office made this query of the Provincial Secretary's office? There was a memo back to the comptroller-general's office from the Provincial Secretary's office saying: "It's okay to pay it, because the comptroller-general and Mr. Brown, who works for the Premier, have had a private chitty-chat, and Mr. Brown has, in confidence, told the comptroller-general what it was about and to go ahead and pay it." If you look in the paper today, that's what Dick said. He said he never did have explained to him what it was for. But when his boss, the comptroller-general, said it was okay to pay it, that's what he did, even though it was never explained to him. "I made this query; it was never explained. It was a private conversation between Brown of the Premier's office and the comptroller-general that has made it possible for us to pay the bill out of taxpayers' funds."

The Premier and the president of the executive council, who just happen to be the same man, said: "It's none of my business." Sure, we ordered the work through the Premier's office and the executive council; we ordered the work from Goldfarb; Goldfarb sent us the bill; Brown explained in private and in secret to the comptroller-general as to why this bill should be paid. You know, Mr. Chairman, I think this is an inexcusable act, in that it puts the comptroller-general in a very, very difficult position, because this Premier and president of the executive council won't pick up his own political hot potatoes; he does what he always does — he lays it on the doorstep of a civil servant. That's been his historical content — every time he gets into trouble, he lays it on someone else. And if you take a look at the dirty tricks, who the heck took the blame for the dirty tricks? It wasn't the Premier and his political henchmen; it was civil servants and people who'd been hired to work for this political group. Whenever you're in trouble, fire the employee; whenever you're in trouble, lay it on the employee's desk. Never stand up and take it like a man. Never stand up and take the responsibility and be accountable to the people for how you're spending their money or what you're doing — or paying employees to do. Always lay it on somebody else's doorstep. Never pick it up yourself. Never hold a political hot potato — throw it away and don't care where it lands, as long as it's not anywhere near the Premier.

We saw that before when we got up in this House and asked: "Has anybody accepted any favours from the airlines?" The Premier, being very quick to answer in those days, stood up and fired the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) on the spot — a political hot potato; give it to somebody else. We can't tell the public how we spent this $2,500, so let's lay it on the comptroller-general. He's not going to squeal on the Premier; his job is on the line. The comptroller-general has been put on the political hotseat by the Premier — that's what's happened.

Now we know a number of people who know the secret: Brown knows the secret; the Premier knows the secret; we assume that other members of the executive council know the secret; but they may not, because the Premier may want another fall guy before he's through. The Premier wants to know whether there's another fall guy around at all times, because he's not going to deal with anything. He pushes that burning wagon over the cliff and circles with the rest of them on the other side of the pasture, and he does that every time.

It's not bad enough that a political appointment like Brown knows the secret and has to take the can for the Premier; now the comptroller-general has to carry the political can for the Premier. What's it going to be next, a Clerk 4 in forestry? I'll tell you, if the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) was still a Clerk 4 in the civil service he himself might have the can tied to him for this. As an ex-civil servant, it's a wonder the Minister of Forests doesn't take his place in this debate and deplore the fact that the Premier is shoving off political hot potatoes to civil servants in this province.

Isn't it kind of odd, Mr. Chairman, that when we first started on the Premier's estimates, all those ministers were very quick to jump up and say: "We really love the guy, and he's a great leader"? But, boy, since we got to Goldfarb.... Oh, we know you will, because you're almost out of the cabinet.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: I'm going to tell you, Mr. Chairman, there's no minister standing up today defending the Premier. There are no backbenchers standing up today defending the Premier, are there? No, none today. They know in their heart of hearts that the Premier has now sloughed it off on a senior civil servant to carry the can for a political party. That's what he's done, by Brown telling the comptroller-general the secret and saying: "Don't tell anybody how we spent this $2,500 of the taxpayers' money." He has now laid it on a civil servant.

This is another example of a chicken-on-the-run Premier. This is another example of a man who won't face up to it, who won't accept the responsibility nor the accountability of being the first minister in this province. It's another case of the Premier sloughing off, making sure that somebody else carries the can. Now we've got somebody else carrying the can.

We've had them all along. We've had Kelly. We've had McKay. We've had the ex-chairman of caucus, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). He carried the can for the Premier. His thanks was to be fired right out of his job as chairman of the caucus and, probably at the first opportunity, as chairman of the Crown corporations committee. Probably at the first opportunity he'll be gone. In fact, he likes to sit them in pairs. There are two who have had it. There are two people who have been pushed to the side by the Premier: the member for Omineca and the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). Both have felt the wrath of a man who couldn't take it for himself. There's Kelly, McKay, Campbell, Grieg, Lenko: a long list of people who've had the can

[ Page 2171 ]

tied on them by the Premier, who won't accept the responsibility for himself. And now the comptroller-general knows the secret, a political secret he's not allowed to tell for fear of losing his job.

What's the comptroller-general going to do, for instance, in Public Accounts when we ask him: "What was the secret Brown told you? What did Brown tell you that made you okay this voucher?" What sort of position does that put the comptroller-general in? To sit in Public Accounts and have to face the members, and if he tells us, you know how long he'll be around. He'll be with the member for Omineca, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, Kelly, Campbell, Lenko and Grieg. You'll be down the trail. That's what will happen. You'll be down the trail. Anybody who crosses this Premier.... He uses the weight of his office, and before long they don't have any money to pay the groceries, because they're out of a job.

Not bad. He's never carried the political can for one thing he's done in his life. Never once has that Premier taken his place in this House and said: "I'm the guy responsible. I'm going to answer. I'm going to be accountable." Every time it's somebody further down the line of authority that that Premier nails with it and says: "You take the can. I'm so important that I don't want to be nailed. It's not right. You'll hurt the party. You'll hurt the government. So you take the can. You go without a job, and I'll sit here in my plushy chair with my plushy salary. I'm okay, Jack." The Premier has never once carried the political can for anything he's ever done.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 9 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. HOWARD: It's a very anxious group there, Mr. Chairman.

I wonder if I could just ask.... I thought the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) was going to rise; he seemed so anxious there. He put his microphone in place, but he didn't.

I'd like to ask — through you, Mr. Chairman, in a very polite way — an uncomplicated question of the Premier: whether he believes that the general public has a right to know what goes on within his office in terms of the pursuit of public business.

HON. MR. BENNETT: There's never been a government so accountable to the people, and particularly on the policies that we're prepared to deliver, and we live by our actions. The good things we've brought to the people of British Columbia.... It was the New Democratic Party that only had promises and words that it had to keep explaining. But people can see what we've done, and we'll take credit.... If you want to question any of the programs of this government, or if you're against things like the Annacis Island bridge, we recognize you're against it. We recognize that you're against things like the UTA in transit.

Certainly we're accountable. That's why we brought in all the new accountability and extra accountability. It's a matter of record.

MR. HOWARD: If you paid attention to that commentary, you'll see that I asked a very simple and uncomplicated question, which says: does the Premier believe that the general public has a right to know what happens in his office? He couldn't even answer that with a simple yes or no. He had to embark upon some discursive commentary that had nothing whatever to do with the question.

I'll have to ask the question again. Does the Premier believe that the general public has the right to know what happens in his office?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. HOWARD: There are lots of "ayes" being said over there, Mr. Chairman. The only "aye" which means "yes" that counts is that of the Premier. I'd like to ask him again....

He's busy talking with the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development about something or other. We'll just wait until we get the Premier's attention to the question, that's all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have the Chair's attention, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: I know that, Mr. Chairman. It's the Premier's attention that we desire to have. It's his estimates, not yours. The simple question that I've posed to the Premier is: does he believe — and all that is required is a yes or a no answer....

MR. LEA: Answer it and I won't show this to anybody.

MR. HOWARD: He can't answer this one ''maybe." He's got to say yes or no.

MR. LEA: Bill, answer it and I'll show this to nobody.

MR. HOWARD: Quit distracting the Premier's attention. I'm trying to get the Premier's attention to ask him, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEA: Next time you see it, you’ll want the negative.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Show it to me!

MR. HOWARD: Is it a colour negative?

Mr. Chairman, through you, a simple question to the Premier: does he believe — just give a simple yes or no answer — that the general public has the right to know what transpires and takes place in his office?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I've given the answer a number of times in the great accountability of this government and the fact that we are more accountable than any government has ever been, and that's from the Premier through all the ministers, and that accountability is there and the public know it; they see it. It's just not a matter of the fancy words of political rhetoric, but the accountability is there, guaranteed through government mechanisms on the things that we do. You can never deal with the imaginings of the opposition, but we certainly can be accountable for the great results that this government has achieved in programs.

MR. HOWARD: I think it should be shown that the

[ Page 2172 ]

Premier once again refuses to answer a simple question. He can't even give a simple "yes" to a question of that nature. Does he believe that the general public has the right to know what transpires in his office?

We can't get a simple yes or no. If he believes they don't have the right to know in some circumstances, he should say so.

But in general terms, does the Premier believe that the general public have the right to know what transpires in his office? That's the question.

The Premier is once again busy; he's engaged in a very intimate conversation with the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and not paying attention to what's happening in the committee.

I have to repeat the question again, now that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is not distracting the Premier. The Premier is looking at a document of some nature, but he has the ability to read documents and hear at the same time. Again I ask him a simple question: does the Premier believe that the general public has the right to know what transpires in his office? Yes or no.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's a repetitious question.

MR. HOWARD: Of course it's a repetitious question, Mr. Chairman, as the Premier appears just to have said. The question has to be repeated because there isn't any answer that's forthcoming except a complex dissertation about accountability. It just requires a simple yes or no. Could the Premier answer that question with a yes or a no? Does he believe the general public has the right to know what transpires in his office?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the member has my answer.

MR. HOWARD: I can only assume, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier sometimes believes that the public is entitled to know what goes on in his office and sometimes he believes they're not entitled to know. Obviously that's the case, because he's been asked over a period of a number of days a number of questions relating to things that have transpired with respect to his office and he's refused to answer them. No other explanation can be forthcoming except with respect to those items and questions. The Premier is basically saying: "No, the general public doesn't have the right to know."

Witness this afternoon compared with yesterday. Yesterday I asked the Premier if one David Brown worked in his office. You should have seen him leap to his feet immediately and say: "No, David Brown doesn't work in my office. He's been transferred and is working for some other department." It was very quick, immediate and clear. No, David Brown wasn't working in his office. This afternoon I tried to find out whether this same David Brown worked in the Premier's office or was paid for by a vote of the Legislature that encompassed the Premier's office, and therefore was under the control of the Premier. Did one David Brown work under the authority of the Premier in whatever capacity during the fiscal year 1978-79? It's a simple question. Did he work for the Premier? Did he work in the Premier's office in some relationship during the fiscal year 1978-79? That's the question. Could the Premier answer that one as clearly as he did when he said that David Brown is not working in the Premier's office now? He is shaking his head. I can't hear what he's saying. He is mouthing something, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I said it quite clearly. I thought all members could hear, but perhaps not. I said it's a matter of record.

MR. HOWARD: It's a matter of record that David Brown worked under the authority of the Premier's office in 1978-79, the fiscal year in question. Was David Brown, who worked in the Premier's office during that period, one of the signatories to the special, secret Social Credit slush funds that were operated out of the Premier's office in 1978-79?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, there are no slush funds and the member's being facetious and foolish. We've covered that before and he's just being plain silly now. I've listened and the answers have been given to a number of questions, but unfortunately some of the members there don't like the answers, because they were hoping for something different. What they see is not the job and the business of the people being done; what they see is great plots and imagined scandals and all sorts of things. Of course, they're so consistently wrong it frustrates them. It frustrates the member for Skeena that sometimes not only does he not understand the answer; he doesn't even hear it when we call it across to him.

I've got to tell the member that answers have been given, and very clearly. Information was provided through the Provincial Secretary. They may not like it, but the answer was provided to those members. Obviously, Mr. Chairman, the members want to continue, so I'll let them proceed.

MR. HOWARD: One of the things I used to do in my life was work in hard-rock mines, and that's why I have a hearing impairment, in case the Premier's interested.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nobody else worked in hard-rock mining — is that what you're saying?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Skeena has the floor.

MR. HOWARD: I am only saying something factually that relates to me. That casts no reflection upon anybody else, Mr. Chairman.

We'll notice again that the Premier's answer to the question I asked was distortion. I asked him whether in the 1978-79 fiscal year one David Brown was a signatory or a signing officer of special funds associated with the Social Credit Party that were operated out of the Premier's office. The answer the Premier gave me was that there are no slush funds now. That's not what we're talking about. Presumably he got rid of them.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I didn't say now. I said no slush funds.

MR. BARRETT: What kind of funds were they?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Who paid for your trip to the Kootenays last week?

MR. HOWARD: There he is again. The Premier has said

[ Page 2173 ]

on one occasion that he was not a signing officer of these secret funds operated out of the Premier's office in years past.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Did you do it on somebody's credit card?

MR. BARRETT: Step outside and say that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Skeena has the floor. Will all members please stay in their places and listen to the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: It really doesn't matter, Mr. Chairman. For the record it will be noted that the Premier, for whatever reason I don't know, just got up and left the chamber.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The Leader of the Opposition asked him to go out, and now the Leader of the Opposition doesn't have the nerve to go with him.

MR. HOWARD: Now we've got the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources speaking from his seat, making thereby more sense than he does when he stands up.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He never showed up!

MR. HOWARD: Now the Premier is back having fun with the committee, which is okay.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Behave yourselves!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Skeena has the floor. The member for Skeena continues on vote 9.

MR. HOWARD: Did Mr. Brown, when he worked in the Premier's office under the authority of the Premier, receive bills sent to the Premier's office by the Vancouver office — if that's the provincial office — of the Social Credit Party? Does the Premier know that to be the case? Did Mr. Brown, while he worked for the Premier, receive bills payable from the Social Credit Party headquarters in Vancouver?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, we had some commotion there when the Leader of the Opposition invited me outside; I went but he never showed up. I'm sure he had something he wanted to negotiate with the government. However, perhaps he'll call across another appointment. I've already indicated I'm willing to accept his invitations to such meetings.

We've been very responsive to those items covering government and government programs. The allegations or suggestions or pipedreams that some of the members might have, and different types of dreams other members of the opposition might have as to what they imagine in the political side, they can leave to the political forum out there. In here we are talking about the public's business. I'm quite willing to be political with them when we are out on our own time on the hustings. But in here I am quite prepared to deal with the people's business, for which I'm sure they are paying us to be here — at great expense.

The member for Skeena may wish to wander all over the block but I'm not going to dignify all his allegations, suggestions, dreams and thoughts — and they might be someone else's dreams or thoughts — with responses that may even give them some vestige of credibility which they don't deserve.

MR. HOWARD: Speaking of credibility, I'm surprised the Premier even knows how to pronounce the word; he certainly doesn't know what it means. He lost a great deal of what little he did have earlier by his response to questions in this House.

It's not my imagination that is involved in that question, Mr. Chairman. It's a statement of one John Gilchrist, who was an officer or an executive functionary of some nature in the Social Credit Party. He said that when bills came to him in his functionary position within the Social Credit Party, he, John Gilchrist, Social Credit Party functionary or activist or worker in the office, sent them across to the Premier's office to the attention of David Brown.

That's what we're asking. Was Mr. Gilchrist telling a fib? He told the whole public that this was so, that when certain bills came to his attention he sent them over to the Premier's office to the attention of David Brown to be handled. That is the question I ask the Premier, which he identifies as silly. He won't even answer the question of whether the general public has the right to know what goes on in his office.

He is now proving specifically that David Brown's activities, whether they were of a dual private or public nature or whatever, are none of the public's business, that the general public was paying $36,432 a year to Mr. Brown to work in the Premier's office. Mr. Gilchrist of the Social Credit Party said he sent bills to Mr. Brown, care of the Premier's office, to be dealt with, approved, paid or whatever. The Premier is now saying that's none of the public's business, by refusing to deal with that specific, uncomplicated question. No amount of sly innuendo — which the Premier is terribly noted for — can move away from the fact that that question needs to be answered as far as the general public is concerned. He can be snarky, sly and smearing with me. That doesn't matter. That's a minor detail. You learn in this place to take it if it comes your way and not get terribly upset about it. But that is no answer to the question.

The first question was: does the Premier believe that the general public has the right to know what transpires in his office — yes or no?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: No. Mr. Chairman, you should let those loudmouths down at the other end of the chamber, on the Social Credit side of the House, have their say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Skeena has the floor. I'll remind all hon. members that when one member is speaking, other members should pay attention and show courtesy, and that politeness in language is always a feature of this House.

MR. HOWARD: Okay. we can't get a yes or no answer this afternoon from the Premier as to whether he believes that

[ Page 2174 ]

the general public has the right to know what transpires in his office — under his authorship, with the use of public funds, paid for by the taxpayer. We can't get him to say: "Yes, they're entitled to know," or "No, they're not entitled to know." We get a kind of rambling commentary about extraneous matters. We can't get an answer out of the Premier as to whether David Brown, whom the general public, the taxpayers, paid as a public official, worked in the Premier's office and received — or as is alleged by John Gilchrist — bills in the mail from the Social Credit Party in Vancouver, to be processed, handled and operated by or through Mr. Brown or others in the Premier's office. We can't get an answer as to whether or not that happened, or whether it's any business of anybody's whether it did or did not happen. That's clear. We can't get a commentary from the Premier about the special fund which, it is alleged by Austin Taylor Jr., Ian Adam and others, existed and was operated out of the Premier's office, nor about who the signing officers of that fund were. We can't get an answer as to whether David Brown, Tony Tozer or Dan Campbell were signing officers with respect to that particular private or secret fund. Incidentally, all those whom I have just named were paid for by the taxpayers of this province.

MR. LEA: The Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) could have signed it.

MR. HOWARD: Well, the Deputy Premier — whoever that is — will have to answer that question. That's got nothing to do with the Premier's office, I would think. I don't even know who the Deputy Premier is — or was.

MR. LEA: Was until Lettergate.

MR. HOWARD: Well, whoever the Deputy Premier is or was is not really germane to the question in my mind at this moment about people working in the Premier's office.

We can't get a yes or no answer to those questions. Basically, by not giving answers, the Premier is saying: "No, the general public is not entitled to have answers to those questions." Okay, we'll just sort of have to accept that as being the attitude of the Premier. The more he says and does that, the more he underlines and enforces the view in the general public's mind that he's trying to cover up something.

Did Mr. Brown, while working for the Premier, communicate with the comptroller-general about an account of $2,500 for consulting fees and travel costs with respect to Goldfarb Consultants?

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: Well, I think Hansard will have to show that we've waited — I don't know, 15 or 20 seconds or something like that — and there has been no answer from the Premier to that uncomplicated question. Did David Brown, whose salary was paid for by the taxpayers to the extent of some $36,000 in the year 1978-79, who was employed as a communications planning adviser by the Premier — or in the Premier's office structure — say to the comptroller-general, with respect to the $2,500 fee charged by Goldfarb Consultants: "That's okay, pay it"? Did he tell the comptroller-general why it should be paid and what it covered? Did he do that? This is a simple question to the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're still standing up; he wants to answer.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, I know. I'm just about to give him the opportunity.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It would help, Mr. Chairman, if members would sit down when they wanted somebody else to have the floor. It keeps other members from having to bob up and down.

The answer provided by the Provincial Secretary's (Hon. Mr. Wolfe's) office to me, and given in this House had to do with the $2,500 invoice paid by the Provincial Secretary. That answer was provided to those members interested in being in the House. I can't deal with all sorts of imagined things that the member has access to in estimates. He suggested they wanted to know what it was for. They've got the information on what it was for. I've said I'm not going to broaden the Premier's estimates. If they want to get into details, they should do it within the proper ministry. The member probably just wasn't here when the answer was given. There are a number of questions which he has re-asked. It must be embarrassing for him because those of us that have been here the whole time heard the answers.

MR. HOWARD: I don't want to get into that kind of conversation with the Premier. I'd certainly put my attendance against his any day. He's the guy who runs most from the House — especially earlier during his estimates.

Did Mr. Brown, while being paid by the taxpayers of this province, communicate with the comptroller-general with respect to identifying what the $2,500 was for? That's the simple question. That question has not been answered by the Provincial Secretary in this House. It may have been answered some other place but not here. Maybe the Provincial Secretary, who's been involved in a meeting all afternoon with another organization and wasn't here when we had a vote a while ago.... He may be telling that other group that he's meeting with what the answer is, but he has not told anybody here. This is another example of the Premier, by indirection, misleading the House into believing that a certain answer had been given when, in fact, it hasn't been given. The question will have to remain, I expect, unanswered.

Maybe we can revive it again tomorrow when the Premier will have had an opportunity to cogitate overnight about uncomplicated questions and perhaps come to some conclusion that he should provide uncomplicated answers to them that are understandable by the general public.

Now his father would have never acted this way. His brother Russell, if he were there, would never have acted this way. Because they're straightforward people. His father was a straightforward person. His father had the courage and the guts if he had a politically difficult issue to deal with, to meet those questions head on and deal with them directly. If an answer was embarrassing to his father, that didn't deter his father from providing that answer and handling the question adequately, as a man should. That is not the case in this particular instance. Maybe the Premier will think about that as we proceed along.

Mr. Chairman, maybe I could just raise another matter. I meant to raise this earlier and I will do it now, if I can get the right quotation. It relates to the Speech from the Throne and a statement in the Speech from the Throne. I don't know any

[ Page 2175 ]

other way to go about discovering what has happened except to ask the Premier about it. In the Speech from the Throne it says on page 4, with respect to a commission relating to B.C. Telephone Co.: "In anticipation of the federal government transferring its jurisdiction over B.C. Telephone Co. rates to our province, the commission's mandate...." And then it goes on to talk about the mandate. I wonder if the Premier could tell the committee and the public what's happening currently with respect to having that jurisdiction over B.C. Telephone Co. rates transferred to the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That question might be better canvassed under another minister's estimates.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The throne speech is very clear. The member would know that at subsequent meetings with the Prime Minister, at first ministers' conferences, and particularly on the record by this government at first ministers' conferences — for which you can get a transcript — we have asked publicly and privately for the transfer of jurisdiction. It's very easy, because it's just a matter that has been declared under the declaratory powers act as a work within the federal jurisdiction. It would be just as easy for the federal cabinet, I believe, to undeclare it. I do not believe it requires legislation. That message has been carried to the federal government in a number of formal and informal ways.

I can't elaborate any more on the Speech from the Throne. The member, of course, would have to await mention of legislation for an opportunity to deal with it on the floor of the House.

MR. HOWARD: The question didn't relate to any legislation which may be presented in this House, which is why I stopped short of reading the full extract from the Speech from the Throne.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I might also add, for the member's edification, that there'll be a meeting taking place next Monday — a number of meetings of federal ministers, for the first time having a number of working sessions with their counterparts here in our capital — with the government of British Columbia, over many outstanding issues, and this is one of them. There will be a minimum, I believe, of 11 federal cabinet ministers. We'll be having a number of discussions with the government of Canada at various times next week, but particularly on Monday. So if the member is concerned about any aspect of public business that involves the government of Canada that may require further prodding, he can be assured that it will probably be brought up at that time as well.

MR. HOWARD: The afterthought of the Premier about the meetings next week with federal people doesn't deal with what I asked in the first place. I asked the Premier what the current status is with respect to that proposed transfer. For argument's sake, what's gone on since the writing of the Speech from the Throne on February 29 with respect to transferring that jurisdiction?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The proposal is sitting, as it has been, before the federal government, waiting for them to give a simple yes and a simple action of undeclaring it, as it was before the previous government. It's before them.

MR. HOWARD: There's a proposal sitting before the federal government, I understood the Premier to say. How old is that; how long ago was that?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Continuing, Mr. Chairman.

MR. HOWARD: Continuing? When was the last time, for argument's sake, that this government approached the federal government in respect to that matter of transferring jurisdiction over B.C. Tel from the federal jurisdiction to the provincial? When did that happen?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I can't give him precise dates on all of the representations made by ministers. I can just say it’s a continuing position of the government of British Columbia. It's one I've advanced, and I believe it was at the last first ministers' conference on the economy. It has been touched upon by the minister responsible for communications, and you might appropriately ask him if he's continued to press the case daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, or whatever. I don't think it's news to the government of Canada on B.C.'s position. particularly. We have an additional opportunity — if the member is suggesting that we should be pressing the case daily, monthly or weekly — to do it again next Monday. The matter has been attended to by the government of British Columbia as a continuing policy of this government. A provision is made for that policy to be looked after by future legislation, so it's there.

MR. HOWARD: For argument's sake, to pick an arbitrary point in time. since this government was re-elected in May of last year, has the government made any specific approaches to the federal government to say: "Look, will you revive this matter, because it appears to have lain dormant for some time?"

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, the member would have to bring that up in the minister's estimates.

MR. HOWARD: We've spent five or ten minutes, or something like that, dealing with a subject of great importance to this province. The Premier answers questions about it very easily, very generously, and so on, and then suddenly stops and says I'll have to ask somebody else. Let me reiterate the question so the Premier gets it. The question I posed was whether the Premier had taken any action since the election of last May to revive this subject matter with the federal government.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, that's not the question the member asked. He said if the government.... Now the government is a number of members, and there are ministers with responsibilities. If he'd said: "Has the Premier....?" No, I haven't taken it to the government since we made the representation, but it has been left as a policy commitment to be followed up by the minister responsible for communications. If you'd asked that question in the first place.... I did advise the member that as the first minister — not specifically responsible for something that falls within the ambit of the minister responsible for communications — it has been brought up in a first minister's way between myself, the Prime Minister of Canada and other first ministers in meeting in Ottawa. That is the governmental policy commitment. We always expect to get

[ Page 2176 ]

great results from what is a logical position. The carrying out of the further negotiations by the minister would be appropriately asked of the minister, as to whether he's phoning on a daily or a monthly basis. I haven't talked to the Prime Minister since then and haven't made informal presentations since the first ministers' conference.

MR. HOWARD: I'm not sure about first ministers' conferences. There have been a number of them. The last one that I can recall taking place was in the winter of last year, January or February 1979. I believe that was the last first ministers' conference. Whatever that was, let us assume that it was January or February 1979. Was the subject matter raised there and dealt with at that first ministers' conference?

HON. MR. BENNETT: As far as I can recall it was dealt with at the last first ministers' conference where it would be appropriate to deal with it. We have conferences that deal strictly with the constitution, some deal with the economy and some have agenda items that specifically don't allow that to be brought up on the public side of the agenda. So I can't recall offhand, except to say I know it was advanced at what was the right time when we had the subject. I remember raising it.

MR. HOWARD: Would the Premier disagree with the position advanced by Francis Fox, the federal Minister of Communications, at the first ministers' conference in January or February 1979, which appears to have been the last one, that that subject matter was not raised at that conference?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I can't question that. I've seen neither Mr. Fox's remarks, nor can I remember the specific conference, but it was put forward by British Columbia at the proper time on an agenda at a conference. I remember that specifically. As you say, there are so many conferences that you can pick and choose. But that would be like the federal government saying: "We choose to listen to this conference but not another, and if you don't keep hitting us over the head...." There has been a position stated by the government of British Columbia. In the sophisticated area of intergovernmental relations today those positions are well catalogued and we're sensitive to them. Even with changes of ministers the continuing position of a government goes on. Obviously once a government has a position the minister responsible will take such action as is necessary to undertake, carry out or pressure.

Quite frankly, in this case it's a matter of the federal government being able to do this very easily. They don't need any discussions with us. British Columbia's position is well known; it's been documented. All they've got to do is act, and it would be a lame excuse for not acting that it wasn't brought up at every conference. The position is clear and I think everybody understands that.

MR. HOWARD: What I'm seeking to get to is this statement in the Speech from the Throne that says: "In anticipation of the federal government transferring this...." I'm trying to find out how we have the anticipation that the federal government is going to do this. That's what I'm getting to. Would the Premier agree with the position advanced by Mr. Fox that from 1976 to 1978 the provincial government made no moves to the federal government to have the jurisdiction transferred?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The provincial government did make formal presentation and I understand both ministers made presentation. I personally made presentation at a first ministers' conference. That's a matter of record. I guess His Honour in his address is very optimistic that the federal government will react to the needs of the people of British Columbia and that it's about time that many of the things we have been concerned about are attended to. So I guess His Honour is an optimist.

MR. HOWARD: Would the Premier agree that the moment when this matter was first raised with the federal government was in late 1973, when the NDP was in office, and that it was actively pursued consistently over that period of time, 1973-74-75, and that in 1976, when the Premier was the Premier of this province, and in 1977 and up until September 1978 the Premier took no action whatever to revive the question with the federal government? Would the Premier agree with that statement?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I wouldn't agree on any futile attempts that the New Democratic Party made, while they were government, in not achieving what you say was their aim. I say that we're optimistic that this government is going to achieve our aim, and hopefully the government of Canada will respond when they see a mechanism set up that can deal with the orderly transfer. Perhaps they were a little skeptical when they did not see a Public Utilities Commission capable of dealing with this, and maybe perhaps they were unresponsive to the NDP because they saw them as a government to wipe out the Public Utilities Commission and narrow the mandate to energy — so perhaps they didn't believe them. But they can believe this government, because they were talking about a Public Utilities Commission.

MR. HOWARD: There is that innuendo again — unable to answer a question directly, he takes off in another course. I just simply asked the Premier whether he would agree to what I was putting forward, which was that the NDP raised this matter in 1973, actively pursued it throughout 1974 and 1975, and the matter lay absolutely dormant from 1976, when the Social Crediters took office, through 1976-77 and up until September 1978 before that subject matter was revived with the federal government. I put those forward as a proposition with respect to the facts. All I asked the Premier was whether that accurately reflected the factual situation, and whether the Premier would agree that there hasn't been any continual advancement of the concept, that the statement advanced by Mr. Fox that this matter is not being actively pursued by the federal government is an accurate statement, and whether the Premier would take that as having a necessity of re-opening the whole thing.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed: Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

[ Page 2177 ]

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

Hon. Mr. Williams tabled, under the Protection of Privacy Act, section 178 of the Criminal Code of Canada, the annual report for the period 1979, and amended reports for the years 1975 through 1978 inclusive.

Hon. Mr. Rogers tabled answers to questions standing in his name on the order paper.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.

APPENDIX

18 Mr. Skelly asked the Hon. the Minister of Environment the following question:

With respect to section 29 (1) Pollution Control Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, chapter 332, how many orders have been issued by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council declaring a pollution emergency, what were the reasons for the orders issued, what was the cost to the Government to resolve the pollution emergency problem in each case, and what amount of the cost in each case was recovered from the polluter under section 29 (4), R.S.B.C. 1979, chapter 332?

The Hon. C. S. Rogers replied as follows:

To date, a total of four pollution emergency declarations have been issued by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. The reason for each declaration, the costs incurred by the Provincial Government, and the costs recovered from the polluter are summarized as follows:

1. Red Rocky Lake Diesel Spill –– On April 27, 1977, an emergency declaration was issued to deal with a seepage of diesel oil into Red Rocky Lake, about 90 km north of Prince George. The diesel that was seeping into the lake from the ground was believed to have originated from a truck accident that occurred in September, 1976, in which 6,500 gallons of oil had been spilled on the ground several hundred feet from the lake. Because the trucking company involved in the accident (Rempel-Trail Transportation Ltd.) was unwilling to accept responsibility for preventing further contamination of lake waters, a pollution declaration was issued and the Pollution Control Branch undertook the necessary remedial measures. Cost of the clean-up amounted to $1,471.15 and recovery of the costs from Rempel-Trail Transportation Ltd. was attempted under section 26 (4) (now section 29 (4) ) of the Pollution Control Act. The transport company, however successfully challenged this attempt for recovery of costs in the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that pollution abatement expenses incurred as a result of actions or spills (in this case the truck accident) that occurred prior to enactment of section 26 (4) of the Pollution Control Act could not be recovered.

2. Rayleigh Cyanide Spill –– On January 10, 1978, a Tri-Line Expressways truck carrying 192 drums of sodium cyanide pellets spilled its load on the highway near Rayleigh, about 20 km north of Kamloops. The highly toxic nature of the chemical necessitated quick response to protect the public and environment and undertake immediate clean-up operations. To facilitate rapid procurement of the necessary equipment and personnel for the clean-up, a pollution emergency declaration was issued on January 12, 1978. Total cost to Government for the clean-up was $50,164.35 which was recovered completely from the insurance company for Tri-Line Expressways without the need to file a certificate in the Supreme Court under section 29 (4).

[ Page 2178 ]

3. Salmon Arm Gasoline Spill –– On February 23, 1979, high concentrations of gasoline were detected in a storm sewer in Salmon Arm. Because the gasoline posed an immediate explosion hazard and difficulty was experienced by Environment Ministry personnel in getting oil company representatives to take quick action to trace the source of the gasoline, a pollution emergency declaration was issued on February 24, 1979. Direct cost to the Provincial Government in dealing with this emergency totalled $6, 76.25 which was entirely recovered from Husky Oil ($4,644.72) and Mohawk Oil ($1,431.53) without the need for filing a certificate in the Supreme Court under section 29 (4).

4. Consumer Glass PCB Contaminants –– Testing of surface water near the Consumer Glass Company operation in Lavington in June 1979, indicated elevated concentrations of PCB's. Because of possible contamination of potable waters and the need to conduct further tests in an attempt to trace the source of contamination, an emergency declaration was issued on June 22, 1979. Total sampling analysis costs to Government amounted to $8,050. Consumer Glass also undertook voluntarily an extensive monitoring program and remedial measures to prevent the spread of PCB's. No recovery of costs to Government in this case has been attempted as the source of the low level PCB concentrations that were delineated could not be established precisely.

19 Mr. Skelly asked the Hon. the Minister of Environment the following question:

Between January 1, 1976, and March 31, 1980, how many charges have been laid under section 25, Pollution Control Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, chapter 332, against whom were charges laid, for what offences, in which cases were convictions obtained, and what was the penalty in each case?

The Hon. C. S. Rogers replied as follows:

Between January 1, 1976, and March 31, 1980, 63 charges have been laid against 35 companies and individuals under the Pollution Control Act. The following list identifies those charged and the offences they were charged with. Where convictions were obtained, the penalties have been noted. Cases which are still before the courts are also identified.

Castle Wines Limited, Ste. Michelle Wines Limited, and Jordan Wines Limited –– Each of them did unlawfully cause or permit the discharge of waste material into water, to wit: Blenkinsop Creek, without a permit or approval from the Director of Pollution Control. Each fined $150.00. A total of $450.00.

Fraser Bridge Mobile Park Ltd. –– Did unlawfully cause or permit the discharge of sewage into a stream without a permit or approval from the Director of Pollution Control. Fined $200.00.

H. Williamsson Blacktop & Landscaping Ltd. –– Did unlawfully cause or permit a discharge or emission into the air of a contaminant without a permit or approval from the Director of Pollution Control.

Chew Excavating Ltd. and Associated Engineering Services Ltd. –– Both of them did unlawfully cause or permit the discharge of waste material into water, to wit: Comox Harbour, without a permit or approval from the Director of Pollution Control. Fined $450.00 each.

Kenneth Herbert Francis Johnston and Sherrol A. Johnston –– Count 1 – Did unlawfully discharge waste material on land being the said Lot 191 "B", District Lot 190, SDYD, Plan 466, without a permit or approval from the Director of Pollution Control. Count 2 — Ditto. Count 3 — did unlawfully fail to comply with an Order issued by the informant dated August 7, 1975, wherein the informant

[ Page 2179 ]

ordered the said Kenneth Herbert Francis Johnston to improve the site known as Lot 191 "B", District Lot 190, SDYD, Plan 466, in the City of Penticton. Count 4 — Ditto. Fined $100.00 on each of 2 counts.

Okanagan Builders Land Development Ltd. –– Count 1 – Did refuse or neglect to comply with an Order made pursuant to the Pollution Control Act, 1967, to wit: an Order made the 24th day of February, 1975, requiring the said Okanagan Builders Land Development Limited inter alia to (1) install a flow equalization basin between the existing lift station and the three aeration tanks; (2) modify existing rectangular clarifiers to incorporate baffling; (3) re-lay drain tile in suitable granular material. Count 2 — Did refuse or neglect to comply with an Order made pursuant to the Pollution Control Act, 1967, to wit: an Order made the 24th day of February, 1975, requiring the said Okanagan Builders Land Development Limited inter alia to (1) install a flow equalization basin between the existing lift station and the two aeration tanks; (2) modify existing clarifiers to incorporate proper baffling. Fined $250.00 on each count.

Anmore Recreation Limited –– Did unlawfully cause or permit the discharge of sewage into land at or near Anmore in the County of Westminster without a permit or approval from the Director of Pollution Control. Penalty deferred.

Federated Cooperatives Ltd. –– Count 1 – Did permit the discharge into the air of contaminants, to wit: smoke and fly ash in excess of a concentration of Ringelmann No. 2 without a permit or approval from the Director of Pollution Control. Count 2 — Ditto. Fined $100.00 on each count.

Spruce City Sanitary Services Limited –– Did unlawfully cause or permit the discharge of sewage on land without a permit or approval from the Director of Pollution Control. Fined $100.00.

Pacific Rim Equities Corporation –– Count 1 – did unlawfully cause or permit the discharge of waste material onto land to wit: property situated at or near 15570 Fraser Highway, Surrey, B.C., without a permit or approval from the Director of Pollution Control. Count 2 — Did unlawfully neglect or refuse to comply with an order made under the Pollution Control Act, 1967, chap. 34 and amendments thereto. Fined $100.00 on Count 1 and $250.00 on Count 2.

Triangle Pacific Forest Products Ltd. –– Did unlawfully permit the discharge into the air of contaminants, to wit: smoke in excess of a concentration of Ringelmann No. 2, without a permit or approval from the Director of Pollution Control. Fined $500.00.

Ralph Estensen –– Did unlawfully cause or permit the discharge of waste material to land, to wit: Lot 10 of District Lot 72, Plan 37559, NWD, without a permit or approval from the Director of Pollution Control.

T & H Sawmills Ltd. –– Did cause or permit the discharge into the air of a contaminant, to wit: smoke in excess of a concentration of Ringlemann No. 2 without a permit or approval from the Director of Pollution Control. Fined $700.00.

James Clarke –– Did refuse or neglect to comply with an Order made pursuant to the Pollution Control Act, R.S.B.C. 1960, and amendments thereto, to wit: an Order dated the 16th day of December, 1976.

Fraser Bridge Mobile Park Limited –– Did on or about the 13th day of April, 1977, permit the discharge of effluent on land without a permit or approval from the Director of Pollution Control. Fined $300.00.

Northwest Paving Co. Ltd. –– Did permit the discharge into the air of a contaminant without a permit or approval of the Director of Pollution Control. Fined $10.00.

[ Page 2180 ]

Parta Industries Ltd. –– Did refuse or neglect to comply with an Order of the Director of Pollution Control by failing to carry out the instructions of the Regional Manager, Pollution Control Branch, pursuant to the Letter of Transmittal dated the 17th day of February, 1975 in conjunction with Pollution Control Permit PA-2258, to wit: did refuse or neglect from the 22nd day of August, 1977, to the 1st day of September, 1977, to lower and maintain its raw material stockpiles at a minimum of 2 feet below the top of the 35 foot barrier erected for the purpose of controlling dust. Fined $250.00.

William Wosk and Valley Salvage Ltd. –– Count 1 – Did unlawfully cause or permit the discharge into the air of a contaminant without a permit or approval from the Director of Pollution Control. Count 2 — Ditto. Count 3 — Ditto. Count 4 — Ditto. Count 5 — Ditto. Count 6 — Ditto. Count 7 — Ditto. Count 8 — Ditto. Fined $100.00 on each of Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4. Total $400. 00.

Crown Zellerbach Canada Limited –– Count 1 – Did cause the discharge of effluent onto land owned by Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of the Province of British Columbia without first obtaining a permit or approval from the Director of Pollution Control. Count 2 — Ditto. Count 3 — Ditto. Fined $1,000.00 on each count, total $3,000.00.

Bordignon Masonry Limited and Luigi Bordignon –– Appeal in the Court of Appeal against the decision of a Provincial Court Judge who dismissed the information which read: "did cause or permit the discharge of waste material from lands and premises occupied by Bordignon Masonry Limited into a body of water known as False Creek without a permit or approval from the Director of Pollution Control." Appeal allowed and case remitted to the Provincial Court.

Cominco Ltd. –– Failed to carry out the program of improvements required by its permit issued pursuant to the Pollution Control Act on the 10th day of July, 1967, and amended February 28, 1968, January 23, 1969, and October 9, 1975.

Crestbrook Forest Industries Ltd. –– Did cause or permit the discharge into the air of a contaminant to wit: smoke in excess of a concentration of Ringelmarm No. 2 without a permit or approval from the Director of Pollution Control. fined $2,500.00.

Cecil Bellamy –– Did permit the discharge of effluent in land, to wit: land at or near the Shelburn Trailer Court without a permit or approval from the Director of Pollution Control. Fined $100.00.

Vancouver Wharves Ltd. –– Count 1 – Unlawfully did refuse or neglect to comply with an Order given by the Director of Pollution Control, namely, Permit PE-1386 and accompanying Letter of Transmittal, both dated November 25, 1974, by failing to submit to the Director, in duplicate, for approval, plans and specifications of the existing works authorized in Appendices 02, 03 and 04 of Permit PE-1386 within 90 days of the issuance of the said permit. Count 2 — Unlawfully did refuse or neglect to comply with an Order given by the Director of Pollution Control, namely, Permit PE-1386 and accompanying Letter of Transmittal, both dated November 25, 1974, by failing to complete and have in operation on or before November 30, 1975, works authorized under paragraph (d) of Appendix 01 of the said permit. Count 3 — Unlawfully did refuse or neglect to comply with an Order given by the Director of Pollution Control, namely, Permit PE-1386 and accompanying Letter of Transmittal, both dated November 25, 1974, by discharging effluent which by-passed a portion of the designated treatment works under the said permit. Count 4 — Unlawfully did refuse or neglect to comply with an Order given by the Director of Pollution Control, namely, Permit PE-1386 and accompanying Letter of Transmittal, both dated November 25, 1974, by discharging effluent that exceeded the characteristics allowed under paragraph (c) of Appendix 01 of the said permit with regard to dissolved copper, dissolved nickel, and

[ Page 2181 ]

dissolved zinc. Count 5 — Unlawfully did refuse or neglect to comply with an Order given by the Director of Pollution Control, namely Permit PE-1386 and accompanying Letter of Transmittal, both dated November 25, 1974, by discharging effluent that exceeded the characteristics allowed under paragraph (c) of Appendix 04 of the said permit with regard to total suspended solids and dissolved potassium. Still before the Courts.

Stausen Holdings Ltd. –– Did permit the discharge of effluent on land without a permit or approval from the Director of Pollution Control.

Abundant Sea Resources Ltd. –– Did unlawfully cause or permit the discharge into the air of a contaminant without a permit or approval from the Director of Pollution Control. Settled with consent of the Judge.

British Columbia Forest Products Limited –– Count 1 – Did unlawfully contravene an Order made under the Pollution Control Act, to wit: a direction in writing made on the 4th day of February 1972, by the Director of Pollution Control prohibiting the said British Columbia Forest Products Limited from discharging effluent which has by-passed any portion of the designated treatment facilities by discharging effluent from the emergency dump pond and thereby by-passing the extended aeration lagoon, and the submerged outfall and diffuser pipe. Count 2 — Did discharge or cause or permit the discharge of effluent on land, to wit: the shore of Williston Lake without a permit or approval from the Director. Count 3 — Did discharge or cause or permit the discharge of effluent into water, to wit: Williston Lake, without a permit or approval from the Director. Still before the Courts.

City of Vernon –– Did discharge waste material, to wit: sewage sludge, into water to wit: Vernon Creek, without a permit or approval from the Director of Pollution Control. Still before the Courts.

Hub City Paving Ltd. –– Did permit the discharge into the air of a contaminant, without a permit or approval of the Director of Pollution Control. Still before the Courts.

Gold Bridge Holdings Ltd. –– Count 1 – Did fail to operate a placer gold mining operation effluent disposal facility with one settling pond and three exfiltration basins as outlined in a Pollution Control Branch Letter of Transmittal dated July 16, 1979, and addressed to the said Gold Bridge Holdings Ltd. and did thereby neglect to comply with an Order in writing given under the Pollution Control Act. Count 2 — Did discharge effluent from a placer gold mining operation on land without a permit or approval from the Director of Pollution Control and did thereby contravene subsection 5 (1) of the Pollution Control Act. Count 3 — Did discharge effluent from a placer gold mining operation into water, to wit: the Bridge River, without a permit or approval from the Director of Pollution Control, and did thereby contravene subsection 5 (1) of the Pollution Control Act. Count 4 — Did discharge overflow effluent from a placer gold mining operation on land without a permit or approval from the Director of Pollution Control, and did thereby neglect to comply with an order in writing given under the Pollution Control Act, and dated July 16, 1979. Count 5 — Did discharge effluent from a placer gold mining operation on land without a permit or approval from the Director of Pollution Control, and did thereby contravene subsection 5 (1) of the Pollution Control Act. Count 6 — Did discharge effluent from a placer gold mining operation into water to wit: the Bridge River, without a permit or approval from the Director of Pollution Control, and did thereby contravene subsection 5 (1) of the Pollution Control Act. Count 7 — Did refuse to cease and desist from a discharge of overflow effluent from a placer gold mining operation effluent disposal facility and did thereby refuse to comply with an Order in writing given under the Pollution Control Act, and dated July 16, 1979. Still before the Courts.

[ Page 2182 ]

Regional District of Bulkley-Nechako –– Count 1 – Did, directly or indirectly, cause or permit the discharge or emission into the air of a contaminant to wit: smoke without a permit or approval from the Director. Count 2 — Ditto. Still before the, Courts.

Carrier Lumber Ltd. –– Count 1 – Directly or indirectly, remitted or caused the discharge or emission into the air of a contaminant to wit: smoke in excess of a concentration of 40 per cent opacity or Ringelmann No. 2 without a permit or approval from the Director of Pollution Control. Count 2 — Ditto. Count 3 — Ditto. Count 4 — Ditto. Still before the Courts.

20 Mr. Skelly asked the Hon. the Minister of Environment the following question:

Between January 1, 1976, and March 31, 1980, how many pollution control permits have been suspended or cancelled, pursuant to section 10, Pollution Control Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, chapter 332, what are the names of the permit holders and reasons for suspension or cancellation, and the period of suspension or cancellation in each case?

The Hon. C. S. Rogers replied as follows:

CANCELLATIONS

PE-4818 –– The Corporation of the City of Penticton cancelled July 27, 1979, on instructions from the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

PR-5113 –– Fraser River Harbour Commission cancelled February 11, 1980, on instructions from the Pollution Control Board.

PR-3916 –– Regional District of Central Kootenay cancelled February 27, 1980, for non-compliance with permit conditions.

SUSPENSIONS

PE-349 –– Fiberplast Products Ltd., suspended April 12, 1976, for noncompliance with permit conditions. Suspension has not been lifted to date.

PE-2318 –– R. Estensen, D.V.M., suspended March 12, 1976, for noncompliance with permit conditions. Suspension has not been lifted to date.

PE-4621 –– Gordon M. Bell, suspended on July 21, 1978, on permittee's request. Reinstated on April 24, 1979.

PE-5201 –– Golden Dawn Packers Ltd., suspended on January 11, 1980, for non-compliance with permit conditions. Suspension has not been lifted to date.