[ Page 2183 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 18). Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Introduction and first reading –– 2183

An Act Respecting Public Representation on Executive Boards and Councils of

British Columbia Professional Associations (Bill M208). Mr. Leggatt

Introduction and first reading –– 2183

Oral questions

Coal export to Japan. Mr. Lauk –– 2183

Log exports. Mr. King –– 2184

Tree-planting program. Mr. Passarell 2184

Replacement of Pharmacare cards. Ms. Brown –– 2184

Proposed changes in Workers Compensation Act. Ms. Sanford –– 2185

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office estimates

On vote 9

Mr. King –– 2185

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2187

Mr. Lea –– 2192

Division on the motion that the committee rise –– 2194

Mr. Lea –– 2194

Mr. Cocke –– 2196

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2197

Mr. Lauk –– 2200

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2202

Mr. Howard –– 2203

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 2206

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2206

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce guests who are seated on the floor of the House today. They are Councillor and Mrs. T.C.R. Legge, who are visiting British Columbia from Britain. Members who represent Vancouver Island and the city of Vancouver will be particularly interested to know that Councillor Legge, who is the chairman of the West Norfolk District Council in England, represents as well the west Norfolk District, which includes Kings Lynn, the birthplace of Captain Vancouver. I would like you to know that the Legges have been particularly hospitable to our agent-general while he had his tenure of office in Britain. I would like the House at this time to welcome them warmly to our province of British Columbia.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the opposition, we are pleased to associate ourselves with the remarks of the lady minister who just spoke, and I extend our warm welcome to the visiting dignitaries from Great Britain. I also would like to extend warm congratulations on their visit to Victoria to two visitors from Powell River who are in the gallery this afternoon, Mrs. Florence Young and Mr. Orald Harrison.

I see Cyril Shelford sitting immediately in front of them and I believe that he and the gentleman I just referred to were born in the same small town in the far north of British Columbia. Maybe they'd like to get together.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have students and staff from Windsor Secondary School in North Vancouver. I'd like the members present to make them welcome.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, we have 51 students visiting the buildings today from the Ferris Elementary School in Richmond, accompanied by two teachers, R. Pearce and Mrs. T. Herchak. I'd like them to be acknowledged, please.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to welcome Mrs. Anna May Cebuliak and her daughter Michelle from Maple Ridge.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon we're going to be privileged with 28 students from Capilano College in North Vancouver under the guidance of Pat Hodgson. I'd ask the House to wish them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

LIQUOR CONTROL AND LICENSING
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. Nielsen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 1980.

Bill 18 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.

AN ACT RESPECTING PUBLIC
REPRESENTATION ON EXECUTIVE BOARDS
AND COUNCILS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

On a motion by Mr. Leggatt, Bill M208, An Act Respecting Public Representation on Executive Boards and Councils of British Columbia Professional Associations, 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

COAL EXPORT TO JAPAN

MR. LAUK: My question is to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. With respect to Sukunka coal and its shipment to Japan through the port of Prince Rupert, the minister charged today that Ottawa is dragging its feet on the rail-cost agreement with the province. Can the minister confirm that the $215 million price tag for the connection along the Anzac River route is for track only and does not include locomotives and rolling stock?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The answer is yes.

MR. LAUK: Can the minister confirm that negotiations have been completed or are in progress with Toshiba Corp. of Japan that they will provide trains and rolling stock to the operating company for no down payment and for a sum per year, with the proviso that all the trains and rolling stock for the Anzac River line are manufactured in Japan?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, I can neither confirm nor deny the matter about which he is talking. I have no personal knowledge of it. I would suggest that that is not the case. However, as I say, I can neither confirm nor deny it.

MR. LAUK: Are you taking it on notice? I would hope that the minister does take that question on notice.

Could the minister confirm that Toshiba has made that offer in the consortium?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly very pleased and honoured that the member for Vancouver Centre is taking such an interest in the economy of the province, because it remains in my mind that he was one of those who accused me of going to Japan and coming home clean.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now that he has been proven wrong again, he's taking a great deal of interest in it. But as I said, Mr. Speaker, I can neither confirm nor deny what he is talking about.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, we are instructed that the CNR has turned down cost-sharing through the federal government for this line because of the proviso that rolling stock

[ Page 2184 ]

will be manufactured in Japan instead of in Canada and specifically in British Columbia. Is that what the minister means when he says Ottawa is dragging its feet?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, again the member is talking about what the CNR said. I had a meeting with CNR officials in my office; if I can recall correctly, it was a week ago yesterday. We discussed this great project, and I want to tell you, the CNR is enthused about this great project, because they recognize the economic benefit not only for British Columbia and Canada, but they recognize that it's great for the CNR, great for the port of Prince Rupert, great for western Canada, because it will open up great, vast new opportunities to ship from all of western Canada. But I didn't hear the CNR talking anything about this.

I question whether the member is manufacturing a mothball, because I don't really understand what he's talking about. My opinion is that there will be great economic benefits to Canada and that these railcars should be manufactured in Canada.

MR. LAUK: From the minister's statements, Mr. Speaker — both inside and outside the House — we are to understand that an agreement is very close with respect to Japanese interests in the development of the northeast coal project. Can the minister confirm again that he does not know — seeing we're so close — where the rolling stock and locomotives for the project will come from?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There again, Mr. Speaker, the member is putting the cart before the horse. This is a vast project with a lot of ramifications. You're putting the caboose in front of the train, my friend. I want to tell you, we'll get the contracts and then we'll proceed. But I am not aware of what you're talking about, Mr. Member, in all sincerity.

LOG EXPORTS

MR. KING: I have a question for the Minister of Forests. Has the minister received a recommendation from the log export advisory committee to relax restrictions on the export of unprocessed logs from British Columbia?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The answer is no.

TREE PLANTING PROGRAM

MR. PASSARELL: I have a question to my friend in the corner, the Minister of Forests. Can-Cel requires five million seedlings for their Nass Valley operation. They were ordered from the Forest Service and the Forest Service can supply only one million seedlings. What steps has the minister taken to assist Can-Cel in acquiring the four million additional seedlings?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm sure the member is fully aware of the program which has been announced by this government whereby we will very substantially increase the seedling production over the next five-year period. Our objective is to have a 135 million seedling capacity in this province within five years time as compared to about 75 million to 100 million right now. Right now the figure is 100 million.

Growing seedlings is just not a matter of growing X number of seedlings and sprinkling them around the province. Seedlings have to be grown specifically for the area in which they are to be planted. I don't know what the particular problems are with Can-Cel, but if the member would care to give me more details of the subject he's inquiring about I'd be very happy to research it for him.

MR. PASSARELL: I have a new question to the Minister of Forests. The Pacific Reforestation Workers' Association advises that some six million seedlings have been ordered from private nurseries in Washington and Oregon at a cost of up to three times the rate charged by the Forest Service. Can the minister advise whether these higher costs will be fully recoverable by the companies from stumpage offsets?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm not certain of the number of seedlings that have been ordered from the northwestern United States. In any event any cost of reforestation is a cost which is allowed for in the stumpage appraisal system. The costs allowed are based upon the experience we have in British Columbia and would not include the extra costs for seedlings grown elsewhere.

MR. PASSARELL: When will B.C. be in a position to provide the nursery capacity to meet our total seedling needs?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the requirement for seedlings is not a static thing; it changes all the time. First we have to determine what acreage must be planted, what the planting density should be and what the species should be. The question asked by the member is so vague as to really not be answerable in any specific manner.

REPLACEMENT PHARMACARE CARDS

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Human Resources. It has to do with the replacement of Pharmacare cards. In view of the delay of sending out the replacement Pharmacare cards and the confusion that this has caused, especially among our senior citizens, has the minister decided to extend the deadline of the old Pharmacare cards so that recipients can use them until they receive their new cards?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the member should know that there have been a few people — it has not been a great number — who have not received their Pharmacare cards, and they have been told that their Medical Services Plan card will suffice. The Pharmacare division tells me, though, that they are very quickly getting caught up on those that have been missed, and that is all fairly well in hand at this point in time. A few weeks ago, I think, the question would have been appropriate, but I think they have got it well in hand now.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Tidball, the director of Pharmacare, was on "The Barrie Clark Show" on Tuesday morning and he received a large number of phone calls from people who haven't received their Pharmacare cards. My own office received 15 calls in one day from people who haven't received their Pharmacare cards. When I contacted Mr. Miller of B.C. Hydro in Victoria, he advised that he would only be accepting the updated Pharmacare cards on the

[ Page 2185 ]

buses. If the buses have been told to accept the B.C. Medical Services Plan cards, they are not aware of the fact.

Is the minister planning to make a public announcement that the B.C. Medical Services Plan cards will be accepted. If so, would she phone B.C. Hydro, both in Victoria and in Vancouver, to let them know that fact?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: First of all, let me just say that if the member had 15 inquiries come into her office, I wish she would give those inquiries to mine. I'd be very pleased to look after them immediately.

Secondly, may I say that in your original questioning through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member — I'm sorry that I did not get the reference to B.C. Hydro. I thought the member was suggesting Pharmacare cards — could the old card, or in the absence of any card at all, could the medical card be used? That was what I was responding to.

In the other part of the question, however, regarding B.C. Hydro, I would be very pleased to refer to the capital Greater Vancouver Regional Districts, who operate the UTA and who will be able to straighten that out with the senior citizens and those who use that card.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the minister's office was contacted about those 15 phone calls, and I was told that the contact should be made by letter, even though there was urgency. That's the reason why the people named were phoning. I was told that a letter had to be sent on behalf of those 15 people.

Will the minister advise the House as to the cost of replacing the blue cards with the green cards?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'd like to take that question as notice, and I'd be pleased to report back to the House. However, in reference to the statement that was made regarding contact with my office, I would like to just suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the member who has made the statement that my office has referred her office to someone else could always refer it directly to me as I'm in this House every day, as is she.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, this is my final supplementary. In view of the fact that the minister seems to be hard of hearing, I will do this very slowly.

While she's taking the cost of the change as notice, would she also explain why it was necessary to replace the blue Pharmacare card with a green Pharmacare card, presumably at some expense to the taxpayer, in view of the fact that the only difference on both cards is that in one instance the word "department" is changed to "ministry" and in the other the word "pharmacist" is changed to "pharmacist supplier"?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'd be pleased to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

PROPOSED CHANGES IN
WORKERS COMPENSATION ACT

MS. SANFORD: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Do I have the attention of the minister?

In view of the widespread concern about the proposed changes to schedule B of the Workers Compensation Act, has the minister decided to request the WCB commissioners to delay the implementation of any changes until such time as the estimates of the Minister of Labour have been before thisHouse, so that the views of all members of the Legislature may be considered?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's rather a difficult question to answer at this time, but I think in fairness I can mention to the member that I am advised that a number of briefs have been submitted to the board and the commissioners for review, and many of them relate to schedule B. The board is independent; it's something that the political process has thought best, and there is at times a reluctance to interfere in their workings. However, with respect to that question, I would be pleased to take the matter under advisement and perhaps allow it to be considered during the estimates. I'm hoping, Mr. Chairman, that this matter can be resolved in the proper forum — that is, with the board.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House I would ask permission to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: It is a rare opportunity for me to have any members of my family present in the House, because of the distance we live from the Legislature, but I'm very pleased as a mother to welcome and ask you to welcome our younger son, Pip, and his two friends, Craig Lauridsen and Milan Djordjevich, who are at the end of a biological tour of the west coast. I'm pleased to have you and your friends here, Pip, and I would ask the House to give them a very warm welcome.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I too would ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. STRACHAN: On behalf of myself and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) I would like to introduce two guests of ours from Lakeland Mills, Mr. David Parker and Mr. George Killy.

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. KING: Mr. Chairman, we have been here for a considerable length of time dealing with the Premier's estimates. I'd like to give a brief background of the problems that the committee has been having eliciting information from the Premier of the province, and so creating quite a delay in dealing with the estimates of the first minister of the province. I would just like to point out that we started our questioning as a responsible opposition with respect to those matters surrounding slush funds, which it had been revealed were collected through the Premier's office. We sought information from the Premier as to precisely who the signing officers were for those slush funds that were dispensed from the Premier's office to fight the last election campaign and of

[ Page 2186 ]

which there was a significant portion left unreported under the Provincial Elections Act — to be precise, some quarter of a million dollars. The Premier has very consistently refused to respond to our queries in this regard. He has, quite frankly, evaded those questions and refused to answer.

Since that time we have asked the Premier a series of questions about a meeting that was convened in the parliamentary precincts wherein a group of Victoria businessmen were brought together and a guarantee of some $3 million was made to this group relating to the operation of a jetfoil service between the city of Victoria and the city of Seattle. We have consistently asked the Premier if he would kindly tell us who attended that meeting and what kind of contractual arrangements were made for the payment of taxpayers' dollars to guarantee this venture as a proffered replacement to the Marguerite, which was withdrawn from service.

The Premier has avoided answering any of those questions. So day in and day out we go through this performance in the Legislature of putting forward questions which we humbly believe are valid questions, and opposition in a free Legislature has a right to know and, indeed, the taxpayers of British Columbia have a right to know. We have asked the Premier similar questions about the authorization of dirty tricks by the Social Credit Party. We have asked the Premier questions such as why he personally intervened in an RCMP investigation of Social Credit caucus research staff. He has failed to respond.

So, Mr. Chairman, it wasn't with a great deal of surprise, I guess, but with a good deal of chagrin that last night I witnessed on television on CTV news — both in the evening and late night news, that the Premier of the province of British Columbia had addressed a high school gathering in this city and had spoken to them on his views with respect to the development of British Columbia. Then I guess he made the unusual gesture, which was certainly not the customary gesture by this Premier, of holding a question period. That's when he got into trouble, because those young people in the high school in the city of Victoria have free thought processes and they are intelligent and discerning. They asked the Premier of the province: "Whatever happened to the committee on ethics which you, as Premier, announced publicly following the revelation of the dirty tricks in the province of British Columbia?" I thought it was a pretty straightforward question and is similar to those, I believe, which have been put to the Premier by members of the opposition over the past weeks. The Premier stood in the bold, unyielding glare of television lights and he said: "It wasn't me. I didn't do that. I never announced publicly that there was going to be an ethics committee to bring a decent standard of behaviour to the Social Credit Party." He said: "Oh, no. That came from the former president of the party — somewhere internally. I never announced it publicly."

Isn't it a shame that certain television tapes are retained, because right after that barefaced assertion by the Premier the camera flipped back to a couple of months ago when the Premier said that he was going to cut the cancer out of the Social Credit Party. There had been enough tricks. There had been enough forgeries of letters. There had been enough attempts to manipulate the press and the media in the province, and he was going to cut the cancer out. He said he was going to set up an ethics committee.

The first time it was ever mentioned in the province it was mentioned by the Premier himself on television. He was going to have this debated at the following convention of the Social Credit Party. Yet when one of those discerning students put the question to the Premier, "What happened to the committee?" he said: "It wasn't me who announced it; it was somebody else." I'm not going to say anything unparliamentary because I respect the rules of this Legislature, but I'm sure that every member of this Legislature and certainly everybody in the gallery is discerning enough to apply the proper description to that kind of barefaced inconsistency and categorize it appropriately. I'm sure they're competent to do that.

The only thing the Premier lacked when he denied the evidence of television cameras was his seatbelt. That was the only thing he lacked. Remember the time when he attended a meeting in Vancouver and they asked: "Were you wearing a seatbelt, Mr. Premier?" He said: "There's none in the car." Remember that. And all of a sudden that cruel television camera focused on the inside of the car and there was the seatbelt lying there for all to see.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a lying camera.

MR. KING: Why did that camera lie, Mr. Premier? Mr. Chairman, I'm becoming fairly frustrated. I don't know how we can expect to get straightforward, candid answers from the Premier of the province with respect to the business of this House if the young people, the schoolchildren of British Columbia, cannot rely on the answers they receive from the Premier. I don't know how we can expect to get candour if the Premier won't be candid with the kids in our schools.

There's a press report here; let me jog the Premier's memory. It's dated October 17, 1979 — the Vancouver Sun. It's an article by Tom Barrett — he's no relation to my colleague, Mr. Chairman — a very impartial source. Mr. Chairman, it says:

"Victoria — Premier Bill Bennett attempted Tuesday to explain the dirty tricks affair by painting a picture of a Social Credit Party that didn't know what it was doing. Nobody in authority in the party listened to the dirty tricks tapes until it was too late, he told reporters during a 65-minute press conference. The conflicting statements and 'no comments' that flew after the tapes became public were due to a lack of coordination and cohesion in the party, he said."

Then the Vancouver Sun uncovered an official party cassette recording on which Kelly again explained how to select fake names for letters. He said this was done inevitably with aliases, and that "we do play dirty and we don't really worry about that too much." This was followed by Socred Party and government officials denying responsibility and saying they knew nothing about the tape before it was made public — Kelly, and Ron Grieg, the former assistant to Bennett's communication adviser. Social Credit, he vowed, would "cut out the cancer before it develops." This was the Premier. "As well as dropping from the government payroll those immediately involved in the scandal, the party will be asked to strike an ethics committee to draw up a statement on principles within a year," Bennett said. That was the Premier's statement. "The party will be asked to strike a committee and file a report within a year." And yet when he was asked this straightforward question by a student at the meeting yesterday in this city, the Premier said: "It wasn't me; I never announced it."

I suppose to be charitable the kindest thing I can say is that the Premier is not gracing the office of Premier very well

[ Page 2187 ]

in this province. He is doing nothing to maintain the integrity of the office that he has been elected to by the people of British Columbia.

In light of repeated examples of flagrant inconsistency between what the Premier says and what is the truth, it's small wonder that his own colleagues are starting to attack him as soon as he leaves town. It's small wonder that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) says that the Premier is not open enough and he would like him to be more forthcoming in answering questions in debate. It's small wonder that the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), the former Liberal leader in this province, says that the Premier is stiff and doesn't sparkle in debate.

It's small wonder that kind of criticism is coming from his own benches, when example after example of the Premier's failure to be candid on issues that are the legitimate business of the public are treated with disrespect and disregard by the Premier. It's even gotten to the point where the backbenchers over there are looking for replacements for the Premier. The member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) is running around sizing up the other cabinet ministers and deciding who has the kind of integrity and who has the kind of intellect that might make an appropriate replacement for the Premier of the province, and his own party. It's reported that he considered the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) for a little while, but then he decided that the Minister of Health was not quite stable enough — he loses his cool.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you, that whole government has lost its stability, if not its integrity. We have a government that is so obsessed with the "internal cancer," as the Premier termed it, that they, are incapable of governing, they are incapable of charting any policy for this province. While economic chaos is breaking all around the province, here we have a Premier with a bunker mentality. He retrenches into his small office and jeers at the press and says they've been drinking Mexican water. He blames everybody but himself because he is obsessed and completely preoccupied with the cancer within his own party. Little wonder that we have no government initiative in this province to deal with the growing layoffs in the forest industry, the loss of markets, the crunch that small business is in because they cannot find loans or interest at reasonable rates.

It is a sad day for British Columbia when we see through the electronic media, through the headlines that the Premier made just a few small months ago, a complete denial of any appreciation of truthfulness. That's the issue. I don't know what we're going to do about it. We can't force the Premier to answer questions in a forthright way if he wants to sit there and stonewall. He has that right under our parliamentary system but it hardly shows due regard for the parliamentary system. It hardly shows due regard or accountability to the public. Perhaps most serious of all, it hardly inspires the citizens of the province of British Columbia to have any confidence in the office of Premier. That's very sad.

It was interesting last night, after the Premier's speech to high school students in Victoria, when some of those students were interviewed by the press as they left the meeting. Some of them said the Premier did all right in terms of his speech, but almost unanimously those young students said: "The Premier doesn't answer questions." The last young lady interviewed said: "The Premier evaded every question." That was her comment. I hope the Premier doesn't attack those young high-school students the way he attacked the press and the way he attacks the opposition for his own failure to be forthright and candid. It' s out there for everyone to see; everyone is aware of it — everyone but the Premier. Someone should tell the Premier he is not the emperor, because the emperor has no clothes. Even members of his own government are attacking him for his failure to respond to questions in a forthright way, for his failure to provide information on government to the public of British Columbia.

I don't know what we're going to do about it. It's very seldom that I've seen such a blatant and bare-faced example of a person in public life, much less anyone else, being caught in the fashion that the Premier was caught yesterday by his television performance — forgetting what he had said a couple of months earlier and completely denying it, only to be confronted with the evidence that indeed he had done the very thing that the student suggested he had done. When we have that example, not by some partisan political opponent but by the press and by the students in a high school, surely members of that party must be embarrassed and they must be concerned; they have to be. Any intelligent person would look at their leader and say: "What goes on? Why are you afraid to level with the people of British Columbia? What are you afraid of?" Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to belabour the point. I'd like very much to hear the Premier's explanation of that conflict which I've outlined. I'd like very much to hear the Premier's explanation of how this inconsistency occurred. If he can explain it away in an intelligent fashion, and persuade me that there's some logical reason why he denied saying the very thing he was confronted with by the students, where the proof was provided a short time later by the television, if he's got some rational explanation, I'd be very, very pleased to hear it from the Premier. But I'm not going to hold my breath. If the Premier will just take his seat until I conclude my remarks, he'll have ample time to speak on it. I'm not too optimistic and I'm not going to hold my breath, because this is not the first time that the Premier has been confronted with that kind of conflict. I would like him to explain that. I would like him to answer some of the questions that we have been asking here for the last four weeks — in an open way, in an honest way and to the best of his ability.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Thanks for the opportunity to get up and give my version of what, I understand...although I don't have the opportunity to watch a lot of TV, as does the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) — we were having a working meeting in my office last evening — and, of course, not all of us have that opportunity.

Yesterday I did have an opportunity to speak in one of Victoria's high schools, and it was a good opportunity to have unlimited questioning from the students, and it was a good opportunity for those who develop their own questions to get answers to things that concern them. For the most part, the questions were very good questions. The students are really not political; they're not concerned with political parties. Most of the questions they appeared to have developed concerned.... Some of them I didn't even know about, such as the police in Saanich patrolling beach parties. I couldn't answer such a thing because, there again, I don't get a chance to spend a lot of time reading the Victoria press, let alone the other.

[ Page 2188 ]

I was asked a question, and my impression of the question was clearly this — you know, to clarify, because I will be dealing with the TV reporter who was there, and the television station — why hadn't the committee I set up to do with our party met. This is not a government committee. I said — and this is paraphrasing — number one, I didn't set up the committee; the committee was set up on a motion, because our party is democratic. I may have had the good idea, but the committee was set up on a motion by the president and by the convention; it's up to the president of the party and the executive to both set up such a committee And call it. That's paraphrasing my answer, but that was the explanation I gave them. It's my understanding, again from news reports.... This answer has already been given; I was asked before by the news — which I suppose is where this question came from — why the committee met. I think the party president, Bernie Smith, said that he has appointed the vice-president, Gerry Strongman — who members of this House know is a very able former member — as head of it. Mr. Strongman has yet to call the committee. I said my suggestion as to why it has not yet met is that it would be on a need basis. That's clearly the situation, and it's a matter of record from our party convention by the reporters who covered it — both the motion and the seconding, and the debate there, and the setting up of the committee.

Now there is some question in any party whether it would be necessary. I understand that some parties — even the NDP — have means of dealing with members within their party. Our party has had no formal way. We have had an open membership. I understand that the New Democratic Party at times has said they would reject certain people if they attempted to join their party. Our party has not had that. It has been the policy of the party to accept anyone who sought membership. It would then be the opportunity of the party, if the member could not act in the best interests of the party, to deal with it later, but not to prejudge him. I think that's always been the history, long before I became the leader of the party and long before I was involved in debates on the floor of our conventions.

MR. BARRETT: Do you accept communists in your party?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Leader of the Opposition asks if we accept communists. I would presume that anyone seeking a membership in our party would share the philosophy, or they wouldn't be putting out the money to join. Now what the Leader of the Opposition suggests by the question is that he would think that the communists might try to infiltrate different parties. I have no knowledge of that. Perhaps he does; I don't.

But rightly or wrongly, that's been the philosophy of our party. It has a large membership. I'm sure we don't agree on many things. But my impression of the question was the setting up of the committee: why, after setting up a committee, it hadn't met. I explained how the committee was set up, accepting it as public knowledge for the news media and the members here. I'm sure you watch what we do at our conventions, who makes the motions and how they're voted, and I'm sure you know how your party executive works, if it sets up such a committee, and who would call it.

One of the criticisms in our party has been that they want more autonomy for the executive; they don't want to be run by the leader. Of course, the party never has been, but they certainly have expressed their wish to make sure that those things of a party nature are run by them, and I'm quite glad that they have and they do, and they've always had that opportunity anyhow. So that's the way that would run.

In light of the difficulties our party had with publicity, there was no doubt it was necessary for us to take a look and find ways which we didn't have. We have publicly apologized for the problem the party had, and we've dealt with it. Certainly our new president, Bernie Smith, who is no stranger to many of the members over there, is a hard-driving, sincere and concerned individual. The executive of that party is doing a good job. Our executive are elected from the various regions of the province. They meet regularly. Such things as would need to be brought before.... After they set it up and passed the motion at the session, they appointed a chairman, Gerry Strongman. It hasn't met, because I guess the executive haven't had anything to refer to it. That's quite simple.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't attack Strongman.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I said he is good, because nothing has been referred to him.

So, Mr. Chairman, that's the way it works. I think it's a question of Mr. Harvey Oberfeld misinterpreting what I said. My interpretation was that the question concerned the committee I set up and why didn't it meet because of that. I think I gave an explanation to them of how it was set up and how it would be called. I'm on record as suggesting the idea; but it's like every suggestion I have, public or private. It may be brought in by a minister in legislation; the proper authority sets it up. Lots of good ideas come from me; lots of bad ideas, too, and hopefully they don't react to the bad ideas.

In the debate I've tried to respond to a number of questions. On some of them I have given the answers; some questions have been persistent in their repetition even after the answers have been given. Some of them, Mr. Chairman, as you know, are to be dealt with in other ministerial estimates and do not come under the guidelines of being answered here. More properly, the minister responsible in those areas can probably give a broader and more detailed answer.

I've dealt with those areas that we could, Mr. Chairman, and also talked about the increase of the vote for the office and the increased number of people and the new appointment of the deputy minister, Mr. Lawrie Wallace, and a number of other people. I must say that Mr. Wallace has already got my office in turmoil; desks are being moved today and people are moving to different offices, and it looks like a good structural change. The only office that seems to be remaining intact is my own, at the moment. So Mr. Wallace is already making his presence felt in a very real way.

Now, Mr. Chairman, there is one thing, I attempted to deal with before, and I would like to bring it to the attention of the committee. I had meant to deal with it before committee. I will be visiting Speaker Schroeder this Friday at his home in Chilliwack, where he is now recuperating from a heart attack and has been in the hospital. I will be circulating either later today, if I can get it, or tomorrow a card which I would like all members to sign, and I will be pleased to take it to Speaker Schroeder, who is a friend to all of us in this assembly. I ask for their consideration; if some of their colleagues are absent, could they get it signed by those who are absent before I leave late Friday afternoon?

[ Page 2189 ]

Further, Mr. Chairman, yesterday the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) moved into areas that properly belong in the ministry responsible for communications.

I think I dealt with the opportunity that the first minister had, questioning me on my concerns about B.C. Telephone jurisdiction under the proposed public utilities commission. The member had some questions about what the ministry was doing, whether it had been persistent, and whether additional pressure had been put on the federal government. Of course, that would be the responsibility of the minister. I'm sure the member then indicated he was aware that as first minister I had made that representation to the federal government — in fact, to all other governments — talking explicitly about communications in this country, in those areas in which this province alone, of all the provinces — because B.C. Telephone does not cross provincial boundaries — does not have control of its own telephone system.

Two options are open. One is to nationalize it, as has been advocated by the New Democratic Party in the past. The other would be to bring it under a provincial regulatory body, which is the policy of this government. We feel we can serve the public interest there and make sure they have a forum which can react quickly and meet the provincial interest. That has already been mentioned in the throne speech, as the member brought up yesterday. Hopefully it will be part of a public utilities commission which, when introduced, will have a much broader opportunity to regulate — more than B.C. Telephone — public agencies.

MR. KING: I want to thank the Premier for responding. I was interested in his remarks with respect to how his party functions. He says they have an open party. Well, we have an open party too. Anyone can apply for membership in our party, but our constitution makes certain provisions that members must agree to adhere to as a member of our party. One of those is that you can't belong to another political party, so there's no conflict of interest. I would think that was pretty fundamental. Social Credit chooses not to do that; so be it. I don't think we take in extremists who do not support the parliamentary system of government in the province of British Columbia, whether extremists of the left or the right. So we have certain fundamental groundrules for membership in our party. Once again, if the Premier and his party do not, so be it.

I was very concerned, though, when the Premier said and I wrote his remarks down; he sounded ominous — "I will be dealing with the TV reporter that was there."

HON. MR. BENNETT: Speaking to him.

MR. KING: Well, you didn't say that, Mr. Premier through you, Mr. Chairman. He said: "I will be dealing with the TV reporter that was there."

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, dealing is speaking.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Now look, Mr. Chairman. It's not the first time this government and the Premier of this province have attacked the media. They have chased them away from cabinet meetings, saying: "You can't stand out here anymore." They have said they must be drinking Mexican water, and the minor insult that went along with that. Everybody's at fault but the Premier. I think it is serious when the Premier singles out a reporter that he's going to deal with, because he didn't report that incident in the fashion the Premier thought he should.

Interjections.

MR. KING: The minister that was attacking the Premier last week is now coming to his defence, Mr. Chairman. He's probably trying to gain favour with the Premier, after saying that the Premier wasn't open enough, and it wouldn't be his style to stand and stonewall in his estimates, as the Premier has done. That little Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is probably on the way out, and he's now trying to curry favour with the Premier for the alienation he created only last week. That's what's happening.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The Premier stood up and he gave an explanation of why he answered the student's question that he had never announced the ethics committee of the Social Credit Party. I want to ask how many members in this House understood the Premier's answer. I don't think many people did. But let me refresh the Premier's memory. He said: "Oh, the question was this way, as I understand it." Here's a precise record of the question that was asked and the Premier's response. Let me read it into the record.

"Question: 'Mr. Bennett, I understand that recently enough you announced that you would be forming an ethics committee that would act as a watchdog over separate party operations. Could you please explain why the committee has not been formed?'

"Premier's answer: 'Well, first of all, I didn't announce it'."

Mr. Chairman, the Premier did announce it. He was shown announcing it on television. I've read the press reports of saying the Premier was going to cut out the cancer. He was going to set up an ethics committee the first time it was ever referred to. He did announce it. His answer is just not consistent with the facts. I'm sorry to report that his answers these days are seldom consistent with the facts. He went on to say: "It was brought by a motion by a former president of the party, mostly to do what the party already did. That is to make sure...." How do you make any sense of that?

What the party already did, Mr. Chairman, was go around playing dirty tricks, and they said they didn't mind. They forged letters, they tried to manipulate the media, and then he says they’re going to set up a committee to do what the party already did. And then he denies he ever announced that, despite the fact that he is confronted with the bold, blazing glare of a television review of him making the announcements only a few months earlier. He was confronted with press reporting of the day he made that statement, and now he comes in here and says: "I'm going to deal with that reporter."

I don't know what he's going to do. I know what "Tricky Dickie” Nixon tried to do in terms of manipulating the press. He stonewalled for a long time. He blamed everybody else but himself, but eventually he was caught out. All I can say to the Premier is that it's a sorry kind of performance. Sometimes I suggest that, not only in terms of his image and the position of his party and the public, he'd be far better off politically and in terms of him living with himself to come out and say: ''Look. I blew it. I made a mistake. Yes, I didn't handle it right. I admit it." Why blame everybody else? You've been caught out so many times that everyone knows

[ Page 2190 ]

there's no credibility left — even your own ministers. But they only tell the people when you leave town, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, we can go around the block all day with this, but I gave the explanation to the member, who normally would accept.... That was the impression of the question. Perhaps my explanation was not as good as he would like, but I think it's very clear-cut. When he got to the part that was a record of how the committee was set up, he stopped reading and went into his shrug and smile routine. Perhaps given time and if we were dealing with a single question.... But that did not seem to be a question that would require a lot of answer. What the kids were mostly concerned about were things like the marijuana laws. I know the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) would be interested in such questions, and so would the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). They spent a lot of time asking questions on their concern in those areas. Again I would have had to plead some ignorance in those areas, like the beach parties. However, by explaining to them that it is a federal responsibility....

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, I can't believe the level of debate that the Premier has fallen into. If the Premier is suggesting....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order, please.

MR. LAUK: I have never raised any issue with respect to marijuana laws in this province. If the Premier is intending to impugn my character, I wish him to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If there is any such imputation, I would ask the Premier....

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, Mr. Chairman, I'm not impugning anyone's character. It is on record that the New Democratic Party nationally is in favour of decriminalizing marijuana, that's all. Our party does not have a position on it.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, the Premier referred directly to "the member for Vancouver Centre." He was pointing at me. I have my own views with respect to the laws of this country. I think they should be obeyed, and so should the Premier think that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Vancouver Centre has asked that if there is any imputation of wrongdoing....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Not at all, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Premier withdraw it?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Certainly, if he feels sensitive in that area. I felt that his party's position on the record clearly demonstrated what the New Democratic Party felt in that area.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I pointed out to the students that the federal government, the present Liberal government, announced — and I believe it has the concurrence of the federal Conservative Party as well — that this was an area in which they were going to move. It is not an area for provincial jurisdiction. I only brought this up in passing as a type of question to go along with the beach party. I would say that some of our members might be interested, and I know they won't take offence if they are interested in issues that are local in nature. I know the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who is from Saanich, would be interested in that because it is in his constituency. I'm sure he wouldn't take offence.

Those are the sorts of areas that the students were interested in. I felt, by and large, the students showed a great capacity.... Most of their concerns were for the future of their province, the ability to get a job, the type of training they might have. However, if I wasn't clear in my answer, I've certainly had an opportunity to clarify it today.

It's a matter of record that the president of our party set up the committee. I dealt with that question before with the news media. I felt they were very clear about my answer, but apparently I wasn't as clear as I should have been, that's all. I have been given an opportunity today by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) to clarify it.

Now back, I guess, to government business, which is what we have been trying to deal with in the Premier's estimates, and those things covering the Premier's office.

Members will be interested, I know, in two very important events that are happening in British Columbia next week, in which the Premier's office, the executive council and the ministers will be involved. That, of course, is the visit of a large number of federal cabinet ministers, in which will be a cabinet-to-cabinet meeting, both as a group and as individuals, in trying to deal with some very real concerns that can only be resolved with the cooperation of two governments — the federal and the provincial. Some of the questions from.... I hesitate to even pick out a member over there, but a question from one of the members over there during question period was directed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) which related to northeast coal and the development of the transportation and rail and port facilities, and the development of infrastructure of community that will house the people in what may be a possible development of a large tonnage — in the millions per year — of additional export from British Columbia.

It is an important area. It's one of the areas, Mr. Chairman — and I know you're interested in this — that will be on the agenda along with a number of other very major items of concern to this province. It is a new idea in federal-provincial relations. This will the first time that we've had this type of working cabinet-to-cabinet meeting with the government of Canada coming to British Columbia in an attempt to give a voice to the west and to British Columbia, or at least to deal with their problems.

I told a meeting the other day that the success of these meetings will be very significant. Also, if they fail it would be very significant at this time in British Columbia. They mark a great opportunity for the province. They offer an even greater opportunity for the government of Canada to show that it is concerned with those things that we in British Columbia, or in western Canada, are concerned with, and concerned that we be heard in the power centres of this country. That has been an area that's been much discussed in the media, and it's a sentiment that has been expressed by British Columbians — whether they are adequately represented; whether our voice is heard; how this country or whether this country works for us at all. Next Monday will be

[ Page 2191 ]

a key day to find out an answer to that question. Early next week will be a very key time.

A number of other areas will also give us an opportunity to deal with questions that have been brought up in this House. While they're not a provincial responsibility, they are a provincial concern, and the answer can be developed by cooperation between provincial and federal governments.

So in many of the areas that I've tried to discuss — sometimes without getting a response from across the floor — such as unemployment and other areas during these estimates, we'll have an opportunity to try and get some of the solutions developed. We have some recommendations to make as a government. Some of those recommendations have been made public. We've discussed them in speeches; we've mentioned them, put them forward as ideas for consideration — maybe not as the final answer but as ideas for consideration. Some of our ideas that we will put forward were advocated by us and agreed to in a major economic communiqué out of the Western Premiers' Conference held recently in Lethbridge, Alberta, and agreed to by the Premiers Blakeney, Lyon and Lougheed. Those will be advocated again and reiterated by British Columbia ministers to their counterparts. So I know that next Monday will be a busy day and I know all members of this House will encourage those meetings and be encouraged, hopefully, by the type of results we can obtain. That's a significant new area in which I will also have an opportunity....

Of course, with the cabinet coming and with Prime Minister Ohira of Japan coming to visit Canada and British Columbia next Tuesday and Wednesday, we will also have opportunities in that area for international discussions of those very same export contracts that are so important to the long-term stability of our province and the employment of our people. The provision of billions of dollars of funds to our country will help to offset a loss in our international balance of payments, which is one of the reasons why we have high interest rates in this country. The second opportunity, of course, should present itself when the Prime Minister of Canada is in British Columbia, giving an additional opportunity, along with his cabinet ministers, to deal with these topics between first ministers. So next week offers two unique opportunities that could be milestones in both British Columbia's progress within the country — understanding how we're listened to in this country — and the development of our province and our export markets.

The development we talk of, Mr. Chairman, will be of particular interest to you, coming from the centre of our province. The port development in Prince Rupert, the development of just one resource — and the major resource we're talking about at this time, and not to the detriment of our forests or others, is coal — will have great impact in the northeastern part of our province, and also in your community of Prince George, which would be the terminal for the CNR to carry the freight to Prince Rupert. It will mean increased employment, through the transportation activity, not only through Prince George but also through the northwestern part of our province — through Terrace and into Prince Rupert. The development of Ridley Island as part of this great new vision of northern development in British Columbia will bring a long-awaited port into being.

It isn't just recently that our government talked of this great opportunity, and then set out to do something about it. Many people scoffed. Some from this House scoffed that it was just a dream and just a vision that we could bring off this major development. The people of Prince Rupert had reason to doubt, because the port of Prince Rupert as a major port had been promised to them, not for a decade but for decades. It was one of the original dreams of a major transcontinental route. Many's the time I've heard the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) talk on this subject — that it was one day closer to the Orient, that it was to be the route of the silk trains from the Orient to New York. The lower grades and the easier pass made it a logical route. Somehow, succeeding governments were never able to bring that vision and that dream to fruition. Today we're closer because of the actions of a government that didn't believe the scoffers, didn't believe those who laughed and said it couldn't be done, didn't believe those who only went along to be polite but secretly didn't think we could do it.

We worked at providing the type of studies that needed to be done on the transportation routes, the projected infrastructure needed for that area. We encouraged the companies. We went to Japan and other markets to re-sell the reliability and stability of British Columbia, which they were questioning. We went to regain their respect that we could be a secure and reliable supplier. We went to end the domination that Australia was having in securing new contracts. Australia's position expanded during the early seventies. Their supply to Japan and other Pacific Rim countries had almost doubled percentage wise, and they had become the dominant force in a market that British Columbia helped pioneer with the southeast — through Kaiser, Fording and other companies, and aggressive government action in the 1960s.

We went to re-establish a position, but this time we offered an additional opportunity. We realized that security of supply requires more than a single transportation system, such as we have in the southeast. It requires more than a single port. That is why it was the policy of this government to allay fears and to show that we could be a reliable supplier. But it was also part of our northern vision of development, providing greater employment and economic opportunity over the whole province of a government whose knowledge of the province did not just end in hope. We showed that we were a government that had representation from all of the province, that understood the problems and the opportunities in the northeast, the northwest and the central part of the province, and that we were trying to rekindle the type of economic buildup that was taking place in the early sixties.

Mr. Chairman, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday are very key days in a very key time and could be history-making. British Columbia will have all the players. The government of Canada, whose support is needed, stand to gain the most because British Columbia is a part of Canada and they gain as we gain. But they gain fully in an international way in helping to resolve our international balance of payments. They gain in the increased revenues that will flow to the federal government in increased personal and corporate income tax. They gain as the traffic loads of the CNR are enhanced.

You've got to know what coal did for the CPR and that the largest part of the revenues in western Canada now are paid for by British Columbia coal. It's not paid for by the grain from the Prairies which is subsidized, in that case, by the Crowsnest rates or paid for by other products; it's coal. Coal has make it viable and coal can give this greater opportunity of a broadened traffic and commodity component to increase also the viability of the CNR and the BCR — our own British Columbia Railway, developed by British Col-

[ Page 2192 ]

umbians — to play a role as well. This development will require an additional rail line. It will be a rail line to somewhere, though, and a rail line that is going to proven resources, which are there to carry, because along with the vision you need to have the practical application of the economic plan to make it work. You cannot just be a dreamer. Dreamers who are only dreamers can dream you into trouble.

In this case, the practicalities of this plan have been studied and developed, and today we're on the threshold. The government of Canada, an integral player in the scheme, has a great opportunity to show that British Columbia is a part of Canada, and a great opportunity to allay the fears of those in the west who say the country does not work for them, because the government of Canada doesn't listen, that they only gaze at their navels or look eastward, and somehow the west is forgotten. This is a good chance for them to allay those fears, a unique opportunity at a very, very critical time in the political development of our country. It is a time when, with the Prime Minister of Japan, we have an opportunity, with federal cooperation, to reinforce and develop those economic links which are going to be so vital to the future prosperity of this province.

Mr. Chairman, you're interested. Your constituency will be at the heart of the distribution system not only of this commodity but of the commodities that are coming from our provinces to the east. It can carry the grain from the Prairies, the grain from our own great Peace River area, the potash from Saskatchewan, and the increased development of timber, because in opening up this area it's more than coal. It's making available and giving access to another part of the province of British Columbia, unlocking the treasures and also unlocking the opportunities which are there and have been waiting all these years for a government with the vision and courage to make things happen, waiting for a government to overcome the scoffers, the negative people who said it wouldn't work and will never happen.

Well, today we're poised on the brink and now we put the test not to the government of British Columbia, which has gone far beyond that area — we should go not only to encourage the companies — but to involve the government of Canada in giving confidence to governments from the Pacific Rim, particularly Japan, to their steel companies and others. We've gone beyond. Now the challenge is there for the others to respond to. They will be in British Columbia on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of this coming week. That's the type of vision and leadership this government has demonstrated. Next week could be a key time and more than an opportunity for those to respond, a key opportunity in developing a springboard for further economic success for our province and our country.

Everybody in here talks about an embattled dollar, high interest rates. The root of the problem is dealing with our balance of exports, providing more trade, bringing more dollars to British Columbia, strengthening our dollar, lowering our interest rates, providing employment, securing a greater economic future for our people. Not only is it in employment; it is in securing the future of all those in this province who demand — no, need, must have — government services. Because, Mr. Chairman, you, above all, would know that the services government provides can only be paid for by a healthy economy with people working. They can't be paid for by speeches. Those programs and services that people need that are only dealt with in speeches lead to chaos. They lead to mounting public debt and deficits and deadweight interest, and eventually bankruptcy.

This will also be a guarantee to those in need. You don't have to live, then, in Prince Rupert or Prince George, or Terrace, or Chetwynd or in the northeast to benefit from these projects; it will benefit every British Columbian. It will guarantee a stronger provincial economy. It will guarantee our hospitals, our GAIN program, our Pharmacare. It will help us also, as a government, to be able to meet the commitment to a dental-care program, initiated and brought in by this government. It will help us, then, not only to maintain existing services but to increase them.

This is the type of development and the type of opportunities that British Columbians should assess. They should be looking at the government of British Columbia, the government of Canada, our customers. But they should always also be looking backwards, at those who opposed this program of development when we advocated it in this Legislature, when first forming government. They should look back at those who laughed. They should look back at the record of those who have been negative over the prospects for this province. They should make an assessment on solid performance, and they should make an assessment of who and what it takes to get this province developing. It's more than visions; it's a chance for practical reality.

Next week, May 5, May 6, May 7, will be the key days for British Columbia, key days for Canada, key days in which whatever happens may change the course of events very demonstrably in this province in the future.

MR. LEA: For the last three weeks, Mr. Chairman, we've been asking the Premier a number of questions surrounding the question of whether there's morality in his office. The Premier says....

HON. MR. BENNETT: I've got to leave for five minutes. My deputy will make notes. I will be right back.

MR. LEA: The Premier says: "Look, what the hell are you worried about? Who cares whether there is morality in my office? Business is good." That's what he says. "Business is good; there are coal trains running around; the gross provincial product looks pretty good; there's money in the bank. What are you guys worrying about whether I tell the truth or not for? Let's get on and talk about the business of the province." I think the frightening part is that he believes it.

It's very difficult, of course, to deal with the Premier's estimates when he's not here. His deputy can make notes, but that isn't really the point, is it? But I suppose even the Premier has to leave the room once in a while.

While he's gone I'd like to remind other members of the House exactly what did happen in that school yesterday here in Victoria, Spectrum school. Because when the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) started quoting some of the transcript of that meeting, he said: "Why didn't you read it all?" I'd like to do that, because I think it's more damning than the first part.

The Premier says: "Don't worry whether I'm consistent from one day to the next. Don't worry whether I tell school children the same thing that I told the general public a few months ago. After all, there's money in the bank. Don't worry whether my party has practised dirty political tricks and whether someone in my office may have forged a letter. After all, the future looks bright economically." He says:

[ Page 2193 ]

"Don't worry whether or not there was absolute morality around the shifting of the boundary lines when they had electoral reform when Mr. Eckardt brought his commission report in. Don't worry about that. We won, didn't we? Don't worry whether or not a number of employees took the rap for their political masters — people from the Premier's office, people from the caucus, people from the Social Credit. Don't worry whether I wouldn't stand up and be responsible and accountable. After all, unemployment's not that bad." Not if you're working!

There's an old saying, Mr. Chairman, when the Premier's talking about how good things are: it depends where you sit. We have a lot of new words these days — economic jargon and social jargon — to take care of those sorts of things. For instance, before we used to have either good times or a depression; it was one or the other. Now we have good times, a depression or a recession. We've got another little one they've thrown in there that the economists and politicians have dreamed up. And the Premier's one of those believers that you have a recession, or at least.... No, he's not a believer. I'm a believer that what we really believe in this country — or it seems to be what we believe if we believe Social Credit — is that there's no problem at all with unemployment as long as you're working. There's no problem at all with mortgage payments as long as you can afford to meet them. In other words, it's a recession when your neighbour's out of work; it's a depression when you're out of work. That's what the Premier's talking about.

If things are so good, why do we have about a hundred thousand people out of work? If things are so good, why do we have one of the highest rates of foreclosures...mortgages in the history of our country? If things are so good, why is it, Mr. Chairman, that so many people are worried sick that when their mortgage comes up for renewal they'll have to lose their house? If things are so good, why is it that never before in the history of our country are bankruptcies so high? If things are so good, why are these things happening?

Interjections.

MR. LEA: In B.C. too. The bankruptcies are away up; they're just down a little compared with the other provinces at this particular time. They're way up historically. Fred didn't know that.

The part that's particularly embarrassing is that the Premier cannot understand why it is people are worried about whether he's telling the truth when the economy is not bad. He can't understand it. There was a simple question to the Premier from a school child yesterday in a school: "Mr. Bennett, I understand that recently you announced that you would be forming an ethics committee that would act as a watchdog over separate party operations. Could you please explain why the committee has not been formed?" The Premier's answer: "First of all, I didn't announce it." The Premier did announce it. Everybody in this chamber knows that he announced it. The Premier said he didn't announce it. "Don't worry about it, though. We've got money in the bank."

The Premier says: "Well, first of all, I didn't announce it. It was brought by a motion of the former president of the party, mostly to do what the party already did." There we go again. He says: "...mostly to do what the party already did." But a few minutes ago in the House here he said they never did it. He said maybe it was a lack in the party that he belongs to. They didn't do it, but he says here they did. One of the things you have to have if you're going to do this sort of thing is a good memory. "Well, first of all, I didn't announce it. It was brought up by a motion by the former president of the party, mostly to do what the party already did, and that is to make sure that every member had a clear set of guidelines. They brought a motion that's run by the executive of the party, not by me, and they would call it on a needs basis." It's hard to imagine, Mr. Chairman, what the needs basis would be. We have an executive assistant out of the Premier's office who disappeared, who resigned with no explanation, although there were rumours to the effect that the typewriter that executive assistant used is the typewriter that wrote one of the forged letters of Gordon Townsend. Don't worry about it; the coal trains will run on time. What would the need be when you have a research group from the Social Credit caucus going out and telling people to write phony letters and, if need be, to forge them? Well, the Premier and his party don't feel that there's any need to refer that to the ethics committee. That's why they've never called it together. Another executive quit from the Deputy Premier's office — again, in mysterious circumstances. There was never a full explanation. What, for goodness' sake, would be the need to call together this ethics committee that the Premier likes to talk about?

We have charges that the report put in by the electoral reform commission of Mr. Eckardt had been altered; no need there to have an ethics committee look at anything. Just what is it that this ethics committee would look at? If those members over there started to level with the public of this province, that's when their ethics committee would probably be called in to do their job — to find out why this government has changed its policy, the policy they've had for the last four and a half years.

In his answer to the school children, the Premier — this is frightening too — explains to them what a political party is all about. He said that there's no need for an ethics committee; they haven't done anything yet that would call the committee into play. All of those things are things that are pretty ethical, I suppose, in the Premier's opinion. After all, there's money in the bank. He said that that's not the government; that ethics committee is not there to look into the government; the ethics committee is there to look into the political party system. That's what he said. In other words, the government can divorce itself from the party and do anything they want. They can talk about seatbelts that aren't there. They can have forged letters. As long as it comes out of the government offices, then there's no need for the political party and its ethics committee to take a look at it, because, after all, we know that these people over here don't belong to a political party; they belong to the government.

Then he said: "I might explain what a political party is." This will probably interest all of us, because we didn't know this before. "A political party is a volunteer membership of citizens who express a particular political philosophy." Okay, so far, so good. He's saying that a political party is made up of a volunteer membership of citizens who express a particular political philosophy. I think we'd have to agree with that. But then he also said:

"One of the other requirements of that group, before they can be called a political party, is that they're worried as a group about the conduct of all their members — they're trying to set guidelines. If

[ Page 2194 ]

some of them stray or if some of them advocate things that would not be part of the party's strategy, they would have a way to deal with it internally. And that's what they've done."

If you just take a look at this statement here, you'll find inconsistencies in the statement. Not only couldn't he remember what he said a few months ago, when he got to the end of about three paragraphs he couldn't remember what he'd said in the beginning. Up here he says that the ethics committee is not there to look into government but to took into the political party system. Then when you get down here: what's a political party supposed to do? Well, he said that a political party is to look into the conduct of its members — trying to set guidelines. And if some of them stray or if some of them advocate things that would not be part of the party's strategy, then they would have a way to deal with it. So he's saying one of two things: either that's not true, or the party condones the actions we've seen in the past few months in this province from that government and its members. He's saying that the party condones forgery. He's saying that the party condones saying that there's no seatbelt when there is; that the party condones the Premier, saying he didn't announce the ethics committee, when he did. He's saying that the party condones all those things, so there's no point in calling the ethics committee into action. He put Strongman in there. Thank goodness for us he didn't put a weak man in there, because maybe the committee would never be called. Do you think there's a good chance of that, Mr. Chairman? Do you think that the ethics committee of the Social Credit Party will ever be called?

Would you find out how much time I have left, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hansard has advised me that you have 17 minutes, Mr. Member.

MR. LEA: So I've already had 13 minutes. When I first got up the Premier said he'd be leaving for 5 minutes and would be back.

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

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

NAYS — 28

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, this will only take a minute. I just wanted to advise the committee that unfortunately the duties I left to attend took longer and will take longer than anticipated, and I was longer than I suggested I would be gone. I apologize to the committee if some member took offence, but I will have to spend some time cleaning up an urgent matter which will require me to leave the House for a few minutes later on.

MR. LEA: Has the Premier finished his business now?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, but I'll wait till you're finished, then I'll go out and finish it.

MR. LEA: What about the next person? I mean, call another vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. For the information of members, it is not possible to raise a vote, that is on the floor in committee. The vote can be defeated or passed; it cannot be lifted.

MR. LEA: It can be withdrawn.

You know, I think we're skating on the thin edge of disaster here, Mr. Chairman. The Premier said he was going to leave for five minutes; he was gone for 13 and still wasn't back. I suppose that's okay, because we've got money in the bank. You can't believe a word the Premier says. For instance, you can't believe whether there is or isn't a seatbelt in his car. Schoolchildren can't believe the Premier when he speaks. A school child asked the Premier: "What about the ethics committee?" He said: "I didn't announce it." You know, some people have forked tongues; other people have tongues like a potato-masher.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I recognize where the debate is coming from at the present time, but I think there is a time when you have to back up a bit. It's a well-established rule in this House that a member cannot say things like you can't believe a thing another member said. It just isn't done in this House, and there is no point in letting it go by. If we allow that to continue, Mr. Chairman, then there will be no rules left in this House. It's rapidly getting to that point anyway, thanks to some of the members like the one opposite who was just speaking.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Order, please. Again, all members must take upon themselves the spirit of debate and all the other obligations that are on all hon. members when speaking in the House. Among them is courtesy and civility when discussing points.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I don't see how we can achieve those very desirable ends when the Premier says: "Oh, by the way, when you finish speaking, I'm going to leave." In other words, he's....

[ Page 2195 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. I was hoping that the Chair or someone would ask that member to withdraw the statements that he made about not being able to believe what another member of this House said. There's not much difference between saying that and saying that a member lied. In fact, there's no difference. That's not allowed in this House. The member should withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With all due respect, the Chair did not interpret the matter in the same way. Nonetheless, again, I would ask the hon. member that if he was implying anything.... Or perhaps because the minister finds a certain remark offensive to the House, the member, in the tradition of this parliament, would withdraw it.

MR. LEA: I didn't say anything about other members in this House as to whether they're telling the truth or not. But I think whether I believe it or not is my business. They can say anything they want. Whether I believe it is neither here nor there to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, again, the traditions of parliamentary debate have been that if a member has been asked to withdraw something that another member finds in some way offensive........

MR. LEA: I believe.... Yes, Mr. Chairman, if the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) has been insulted, or his feelings have been hurt, then I, of course, withdraw the remark. You will remember, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The member withdraws.

MR. LEA: You weren't here then....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources on a point of order.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: With respect, on a point of order, it has nothing to do with whether I feel insulted. That member couldn't make me feel insulted, because he hasn't the capacity to do that. It's the House which feels insulted or which is abused — not any particular member in the House. It's been a long-standing ruling of this House that you cannot seem to do something, or attempt to do something, by any method which the rules say you cannot use. You cannot come in the back door to get out the front, in terms of abusing the rules. When a member stands and says that any member of this House cannot be believed, that you can't believe something a member said, there is no difference between that and saying that a member lied. That must be withdrawn under the rules of this House. I'm not offended; I'm not insulted. But this House has been insulted, and this House is offended by that kind of language. It must be withdrawn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate the remarks made by the hon. minister, The Chair did hear a withdrawal on that matter. Again, I would caution all members that moderation of debate is always in order in this House and ask the member for Prince Rupert to continue on vote 9.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, my feelings are hurt. When that minister was a member of the opposition, he brought a forged letter into this House and read it as if it were a fact. I didn't accuse him of anything.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, we are on....

MR. LEA: Remember that, Bob, when you brought that letter in, and tried to use it against Nicolson? You don't remember that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Selective memory.

MR. LEA: Yes, selective memory. My feelings, — are a little hurt.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, order, please. Again, if we would continue to address the Chair during debate, these particular outbreaks would seldom occur. If those who are not on their feet and have not been recognized by the Chair would keep their remarks to themselves, under the standing orders of this House, the debate could continue in an orderly manner. The member for Prince Rupert has the floor.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. LEA: As I was saying before the Premier came back, it isn't that the Premier has a problem remembering what he said two months ago. In this statement, the Premier couldn't remember at the end what he said at the beginning. We know that if you're going to talk like the Premier, the first rule is that you have to have a good memory. You have to, because it's very difficult to explain the mouthings of the Premier in any other way than to wonder whether or not you're hearing the facts.

When a school child asks the Premier, "Why did you set up the ethics committee?" and he says that he didn't even announce it — when we've got papers, documents and TV coverage to say the opposite — you do have to wonder whether you're hearing the facts, or at which time you were hearing the facts.

The point I made when the Premier was out is one point I would like to make again before I take my seat. Every time we've asked the Premier about those inconsistencies — the dirty tricks, the forged letters, the innocent people who were fired to cover up for their political masters, the electoral reform committee report and Gracie's finger, all the things that we could call unethical.... He has gotten up every time and said: "What are you worried about? We've got money in the bank. The trains are running on time. We're going to have coal running around the province. Who cares whether or not I'm telling the true facts?"

Is it interesting? Is anybody interested in whether there is morality in the Premier's office? Is anybody interested in whether there is an ethical standard in the Premier's office when the trains are running on time and we've got money in the bank? The Premier doesn't think we should be. The Premier can't seem to understand it. He says: "Why are you

[ Page 2196 ]

worrying about whether or not I'm lying when there's money in the bank? Let's get away from these silly questions. Let's talk about the economy, interest rates and unemployment. Who cares whether there is a morality standard in my office as long as business is all right?"

That's what the Premier would want the people in this province to believe. The frightening part is that he thinks people in this province will agree with him. The frightening part is that he has no regard for the people in this province and what they consider to be an ethical standard in dealing with the people in this province in a moral way. He doesn't care, because he doesn't understand. But the worst part is that he doesn't know that the people of this province do understand.

When that woman in the gallery spoke out one day.... It was against the rules for her to speak, but we were asking questions of that Premier and that citizen of this province said: "We have a right to know." I think we do have a right to know. I think every citizen of this province has a right to know whether the Premier's office is one that is being ethically run. We have a right to know where those funds came from that came into his office from Austin Taylor Jr. and Ian Adams. We have a right to know who signed the cheques on those political slush funds. We have a right to know why Grieg is no longer with government service. We have a right to know why Dan Campbell resigned.

After all, we paid him, Grieg, Lenko, and Campbell. As citizens of this province our tax dollars paid the wages of these people who have now severed their relationship with government, either through being fired or through resigning, with absolutely no explanation from the Premier. And he says: "What do you care? We've got coal trains. What do you care? We're having a problem with Ottawa. What do you care? We've got money in the bank. What do you care about unemployment? It's not bad, compared to the other provinces. What do you care about political morality when the till is full?"

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

It makes you wonder exactly where we are at in this province when the Premier — the first minister — says: "Who cares about morality? Who cares about ethics as long as there is money in the bank and the trains run on time?" It reminds you of other leaders of other days and other like parties.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I welcome you to your new-found glory.

I also wish that the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) was still here. That sanctimony is almost incredible when you think of it. I guess he thinks that maybe some of us have short memories. I was here from the time he got here, and when he stands up and gives that kind of statement — in the first place, not a point of order and the second place, a sanctimonious statement — it does offend me a little.

To get on with the Premier's estimates, I received a letter a few days ago written by one of my constituents. This is the only one I have received but it was to the effect of why don't we get on with the people's business. However, the person was thoughtful and had written a good three pages indicating that we should slow down, we shouldn't burn our wheels and strip our gears and all sorts of other things. So, Mr. Chairman, my reply was: "Yes, if those were all the ingredients. If the opposition was trying to hold things up by virtue of trying to embarrass someone and take on a person rather than an office, you'd have a point." What we have here — as I explained to my constituent — is a situation in which the Premier, the first minister, is providing the leadership and the precedent — I'll put it in legal terms for your sake — for all the other ministers yet to come in their estimates.

The opposition is charged with the responsibility of doing what we're doing — asking questions of the government and making the government accountable. That's the only balance in our system. If we, as an opposition, accept behaviour from the first minister, then we can expect to be placed in exactly the same position by the other ministers to follow. And the people in the province will have no answers to the questions that they require answered. I can't believe, for example, that on a very simple question, such as the jetfoil, where the Premier met with business people in this city in this building and made deals, he came out of that meeting and said: "You'll have to ask another minister what happened." He's the first minister. He called the meeting. That's the kind of behaviour that we can expect. But that's an easy one.

There's no question that if I were the Premier of this province and had my staff and others dealing with slush funds, and had one of my staff, who possibly was on leave of absence, handing out money in thousand-dollar bills and not asking for receipts, I think I'd be embarrassed and would have some difficulty answering that question. Yet I should take the responsibility as the leader of the government, leader of the party and the president of the executive council. That's another question that was asked.

It's not fair to have this kind of leadership, because it will seep through to the other ministers. I can guarantee one — the one who was up on a point of order a little while ago. His behaviour has never been the epitome of good behaviour, but I can just imagine what it will be after this.

We asked some questions about political polls. Maybe they weren't political polls, but you know, I will continue to call anything that Goldfarb does a political poll until somebody can get up and tell me that it wasn't one, because that's what Goldfarb does. That's what his company does for a living, and they do some consultation based on their polling. The Premier just has to answer about that one little invoice which went to his faithful servant, Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown worked for the Premier and the province and got a bill from Martin Goldfarb. Martin Goldfarb doesn't send bills to people who don't ask him for services. If he did that very often he wouldn't be a man of great fame and have a corporation of high profile among politicians, because they're the people who use him.

I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that somebody asked Martin Goldfarb for some political advice, and that somebody was in the Premier's office, where the bill was sent. Then the billing number was changed on it so that it could be sent on to the Provincial Secretary's ministry. Now we're told: "Wait until you get to the Provincial Secretary." I say to you that if we wait until we get to the Provincial Secretary, under these circumstances, he'll follow the leadership, because that's the leadership that's been given. The leadership is: "Cover up. Don't do anything that you don't have to do."

HON. MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the words "cover up"....

[ Page 2197 ]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'll withdraw the words "cover up" if that's what would make the Premier happy. I However, I suggest that however you look at it, it's bad behaviour on the part of the first minister of this province, who a little while ago was telling us how he's going to be in touch with those great powers in the east and put B.C. on the map. Fortunately, the thing that puts B.C. on the map, under the guidance of this government, is the good fortune to have some trees, some minerals and a lot of hard-working people. Otherwise we'd be off the map with the kind of leadership we've had from that Premier and his government. It's a sad day.

I just want to briefly go over.... I'm not going to go through it the way my colleague did, but when I saw the news I was quite amazed, when the Premier said last night to a school child: "Well, first of all, I didn't announce it." And then he was speaking to a school person who had asked the question: "I understand that recently you announced that you would be forming a political ethics committee to act as a watchdog...." I want to go back — I don't think this has been brought forward — and forget about the tapes that were run on the Premier at that time. I want to go back to October 17, 1979. Here's the story, "Red-faced Bennett Vows Party Cleanup," and in the body of the story he says that although it distresses him to have to do so he "will bring forward" — note "he" — "a resolution at the November Socred convention for the establishment of an ethics committee to lay down guidelines to ensure a similar affair is never repeated." That was October 17.

AN HON. MEMBER: What has happened since?

MR. COCKE: I'll tell you, a lot has happened since. A lot has happened since this House has convened. I can tell the Premier very simply we could have been through his estimates two or three weeks ago had he come into this House and told us the answers to the questions that were asked. He says: "But don't ask me embarrassing questions." Well, then he should not place himself in an embarrassing position. That's all. If you don't want to be asked embarrassing questions, then don't place yourself in an embarrassing position. Then nobody can ask you an embarrassing question. I think it's fairly simple.

So really, Mr. Chairman, I do think it's most unfortunate that we've come to this stage where we're saying to ourselves we are spinning the wheels. I've been here 11 years, and in that 11 years I have learned that nothing that happens in this place is really spinning wheels because there are lessons that have to be learned. An opposition charged with the responsibility of gleaning information, making sure that the checks and balances work in our parliamentary process, is absolutely right in doing what we're doing. We must continue, and I'm warning the rest of the ministers that there'd better not be this kind of behaviour, because it will be just as tough and long with the rest of them. This is absolutely unacceptable.

My standing committee met to convene. There are standing committees in this House that have never met to convene. The fair elections practices committee — has it met? It has not even convened, Mr. Chairman. What a shameful waste of time. We don't meet at nights; the press are giving us a little bit of a chat today. We put our position very clear on that. We should be meeting in our committees, and that Premier should be seeing to it that we're meeting in committees. When the New Democratic Party was in government in this province we had committees out listening to people, talking to people, helping people. We're not doing that any more, we're back to the old shoddy ways. This is a government that's supposed to be full of ambition, full of energy, full of the work ethic. They don't work and they don't permit others to work, Mr. Chairman, and that's the shame of it all. I hope that they're out enjoying the sun, but unfortunately they're likely up in your riding telling the folks just exactly what you're doing down here — carping away and doing nothing. There was no positive statement from North Peace River — not a bit, except a foolish circular that he sent up to his folks telling them all that he was going to support the ministers no matter what.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Dennis, do you really think they'd buy a used school from you over Tony?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for New Westminster has the floor on vote 9.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, my very good friend the Minister of Tourism, the member for North Okanagan (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), makes some very, very useful statements from time to time in this House. Her problem is that sometimes she doesn't make them loud enough for people to hear.

I just feel that, since the Premier is carrying on with this behaviour, we would just like him to stand up and tell us that he's going to change. I rather thought he would. There have been some hints of it in recent days. We heard a nice political statement a little while ago, but not a word of answer in that political statement. There's no question in my mind that that's the case.

Mr. Chairman, let the Premier get up and confess his faults. Turn over a new leaf, and let's see if we can get this province rolling the way some people want it to be rolling, as quickly as possible.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's good to see the member for Vancouver Centre back, in a better humour and smiling. Just to respond again, I would like to put into the record the answer to do with the Goldfarb invoice, provided by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). I'll just read it again. 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, 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 over the role of research as a management tool. It would lead 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 the public receives and understands information regarding government."

[ Page 2198 ]

It's just as I told you from the first day: the $2,500 was not a political poll. Mr. Chairman, they just didn't want to hear me say it, because they had a couple of days' talking.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and a number of members, I notice, keep mentioning the amount of time. I don't know why they're keeping score or a record. Certainly none of the rest of us are conscious of a long period of time. Time sure flies when you're having fun. Obviously it's a preoccupation of theirs.

Public business can take a long time, depending on the way in which various members approach their role and how they're going to serve their constituents or their constituency and the priorities they put on what's important. Of course, all of us should set our own priorities. Government is very capably proceeding with very, very aggressive programs, both in the preparation and introduction of legislation and in the management of the people's affairs, in doing those things that do not require additional legislation. In fact, things are going very well in the province of British Columbia. We've identified the problem areas that we're working on that spill over into our province as part of Canada, and spill over into Canada as part of a North American problem, the U.S. recession. Next week we'll be dealing with those with the government of Canada.

The member for New Westminster seems to feel that somehow it's important that he keep reminding the committee of some record that he's attempting to establish. I don't know what it is, whether it's for tediousness or for repetition, or whether he feels that somehow their political game is to frustrate the government. The government is proceeding very well. By the standards of the opposition, I think that this committee is proceeding as well as it has ever proceeded, with their style, from the legislative committee meetings that I remember over the past four or five years. So I don't know what the member is talking about when he says he's not happy with the way the committee is proceeding. Obviously that may have something to do with his own interpretation of his own performance or that of his party.

To get on, I have again provided the answer to do with the question, supporting again that the $2,500 wasn't for any political poll. That was mentioned right off the bat. Of course, that correct answer frustrated the opposition, and they had to keep asking the question in order to get it in some people's minds, and perhaps even get it reported. You don't have to be accurate to be reported. All they want is the headline on the radio, asking the question. Some people take the question as a fact.

The tactic of framing an allusion or an incorrect impression in a question has been an art well mastered by the New Democratic Party in this province over a number of years. I remember, Mr. Chairman, when I was just a private citizen up in the Okanagan, having my name mentioned incorrectly in connection with this chamber by two members of the New Democratic Party then in opposition, a Mr. Dowding and a Mr. Williams. The New Democratic Party...still very active, still very strong.... It was a matter for a court case in which a judge made a very serious statement about their conduct and their willingness to use this chamber in order to unfairly attack persons. I remember that judgment very well, and I will bring it in and read it to the members verbatim.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, to reflect upon a judgment of the court, which has gone through the system, and to raise the question of judgment by a court, knowing full well that members in this House cannot properly comment on judgments of the court — that is to say, disagree with the views of a judge, because it would be considered a contempt.... No other member is entitled to raise the opinions of the court other than the actual decision, and not the opinions of the judge as raised. If the hon. member is going to do so, he's in breach of the standing orders.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The ruling of the Chair would be that if reasons for judgment have been filed by a judge and thereupon have become a matter of public record, it is certainly open for members of this assembly to read those reasons or quote from them.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm now....

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

MR. LAUK: That's precisely the standing order, and I agree with Mr. Chairman: the only time a member may refer to the judgment of the court is when reading the reasons for judgment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The ruling of the Chair, for the benefit of the first member for Vancouver Centre, would be that a member of this assembly is at liberty to quote from reasons for judgment once they're handed down, or to comment upon them in the same way as, for example, a student of law or a citizen in a community law school in the course of an educational course can debate the wisdom or merits of a particular judgment. My ruling therefore is that in his remarks so far the Premier is not in violation of any of the standing orders of the House.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm encouraged now, because it does make a point on matters brought up. In estimates tomorrow I will bring in the judgment and, rather than paraphrase it or refer to it, I will read it to the members, because that judgment was hard won by a private citizen trying to protect his name against those in the Legislature. We talk about the privilege of the Legislature. It's a very difficult thing; it takes a lot of courage and a lot of expense to clear your name. That's why a historic milestone in the judgment — which clearly puts into perspective what happened to affect the rights of that citizen — is very important and should be a reminder to all of us of the tremendous responsibility we carry in this chamber. Because of that I'm going to bring it tomorrow in my estimates and read it for the members, because I think it's a good reminder. History revisited is always a good reminder for members, especially if the tactic may be seen to be copied or repeated, and especially if the tactic which became the object of the judge's remarks in the judgment could provide some guidance. I have read it and made it available before, but obviously some haven't taken note of it. I'm going to be pleased to bring it tomorrow and read it to the members. I know the member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is interested; I believe he was a witness at that trial. It's very, very interesting, and I hesitate to say that the member for Vancouver Centre, as a lawyer, will be interested in it.

[ Page 2199 ]

Now, Mr. Chairman, again I'd like to read the answer to do with the Goldfarb report, because the question has been asked a hundred times. Again I'll read the answer provided by the Provincial Secretary.

"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 of 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 a standard practice in the preparation of government advertising programs, a device with no more sinister purpose than to assure that the public receives and understands information regarding government."

Yesterday we did go through although we strayed from those responsibilities under my vote, the way in which government information should be made available because the public must understand what programs we provide for them. It's not just enough that British Columbia has the best programs for people in Canada. It's no good at all if they don't know about them. They don't know about them so they can take advantage of them. Now all of us that work in our constituency offices, when we're there on weekends away from the House tending to the individual needs of the constituents, know.

The member for Vancouver Centre is shaking his head. I know that doesn't mean that he isn't home on the weekends looking after his constituents. I'm sure he'll bring in his schedule and will show that every week and that every Saturday, every 10 minutes like I do, he's got appointments in his constituency office helping his constituents as I do and is finding out that one of the problems is this: many of them are there with great concern. It means a lot to them. They don't have high salaries, they don't have a lot of money; they're average people that need help; they're not legally trained to know all the intricacies of government. The help they need is there to be received and they just don't know how to get it. Somehow the government offices frighten them. They come to their MLA, especially when they've got a friendly MLA that is there working weekends to help them. I talk to them and they say: "Mr. Premier, what has happened is that I'm a single parent and I need help." I show them the programs the government has, and the allowances which have recently been increased by this government and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), and how we can bring some help to them. They didn't have to wait for me; I'm pleased to help.

But, you know, it's government information programs that have got to be improved, and that's what they're trying to do. Those people know, so there won't be a second's delay or a day's delay in receiving the type of help that government must bring to them. Those are the people to whom the politics of the situation and the political yammering means nothing. They look on government as whether there is any help here for them. "Can somebody tide me over a difficult period in my life? I don't want to be a ward of the government forever, but I'm having a tough time. Is there anything to help me?" We can do it as MLAs but the government information should be clear enough, aimed at the average person — not just at the lawyers who know how to get the information, how to interpret all the loopholes and how to get government land or whatever it is, but to the average person so they know how government works for them, how they can get services, whether it's a single-parent family or whether it's applying for other government services or taking advantage of government opportunities.

One of the opportunities the people are understanding better, particularly in the small communities, is the ability of government to provide small business loans up to $30,000. I shouldn't say "loans"; I should say assistance of up to $30,000. Last weekend, as part of servicing my constituency, meeting with them I had an opportunity to preside at an opening of a firm called Kelowna Craftsman, which gave me great pleasure. The gentleman, Peter Webb, comes from England. He's a fine craftsman of furniture that has made his mark in England in developing reproductions of period pieces, of Georgian furniture and others. His furniture has been sold to members of the royal household; it has been sold to famous personages in Britain, to famous personages in the United States.

Two and a half years ago before the election of the Thatcher government, frustrated with high taxes and the growing bureaucracy in Great Britain, he decided to sever the ties with the country in which he was born and had built a reputation because he could no longer take the government interference, government taxation and bureaucracy that was throttling initiative in that country.

He went to British Columbia House, and the agent-general may know this story well. He'd heard of British Columbia, he'd heard of the opportunities that this government provided. He went to British Columbia House and he said: "I want to come to Canada. I want to go to British Columbia, where the opportunities lie." Mr. Chairman, I know you'll be interested. He said: "I want to go to British Columbia, this great place British Columbia, that no longer throttles initiative like it is being throttled here in Great Britain. Yes. I'm a success here and I can live with it, but we know we can do so much better. I've reached that age in life" — he's younger than I am — "where life's too short to spend it fighting that type of big heavy government." And he said: "The year 1984 is getting closer here in Great Britain. I don't want to live through that here."

So he applied to come to Canada and to British Columbia, and he came. And then he....

MR. LEA: What's the name of his company?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Kelowna Craftsman. I'm going to give the commercial for it because it's great stuff.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You wait till I finish.

Then he came and found out about — through this government, the Ministry of Industry and Small Business De-

[ Page 2200 ]

velopment — the ASEP program that helps small business. It's a small business program that puts a regional economic and industrial development officer in each region. So he went to the development officer — whose salary is paid for by this government — working in that region, and explained the problem. And this is the way he came to Canada.

He also had occasion to visit me in my constituency, because — he thought he was leaving bureaucracy behind — his permit to be a landed immigrant in Canada was all fouled up and he needed some help. You know what I said? "Boy, oh, boy, that's the type of initiative we like to see." And I was pleased to work with my federal MP in cutting out the unnecessary delay in his entry into the country. Well, today he started Kelowna Craftsman.

MR. LAUK: Can we send you other immigration problems?

HON. MR. BENNETT: "We" meaning England? You're not the government there anymore. You were thrown out. Don't say we.

Anyhow, I want to say that Saturday we opened it up. His shop is open. He is employing 19 people. He's training a number of apprentices in the craft of furniture-making and tradesmen who have come from British Columbia, who are not noted for their skills in international craftsmanship. He hired them through Canada Manpower. He went to the trouble of interviewing people who didn't have jobs through Canada Manpower. On Saturday we went through the shop, and his 19 employees were there. They were very proud to be taking a part in entrepreneurial initiative. The member from Fraser Valley is going to be interested in this, because he has a profit-sharing plan for his employees, to encourage them in the type of ownership and productivity the member has been so strong on — giving all our people that type of opportunity.

This furniture is not just for the local market. In fact, the furniture is for the international market. He already has through his visits and initiative, set up a shop and developed orders for 17 months' production from the United States alone.

There are 19 people there, either learning a trade or using a highly-skilled trade, through the help of government placement and government encouragement. But the general atmosphere attracted him to British Columbia. Saturday was worthwhile.

Now those are the sorts of things that we work on in our constituency offices, that I was talking about. Those are the types of things where you need the information programs, such as Industry and Small Business Development had, to make them known, to put the people in, to make sure the advertising reaches the people that need to hear it, to even let those as far away as Great Britain recognize the opportunity we have, not only for themselves but also for 19 British Columbians.

He's training young apprentices in what will be a highly specialized craft. It's an international industry, small as it may be. You think of international industry as pulp mills, or mines; but this type of thing — labour-intensive, skill-intensive.... A minister who was described as the greatest Economic Development minister in the history of British Columbia....

MR. LEA: Yes, but he said it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He was described by an unimpeachable source as the greatest Economic Development minister in the history of the province. And now, Mr. Chairman, that minister has a chance to be, and is in fact, already the greatest Minister of Industry and Small Business Development in the history of the province — setting records with every ministry, with every undertaking.

Anyhow, it's those sorts of things, small though they may seem.... I noted a few chuckles from the other side; they may seem small to them. Not everyone can be a highpriced entrepreneur, or has the chance for legal training and great opportunity for earnings. Mr. Chairman, would you be interested in.... ?

But you know, these types of opportunities benefit everybody. It's a type of work that needs the information services of government, and the type of research that has been touched upon in the answer that was given yesterday, and again today. They assist the people so that they don't have to wait until they can get to their MLA, even though there are some MLAs in this House who are prepared to be in their constituencies, meeting with them every Saturday — as many Saturdays as they can, appointments every ten or fifteen minutes, giving the people access, nobody turned down, as many as they can see. It's the type of thing I do, when I go up to my constituency, Mr. Chairman, even though the office of Premier is very demanding on my time — the type of thing I know all MLAs are doing, as their itineraries will attest to. That's why information is so important. You've got to let the people know the opportunities and the services available for government. You don't do that with quill pens; you use all the modern techniques that are available.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), the Chair is constrained to say to members that the Chair noted with interest the enthusiasm with which the Premier has told the House that he's found another citizen of Kelowna also having a daily interest in cabinet-making.

The first member for Vancouver Centre continues on vote 9.

MR. LAUK: You've left me almost speechless, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was that your plan?

MR. LAUK: Look at all the hopeful members over there.

I have a question for the Premier with respect to policy concerning his office and I'll wait for his attention. A very serious matter. If I could have the Premier's attention, Mr. Chairman....

HON. MR. BENNETT: I can hear you.

MR. LAUK: It was reported that the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) in reply to questions on a recent report criticizing tourism and the Ministry of Tourism in the province, described the report by using a term which I'm not entitled to use in this chamber. She said it was nothing but "expletive deleted." I want to ask the Premier if the minister's statement accurately reflects government policy. If the Premier can consider whether that is government policy then we'd like to hear about it. Whether the report is nothing but "expletive deleted...."

[ Page 2201 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Censored.

MR. LAUK: The minister called it nothing but "expletive deleted."

HON. MR. BENNETT: Called what?

MR. LAUK: The tourist report — the Ministry of Tourism report. It's well reported, Mr. Chairman, I say to the Premier. We're just interested. We don't want to pursue the matter much further. We're just interested to know whether it's....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Premier rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, no. I was just going to respond to the question.

MR. LAUK: I've got a couple of other questions. I'll be very brief.

The Premier has spent some time this afternoon on a further rambling speech without coming to grips with the many questions that have been asked by the opposition members. There were questions concerning credibility and questions of his performance with the high school students the other day. It was interesting to note that the Premier talked about a member in his riding who has recently immigrated from Great Britain to escape government interference. I'm always amused at people who complain about government interference because the chartered banks of Canada always complain of government interference. They're satisfied with the bank act which gives them a virtual monopoly on making great amounts of profit by virtual usury in this country. They don't complain about that act.

I'm always glad to see businessmen move into British Columbia and employ people, but when they complain about government interference and yet accept an ASEP grant, a forgivable loan provided by two levels of government, then we must conclude that they're not against government interference; they're just against some kinds of government interference. They're certainly glad to see the government arrive from time to time.

I'm also interested in the Premier's statement that he helps with immigration problems. If he has more success in that than other members, then I suggest that all hon. members send their immigration problems involving new immigrants to the Premier for his quick and indiscriminate assistance. I'll be glad if the Premier would indicate what his program is for communicating with the Department of Employment and Immigration.

Do you want to dance or...?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I'm going to answer.

MR. LAUK: Well, wait until I'm finished.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would members address the Chair?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I thought you were. Somebody in your constituency said you were finished.

MR. LAUK: It's amusing, you know.... It was probably the same person that sent you the letter you didn't receive.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's right, it was Emery. Emery Barnes.

MR. LAUK: There are some very serious questions with respect to the Premier's performance which have not yet been answered. Some time ago I raised the problem of the moratorium on uranium mining in the province. I pointed out that in spite of the Premier's denial it was clear that he was actively engaged in selling uranium to foreign countries. I pointed out that as long ago as last June a report from the Department of Economic Development indicated that the government was clearly aware that a company named Norcen, operating near Kelowna, was going to mine 1.2 million metric tons of uranium and as a result the government was fully aware of the potential for uranium mining within the province by mid-year, 1979. In the fall the Premier travelled to Korea and discussed uranium mining with Korean officials. Some time ago, in 1977, the Premier was actively engaged in selling uranium to European economic countries.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's not true, Gary. You know that's not true.

MR. LAUK: Well, the minister of small industry and little development has just interceded and I wonder if he could correct the Province report on both his comments and the Premier's. In reference to uranium, its sale to European economic communities, the Premier said: "They want it. We've got it." Now the Premier has an opportunity to stand up and deny that. The rest of the quote is: "Phillips told top EEC officials in a separate meeting to come and be our guests in the exploration of B.C. for uranium."

AN HON. MEMBER: No, let him finish it. Read it all.

MR. LAUK: Isn't that right? "But he warned they would have to take their chances on whether the federal government would let them take the uranium out."

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it all.

MR. LAUK: That's it.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, there's more.

MR. LAUK: Do you want me to read the whole article?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. LAUK: I'll table it and you can read it. But with respect to uranium, that's what was discussed. It's been tabled before, Mr. Chairman. It's clear that they know what I'm talking about. There's nothing else in the article that in any way qualifies those statements.

Norcen developments was clearly mentioned in a November press release as the company that had negotiated the sale of uranium to Korea, and this followed the trip to Korea by the Premier and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. It's not just a coincidence I'm suggesting — that's actively engaging in flogging uranium and

[ Page 2202 ]

encouraging uranium mining within the province of British Columbia. Apart from any deathbed repentance before the commencement of this session, the Premier denied that. There's a credibility problem.

We pointed out to him before that foreign purchasers of our national resources are deeply concerned with knee-jerk changes in policy without adequate explanations, because they want to negotiate long-term contracts with this country and this province. They must do so with a predictable statement of what the criteria and the ground rules are. They can't have a government that is frightened off by one political or public reaction elsewhere. They want to be assured that long-term contracts will be fulfilled. This brings us to the point of a recent controversy surrounding the government's role in long-term contracts with Japan for the sale of our coal. Japan has complained about the Canadians dragging their feet and the minister was altogether too quick to blame the federal government. Because we find that it's because of the provincial government and the uncertainty and lack of criteria provided to would-be purchasers of our natural resources that the Japanese are hesitant to enter into such a grand scheme. There's no point in blaming the federal authorities, Mr. Chairman. This is part of the credibility problem that we face in this province today.

The Premier denied....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The first member for Vancouver Centre has the floor and I would request that his remarks be given due attention on both sides of the assembly.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. I'll circulate copies of the Blues for those who have missed my statements.

Norcen announced in November that they had completed a contract for the sale of uranium. It was in late February or March that the government declared its moratorium. But I'll tell you something. There's more connection with Norcen in this government than meets the eye. The government was aware of Norcen's potential for uranium exploration and export of uranium ore to Korea. The government was fully aware of it back in mid-June. Secondly, Norcen is closely associated with this government and with personalities in this government. Their interests in the success of that operation are clear. The Premier should come clean about the government's involvement with that private corporation. It should be noted that recently a member of the British Columbia Development Corporation, a prominent director on the board of directors of the BCDC, David Radler, has been appointed to the board of Norcen. The connections are at an interlocking board level and the connections are clear.

There's a close association between this government and that private uranium mining company. The Premier has not made clear the government's intention with respect to that company or uranium mining in the Kelowna area. All of these matters are too coincidental to believe the explanation that has been given by the Premier. The government was aware of Norcen's potential. It went to Korea in the fall. Shortly after their return, Norcen signed a deal with Korea. Now we find that a leading director of a Crown corporation, closely associated with the minister of small development and little industry and with the government, has now been appointed by Norcen to its board of directors.

Something is not right; something is not correct there. I'm sure the Premier can explain clearly what connection the government has with Norcen and why it declared the uranium moratorium after it had actively sold uranium in foreign jurisdictions. The first question I have is whether the statement by the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) on the negative report on her department is government policy. Secondly, what about Norcen?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The first member for Vancouver Centre suggested that he doesn't want to do his MLA's job any more and wishes to send those who have immigration problems to me as the Premier, so I would suppose he will also send along the cheque that's paid to him by the public to do the job, if he wants me to carry it out for him.

MR. LAUK: I'll see how you do first.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I have no knowledge of the statements he attributes to the Minister of Tourism — a fine minister doing a great job, encouraging tourism in British Columbia.

It was interested to watch earlier as the minister introduced her son to this chamber. I had an opportunity to meet him in the hall afterwards. You can see why he's proud of his mother and the great job she's doing for this province.

The member made some very funny statements. He said that because one of the independent directors of the B.C. Development Corporation has also become a director of a company called Norcen, there is a conflict, because they have been given some special consideration by government. Yet the special consideration which he says has been given.... In fact, if they ever thought they had it, it has been taken away, because the government has said there's a seven-year moratorium on uranium mining in British Columbia. They might have lost something that they inadvertently or mistakenly would think that they hoped they had. But they knew well that this government was concerned enough about the type of exploration that had been initiated by the NDP government, with those special uranium exploration authorization orders from the Mines department when Mr. Nimsick — I think that's who it was — was Mines minister.

There had been no policy. They knew full well that everyone had been cautioned. We had a public inquiry in British Columbia. We may not allow it; and the fact is we haven't. We've proclaimed a seven-year moratorium as the first major statement of policy. Norcen may not be very happy about that. Some may not be happy, but the people of British Columbia are happy because it's cleared away the uncertainty that was there while the inquiry was being heard. Dr. Bates is still concluding the writing of a report, and it will be very meaningful to this province. That's the policy. Boy, some benefit!

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The member is reaching. I have a feeling that the member, who is noted for his great sense of humour, again is stretching that sense of humour as he did when he wanted me to take on his constituency work, when he attributed a statement to the Minister of Tourism. It was sort of his attempt to lighten the atmosphere in the Legislature, as it sometimes gets a little heavy in here.

[ Page 2203 ]

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: I just want to wait, Mr. Chairman, until the other conversations subside somewhat, not that anybody will listen to what I have to say. [Applause.] There's an indication of Social Credit attitude to what goes on in this chamber. From the opposition side, there's an automatic desk-pounding at the statement. The members opposite have no intention of listening to what I have to say.

I don't know whether this falls in the category of tedious repetition, but the Premier read at least twice today the communication from the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) that he read into the record yesterday. He obviously appears quite proud of that particular communication. I'll take a moment or two to examine that, if I might. But first I would like to say that after the events of last evening shown on television and commented upon earlier and throughout the afternoon, I suppose one could approach the debate on the Premier's estimates from two points of view: either with anger at the light manner in which the Premier treats questions of that nature, or with extreme sadness because of what the responses of the Premier have done and are doing to the perception that the general public has about the office of Premier and about government generally. I have to approach it with an element of sadness, because I think the responses of the Premier, today and on other days, to questions which examine his credibility have succeeded only in reaching and probably giving support to the lowest common denominator in society that has an extremely cynical view of government.

Yes, the Premier's credibility is in question. I have noticed in the past that other ministers, during the estimates of the Premier, have been on their feet supporting the Premier, saying: "He's a great guy. He's a good leader. His credibility has been established beyond question." Their faith in the Premier must have been shaken by what took place last night and what was related here this afternoon, which only served — through the Premier's own words from his own mouth — to challenge his credibility.

It brings to mind the statement the Premier made or is reported to have made in September last year, following the revelations made by one Mr. Kelly at a constituency meeting of Social Credit in the Colwood community hall, that Social Credit research people and, by implication, the Social Credit Party were involved in a campaign of writing phoney letters to attempt to manipulate public opinion and to mislead the editorial people of newspapers; an attempt to do something false and unethical. The Premier, in commenting upon that on September 27, said: "We have no intention of having our party try to manipulate the media through hotlines or letters to the editor."

That was the Premier's clear, bald, unequivocal statement. But it was subsequently discovered that the Premier, when he was Leader of the Opposition, did exactly that: he advocated the use of hotlines and letters to the editor in an attempt to manipulate the media. The Premier was caught out. He said one thing at one time and something entirely different at another time. That bespeaks some sadness in what the general public's perception of the level of ethics and political morality should be. It makes it worse when the president of the executive council, the Premier, is a participant in that sort of activity — of speaking out of both sides of his mouth, saying things that were in his words "appropriate at the time." That probably typifies the attitude of the Premier with respect to his approach to public affairs: do what seems appropriate at the time; say what seems appropriate at the time.

There hasn't been any refuting done by the Premier about the letters that emanated from his office when he was the Leader of the Opposition — letters that were reproduced in the press, letters about which the Premier has been asked, letters emanating in May 1975 from the office of the member for Okanagan South (Hon. Mr. Bennett) when he was the Leader of the Opposition. The letter said as follows: "It is hoped that this new material" — he's talking about some thing he sent out — "will be useful to those in the constituency who are working directly in the field of communications — in hotline shows and in the preparation of material for the letters- to-the-editor columns in newspapers circulating in your area." Now what's that if it isn't trying to manipulate the media through hotline shows or letters to the editor — writing letters from the legislative office here, saying: "Here was some material that I hope you guys out there will use for those who are working directly in the field of communications — in hotline shows and in the preparation of material for letters- to-the-editor columns in newspapers circulating in your area."

Then, of course, there are other letters with other dates on them, and memos and this sort of thing. Here's a memo dated September 10, 1974, from the Leader of the Opposition, signed: "Yours sincerely, W.R. Bennett." I assume we're talking about the same person who is now the Premier. He said: "September and October will be months of great activity, leading up to our major policy convention on November 29 and 30 in Vancouver. I would hope all constituencies would gear up to answer some actions of the NDP government at the community level — letters to the editor, calls to open-line shows...." Away he goes. There's the manipulation of the media.

On September 27, 1979, the Premier said: "We have no intention of having our party try to manipulate the media through hotlines or letters to the editor." This is precisely the thing he advocated doing when he was Leader of the Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: He denied he ever said that.

MR. HOWARD: He didn't deny it to me. He didn't deny it to the House.

I wish the Premier wouldn't leave, because I'm going to call into question.... That permits me, almost demands that I, in a very sad tone, with sadness in my heart about the low level to which politics has been taken in this province through the actions of our Premier, ask which — Mr. Premier, when you come back — of those statements is the true one: the one that you put in letters in September 1974, and in May 1975, which advocated that Social Credit members activate themselves — those actively working in hotline shows and in preparation of material for letters to the editors; or the one in September 1979, when he was Premier, saying that he had no intention of having his party do that sort of thing. Which is the true statement? They cannot both be true. Because they cannot both be true, in my view, one of them is false. It's that type of double-talk, of saying two separate, mutually exclusive, contradictory things, by the same person, that leads the general public in this province to question the credibility of the Premier, to wonder about the level of his political ethics. It substantiates and confirms the views of

[ Page 2204 ]

that element within our society that has an extremely cynical view of government and politics. All that does is pull down the level of appreciation that should exist in our society of our democratic form of government.

As long as the Premier stonewalls on those questions, refuses to take responsibility for whatever he says, refuses to admit that he might have made a mistake on one occasion; as long as the Premier does what he did last night to a group of school kids, telling them something which on the face of it — and let me put it so that I don't run afoul of the Chair, Mr. Chairman — was not in accordance with the truth, not in accordance with the facts; as long as the Premier persists in doing that, then he is seeking and establishing that it's his desire to see that level of political consciousness prevail throughout his cabinet and throughout this province. It is a disgusting and disgraceful state of affairs.

That's not the only situation. There's the whole question of the secret funds and who the signing officers were; Dave Brown's activities; to what extent he was playing partisan politics using public funds as his salary, paid as a salaried person by the public, to what extent he was attempting to manipulate things to satisfy the power-hungry group in Social Credit. As long as the Premier leaves those questions unanswered, then we're entitled to question his integrity, his credibility and his truthfulness.

Look what he did yesterday and today, Mr. Chairman. Three times, from my memory — maybe it was more — he read into the record a communication which he appears to have received from the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) — and I'm sure he did, because he said that. Even though his answers are sometimes suspect, once in a while we have to believe what he says. He says he got this communication from the Provincial Secretary; we'll take him at his word that he did.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) earlier made the point that as long as the Premier persists in this sort of behaviour and exhibits this sort of low-level integrity, it will permeate the cabinet and they will see this is the way to go. "My leader is going in that direction; my leader is doing these sorts of things. Why shouldn't I?"

Let's see what he did yesterday and today. He reads the communication from the Provincial Secretary. It relates to an invoice from Goldfarb Consultants. I won't read that part of it again; it's been in the record three separate times, anyhow, by the Premier. Reading further, from what that communication that the Premier had in his hand said: "There was no political aspect to this discussion, and any inference drawn by an employee of the comptroller-general that the work involved" — that's the work for which Goldfarb was paid $2,500 — "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." What that says is that the person who worked for the comptroller-general — he's the layman in this case — who wrote that memo, which I'll refer to in a minute, was confused about the role of research as a management tool and may have been led to think of polling when the words "research" and "government" are linked together.

Now that's the memo from Dick. Dick, I take it, is the person whom the Premier referred to as being the employee of the comptroller-general — the layman. Dick said in his memo of January 31, 1979, with respect to the particular request by Goldfarb for $2,500: "We lack sufficient detail to properly audit this account. I refer this for info since the area is politically sensitive." The Premier, in his statement yesterday that he got from the Provincial Secretary, uses those words "politically sensitive."

Where did Dick — this is the employee of the comptroller-general — get that information that it was politically sensitive? The Premier tells us he got it because he is a layman and he may be confused about the role of research as a management tool, and that he may have been led to think of polling when the words "research" and "government" were linked together.

Now we have the letter from Goldfarb. This is what started it all. I'm going to read the whole thing:

Goldfarb Consultants,
3077 Bathurst Street,
Toronto, Ontario,
M6A IZ9
Phone 787-0648.

David P. Brown,
Communications Planning Adviser,
Office of the Premier,
Parliament Buildings,
Victoria, B.C. V8V 4R3

Re: August and September 1978

Consulting fee and travel costs, $2,500

That's all it says. It doesn't say anything in that memo about research, about government, about polling and about anything with respect to research as a management tool. Now how did Dick get that information? How did he get that understanding when the thing he was looking at simply said: "Consulting fee and travel costs"? Was it osmosis? Did he pick it out of the air? Did he see the words "Consulting fee and travel costs," and say: "Oh, that means research and government, and they're linked together"? Nowhere does it say that the consulting fee had anything to do with research; nowhere does it say that the consulting fee had anything to do with government. "Travel costs": no reference to whether they were travel costs with respect to research, government or anything else; nothing as to whether "Consulting fee and travel costs" had any reference to research as a management tool, which the Premier read yesterday was the reason Dick wrote this memo. Dick wrote the memo on the basis of an intuitive thing. He automatically knew, as soon as he saw that thing from Goldfarb: "Aha, that's research as a management tool; that's research and government. He linked them together, and that's why he thought it was politically sensitive.

Mr. Chairman, how can one put this? When the hon. Phil Gaglardi was a member of this chamber some years back he was quoted as referring to something in a polite way as being "heifer dust." That's what I submit this statement of the Premier yesterday and which he reiterated today was: heifer dust. The Rev. Phil Gaglardi said it, and I'm only repeating it and saying that it applies exactly to what the Premier told us yesterday and today, this business that the Provincial Secretary has now put forward as a reason why Dick wrote the memo.

The Provincial Secretary, through the Premier — and the Premier reiterated it, he was so proud of it; he said it three times anyway — put that reference in there: Dick found this

[ Page 2205 ]

politically sensitive because those items of research and management tools and government are all linked together in his mind and he, Dick — the poor layman — was confused; that's why he said it was politically sensitive. But the thing that he was looking at didn't have any reference to that at all; all it was was "consulting fee and travel costs." I submit to you that Dick says "heifer dust." That's what he said, and that's how we can properly identify what the Premier was talking about.

Now we get a memo back in response to this memo from Dick. The memo is from M.F. Churchill, executive director, operations of something. It says: "This discussed with Mr. Brown, and comptroller-general Mr. Bonnell has approved this voucher as okay." I submit to you that what happened, Mr. Chairman, is that once this matter was raised in the House, once this information was acquired, out of $259,000 or something to Goldfarb for his activities in conducting things for the government, out of all of that, the only voucher that came to the Premier's office to David Brown was this one. All the others were identified as to what they were for, and they went through the normal course of events. The comptroller-general or whoever passes these on looked at the voucher and said: "Oh, yeah. Here's Goldfarb wanting so much money." And he tells us what it is. But on this one it's just consulting fee and travel costs; it doesn't identify what it's all about. Then it was raised, and that's why it was raised under the Premier's estimates.

What's Dave Brown's involvement in all this? He's the guy that started it all, and I submit that what happened is that once it was discovered and exposed and the questions started to be asked in this House about it, somebody said they'd better find a coverup answer. That's what that answer is that the Premier read yesterday from the Provincial Secretary: a coverup of the facts. It's an after-the-fact situation.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Order!

MR. HOWARD: All right. The word "coverup" has been deemed to be not a parliamentary word, and I have no intention of transgressing the parliamentary rules.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member withdraws the word.

MR. HOWARD: I withdraw it.

I submit to you that what happened is that they got caught out. The Premier was not able to answer the question even though he knew what the answer was. The Premier knew what the $2,500 was for. He knew what Goldfarb was doing. Dave Brown knew what Goldfarb was doing. They got caught out and attempted to find an answer, and they developed an answer. It's a fictitious answer. That's what it is, and it just doesn't stand up under close scrutiny.

AN HON. MEMBER: He knows of Richard Nixon.

MR. HOWARD: With respect to that gentleman, Nixon, that indicates that the Premier has all of the attributes that Richard Nixon had with respect to the truth.

This is not a correct statement. When balanced against the facts of the situation, it can't be accepted. I'm required by the rules, if insisted upon, to accept the Premier's statement. The Premier read a letter from the Provincial Secretary. The Premier read what was passed on to him by somebody else. If the Premier didn't know what that was all about, he has been taken in by the Provincial Secretary, Dave Brown or whoever was involved in this activity in the first place outside of this chamber seeking to cover up the realities. It's regretful that a nice guy like the Provincial Secretary, a respected member of this chamber, has now been attracted into playing the same kind of game that the Premier has been playing all his political life.

The Premier, in his office, under his premiership, permitted — and, I submit, permitted with glee — the mixing of public function and private pro–Social Credit political function by some of the people working within his office structure, such as those who signed the cheques. Social Credit headquarters sent bills over to the Premier's office, to the attention of Dave Brown — the same guy who is involved in this activity here. What were they doing?

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you say something?

MR. HOWARD: The only thing I can say with respect to the former self-appointed greatest Industrial Development minister that B.C. has ever had is that it's interesting to note that as soon as he made that statement, the Premier changed the name of the ministry.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's like retiring the Rocket's sweater.

MR. HOWARD: The Premier can laugh and joke about these serious matters. He can toss them off as being meaningless. He can appear on television and tell the kids in a high school something that is not the truth; he can do that. He can say in this House, with respect to that: "I'll deal with that television guy who did that." He can say that if he likes. He can exhibit his displeasure at being caught out. He can laugh and joke about it, but it' s not a laughing matter and it's not a joking matter.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, Frank! I wish you were back in Ottawa.

MR. HOWARD: There he goes again. I know what the Premier would wish would happen. He can laugh and joke and mutter about those things across the floor if he likes. He can thumb his nose at the general public and say: "It's none of your business. You don't have the right to know." He can slough things off and attempt to persuade people that he's really telling the truth, that he's really an honourable guy and so on. It won't wash. Ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). As soon as you're out of his sight he criticizes you. As soon as the Premier had gone someplace — I don't know if it was to California or.... Somewhere out of the province anyway — the Minister of Municipal Affairs said: "Oh, he sure handled that dirty tricks thing badly." The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) said the same thing: "Yes, he sure handled that matter badly, did the Premier." As soon as the Premier goes to Lethbridge the same ones chatter away, commenting about the Premier's activities.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I must call to the hon. member's attention the fact that his time has expired.

MR. HOWARD: My time is up?

[ Page 2206 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair further apologizes....

MR. HOWARD: I know the hon. gentlemen opposite are dismayed at hearing the truth about their leader and are applauding that my time is up, but that's the way it goes.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's been very interesting listening to the procedure in the Legislature this afternoon where the elected representatives are supposed to be conducting the people's business. I've listened with a great deal of intent this afternoon — paid close attention — listening for one single solitary, intelligent question from Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. What did I hear all afternoon? Not one single, solitary, intelligent question!

What they're conducting, Mr. Chairman, is a hold-up They're conducting a hold-up of the people's business of this province. I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, this afternoon listening to the same old repetition, the same old referral, the same old garbage.... Slinging their soft pebbles across the floor — holding up. There are, Mr. Chairman, important issues to be discussed and debated in this Legislature, issues that are affecting not only the province of British Columbia but all of Canada. They are issues that will have a bearing on our future in the world with the leadership that this province has shown. If they're not satisfied with the way we have conducted the province's business.... We are looked to as leaders, not only in Canada but, indeed, in all North America.

If they're not satisfied, instead of this drivel, this hold-up that they've been conducting for day after day, they should be throwing across the floor some constructive suggestions. But I'll tell you why there are no constructive suggestions being thrown across the floor. It's because that side is void of constructive suggestions. They have nothing to criticize this government for. Each and every one of them know in their own hearts the tremendous job that we have done, and that we have put hours and hours of sweat and tears into the running of this province. They know when they search their hearts that we have done a yeoman job and that we shine in this province and in all jurisdictions in Canada. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, we have given leadership not only to other provinces but, indeed, under the able leadership of our great Premier, we have been the bright light in providing leadership to our Ottawa government, not only on constitutional matters but in economic policies. And because of the leadership that is emanating from this great province and this great government, you will see as history unfolds that the great economic policy which we deliver to Ottawa will be copied and followed by our national government. We don't want to take credit for it. This government is more interested in Canada than taking credit for what we do. We're more interested in the future of Canada, in the citizens and in those future generations who will grow up and follow us. They will recognize our great leadership ability under our great Premier.

It makes me sick at heart to spend the people's time in this Legislature listening to the drivel that we have had here this afternoon. It's no wonder there are articles in the newspapers decrying all politicians. It makes my heart feel very sad, Mr. Chairman, to think that all politicians, regardless of how hard they work or how sincere they are, are going to be looked at as being feeble-minded, like children playing in this Legislature, because of the actions of that opposition.

I've raised four sons in this province. That's one of the reasons I'm here, fighting for their future. This type of article, where all citizens of this province look on this Legislature and think that all of us are a bunch of kids, when we are elected to be responsible, to come here and carry on their business....

I listened again intently this afternoon. It's a bunch of garbage coming across the floor. They have no sound policies. They haven't got their act together. They're arguing among themselves over whether they should nationalize this or nationalize that. They don't know what they stand for. That is why they have nothing constructive to criticize us about. Not one single, solitary, positive suggestion has come out of that opposition since this House opened some eight weeks ago.

The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), the bright light over there, picked by his leader to lead the House.... I want to tell you, this province would be better off if he were back in Quebec, because of what he's done to this Legislature. Under his guidance and his advice, the opposition are carrying on the way they are. I want to tell you, the people of this province are not stupid and they will know how their loyal opposition is acting.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to respond again to many of those things that have been canvassed over and over again. At least to this side, they are becoming tedious and repetitious. They aren't talking about the things that can improve the province. They are talking about.... Well, they're being silly, in my view — just silly.

Earlier today I introduced some discussion of the very important meetings that will be taking place next week in our province — timely, important. They're important to those who care what happens about this province, and perhaps to them the future of the province is more important than the political gain, the partisan gain that says, "We'll hurt you today," or, "We'll hurt you tomorrow." That's more important than whether the province moves ahead tomorrow and we help someone tomorrow. The sort of partisan gain that allows the opposition to take pride in announcing their record of delay in here in conducting a hold-up of the Legislature, a type of hold-up of the people's business of which they must now publish a daily score of the hours.... They take some great pride. I guess the opposition want to become known as the greatest hold-up artists in the history of the province, holding up the people's business. If they think they're gaining a lot of partisan points.... And they go back and they chuckle in their caucus and they giggle to each other and they say, "Boy, we took it to 'em today," and "Boy, we got away with more insults without being challenged," and "Boy, do we look smart today...."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) rises on a point of order.

MR. LEA: Is the Premier telling this House that they know what's going on in our caucus? Is that what he's saying? We've suspected for some time. Have you got us bugged, Mr. Premier? Because we've been giggling about you for a long time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, as was pointed out yesterday, when points of order are in fact not points of order, it is most improper for any member to interrupt any other member

[ Page 2207 ]

when he is speaking to raise what is in fact not a valid point of order. I would caution the same member today, as I did yesterday, that that is highly irregular. I ask the Premier to continue.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's indeed gratifying to know you're there to protect the rights of members who are concerned about the decorum in this chamber and who are not abusing the rules of the members.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom. moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.