[ Page 2253 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Forest Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 17). Hon. Mr. Waterland.

Introduction and first reading –– 2253

Oral Questions.

Rent controls. Mr. Levi –– 2253

Application of Workers Compensation Act to firefighters. Mr. Lauk –– 2254

Tree-farm licences. Mr. King –– 2255

Representation on Occupational Training Council. Mr. Lauk –– 2255

Motion 12.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2256

Mr. Howard –– 2256

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2257

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office estimates.

On vote 9.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2257

Mr. Macdonald –– 2258

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2260

Mr. Howard –– 2261

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2262

Mr. Passarell –– 2266

Mr. Lauk –– 2268

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2271

Mr. Lockstead –– 2272

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2275

Mr. Barber –– 2275

British Columbia Marketing Board annual report, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2279

MONDAY, MAY 5, 1980

The House met at 2:30 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It's my pleasure to introduce those members of the Board of Economic Development who are in British Columbia today on behalf of the national government. They are here today for a series of meetings. They have been meeting all morning — until about 15 minutes ago — with their counterparts in the economic development committee of the government. I might also say, Mr. Chairman, that it's a good exercise in democracy and one that we hope will continue. It's a historic occasion for British Columbia, and we have some commitment that it will take place again so that we can follow up the kinds of things we discussed this morning, and some of those things which may still be on the table we will get off as quickly as we can.

I'd like the House to welcome, first of all, an old friend of this Legislature, one who has been here a number of times before. As a matter of fact he said this morning that he was happy he finally made it to the B.C. cabinet room — Senator Ray Perrault, leader of the government in the Senate. I'd like the House to also welcome Senator Bud Olson, chairman of the Board of Economic Development and Minister of State for Economic Development; Senator Hazen Argue, Minister of State for the Wheat Board; Hon. Ed. Lumley, Minister of State for Trade; Hon. Jean-Luc Pépin, Minister of Transport; Hon. Don Johnston, president of the Treasury Board; Hon. Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of Employment and Immigration and minister responsible for the Status of Women; and one other member who was with us all morning and has now left on other business, Hon. Judy Erola, Minister of State for Mines.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to add my voice of welcome to the very impressive board of economic review that is spending some welcome and positive time with us here in British Columbia. My colleague, the former Attorney-General, informed me that this is the largest single group of elected Liberals we have had on the floor of this House in a long time — other than closet Liberals.

I want to say on a personal note how much pleasure it gives me to welcome back to this House an old personal friend and colleague, Senator Ray Perrault. Senator Ray and I sat together for many years, he at one corner and I at the other, during some very formative years in this House. We came to develop a very close friendship, which has lasted despite partisanship. It is very strong on his side and equally strong or stronger on mine. He is a very great British Columbian and is taking on a very difficult task at this time. Every British Columbian, regardless of political stripe, wishes him well in the difficult role that he must now play with the national government. On a further personal note — for Ray to explain and me to announce — Ray's wife Barbara and I were in jail together.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the members of this House to join me in forwarding through the government of Canada the condolences of British Columbia to the people of Yugoslavia on the occasion of the death of the president of the republic, Marshal Josip Broz Tito. He was a remarkable leader who much influenced the course of modern history. His presence will indeed be missed on the world stage.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to have not one but two announcements of visitations to make. The drought has ended in terms of visitors from the Nelson-Creston riding to these distant precincts. Touring the buildings and later today to visit the gallery are 31 students from Kaslo School, with their teachers Maynard Monroe and Mark Fisher. Also in the gallery is Ms. Mima Wilson, secretary of the Nelson-Creston New Democrats. I hope everyone joins me in welcoming them.

MR. KEMPF: In the gallery with us this afternoon is a fine, upstanding young fellow and a great Socred from the constituency of Skeena, my son Brian. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have representatives from Columbia River, from Invermere, Mr. and Mrs. Seppwenger, and I'd like the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure our visiting guests from the Board of Economic Development always feel more comfortable in a chamber in which there is also a cousin to a member of Her Majesty's federal loyal opposition. Would we all welcome the federal Conservative Member of Parliament from Bruce-Grey, Mr. Gary Gurbin, who is in the gallery today.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome this afternoon a long-time friend of mine and president of the Kootenay Social Credit constituency association, Mr. Bob Clarke from Fernie.

Introduction of Bills

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. Waterland presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled the Forest Amendment Act, 1980.

Bill 17 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

RENT CONTROLS

MR. LEVI: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. We have been hearing for some years that rent controls would be extended to cover permanent residents in hotels. The tenants of St. Helen's Hotel, many pensioners and people on low and fixed incomes have just heard that effective June 1 their rents will be increased from $27 to $37 per week. This is a rise of $40 a month, representing a 36 percent increase. Will the minister indicate to the House the steps he has decided to take to intercede on behalf of these tenants?

[ Page 2254 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would have to be advised of the precise details of those tenants at the St. Helen's Hotel, and I will ask the rentalsman’s office to develop that information for me.

MR. LEVI: I will make the details available. On a supplementary question, has the minister decided to include permanent hotel residents in the coming amendments to the rent control legislation?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That concern and that question will be approached in the legislation which I hope to introduce within the next couple of weeks.

MR. LEVI: I take it that the answer was yes, it will be included in the amendments. Could I ask the minister if, in his decision to include it in the rent control legislation, we are now dealing with equity under the legislation for people who live in hotels the same as other people who are covered by the Residential Tenancy Act? If they go into the act, will they be completely covered, rent control and all?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Those questions will be answered by way of legislative amendments when introduced into the House.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the same minister about the Residential Tenancy Act. At present the Act does not protect families with children and welfare recipients against discrimination in acquiring rental accommodation. Is the minister aware of this and is he going to ensure that the amendments to the Residential Tenancy Act provide protection for these two groups?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to determine why the Residential Tenancy Act would attempt to isolate any specific group of people for reasons other than tenancy arrangements and agreements. I would think if people are being discriminated against in this province, regardless of their circumstances, then it would be a question for another ministry to look at.

MS. BROWN: I certainly agree with the minister, and that's why originally this question was placed before the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), who is responsible for the Human Rights Code. However, that minister brought to my attention that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was responsible for the Residential Tenancy Act, and this is why I'm now putting the question to him.

Landlords are discriminating in terms of their accommodation against families with children and against welfare recipients. This is particularly difficult in this time of tight rental accommodation. I'm merely asking the minister whether in amending this piece of legislation he is taking this fact into account and these two groups will be protected.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would refer the member to the answer I offered the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) earlier; that is, those questions that you raise, as they involve residents or tenants within the province, would have been taken into consideration for any amendments which will be forthcoming, but specifically they would be answered by way of introduction of the amendment act. Residents and tenants in the province should be considered to be that — residents or tenants. There are innumerable groups of people you could attempt to identify, and I don't know how you'd possibly administer an act if you attempted to identify the various groupings of people within the province. I think the people who are tenants should be treated as tenants. And I certainly agree: they should not be discriminated against.

APPLICATION OF
WORKERS COMPENSATION ACT
TO FIREFIGHTERS

MR. LAUK: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. A few days ago the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) asked the minister a question concerning the proposed changes to schedule B of the Workers Compensation Act. The minister at that time said that he would encourage any changes to be delayed until the matter was considered under Labour estimates.

I have this question: in view of widespread concern in the last several days, particularly from firefighters and others, about proposed changes to schedule B of the Workers Compensation Act, has the minister decided to request that the board conduct public hearings so that a full public hearing can be held into the ramifications of these proposed changes before changes are made?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I can advise the hon. member that I have been in contact with the chairman and one of the commissioners. The question the member put to me was the question I placed to both the chairman and the commissioner. To encourage the oral presentation in support of a brief, I can advise you that the example to which I referred was in fact the firefighters' submission, which is very, very detailed. Considerable expense was incurred by that particular association in placing its case before the Workers Compensation Board.

I should advise the hon. member that the following information was given to me. Other reports in reference to schedule B were all being received. After they have been reviewed there is consideration — and I'm encouraging this, I might add — that those who wish to make oral representations in support of their brief be given that opportunity.

MR. LAUK: Will those representations be public? Will the hearing be public?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I cannot answer that question. I will take that question under advisement and discuss the matter with the chairman.

MR. HANSON: A question to the Minister of Labour along the same lines. I found his answer to the previous question very interesting, in that he has to assess the firefighters' brief. Firefighters, it is stated, have heart attacks with ten times the incidence of the normal population. The WCB is proposing to remove a presumed relationship between the firefighters' work and heart damage which has existed in the act since 1916, and between it and lung damage for two years. Has the Minister of Labour demonstrated leadership and indicated to the board that he would like them to have their proposed changes based on medical evidence, as opposed to costs, which they are presently basing their changes on?

[ Page 2255 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I really didn't get a specific question. I will undertake to read the Blues. I'm really in no position to answer what I think the member is getting at. I don't really know too much about cardiac infarctions, and all the other technical, medical language which I read when I reviewed the brief. But if the member wouldn't mind, I will undertake to read his comments in the Blues, and take it from there. Perhaps he might be able to be more specific in his next question next week.

MR. HANSON: For the clarification of the minister, my question is: is the minister aware that the primary reason for the proposed changes in the firefighters' case are based on costs and not medical evidence?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Without being facetious, I am not really aware of the difference between them — whether it's based on costs or medical reasons. I suspect there may be a little of both; I don't know. But I'm really not in a position to answer that question. However, I'm also very reluctant to take it on notice, because I suspect the answer may be a very lengthy one, and I think that the chairman and commissioners for the board are in a far better position to assess that type of inquiry than I am. I am particularly reluctant to involve myself in the decisions of the board, because I think it ought to be free, to some degree, of political influence.

I think what's important, Mr. Speaker, if I may just add to this, is that I hope the commissioners and the board will undertake to hear oral presentations in support of the brief which was submitted.

MR. HANSON: On a brief supplementary, does the minister agree that any changes should be made on the basis of current medical data, and not costs to the board?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I would have to agree with the question and answer in the affirmative. I would have thought that most items with respect to disposing of cases before the Workers' Compensation Board would be based on current medical data.

TREE-FARM LICENCES

MR. KING: I have a question to the Minister of Forests. Can the Minister advise the assembly why the 1979 annual reports have not been filed by MacMillan Bloedel for TFLs 20 and 21, in view of the fact that according to section 1403 of the act these licences and reports are due prior to April 1, 1980?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The answer to the member's question, Mr. Speaker, is no.

MR. KING: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate whether a dispute between MacMillan Bloedel and the Forest Service does exist over the actual level of annual allowable cut in the previous year?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the member means by dispute, and I don't know if the annual allowable cut for the next five-year working plan has been finalized yet either.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I didn't ask about the coming five-year working plan; I asked about the annual allowable cut for the previous year. Is there any dispute regarding the designated annual cut? Did MacMillan Bloedel fall within the prescribed limits in terms of living up to that annual allowable cut? Is there a dispute or anything in contention for the previous year?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, no, there's not.

MR. KING: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, can the minister advise us whether there will be an extension of time for consideration of the annual allowable cut for the coming year in view of the late filing of the 1979 report by MacMillan Bloedel?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the question by the member is based upon the premise that the filing of such a report was late. I'm not sure that it was, and I will endeavour to determine that for the member.

MR. KING: I take it that the minister has indicated that he will return to the Legislature with that information regarding whether the report was late in violation of the regulations and so indicate to the House. Thank you.

REPRESENTATION ON
OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING COUNCIL

MR. LAUK: I have a question to the Minister of Education. The Occupational Training Council was established to advise vocational institutions and regional colleges on budgeting and planning and on vocational training in the province. The council was to be a balanced council with representatives from labour and management — at least that was the original stated intention by the minister's predecessor. Recently two members were appointed to the council, both from management backgrounds, making six representatives from management and two from labour. Does this present imbalance on the Occupational Training Council reflect government's distrust of trade union representation?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I think that the member would probably agree that it would be a mistake if these bodies ever became a fixed allocated constituency so that there were so many representatives to go to management, so many representatives to go to labour, so many to one trade and so many to another. They are supposed to be a general and comprehensive group of citizens who advise the ministry. I think you may notice that there are now on that council persons with a labour background and persons with a management background. I can assure the minister that there is no attempt to downgrade the labour representation on that body, but there is an attempt to try and have that body broadly representative of all elements of society and education.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to Motion 12, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

[ Page 2256 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move the following motion in expectation that it will, of course, have the unanimous endorsement of the House. I move that in recognition of the friendly and expanding economic and cultural relationships with our trading partners among the nations of the Pacific Rim, this House extend a sincere and warm welcome to His Excellency Prime Minister Masayoshi Ohira of Japan on the occasion of his two-day stay in British Columbia following his recent visits to Mexico, the United States of America, and our national capital, Ottawa.

I further move that this House express its earnest desire that His Excellency, on his return to Japan, bear the message of our wish that our ties of friendship remain cordial and firm in the interests of the socio-economic and cultural well-being of both our regions at a time of unrest among some of the world's nations.

On Motion 12.

HON. MR. BENNETT: On speaking to the motion I will be brief. I believe it is recognized by all members of this House and the majority of the people of British Columbia that British Columbia, as Canada's western most province and on the Pacific Ocean, provides access to Pacific Rim countries, primarily led by Japan, whose outstanding industrial and social progress in the last number of years has given them a capability not only of manufacturing but also the opportunity to expand their need for products produced in British Columbia. Our government has been aggressively pursuing those trade links.

The trade links cover a number of commodities found in British Columbia, from coal through copper and molybdenum to British Columbia building materials and building techniques, which have now provided major access into the Japanese market for our forest products. Japan, too, has a history not only of trading with British Columbia but of guaranteed investments, helping to invest and provide technology in developing some of the resources that have been a part of a great trade expansion between us.

However, there are other opportunities that we have been working on including the access for our agricultural products, such as cherries, from the Okanagan. Of course, that has taken the cooperation of the governments of Canada and British Columbia and the growers themselves in meeting the protection standards to make those products disease-free for the market access. We have also been working with the Japanese government to meet the standards of entry for our softwood plywoods, such as the glue-line standards. That testing is going on and British Columbia should have additional access for this product.

Trade and friendly cultural relations were a major part of the trip I made on behalf of the people of British Columbia to Japan in October last year. At that time we had the opportunity to meet not only with senior government officials but also with the leaders of Japan's industries, steel and others, culminating not only in individual meetings by resource or by industry, but also in meeting the Japanese industry group Kadanrin, who cover the broad spectrum of Japanese industry and are there for British Columbians to talk to.

I believe the friendly relations we have built up have been cemented, and cultural and social ties between our countries, and particularly between our province and Japan, are growing. A number of our cities have developed sister-city status with their counterparts in Japan. We share similar concerns with some parts of Japan, particularly the northernmost province of Hokkaido. We share with them our environmental concerns of northern regions and developments. As such I can think of no better opportunity to express to the people of Japan our feelings for the continued success of trade between us and the continued development of friendly nations whose interdependency is growing. We hope that the cultural relations that have been built up over these last number of years will continue to expand.

Among our citizens here in British Columbia are a number of Japanese Canadians who have been good Canadians. They have helped to bring their industriousness, ability and innovativeness, and they are part of the multicultural fabric of our country. They have played an important part in developing the British Columbia we have today. I have been pleased to grow up in an area where a great number of Japanese Canadians also resided. They were, in fact, friends and neighbours of mine, living adjacent to the home where I grew up in. They had various business interests, industries or jobs that they performed in the community. I knew them then as friends and neighbours. Their relationship with their country has helped in the trade and cultural association we have.

Again, it's timely that we reinforce, through this motion and this Legislature and on behalf of all of the people of British Columbia to the Prime Minister, our continuing best wishes not only for expanding trade but for continued friendship. As I've said, our interdependency will continue to grow. It's an interdependency based on trust, reliability and the understanding of not only one another's problems, but the uniqueness of our different economies that allow us to marry those economies in a beneficial way for both our countries and our people. We have a lot in common and a lot of future opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, I move the motion which I have read that is standing in my name.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, if there exists within the rules an opportunity, either formally or by statement, to second the motion moved by the Premier, then on behalf of the New Democratic Party I'm very pleased to do that. That in itself reflects the unanimous view of this House in doing two things by the motion: to express a formal, official and warm welcome to Prime Minister Ohira on his visit here, not only to Ottawa but to British Columbia as well; and to express to him the hope that upon his return to his home country of Japan, which we hope will be safe and that he will arrive in a happy mood having had the benefit of a good visit to this part of the world, he will bring back to the Japanese people the expression that we make here in British Columbia of our feelings and appreciation of having such a fine relationship with that fine country. Our relationship is not only friendly in an external sense of a relationship between governments and different countries across different sides of the Pacific Ocean; our relationship is also here at home. I'm not alone; there are many, many people in this province who, like me, had an occasion during the early years of school to sit in the same classroom and be compatriots and friends at the educational level of people of Japanese origin who were born here and who still live here and contribute such a great deal to what we know as British Columbia. The relationship with Japan is more than trade, it's more than an economic relationship and it's more than goods moving back and forth; it's a very intense and, I hope, continuing cultural and respectful relationship.

[ Page 2257 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate, let me welcome the remarks of the member for Skeena on behalf of the New Democratic Party, which would, of course, show the unanimity of this House, which is shared by the people of British Columbia. As I say, there is a feeling of friendship that has developed out of a growing understanding and growing access between our two peoples. It's just a few years ago, in terms of our country and our province, that the act of participation in trade was developed — an investment. Many can look back on the successful agreements with Kaiser in coal and they think of such companies which pioneered in the forest industry, such as Daishowa. I know these people — the principals of the company — and the people who work for them, but what is equally important is they know us as well.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in closing the debate knowing it has the unanimous support of all members in this House.

Motion approved.

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

MR. REE: May I ask leave to introduce some visitors to the gallery, Mr. Chairman?

Leave granted.

MR. REE: Mr Chairman, today I have the honour of welcoming 49 grade 11 students from Carson Graham School of North Vancouver–Capilano under the guidance of two of their teachers, Mr. Arnet and Mr. Porter. Half of them are now sitting in the gallery; the other half will be through here shortly. They've assured me that this is the best high school in North Vancouver. I'd ask the House to welcome them warmly.

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: Just to make a few remarks in the initial part of my estimates, as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) so eloquently expressed in his introductions, we have a unique opportunity in this province today to have major discussions with a number of ministers of the government of Canada, not only on timely topics, but on topics and items of concern to the people of British Columbia, who demand resolution between our two governments. While we would hope for easy negotiations, it is not always thus, because for every question there are a number of positions to be taken. But British Columbia believes that in those areas we have a strong case and a strong presentation in what will provide outstanding results not only for our own province and the security of its economic future in regard to some of the larger items, but will pay great dividends to the country as a whole. Transportation and sea access are important, then, not just to British Columbia, but to Canada. The opportunity to sell more products from British Columbia is equally as important to our country in resolving its balance of payments deficit and increasing our trade surplus.

British Columbia is a province that has the unique opportunity to be an international trader, and it makes a great contribution to this country. Part of the talks today surround the opportunity for us to increase that role, Mr. Chairman, and to expand Canada's products to further our market access, particularly in the countries of the Pacific Rim.

I must take this opportunity to thank the government of Canada and those ministers who have made time available to come to British Columbia, and for the preparation they have made for the meetings and for the type of detailed discussion that has been underway today with their counterparts in this province, cabinet to cabinet and minister to minister. I'm hopeful that these discussions will bear fruit tasty not only to British Columbians but to Canadians as a whole, at a time when our country needs good economic news. We have a unique opportunity now to be the messenger and the instrument by which that good news is provided, good news which will inject Canada further into the international economy in a very real way.

In terms of people it means a further development in some of the proposals for areas of our province which do not now have access to markets for the treasures and riches of their resources, not a single resource but multiple resources. It means that the impact of the development of transportation systems that will open up new areas will also open up new opportunities. That means jobs for British Columbians, who now have the opportunity to develop the skills to work in these highly specialized areas. Young British Columbians preparing to come into the workforce will have the greater security of knowing that there is an additional opportunity for them which does not exist now, at a time when they may feel uncertain about their future because of unemployment figures which have been continuing on a national basis for a number of years. It means greater career opportunity for them.

The further expansion of transportation into new areas of the province.... We have a large province: 366,000 square miles large, or — if you've completed your opportunities to develop it into metric — 950,000 square metric miles. That means that there's a lot of British Columbia yet to be developed in an orderly, responsible and satisfying way. It means that we must seize these opportunities — not run for them, but seize them at times of uncertainty and in an aggressive way. I touched on some of those opportunities when I spoke to the motion I moved earlier. Of course, the country of Japan presents a very outstanding opportunity for British Columbia.

Again, the economic impact is not just to the region, not just to those areas which would be part of the transportation system, but will impact on the total British Columbia economy. It will provide corporate and individual taxes for government, both federal and provincial. It will provide then a greater guarantee that the services of government can be not only continued but expanded as well.

People fear when they see governments running deficits. They're fearful that governments may not be able to continue to provide those services upon which those in need have come to rely. The only guarantee those people have that the health-care systems and income-support systems in this country can be continued is to have an expanding economy, where governments can pay their bills without plunging the country into debt. Therefore, at this time, the money needed

[ Page 2258 ]

to provide the infrastructure is not a waste of government spending. It is not the type of restraint in spending that the people of this country are demanding in government. This money spent by governments is an investment in the country and in our people. It's an investment for our people so that they may have the jobs and job security we need in the future — and now, because the time is now.

There are times in the affairs of men, they say, which when taken at the flood lead on to fame and fortune. There are times in the affairs of provinces and nations when the opportunities are there to be seized by those who are bold enough to not only see a vision but to carry it out as well. We've gone beyond the time of words. We've gone beyond the time of study. We've come to the time of decision, when bold governments are called upon to act, and to show the type of optimism and confidence that this type of investment in our future will entail. It's not a waste of public funds. It's the greatest investment we can make. It is an investment that will help us to use the investment we make in educating our young people to give them skills. That investment cannot be harnessed unless we provide the additional investment in the expansion of our transportation systems, and in the infrastructure, to allow the orderly development of industry in this province. Mining is one of those industries; forestry is one of those industries. Those industries have a unique opportunity in a new area of this province — new in terms of access, anyhow; not new in terms of being part of British Columbia — whose time has come.

I must say that this time didn't come by accident. It is not an event that has been thrust upon us. It's an event that has taken a lot of work. I give full credit to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and others for the initiative they've taken in making this a priority, as part of the economic blueprint for British Columbia that was devised some years ago by this government to open up in an orderly way those areas in which these were resources to be developed, which could provide jobs for our people.

It was done at a time when the main resource — that of metallurgical coal — was not in demand. In 1976 the world had entered a recession as far as the steel industry was concerned. The steel mills of the world were operating at below 70 percent capacity in most instances. This is an industry that demands a capacity use of over 90 percent to break even, because of the high fixed costs. It was not easy to market, because British Columbia had not been aggressively marketing its coal. The prime trader with which we would logically trade had been taken up by aggressive countries such as Australia, who not only were developing their transportation systems, but were becoming very aggressive and shrewd traders. British Columbia had a lot of ground to gain. It was an ambitious program and an ambitious goal. Today, four and a half years later, we have an opportunity to satisfy that goal.

As I say, the present Minister of Industry and Small Business Development — then the Economic Development minister — led missions to Japan, to Korea and to the marketplaces of the world, seeking new markets. He had the foresight to add to the very dedicated and able people in the public service people who could round out our store of knowledge and our aggressive marketing presentation. Indeed, coming to this moment in time, all British Columbians owe them a debt of gratitude. I have seen them work 18 to 20 hours a day on trade missions. There were no junkets, just hard, grinding work, where you must be alert at every moment in dealing with the very best of industry and government, whose knowledge is such that they're quick to spot those making presentations who haven't done their homework. The Minister of Industry had done his homework. The dedicated public servants had done their homework. Now it lay for them to convince those to whom we made presentations that we could be reliable suppliers.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I've said that Canada and British Columbia have made market penetration before; but there was an insecurity among our trading partners, a doubt that we could, with a single rail network and port facility, be considered a reliable supplier. Because of accidents, such as a bridge going out, or industrial disputes in both port and rail, our products could be cut off at a moment's notice — products that are needed in a highly skilled type of industry. It's important, then, for both our country and our province to have a second outlet to the Pacific Rim at this time. That's not saying that that may be the only addition to transportation — both rail and port outlet — that this province will need in the future. That outlet and that system are needed now.

It was this government's decision to place the port facilities in Prince Rupert, to develop them in Prince Rupert. Ridley Island was selected as the ideal site for a bulk commodity port that could resolve a number of questions about Canada's ability to be a continuous and secure supplier of grain from the prairie provinces and our great northeast, potash from Saskatchewan, wood products from British Columbia, and of course our coal to feed the furnaces to provide the steel. As I say, Mr. Chairman, today we've reached that point in time when that work has brought us to this moment where success is within our grasp.

The investment needed is just that, investment that must be undertaken with a confidence that we have an opportunity to meet our future — the development of British Columbia, development for people, opportunities for people, opportunities for Canada, opportunities that Canada must take. It's a significant point in time in this country's history when there is some political uncertainty and economic uncertainty. British Columbia will be pleased to be the good news that can be the forerunner of other good news. Because there are those who would be negative about the country, negative about our prospects, we need governments with boldness who will make the investment to end the negative attitude and unsureness that many people express. We can then help to resolve some of the political insecurity. We can help to resolve some of the economic insecurity and, above all, make a positive commitment to the young of this province that they have governments willing to step out and make investments to guarantee their opportunities and their future.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I was rising to my feet this afternoon to ask the Premier some questions on his salary vote. That's part of the picture of where British Columbia is going as well — the willingness of a Premier to answer questions about his own salary vote.

But I'd like to say, just in passing, that when the Premier refers to four and half years in terms of northeast coal, he's out about a year and a half. In terms of some of the earlier studies of Sukunka coal, I remember going to London in 1974 and meeting with the British Steel Corporation and

[ Page 2259 ]

arranging for the first test shipment of the good coking coal of the northeast to be shipped to Britain. In terms of the development policies of the province of British Columbia, the NDP has an enviable record, both in government and outside, in terms of the development of the resources of the province of British Columbia for the benefit of all of its people. We'll debate that on the proper occasion in this House, as it should be debated, and we'll debate the way in which, for the benefit of all British Columbia, these resources should be developed and should have been developed before this time, because in some cases there's been a lot of sleeping at the switch.

But I want to come back to one question and explain its importance to this Legislature and to the people of B.C. As soon as I can have the Premier's attention, I want to direct him back to that meeting on March 13, 1980, in the Oak Room — that's been established by newspaper clippings but not by any word from the Premier in the Legislature — to do with the jetfoil service to Seattle. That is a matter of very important public business. I'm not only going to repeat the questions but I'm going to explain just why these questions are of great significance. The Premier cannot, after 21 days, continue to sit in his seat and refuse to account for his conduct in the administration of his high office. The significance of that meeting and the reason why we asked what the Premier had to do with it, who convened that meeting and what commitments were made on behalf of the people of British Columbia or the Development Corporation, is very, very manifest and it is clearly public business for which the Premier should be answerable as to his part in it. At that meeting, I understand, a commitment was made that the British Columbia Development Corporation would advance $600,000 by way of a loan — interest-free, I understand, but it's up to the Premier to talk about these things — to a company known as Flying Princess Transportation Co.

Now the odd thing about that kind of commitment from the Premier of this province — who, as we gather, convened the meeting — is that such a commitment would be in breach of the Development Corporation Act, not merely as a matter of policy — the government interfering in the affairs of what is said to be a corporation set-up, public to be sure, but independent of government, that makes its own decisions through its board of directors — but in plain violation of the terms of the act. Flying Princess Transportation Co. has no assets at all; that is point number one. Point number two, while I expect it exists in the minds of Mr. Bob Wright and Cedric Steele, who was a friend of the Premier, it has not even been incorporated up to the present time. I understand that the financial arrangements are made so that this service will commence with a commitment from the government of $600,000 to this private company by May 15.

Now why, Mr. Chairman, do I say that is in violation of the legislation if indeed it is the case that the Premier gave a commitment for this loan and made the overtures and had DCBC.... I've got to be careful, because to make sure that it wasn't an NDP company, they've changed it around; it used to be BCDC and now its DCBC. Oh, you don't like all our children, do you? All the good things we did for the province of British Columbia, the Marguerite and all the rest of them — when they're too good to do away with you carry them on under a different name, heavily disguised as Socred children when they were really part of the progressive policies of the NDP government.

Mr. Chairman, they can't make that kind of loan to a company that doesn't exist and a company that doesn't have any assets. When the government made a commitment in the Oak Room to advance that company $600,000 without bringing it back to the Legislature as they should have done....You know, the Princess Marguerite was a special bill, hurried through to get the service in place, to be sure, but the Legislature and the people not only were informed but authorized it legally. Now section 5 of the Development Corporation Act says: "Notwithstanding any other Act, the corporation" — not the government — "has all the powers necessary to carry out its objects...." The object we are concerned with here is to: "(a) lend money to a person on security and on terms and conditions as to repayment or otherwise as the corporation considers advisable...."

Mr. Chairman, there is no security. No security whatsoever can be put up by Flying Princess Transportation Co., whose profits they are to be allowed to keep but whose losses presumably are to be underwritten by the government. But it isn’t even a paper company at the present time, because while there has been a name reservation in the office of the registrar of companies by the promoters of the company whom the Premier called in, there has been no incorporation and no security. There is a lease, presumably, that has been arranged with Boeing of Seattle to lease the jetfoil, but that is hardly security that can be pledged to DCBC to support the advance by the taxpayers of this province of $600,000. The corporation is limited, Mr. Chairman, to advancing funds on security.

If you read the other sections of the act, what I have already said becomes further plain. Section 25 of the act, for example: "In making loans and investments, the corporation shall base its decisions on, and shall take into account" — not a meeting convened by the Premier, but the corporation acting independently through its directors — "(a) a thorough and objective analysis of the management capability of the industrial enterprise...." It didn't exist. It wasn't even a paper company when the Premier of the province of British Columbia pledged to these promoters $600,000 of the people's money for which he will not answer a single question in the Legislature. Section 25(2): "In making loans and investments, the corporation shall be guided...alone..." so that they "...shall be made without discrimination...." I would say plainly, Mr. Chairman, that if some individuals can come to a meeting convened by the Premier — or be summoned to a meeting; he picks them out — and offered this kind of money, $600,000 on an unsecured loan from the Development Corporation of British Columbia, that is discrimination.

I see that the Premier is getting ready to answer, but I just want to finish my few remarks and then just pose the questions. In section 27 it says: "It shall be a condition of every loan made, that on the sale of any part of the property mortgaged to the corporation as security for the loan" — and that theme runs all through the Development Corporation Act — "then the loan shall be immediately due and payable." It's the property mortgaged for the security of the corporation, and here we have a commitment for $600,000 — or whatever the Premier says it is, because he's never been frank about this thing, and we have to, rely on rumour and newspaper clippings when the minister doesn't answer. I say, Mr. Premier, you were in breach of the act that your government amended when you made these commitments. I'll just finish off in a very few minutes and then I'm going to

[ Page 2260 ]

pose my questions. I hope that finally, after 21 days, we'll have accountability in this Legislature.

Mr. Chairman, this paper company is working out arrangements now with Boeing and the travel agencies whereby, if you want to travel on the jetfoil to or from Seattle, or if you want to travel on the Queen of Prince Rupert to or from Seattle, you have to go through a travel agency and you have to make your reservation seven days in advance. The effect of that is that you really have to be part of a package tour. The arrangements that are being made are great for the tour operators. It's great for the travel agents, but it is not necessarily great for the people who like to visit the city of Victoria, and it isn't necessarily great for the people of Victoria who like to take the service and visit in the United States. All of these arrangements are being made based upon a meeting convened by the Premier as to which he has not answered any questions for 21 days.

Now my questions are these, Mr. Premier — and I'm glad that finally, after all this time on this important matter of public business where you were involved, I'm asking you. Who convened that meeting? Was the Premier present? Were overtures made to the Development Corporation of British Columbia? Was a commitment made or discussed and, if so, for how much? Or was this made independently by the Development Corporation of British Columbia? What was the commitment that was made or discussed at that meeting on March 13, 1980, in the Oak Room of these buildings at about 4:30 p.m.?

Public business, and the Premier's conduct in relation to that public business, is what is an issue under vote 9. I say that you just rode roughshod over the legislation of the province of British Columbia, and I want specific answers to those questions.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the member for Vancouver East is talking nonsense at best.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, answer the questions.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You've had the answer to the question, through you, Mr. Chairman, and I'll tell you one more time: the B.C. Development Corporation has a board of directors who make their decisions for their staff. From the government on the board of directors is the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, whose estimates give you the opportunity to talk about any of the business to do with BCDC or his ministry. That opportunity will come to you.

To make the bald, incorrect statement that the Premier violated the B.C. Development Corporation Act is utter nonsense, as that member well knows. I tell you again that any arrangements the BCDC board of directors approve which become part of the agreements they make to help companies develop in this province solely are the final responsibility of the directors, and the member knows that. Many times they take years in investigation; sometimes they take months, sometimes they take weeks, but obviously it is their decision.

It was very good of the member, Mr. Chairman, and very good of you, to allow him the opportunity to refresh himself by reading an act which every member of this Legislature has read and dealt with and understands. In merely having a copy of the act, the member must know that that act and its responsibilities come under the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development.

To say we've ignored the question.... The question is more properly directed to the minister responsible, where it can receive the type of attention that everyone wants, the type of accountability, because this is an accountable government. Other members had those answers and have known those answers, and I'm going to put to you, Mr. Chairman, that the question is frivolously and mischievously asked by the opposition at the incorrect time and place in this Legislature, merely to fulfil an idle boast made outside this Legislature that they would make the Premier be accountable for 50 or 60 hours, or whatever the figure was that they were boasting. They had a time-frame to fill and that's the only way they could fulfil it. And similar areas of discussion.... Obviously, I guess, the member knows the B.C. Development Corporation Act quite well by now, because he quoted it. He must know, then, where the opportunities lie to question it. He must know that any agreements over a certain amount must be sent to cabinet. Below that amount, the board of directors have the authority to make decisions on their own. You have the answer. I can give no further answer to you. But the minister during his estimates may make available the type of information that's useful to the public. The B.C. Development Corporation, within their framework, may make information available.

The silliness of the question posed, the manner in which it's posed and the allegations made are outright foolishness. The member has had the response, but I suppose he has time to fill and time to spend. I would point out, and it may come as a shock to the opposition, that certainly the story they're putting out that they're holding up the government — as great holdup artists in a legislative way — is false. The government is proceeding; things are being done. This may be a great trick out of your political primer. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, the time has given us a great opportunity for members to get caught up on their correspondence and things, but I'm not sure that you've best utilized the time the public has given you when they sent you here to do a job. Now if you want to know about the B.C. Development Corporation, bring it up in the minister's estimates. If you want to know about agreements that may or may not be concluded, or are concluded, bring it up in the minister's estimates.

MR. MACDONALD: Tell us.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, will you tell that man to stop yelling from his chair. He's giving a bad impression to the schoolchildren. They're shocked at his behaviour. They'll be voters very soon. I warn you that you're disturbing them.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say that I've given the answer, and that's the only answer that could be given. The member may wish to fill in more time, but I cannot provide any more than that, and I have tried to give instruction to the member on how he can fulfil his job and get the type of information he wants, in the proper place, if and when any deals are consummated by the B.C. Development Corporation.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether we need to be instructed by the Premier on these points. I've asked simple questions as to whether or not he did not make commitments at that meeting on March 13. If the schoolchildren are interested in the province of British Columbia, they'll notice one thing. They'll notice that the

[ Page 2261 ]

Premier did not answer even the simplest question put to him about his part in making commitments on behalf of the taxpayers that were in violation of the act. Those are very simple questions. Because this service is supposed to start about May 15, obviously the commitments have been put in place a long time before today. Commitments have been made. Commitments were made at that meeting in the Oak Room, and the Premier must have been involved.

You denigrate your high office, Mr. Premier, when you won't answer questions about a meeting that you convened. You won't even say that you convened it. You say: "Ask some other minister whether I broke the act. Ask some other minister whether I intervened. Ask some other minister about my conduct." It's your salary vote. I'm saying very specifically that on that date in the Oak Room you convened the meeting. Deny it if you will. That's one of the simple questions asked of you for 21 days — that you hauled in the B.C. Development Corporation and gave them their walking orders and that, in doing so, you broke their act. You not only interfered with their independence but you broke their act. Before that service begins, is it not time that we should know something about the commitments the Premier made in the exercise of his office last March? I don't think we need any lectures about the time. In his imagination, the Premier says that we had allotted so many hours to his estimates and had to fill up the time. That's pure nonsense!

If the Premier had answered questions about his salary vote the way his Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) answered the questions at question period today — maybe the answers weren't so good, but at least they were forthcoming — his estimates would have been over long since. This is what we're talking about: accountability, so far as the people of the province are concerned. The Premier says that we're going out and saying that we brought the business of B.C. to a standstill. That is not at all the message they're getting out there; they're getting the message of an arrogant Premier who refuses to answer questions on his salary vote about what he has done — his own conduct — and that's a negation of all the parliamentary processes that have come down to us through the ages.

Mr. Chairman, I ask again, because we have a duty to ask on behalf of the people who pay for these commitments: what was the commitment that the Premier made to this cozy little group in the Oak Room on March 13, and did the Premier convene that meeting?

The message that the people throughout the province are getting is that this Premier refuses to answer questions, and that the arrogance he displays in this Legislature in refusing to answer simple questions on his salary vote is not toward us but toward the people of the province.

MR. HOWARD: I didn't want to raise it at the time as a point or order, because I thought I'd let the Premier continue the flow of his remarks about it. His reference to the members of the opposition having made some determination about keeping the Premier's estimates alive for some 50 or 60 hours is not a true statement and is nowhere in accordance with the facts. No decision of that nature was made whatsoever, and no discussion involved any length of time. For the Premier to make that kind of false and erroneous statement indicates how desperate he is to get out of the deep hole he's dug himself into. I wouldn't dignify the Premier's remarks by asking him to withdraw the reference that we had made a decision of that nature, but I will simply say that, factually. It is not true, not correct or not accurate. In fact, if anything, it is designed specifically to be inaccurate and to leave a false impression with the House. It's not a very good thing for the Premier to engage in that kind of activity.

The Premier said quite a number of things during the course of his estimates. Two statements come to mind apropos the preceding discussion about the jetfoil. The Premier said at one point earlier in the game when the question of the jetfoil and the meeting which the Premier convened was raised that he was proud of the jetfoil service coming into effect; he was delighted to see it happen and it was a good thing. He also said later that, with respect to his estimates and pursuant to his estimates, he would be prepared to discuss any accomplishments of his government or any accomplishments that he was involved in. Well, here's one of them: he was involved in an accomplishment of which he is proud, namely the jetfoil service. Then why isn't he prepared in a decent, responsible sort of way to say to the people and to the province what his role was?

After all, he's asking for $500,000 to run his office again for the coming year. Certainly the general public is entitled to a little bit of respect for the money they are putting up front in order for the Premier to run his office. That little bit of respect should come in an ordinary, simple, uncomplicated answer to a question as to whether or not he did have such meeting, what deal he made, what arrangements he made, and why he is so proud about it; not for him to slough it off and hide behind the coat-tails of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and behind the coat-tails of B.C. Development Corporation.

Mr. Chairman, I want to proceed a little bit to lay some preliminary information to the committee. The other day I raised the item in the Speech from the Throne which said "In anticipation of the federal government transferring its jurisdiction over B.C. Telephone Co. rates to our province....." Placing such a matter as bringing B.C. Telephone under provincial jurisdiction in the Speech from the Throne gives it a prominence far beyond what the facts show to be the interest of the government in that particular matter. The Premier said the other day, in response to some questions we posed to him, that perhaps His Honour or His Excellency — I forget the exact words he used — the Lieutenant-Governor was very optimistic about the transfer taking place. We all know, of course, that the Lieutenant-Governor didn't have anything to do with writing the Speech from the Throne; all he did was read it. The Premier is the person who had a hand in preparing it. That's the way things happen.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, oh!

MR. HOWARD: If the Premier is now saying, "Oh, oh!", meaning I've transgressed on something or other, or if he's saying I'm saying something which is not accurate, then let’s assume that the Lieutenant-Governor did write the Speech from the Throne. How can we get an answer from the Lieutenant-Governor as to why he said in the Speech from the Throne that there was an anticipation that the federal government would transfer its jurisdiction over B.C. Tel to the province? If the Lieutenant-Governor wrote it himself, he surely didn't write it just out of the blue to fill up some space in the Speech from the Throne, and figure that would be a nice one to throw in. No, it had its foundations somewhere. Its foundation was in the Premier, because the Premier, if nothing else, was the ghost writer of the Speech from the

[ Page 2262 ]

Throne. It's the Premier's statement. So all this malarkey about the Lieutenant-Governor being overly optimistic or very optimistic about the transfer and so on is just that kind of specious nonsense that the Premier gives out from time to time when he's not able to deal directly and adequately with a question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if I could just have the House's attention for a minute, the Speech from the Throne is the Speech from the Throne, and we have already debated it. It would appear that, unless the member is referring to something that he will get at under vote 9, the Chair will have to tell the member that we have debated the Speech from the Throne.

Also, all members should be reminded that courtesy in debate is acceptable to this House, and lack of courtesy is not.

MR. HOWARD: I want to thank you for enlightening me with the fact that we have dealt with the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Chairman, and also for your perception in anticipating that what I'm doing is referring to that part of the Speech from the Throne in order to deal with the Premier's estimates. That's the foundation of what we dealt with the other day.

I asked the Premier a number of questions the other day about when he had approached the federal government about transferring jurisdiction over B.C. Tel rates to the province. He wasn't sure at that time. He said it was a continuing program, a continuing idea, that it was dealt with at some appropriate first ministers' conference, that it was on the record. But he didn't know when it was that he had dealt with it last, or what the current status was. The master negotiator on behalf of British Columbia, in dealing with the federal government, didn't remember just when this matter had taken place.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, while the member may feel justified in bringing this up during the Premier's estimates, because of the Premier's involvement in first ministers' conferences, the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has this under his jurisdiction, and is well able to deal with any continuing negotiation with the federal government under his estimates. I think if you were going to allow it during my estimates, you might.... The only thread I can see would be the relationship to a first ministers' conference. So I bring that point of order before the scope is broadened beyond all reason.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Premier. Relevance in debate is always encouraged, particularly during committee stage.

MR. HOWARD: Well, Mr. Chairman, the only reason I'm pursuing it now is that on Tuesday, April 29, this year, when we were dealing with the Premier's estimates, the Premier was quite pleased to get into the conversation and explain his part about what he did. And that's what we're talking about. What did the Premier do about this? Now the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications didn't write the Speech from the Throne. The Premier wrote the Speech from the Throne. It's his baby. It is the Premier who has been dealing with the federal government, negotiating on behalf of the people of B.C., arguing our case.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, to take that line of reasoning.... The member is being presumptuous, not only that anyone other than His Honour writes the Speech from the Throne, but also as to whom he would designate. I would point out again that the member is going into another ministry in which that responsibility would lie. Although he denies it, I guess he would try to fill up the number of hours that he....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Premier, you have stated your point of order. The member for Skeena has the floor, and I will ask him to continue, once again reminding all hon. members that if we can remain within the administrative actions of the minister whose estimates are before the committee, that does enable the committee to proceed in an orderly manner.

MR. HOWARD: Since we dealt with this the other day, Mr. Chairman, I would like to know from the Premier, because he was unsure then, which first ministers' conference it was — if any — that this question of transferring jurisdiction from the federal to the provincial authorities was dealt with. The minister was not sure at that time when he had raised it. Could the Premier tell the committee — it's his doing — whether he's had a chance to look at the record and find out when it was he broached this subject with the federal government? I'm not asking the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, but the Premier himself. That is the question I would like to ask. Could the Premier tell the House at which first ministers' conference he raised this matter of jurisdiction over B.C. Telephone Co. last?

I expect he's not interested in answering that question, Mr. Chairman, so I'll proceed a little further. He told me the other day he wasn't sure about that. He said it was on record — the transcripts and the information were there. I've been trying to find out two things. One is whether the Premier in fact did anything concrete and substantive in the last year dealing with the B.C. Telephone question. If he did do something of substance as the Premier of this province representing British Columbia's interest, what did he do and what response did he get? That is the question I would like to ask. I'll gamble that the Premier's going to answer the question.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You gambled getting up and posing the question.

Mr. Chairman, the minister responsible for communications carries the statement the government has made. I will say, as the Premier and leader of the government, that certainly the statement has been made. That is the commitment the minister would negotiate from. I don't do the work of all my ministers. The member who probably is preparing for the minister's estimates — I would assume that is what you are doing; I can see no other reason for bringing it up — knows that it is the stated policy of this government. That's where the Premier's involved; that's the policy. Yes, that's the policy. There you are. Now what the minister is doing, you can ask him. That's his mandate on behalf of this government.

MR. HOWARD: I was sure that the Premier wasn't going to answer, because he has dealt with these things in this way before. We are dealing with what the Premier did. He is

[ Page 2263 ]

the leader of the government. He is the one who talked about this matter. He is the one who said that he approached the federal government. This Premier, not the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, said: "Yes, I approached them. I don't remember when but it was" — whatever appropriate time it was, or words to that effect. I am just asking if he has had time to refresh his memory since the other day and is able to tell the committee when it was that he approached the federal government, not what some other minister is doing but this Premier who is now asking for $500,000, or whatever it is, to run his office for the coming year. I'd like to know how he has been handling our affairs as the great negotiator dealing with the federal government. That is all.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, as leader of the government, I can say that the first thing we've got is capable ministers. The member wasn't a member of that party as government so he doesn't know what it's like to have to work with inadequate ministers, but this government has highly capable ministers who can carry out those functions, the stated policy of the government. That should be very clear to the people. What isn't clear is the roundabout discussion of it here. It's not as if we disagree in policy and not as if it hasn't been a statement of the Premier. What I said the other day stands, and the member has whatever answer he would need from me. I don't even know what course he has embarked upon, if any at all. Perhaps its the no-course attack that they've been conducting for some time. I fail to find a reason for it, but the member has the information. He knows the policy, I'm sure. I think he's been in B.C. for some years now, at least since '79. I know he's been here since the election. This government has announced policies on many occasions. I don't want to get into future legislation, Mr. Chairman, but I guess the federal government will only consider a government serious if they set up such a vehicle to carry out such hearings.

MR. HOWARD: I am having experience now dealing with an inadequate Premier. I have discovered that, Mr. Chairman. We know what the statement of policy was. There are many statements of policy that are made. There is a difference oft times between statements of policy, statements of intention and the mechanics of dealing with them afterwards. The Premier can make all sorts of policy declarations. What has he been doing about it? Is he just saying: "It's our policy."?

He said he raised it at a first ministers' conference. Can he tell me which one he raised it at? Admittedly, I'm not the best researcher in the world, but I did go and look at the record of the first ministers' conference held in February 1978. There's no record anywhere in those proceedings about this subject matter having been raised — not a word. I had read them before for another purpose, because I wanted to see what the government's response was to the introduction of the constitutional bill in mid-1978 by Prime Minister Trudeau. I went and got them again from the library. They're in a different form now; they're in one consolidated book rather than a number of little booklets that I got earlier. The next one I could find was British Columbia's constitutional proposals presented at the first ministers' conference on the constitution, October 1978. I went all through that. I couldn't find any reference to the government or the Premier making any representations about B.C. Tel. I examined the records of the first ministers' conference held in February 1979 — not a word there about the Premier taking any action to engage the federal government in some conversation about this. Here are the last three first ministers' conferences — February 1978, October 1978 and February 1979. There is no record in any of them, that I could find, of the policy statement of the Premier which respect to B.C. Tel being dealt with.

I'm trying to find out what we're doing. Are these just policy statements in the Speech from the Throne that say: "Wouldn't it be a nice idea?" What did the Premier do about it and when? Otherwise, we're left up in the air with just a policy statement. If he's going to tell me to talk to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications about it, he can go ahead and tell me that if he likes; he's said it before. That's not what we're dealing with right now. We're dealing with the Premier's estimates. The Premier wants some money to run his office. He's been intent on ignoring questions day after day — almost interminably. There's another one, and it's a simple one. What did the Premier do? What action did he take, and when, to put into effect the policy statement that he would like to have jursidiction over B.C. Tel transferred from the federal to the provincial government? What action and what response? We're left in a kind of a quandary.

I could find something, Mr. Chairman. Let me read this. This is from the Vancouver Province of October 4, 1978 — about the same time as the B.C. constitutional proposals presented to the first ministers' conference in October of that year. This was about a move by B.C. Tel to merge with the independent — or what was identified as independent — Okanagan Telephone Co. The news item in the Province says that the provincial government had expressed opposition to that move, but the CRTC didn't listen to the province and they went ahead and okayed the merger anyway. But there is a statement attributed to something called "the B.C. government." It doesn't say any particular minister; we're not trying to imply that it does. But it says in there, in part: "...nevertheless, the government wishes to make it quite clear that it seeks no special consideration by either the federal or provincial regulatory commission because of its stated intention to negotiate revised regulatory arrangements." That's with respect to B.C. Tel — October 1978.

What's the Premier done since that time to engage in negotiations with respect to that matter? He can tell me again that that's for the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, I suppose, I don't know. We'll give him another run at it anyway.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Let me take this slowly for the member for Skeena. This government has a number of ministers. Each minister has a set of responsibilities. The government is not run by a single person. Each minister that has a set of responsibilities within his mandate gets a set of estimates. During that opportunity members may ask that minister what the minister has done to carry out his mandate.

Mr. Chairman, what I have been saying to that member is that the minister responsible for communications would be the person to lead — or have carried out on his behalf, perhaps by a member of his staff — any discussions that would meet a government policy or objective. It is the same in education and in a number of other areas with which this member has difficulty — in his eagerness to pose a question or to obtain information — waiting for the particular minis-

[ Page 2264 ]

ter. I am sorry that the member finds it very difficult to recognize that that has been the procedure in the past in this House, and, as far as I know, in any provincial legislature; however, that is the way it is carried out. I might point out that the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications has a number of people who would work in those divisions. Those people would undertake the assembly of material for the minister in regard to the pursuit of any policy.

I'm sure that now that it has been made clear once more where the member can obtain this information, he will bring it up during the estimates of the responsible minister.

MR. HOWARD: What that says to me is that the Premier just hears what he wants to hear, not what's put to him. He did exactly this the other day. I've got to put it on the record, even though the Premier has to leave for a moment. This is what I asked him the other day — and it is to prove the point that the Premier does not listen to the question. He's got a preconceived notion in his head about what it is he wants to hear and away he goes in that direction. Let me put this to you this way. I'm quoting what I had to say, and I read from Hansard Blues of Tuesday, April 29, 1980: "Let me reiterate the question so the Premier gets it. The question I posed was whether the Premier had taken any action since the election of last May to revive this subject matter with the federal government." You notice, Mr. Chairman, in reading that, the question I posed was whether the Premier had taken any action. That's what I said; the Blues reflect accurately what I said. The Premier stood up immediately after that and said this: "Mr. Chairman, that's not the question the member asked. He said: if the government.... Now the government is a number of members...." Blah, blah, blah.

The Premier wanted to hear the word "government," and that's what he heard, which is why he responded in the way that he did. But the question I asked was, what did the Premier do? He dissembled, heard only what he wanted to hear, and went off in the direction of talking about government. That's what he has been doing this afternoon too: not listening to what the question is, but attempting to answer and make it appear as if — from his point of view anyway, and to his supporters on the other side — there is really nothing of substance to what we're dealing with.

Let me go on here about what happened the other day. "If he'd said: 'Has the Premier....'" You will notice that I just read that; that's exactly what I said. But in his dissembling way, the Premier said the other day, "If he'd said: 'Has the Premier....'" which is what I did say, so there is no point in fooling around about it. He said then: "No, I haven't taken it to the government since we made the representation...." Now that means he hasn't done anything at least for the last year.

Now I want to put to the committee, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier, that the Speech from the Throne.... If the Premier says the Speech from the Throne was written by the Lieutenant-Governor, then I submit the Lieutenant-Governor is misleading this province as well, if that's in fact what happened. I say the Premier did it; the Premier insists he didn't, that somebody else did and somebody else is, but the Speech from the Throne did say certain things were going to happen in anticipation of the federal government transferring its jurisdiction.

Now that the Premier is back, I put the subject matter to him directly in a question. Is it a fact, Mr. Premier, that you, and or your government, but you the Premier — I want to make that clear so you don't misunderstand the question as you did the other day and as you did again today — did nothing whatever about this question of transferring jurisdiction over the B.C. Telephone Co. from the time you took office following the 1975 provincial election until September 1978? I submit to you, and I stand to be corrected, that you the Premier, and you on behalf of your government, did nothing whatever with respect to communicating with the federal government up until September 1978.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Will you resign if you're wrong?

MR. HOWARD: There's the Premier with a smart aleck answer again. I've been trying to get an answer out of the Premier all afternoon, and he comes back with that smart aleck response: "Would you resign if you're wrong?" I'm trying to ask him a question. What did he do between the time he became the Premier of this province and September 1978 with respect to raising the question of the B.C. Telephone Co. with the federal government? Did he do anything?

Well, I don't know. I have no way of knowing whether he did or didn't. He remains silent about that, and is just talking policy without taking any action to accomplish and bring that policy into effect. That makes the policy suspect, if that's what he's doing. As long as he remains dumb and silent and refuses to deal directly with the question, he is leaving the impression that there is something there that isn't. He can't get out of it by stupid, silly little remarks like whether a person will resign if they're wrong.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I'll have to ask the member to withdraw.

MR. HOWARD: To withdraw what, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You did comment on an hon. member, and that is unparliamentary.

MR. HOWARD: In what way? What I said was that he is making stupid and silly remarks, not that he, the individual, was in either one of those categories. Now the Premier, time and time again in these estimates, has used those same words relating to questions asked. That's all I was doing — replying using the same words that the Premier has used on other occasions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Carry on.

MR. HOWARD: If you, Mr. Chairman, want me to withdraw, I certainly will. I'm sure the Chair will be very careful and assiduous if ever the Premier uses either one of those two words again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It will.

MR. HOWARD: I want to put this to the Premier. I'm just trying to find out what he's been doing, what's happening, because we're interested in having the authority and the jurisdiction over B.C. Telephone Co. rest within the hands of the provincial government. In fact that whole question was dormant during the predecessor regime of Social Credit, and wasn't dealt with the first and only time.... The commencement point of dealing with that subject matter in a substantive way came about in 1973 when the NDP was the

[ Page 2265 ]

government. It was actively pursued in 1974 and in 1975. But it was first raised then, and that was an attempt, at that time.... And it's not an easy thing to accomplish; I can appreciate that. One, B.C. Tel doesn't want it; two, the federal government may be completely reluctant to go along with the idea, either because they don't want to go along with it or because they pay more attention to B.C. Tel's position than they do to the people of B.C. Whatever rationale doesn't matter; we know that the federal government is difficult to deal with.

I want to find out what is happening in this matter, what's current. I have a letter here dealing with this matter, stating that it was first raised by British Columbia in late 1973, when the B.C. government requested the federal government do certain things, laid out a number of alternatives to bring B.C. Tel under the appropriate provincial regulatory body, and so on. The letter says further: "From 1976 to 1978, the British Columbia government did not pursue the matter any further." That's what this letter to me says. Is that letter wrong? Did the provincial government pursue this matter in 1976, 1977 and 1978? Or is the letter that I have here from the federal government, saying that they didn't, inaccurate? It's worth knowing.

We've been trying to find out from the Premier, the other day and again today, when he raised this matter and what he did about it. I would like to know whether, from this particular letter, that is correct — whether from 1976 to 1978 the British Columbia government did not pursue the matter any further. I would like the Premier to tell me whether he, in September 1978, wrote to Mme Sauvé, who was then the federal minister with respect to communications matters, to raise the matter once again. Did the Premier do that? Did the Premier write to Mme Sauvé in September 1978 to raise the question again — for the first time, incidentally, since he became Premier — of transferring jurisdiction from the federal government to the provincial government with respect to the B.C. Telephone Co.?

I don't know. The letter says that's what happened. Is that what happened? I've no idea. If the Premier won't answer whether he did or not, well, we're left sort of uncertain as to just what the situation was, or is right now.

Did the Premier discuss this at the first ministers' conference in February 1979? Where are we? That's what we're trying to find out.

If the Premier wants the unanimous view of this House with respect to B.C. Telephone Co. boy, he'll have no difficulty getting it. It's been our stated intention of policy for a long time.

Anyhow, the Premier wants to deal with that question.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I can't recall correspondence that far back, but I'll take the member's word for it.

Just to finally conclude it, from the federal-provincial first ministers' conference, February 5 and 6, 1979, summary record of proceedings No. 155: "The Premier of British Columbia indicated they also supported the draft text but felt that it should be within provincial jurisdiction to regulate companies such as B.C. Tel, which operates solely within the province."

MR. HOWARD: Would the Premier mind tabling that when the House meets?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Premier still has the floor, hon. member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member asked a question; he's got the answer.

MR. HOWARD: The Premier gives me the answer that he did raise the matter in February 1979. Why does it take so long? Is the Premier trying to sandbag somebody? I've not been able to find that document. I asked the library to find it for me.

MR. KEMPF: You've got the answer. Sit down!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All members are reminded, particularly the member for Omineca, that the member for Skeena has the floor.

MR. HOWARD: Let me read you this letter, please. This is the letter I was reading from earlier. I'd gladly table it, in response to the Premier's statement just now. He said:

"Arrangements were made to hold bilateral talks" — this was following the letter to Mme Sauvé in September 1978 — "but the discussions did not take place, largely because of such activities as the Kline committee on the implications of telecommunications for Canadian sovereignty and the constitutional discussions. These two exercises were thought to be addressing the general subject of telecommunications carriers, in the national context of communications. However, as it happened, the first ministers did not discuss common carriers at their meeting in February 1979."

Now the Premier says they did. I take his word for it, said as an honourable gentleman in this House. The information given to me by Francis Fox, in this letter dated April 21, is obviously wrong, when Mr. Fox says that they did not discuss the matter. I'm prepared to table this letter, which I'll seek permission to do in the House at the appropriate time. I would hope that the Premier would table the document from which he read as well. It's not that I question his word, but it's just so that the position of the federal government is on the record as being inaccurate. I take his word for it. I have no disagreement with it. And the Premier will table it; I'm sure he will.

The letter dated April 21 from Mr. Fox says: "This matter is not being actively pursued by the federal government at this time, and no specific discussions have been scheduled to date." Again I'm in the position now of wondering whether what Mr. Fox tells me is accurate. That's what he says: that the matter is not being actively pursued by the federal government — that's his statement. I assume he's speaking on behalf of the government. He can express their view that they're not actively pursuing it.

He also says: "And no specific discussions have been scheduled to date." The Premier did say that it was the policy of the government — that's beautiful. He said that it was the obligation and the duty on the part of the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) to follow it up, to carry out that policy declaration, to put the mechanics into effect, to try to bring the policy to fruition and find agreement on it. If what Mr. Fox tells us is true, that no specific discussions have been scheduled to date, it appears that the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications

[ Page 2266 ]

has fallen down on the job and that he is not carrying out the responsibilities of trying to put into effect the policy decision of the Premier and the government. If that's the case, that's the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications' baby to deal with.

The Premier has made it quite clear that it's government policy. I said he wrote a letter in September 1978 to Mme Sauvé. He said he raised it. He read from a document here saying that they raised it at the first ministers' conference in February 1979 — that's policy. Beautiful! And Pat McGeer has muffed it. Excuse me, the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications hasn't, according to the letter from Mr. Fox.... That may be entirely inaccurate. That's why I want to table the letter so it will be on the public record here, so that when the appropriate minister sees the letter he will be forewarned and able to deal with it, either to admit that he hasn't done anything about bringing B.C. Tel under provincial jurisdiction since the February conference in 1979 — over a year ago — or to say that he has done something, and to tell the House what it is that he's done. I gather I have to wait until the House rises to get permission to table the particular letter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: When the committee rises.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of my speech today, could you direct the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) to put away his newspaper. He's been sitting there all day reading newspapers. There is a long standing tradition in the House that members do not read newspapers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Standing Orders do say that newspapers or entertaining material will not be read in the House.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted his undying attention here. We have been debating aspects of vote 9 and the consulting fees of $2,500. I know the Premier is an honourable man, even though there are some members of this House who would disagree. I know you're honourable.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Who?

MR. PASSARELL: You are.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Who would disagree?

MR. PASSARELL: Why I know he's honourable — I've read your press reports before they're released. But for three or four days we have been discussing the Goldfarb consulting firm, an eastern-based firm of international magnitude, Mr. Chairman. I would like to take this issue some further steps that haven't been debated yet in the Premier's estimates.

First, the Premier didn't have a B.C. consulting firm to do a poll undertaking for the political party or whatever. Why is that, Mr. Chairman? Maybe because no B.C. firms wanted to involve themselves by undertaking a political poll because they knew in fact that once they did a poll and sent the invoice in, it would go back to the Premier's office and specifically to Mr. Dave Brown. That was the direction given; send the invoice for a cheque to be issued from the Premier's office.

But that was not the case, Mr. Chairman, for a political poll that Goldfarb did. Goldfarb consulting firm of Bathurst Street in Toronto sent the invoice for a payment of $2,500 to Mr. Dave Brown in the office of the Premier. We've believed that Goldfarb was commissioned to do a political poll but that's not correct. That's not correct at all, Mr. Chairman. That poll was done to do a health study for the constituency of Atlin....

MR. BRUMMET: Mental, I hope.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, if it is I certainly know that the member would be one of the first visitors there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PASSARELL: Sorry about that, Mr. Chairman. So this consulting firm of Goldfarb, which does political....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. No, hon. member, I was not talking to you, I was speaking on your behalf, because I find it very hard to hear you with other members commenting. The member for Atlin has the floor.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for protecting me from the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf).

The consulting firm of Goldfarb which does political polls out of their Toronto base, with offices in New York, first did a poll for road conditions in Atlin for the Premier's office. They also did a study, following the conditions of the road, on why children in Greenville, British Columbia, must walk across the ice of the Nass River in winter to get to school. That was another political poll that Goldfarb did for the Premier's office. Then from there, let's suppose the Premier was concerned about the residents of the north — concerning health and roads and uranium mining — so he dispatched a writer to Toronto. This writer went to Toronto and the Premier informed his messenger with a simple statement: have the consulting firm of Goldfarb do a study on the lack of provincial services in the constituency of Atlin. This was just a few months before the election and the Premier was perhaps concerned for the north. Maybe, since he's never been up in Atlin constituency, he wanted to know something about the area. He was getting very poor information about Atlin from his backbencher and he wanted to know something about it so he consulted Goldfarb's consulting firm out of Toronto to do a study on the area.

Now the Premier has done the study and he realizes that, lo and behold, the province and his government have done very little for the north. He was afraid the people of this province would find out that the government has never put a first-aid station into Dease Lake, a community of 300 people with not even a trailer to be able to receive a Band-aid from. The Premier knew that the ship of state was closing into drydock for repairs and an election was called for because of this $2,500 political poll by a consulting firm in Toronto. This consulting firm from Toronto was wary of this government and so they sabotaged the entire issue and for a joke they charged the Premier's office $2,500 for this poll.

Was this maybe not the case, Mr. Chairman? Mick and Dick knew they were trying to get to the leader, and those big-city businessmen from Toronto felt they could draw this Premier into the sloughs of destruction, because they felt the leader of this government could be influenced by the Austin Taylors of this world. But the Premier was stubborn, and that's his nature. He doesn't take advice and he sticks to his

[ Page 2267 ]

stubbornness. The Premier knew the tricks of the hustlers of the big cities. He remembers well the train ride out east as a young man. Do you remember that, Mr. Premier? So when the consulting fee of $2,500 came to his office, he did the grizzly-bear sidestep.

Interjections.

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

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for protecting me from the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips), that wild man.

He sidestepped the issue, and he sidestepped it with a grizzly-bear sidestep into the Provincial Secretary's (Hon. Mr. Curtis') ministry, because he knew that member knew the idiosyncrasies of the big-city hustlers.

Why doesn't the Premier answer these basic questions concerning Goldfarb? Because he knows that the consulting firm of Goldfarb told him some terrible stories. The rural communities of this province, like Dease Lake, lack proper medical facilities. They also, for this $2,500 which the Premier's office paid, said that the children in Greenville might get hurt going across the Nass River without a bridge to attend school. The consulting firm also told the government in this report that retroactive taxes would be placed upon the residents of the north and that the provincial government couldn't offer any assistance by the end of April. It also said in this consulting report for $2,500 that massive hydro dams would be built in the north, flooding out certain areas of the Stikine Valley. It also said that there would be a uranium by-products mine up in Atlin.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the member for Atlin is trying to tell us a fairy tale which has nothing to do....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point of order, please.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm making my point of order. I hope you'll stop interrupting. My point of order is that we are hearing fairy tales from the member for Atlin, and I would hope that he would go back to questioning the Premier on his administrative responsibilities.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have not made a point of order. The member is addressing items that he feels are within the scope of the administrative actions of the minister whose estimates are before us now.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I'd like you to tell me whether health facilities and hydro dams in the Atlin region come under vote 9.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, just to give some assistance — through you — to the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot), we're talking about a report that was given.... I'm sorry, my friend in the corner has a point of order. Maybe you could direct the Chair too; the other member tried.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether the member for Atlin considers himself a comedian or what, but standing order 43....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Standing order 43 deals with relevancy. The member for Atlin has indicated....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, standing order 43 also deals with tedious and repetitive debate in the House. The matter being canvassed by the member has been canvassed a great number of times during the debates on these estimates, and the Premier has answered the questions the member is referring to. I wish you would enforce standing order 43.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, I'm referring to a report for $2,500, and we still haven't had an answer on what it contained or what it was for. To go back to my friends here, this report also probably told that there would be a uranium by-product mine up in Atlin, having some serious health and environmental damage associated with 600 pounds of uranium taken out per day.

For $2,000, Goldfarb told the Premier of these five problems in the Atlin constituency. Mr. Chairman, what would you do? Probably the same: sit down and never answer the questions, or give some fairy-tale answers in return. What would the people of this province want to know? Why wouldn't they want to know what was in this report of these terrible conditions that existed?

Maybe I should pay another visit to Kelowna, because it's interesting that after I was there last time talking about uranium, the Premier put a moratorium on it two days after I left. Maybe I should go back to Kelowna. If you did, Mr. Chairman, maybe the Premier would start answering some simple questions relating to the problems facing this province. If you can’t answer simple questions, how can you answer questions concerning the livelihood of people in the north? When you have internal problems you soon lose interest for the concerns of others who you have never met or lived with, and the northern way of life.

To give an example, here is an interesting aspect that came out of Ann Landers. It's dated April 15, 1980.

"Dear Ann:

    "I've got many problems, and maybe you can help with this one. I want people to like me but nobody does, not even my friends. Sure, I've got it all — money, fancy clothes and land — but everyone still looks upon me as a weasel. People say I'm not truthful, but I am. What do I have to do, give them my diary? I usually don't write letters to anybody, because at times I'm even ashamed of my own actions. What can I do?

"Okanagan Tears."

"Dear Tears:

    "You do have problems and you won't have them solved until you come out front with your sincerity and truth. It takes a person of maturity who can say that they have done things wrong and learned from it. The best time to start is now."

Good advice from Ann Landers.

There are five suggestions that I could offer to the Premier. I know the hon. member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) often gets up and says that there are no suggestions or constructive criticism given; it's always negative. So I would like to give five of my own suggestions — constructiveness.

[ Page 2268 ]

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The uranium moratorium. I was pleased with the Premier when he put the moratorium on uranium mining and exploration the day before the session commenced. This is one of the few times I've ever got up publicly and said that I supported the Premier. I think he did a tremendous job by putting on a moratorium.

But there's one problem with the moratorium that the Premier stated back in February — a moratorium that hasn't been presented to this House yet for all members to vote on before it becomes law. The problem is that mining operations like Placer Development will be mining up to 600 pounds of uranium per day in their moly mine at Surprise Lake in Atlin. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources officials have informed the Premier that the daily operation will be withdrawing 450 pounds of uranium a day at the mine, which will be stored in plastic-lined garbage tins in the tailings ponds. How can you have a uranium moratorium if Placer Development, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources — this government — is making public statements that uranium will be mined through the moly mine up in Atlin? The Blizzard claim, Mr. Chairman, in your constituency of Okanagan was going to mine 250 pounds of uranium a day. The Blizzard claim was postponed because of the moratorium the Premier put out to the public. Now Placer, through their moly mine, will mine twice as much uranium as the Blizzard claim in the Okanagan. How can this be done?

Concerning this issue, the moratorium placed by this Premier for seven years is good. I'd like to see it done indefinitely. But by the time the moratorium has run out, Placer will have stockpiled over 1,200 tons of uranium. Is this uranium for ready sale? The credibility of the moratorium will be lost to the residents of this province if the Premier allows something like Placer to be able to proceed with their operation of mining up to 600 pounds of uranium a day.

But back onto the Premier's estimates and my second suggestion. His budget has increased 100 percent. How about taking $10,000 out of your budget of $551,000 and putting it to good work for the people of Dease Lake so they might have a medical trailer up there so they can have some type of health help where nothing exists now? Take $10,000 out of $551,000 and help some people in Dease Lake.

Another suggestion. His staff has increased by 100 percent. Why not use some of these manpower hours to start finding out exactly what's happening with land claims? Send some of that staff, that's increased from 9 to 17, out into the field to start sitting down with the native people of this province, and start talking about the land claims that were promised four or five years ago.

Another suggestion is the use of moneys from the $551,000 of this Premier's budget to fly some of your staff up to the north to find out what kind of problems the workers are facing up there. Maybe some tax relief should be given to the workers.

The fifth suggestion. You had a problem with a statement you made to a high school student a week ago. And the story was covered throughout the province. Don't you think it would show some type of leadership, some type of maturity, to go back to that student and say that you made a mistake, instead of just sitting down and ignoring it and ignoring that student's feelings? You did make a mistake on that issue.

Those are five suggestions. Maybe we should include that sixth suggestion, taking into consideration what Ann Landers said to "Okanagan Tears."

That consulting firm from Toronto told the Premier what his party has been telling him since May 1979. You're in trouble and you're scared to admit it.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to raise an important issue with the Premier during his estimates. It concerns the role of government with respect to British Columbia Telephone Co. My colleague, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), has already mentioned the issue of the government shirking its responsibility to seek regulation of British Columbia Telephone Co. by British Columbia, instead of having it under federal jurisdiction. And I won't belabour that point.

I want to talk about the provincial government's deteriorating role, established by the NDP, as representative, protecting the subscribers to B.C. Telephone — that is to say, the telephone users. It was very strong. And interventions were frequently made to oppose rate increases and other actions that the public utility operating in this province was attempting to take.

HON. MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we have a Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who would cover those areas under his communications jurisdiction. I'm sure that you were listening and found that the first member for Vancouver Centre was covering an area that didn't fall under vote 9.

MR. LAUK: On the same point of order, the points that I have to raise deal directly with the Premier and his statements with respect to the actions of British Columbia Telephone Co. I'll make that clear in the course of my remarks; he was speaking on behalf of the government. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Premier for asking whether or not my remarks would be relevant to his estimates. I'll have his direct quotes, as they have appeared over the years with respect to B.C. Telephone Co.

I know that the Premier's bored, because as a millionaire he can afford increased rates on his telephones. He's probably got about 12 or 13 in his house. You know, ordinary people in this province can't afford the tremendous increases in telephone rates that are completely unjustified by the public utility. People on fixed incomes, people who are bedridden or shut-ins have a very difficult time making ends meet, and they get furious when they see these things happen.

I sent a letter to the Premier, and I know that he and I don't agree philosophically on many matters. But he is the Premier of this province, and as first minister he has the responsibility to deal with major public issues of the day. The letter went to his office on March 16, 1980, and I have not had the courtesy of a reply, Mr. Chairman. I think the people of British Columbia expect a little bit better action than that. We've asked him questions in his estimates; he's refused to answer. I send him letters, hoping for a reply stating the government position. We've demanded the government intervene with the CRTC.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: It's dated March 26, 1980. Are you saying that you didn't receive the letter, Mr. Premier?

[ Page 2269 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I just said: "Show me." I just want to see what you've got.

MR. LAUK: Is this another letter you didn't receive?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I just want to see what you've got there.

MR. LAUK: It's a letter to you, dated March 26.

HON. MR. BENNETT: How do I know? I can't see it.

MR. LAUK: Get some glasses.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Let me see. Let me see. Send it over.

MR. LAUK: Get a grip on yourself, will you?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Your head is shining.

MR. LAUK: My head is shining, yes. I was out gardening on the weekend.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, you were not; you were just lying on the beach.

MR. LAUK: I forgot my southern exposure and didn't wear a hat.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You fell asleep again.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I'll get back to the issue of these rate increases and the lack of government action and policy with respect to them. This Premier seems to be completely cowed by the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. When that minister was asked in question period about government intervention, he gave some convoluted story about governments not intervening with other governments. It made no sense historically, constitutionally, legally or any way else. It was just one of these off-the-cuff statements that the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications makes. You would think that the Premier would have the leadership ability to stand up and immediately say that the government will intervene. But the reason that he has not intervened is that he is being cowed by the opinions of the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, against the interests of ordinary people within this province.

The second point is that since the governments of the Barrett administration and the Bennett administration have been strenuously opposing rate increases and other applications in front of the CRTC.... Since January 1979 the Premier took his government and inextricably got themselves involved — and I say reprehensibly, as well — with the B.C. Telephone Company in a conspiracy to create the appearance of some benefit to the province when B.C. Tel took over Automatic Electric in the east from the parent company of both Automatic Electric and B.C. Tel, General Telephone. How did that occur? There was a creation of a flow-through voting trust where 5 percent increase in B.C. Tel shares became transferred — alienated further to General Telephone. It was a terrible sellout of the public utility, one of the most terrible things that's happened in recent years. That's when the government took a complete reversal. This followed closely on the heels of the Premier opposing CPR's takeover of further shares in MacMillan Bloedel and saying B.C. was not for sale.

Shortly after that, the Premier gets in bed with the B.C. Telephone Company and creates this nonsense that hoodwinks the public into thinking it was something beneficial for the province. That was the first sign of the change of policy that the Premier's led the government in.

Since then we've had the rate increase application and the CRTC intervention. The government of B.C. was there. All of the officials and civil servants were there fully prepared to oppose, but they got the word from that Premier to keep their mouths shut and they didn't say a thing throughout the whole hearings, Mr. Chairman. It was a shocking display, and those civil servants were absolutely furious at that demonstration. They got the word from the top that there was a change of policy on B.C. Tel.

We've got to ask ourselves — and I want the Premier to direct his mind to this, because the people of this province are asking the same question — why the change in policy? What has B.C. Tel donated? What has B.C. Tel got on the government? What's the hidden agreement between them? Because on the face of it there's no rationale for it. How can an elected government not take a position of protecting the citizens of British Columbia against improper and unjustified rate increases? There is absolutely no justification for that position whatsoever.

The tremendous profits that are being made are shocking. It's not just a question of B.C. Tel saying — as the government, the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications and the Premier well know.... B.C. Tel says: "Well, we need these profits to buy new equipment." They're not using those profits to buy new equipment. Those profits are going to the United States to a parent company to compensate foreign shareholders. It's blood money, Mr. Chairman, off the backs of ordinary telephone users in the province of British Columbia.

Just have a look at the profit picture that has accumulated....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I've followed with some interest your debate relating to vote 9. While we have always allowed an overview rather than an in-depth discussion during these votes, I am hard-pressed to see how this specifically relates to vote 9, the administrative responsibility of the Premier. In fact, it clearly falls within the jurisdiction of another minister. Again, the problem the Chair constantly has during the Premier's estimates is what can be specifically and in detail examined. I would ask the member if he could narrow his debate down to vote 9, the administrative responsibilities of the Premier. I think now we are wandering just a little bit, with all due respect, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, except I am referring directly to the Premier's announcement in January 1979 with respect to the takeover by B.C. Tel of two subsidiaries of General Telephone — General Telephone being the parent company of both. Now his statement at the time was a statement of government policy. He held a press conference and he announced it and it was from the Premier's

[ Page 2270 ]

office. It wasn't a question within the purview of the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, who at that time wasn't even concerned, as we recall, with that area of policy. It involved BCRIC and the takeover and it involved the whole question of the profit-taking of the public utility, and the question of public policy, government policy with respect to the foreign takeover of not only our companies in British Columbia, but a public utility.

Now I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the share dividends, just the common-share dividends declared on shares of B.C. Tel, were $14 million in 1974. In 1975 they were $15 million and in 1976 they were $18 million. Mr. Chairman, in the first full year of Social Credit administration the profit went from $18 million a year to $46,716,000 — that's dividends, not just profits but dividends on shares — and then the next year to $51,307,000. Of that $50 million, $30 million went to compensate foreign shareholders in 1978, and that Premier condoned the further takeover of B.C. Tel by a foreign company in Connecticut, in the United States, and that's what we've paying for. That's why B.C. Tel is launching a rate increase, and the Premier is ignoring it.

Mr. Chairman, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour had some interesting comments about B.C. Telephone and, because he was the minister at the time, he advised the Premier of his comments back in October of 1976. It was the result of good work done by the Premier's administration, and the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, as the minister at the time, knew full well that it was substantive and supported the position that he stated. Here is what it said: "Davis said in an interview from Victoria Tuesday night that analysts in his department have found that B.C. Tel doesn't measure up in performance, when compared with Bell Telephone in eastern Canada, in a number of respects, and he named handling of complaints, the quality of service and technological advances." That's the whole ball of wax, Mr. Chairman.

Now, you see, these matters have been raised time and time again, and the Premier has steadfastly ignored them. I sent a letter to the Premier on March 26, 1980, asking him to intervene. I'll read it out and put it on the record, you know, the Premier was so interested in seeing a copy of the letter, he doesn't even want to hear it. Or is he going to claim, Mr. Chairman, it's a letter he didn't receive? Is that what he's going to claim? Because he's done that before too; we know that.

This is addressed to the Premier:

"Re: B.C. Telephone's application for a rate increase.

"B.C. Telephone Company in 1979 made over $51 million, and since 1974 B.C. Tel has paid over $146 million in dividends alone to their shareholders. Over $80 million of those dividends have been paid to foreign shareholders. The government directly profits from common-share dividends, because it holds 1,215,000 shares...."

You know, I can't believe the rudeness of the first minister of this province. He refused to answer my letter, and now he walks away. Are you getting a pencil? The least your cabinet could do is to supply you with a pencil.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, continue to address the Chair.

MR. LAUK: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.

"The government directly profits from common-share dividends, because it holds 1,215,844 shares in B.C. Telephone Company. In the last 18 months that company has advised that it intends to expend funds on major capital projects. These capital projects appear to have been re-announced by the company from time to time, and just what part of their announcement should be taken seriously remains in doubt.

"It is the wide-spread view that B.C. Tel service to customers, rather than improving, has been deteriorating. In the face of the above facts I urge you to intervene as the government of British Columbia, both with the federal government itself and the CRTC to prevent B.C. Tel's totally unwarranted request for a rate increase. It is not enough to pass the buck and say that it is a federal responsibility. British Columbians everywhere are depending upon you to defend their interests and not throw up your hands and make excuses. I know that when you carefully consider your responsibility in this regard you will reverse the government's decision and intervene on behalf of the British Columbians."

Mr. Chairman, I received no answer to that letter. Indeed, the deadline for filing of intervention passed two weeks ago and the government has not intervened. It's a shocking display of the government's total lack of caring for ordinary people. They've got their own high-level political games to play. When it comes to ordinary people and protecting the public, they have absolutely no interest. Under that Premier's leadership, this government is responsible for turning their backs on ordinary people. The arrogance is incredible. They're walking around and talking about pipelines and tunnels and....

MR. BRUMMET: Coal moratoriums.

MR. LAUK: What are you talking about?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: You know, they have a terrible nerve. I'm so easily distracted by the hon. gentleman from Peace River, who, as you know, is very skilled in these matters of distracting speakers in this House when he has nothing better to do. You know, Mr. Chairman, the Premier is responsible for leading this government away from the people. I'm sure his ministers do not support his view, by and large, that the government should not intervene with the CRTC. The public of British Columbia have sent petitions. They've sent me a petition. I've got two or three petitions of 25 names; they're not in the proper order for submission to the Legislature, but I'll supply them to the Premier. These are people in areas of the city who have sent me petitions. Also, the consumer association is intervening; other public agencies are intervening; the NDP has filed an intervening brief. But we don't have the resources of the province of British Columbia which the Premier has to intervene and give facts and figures to support the case against a rate increase.

We're calling upon the Premier to stop chewing gum, to stop turning his back on. the people and giving the back-of-the-hand treatment to ordinary people, and to intervene on their behalf. That's why you were elected. I think it's impor-

[ Page 2271 ]

tant that the Premier stop ignoring the legitimate pleas of the people of this province for government action against the British Columbia Telephone Co., which is profit-taking to a terrible degree.

It would be different if it were a private enterprise organization that was subjected to the vagaries of the free market system. They have sanctuary from the pursuing hounds of free enterprise; that sanctuary is a monopoly. That monopoly has been granted to them by the Crown, provincial and federal, to be the sole supplier of telephone service to this province. It would be different if they were in the competitive marketplace, where they would take their lumps one way or another. But I'll tell you, if there was another telephone company competing with B.C. Telephone, Connecticut would not be getting $80 million of our money today. They have a licence to print money to compensate foreign shareholders. They are actively supported and encouraged and connived at by the Premier of this province and this government.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Order!

MR. LAUK: "Connivance" has a specific definition, and I'm willing to support that argument. "Connivance" means they've stood idly by and watched the monopoly organization profit-take at the expense of....

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: To save you looking up the word, the word "connivance" as applied to both myself and the government by the member opposite.... He's trying to put an easier definition on it now, which is not the impression he would leave with the public. I know, as an hon. member, he'd probably use the word in the wrong place. It's a very easy thing to do for a member who doesn't use words that often. I would ask that he withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Vancouver Centre has been asked to withdraw the word "connivance."

MR. LAUK: I'll withdraw the word "connivance" and use a different.... They stood idly by as the British Columbia Telephone Co. has taken profits of a scandalous percentage off ordinary people. We're talking about people who have one phone. A lot of them don't get around. They don't get to Palm Springs or Maui, as the Premier does every second week. They have a tough time getting out shopping, and a phone to them is very important. They can't afford these rate increases. I suppose a lot of people in B.C. would be glad to pay some increase if they could be guaranteed some improvement in service as well. But then the Premier argues that they're going to try and get regulatory authority of the monopoly here in British Columbia. Since they've taken over government, they've stood idly by. Profits went from $18 million in 1976, the first full year of the Social Credit administration, to almost $46 million....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair has some difficulty in relating the in-depth discussion which the member is now engaged in regarding this particular item specifically to the administrative responsibility of the Premier. For the second time I would ask the member if he could more specifically relate to vote 9. While passing reference is in order, as we have said many times, the discussion which the member is now engaged in is much more than just passing reference and has been a rather detailed examination for some time of something that, I'm sure with reflection, the member would see could very well be covered under a separate vote other than vote 9.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not going into as much detail as I can. I've got a lot of material here and I'm not going to go into it. I'm going to go into the more detailed references with the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer).

You know, the Premier himself led the policy. He was the one who changed the course of events back in January 1971. We have to ask why the government machinery was set up to intervene with CRTC. He has opposed it; he has directed it not to. It's about time that the Premier faced the music. He's altogether willing to support the world's longest exhaust pipe, the jetfoil service and the countless other pie-in-the-sky schemes which he's coming out with every five minutes to try to distract the public from the bungling ineptitude of this government.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Shame!

MR. LAUK: Yes. You're not kidding it's a shame. It seems to me that the Premier should direct his mind to something that he can do for the people that won't cost him anything. He should go before the CRTC and intervene on our behalf. Why has the Premier not answered my letter of March 26, 1986? The second question is: has the government decided to apply for an extension to intervene before the CRTC and present a full brief to oppose the rate increase application? The third question is: why has the government reversed its policy on B.C. Tel? We have the argument that they want regulatory power in B.C., but the actions in the last two years of this Premier and this government indicate that if they do have regulatory power, even more profits would go to B.C. Tel, because they've done nothing about what's happened since they've taken office.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, if the member's got a letter waiting for me, it would be among the mail that awaits me in my office when I get out of my estimates. The holdup gang over there have thought it politically cute and they're bragging about the number of hours they're able to hold the Premier in the Legislature, so it's surprising that anybody would act as a cry-baby about the Premier not being able to attend to some of the other things that we're trying to do. I've told them that the government is running very strongly. Now with regard to other areas on communications, that's the responsibility of the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, except to put this further footnote: the member was incorrect in the attributions that he made toward the Premier. He was incorrect in those, just as the member for Atlin was incorrect when he stated to this Legislature that I'd never been in the constituency of Atlin. He's incorrect as well.

MR. LAUK: The Premier has stated that the attributions I made to him were wrong, and I challenge that remark. I say the Premier is not being candid with us. The attributions that I've made about the Premier in what he said are absolutely correct, and he knows it's correct. His statement that the

[ Page 2272 ]

attributions I made to him are wrong is an incorrect statement and he knows it's an incorrect statement.

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

MR. PASSARELL: The Premier just referred to me as something I don't agree with. I found it disrespectful and not of the type of talk which should be said in the House about untruths. I would ask him to withdraw that statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Atlin has found certain remarks.... Would the Premier withdraw any remarks that he...?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Premier, the tradition of the House is that a member has risen on a point regarding a matter which he feels offensive and the Chair asks for a withdrawal.

HON. MR. BENNETT: All right. I apologize for what the member thought he heard and now I'll tell him what he heard. I withdraw that and now I'll tell him. What I said is a fact: the member was untrue when he said I've never been in the constituency of Atlin, and the question I posed across the floor was: "Why would you say untrue things?" Now if he took offence at me for asking that question.... I don't know what his motives are that he's embarrassed about that he'd ask me to withdraw. But it's a fact that what he said was untrue. He said it voluntarily; I didn't make him say it. He introduced it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The withdrawal has been made.

The member for Mackenzie on vote 9.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you go have a smoke?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I just did, thank you. The member asked why I don't go out for another cigarette. I've been through two packs today, Mr. Chairman, and I'm not proud of it, but that's a heck of a lot of smoking to do in one day.

Anyway, I do have some questions for the Premier. I do hope that the Premier will take this opportunity to answer some questions. I might say that, in my view, it's remarkable that in the parliamentary system.... We have been on the Premier's estimates now for some 21 or 22 days — something like that — and really we're not getting any answers to any of the major questions that we have been asking. I thought I would ask some questions that perhaps the Premier could answer.

Before I get into that, I should make one remark. Last year, in estimates, the Premier accused me — some members on this side of the House, but me specifically — of never contacting him on many of these issues. Some of these issues I'm going to be discussing in a moment. The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) just referred to the fact that the Premier doesn't answer his mail — are you listening, Mr. Premier? — and I've had occasion to write to the Premier on a number of topics, including Ocean Falls. In fact, as early as October of last year I had written you, Mr. Premier, and asked you about the future of that community, and received no reply whatsoever.

There were a number of other occasions, which I am going to bring up shortly, where the same thing happened. I received a very nice acknowledgement from your secretary, but nothing from the Premier. I'm a bit hurt about that, Mr. Chairman, because the Premier accused me — wrongly — last year of not contacting him on some of these major issues that I've discussed in this House. I just want the Premier to bear that in mind. When it comes to contacting members of this House, the Premier leaves a lot to be desired.

In any event, just last Sunday another 94 people were laid off in Ocean Falls, bringing the total up to in excess of 200 people laid off in that community since the shutdown began April 6. At the end of this month, of course, there will be a total shutdown of that facility, which means about 250 people will be without any jobs at all.

MR. KEMPF: We know the story. How many jobs have been found?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: There we have the mouthy member for Omineca interjecting again with his drivel. He says he knows the story. Why doesn't he have guts enough to get up in this House and tell the story as he sees it? He talks from his chair, Mr. Chairman, but he won't get up in this House and tell the story. As a matter of fact, I happen to know the story that member has. The story is one individual's description to him of the situation in Ocean Falls, which, by the way, is not correct.

Getting back to the topic, Ocean Falls, this is vote 9.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As the member may recall, some short time ago, when a matter was brought before the House at that time, we went into a very lengthy discussion. I will read just part of that discussion that was brought to the floor of the House.

"The whole management of a ministry may be discussed in a general way when the committee is considering the first item of the estimates for that ministry. The administrative action of a ministry is open to debate, and in the case of a minister, his performance of executive duties as distinguished from policy-making in open to debate. Notwithstanding that, standing order 61(2) states that 'speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item under consideration.' Some latitude, by our practice, is traditionally conceded when a minister's salary vote is under consideration."

Hon. member, passing reference to a situation is in order, but an in-depth discussion, as we presently seem to be engaging in.... The Chair is having great difficulty in relating this specifically to vote 9 under the "strictly relevant" clause. I would ask the member to narrow his debate and cover it in a general way, if he is dealing with it, rather than going into a long detailed specific account.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I will tell you right now how this relates to the Premier's office. Quite frankly, it's on the public record, first of all, by the chairman of the board of directors of that corporation, that the decision was not made by the board of directors, but was strictly a cabinet decision, and totally in the hands of the Premier. This is public knowledge.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I point out to you that in a meeting the Premier held on January 16 in his office with

[ Page 2273 ]

representatives from the community of Ocean Falls the Premier — no one else — told those people that he would not put a foreclosed sign on the door of Ocean Falls. Not only that, but he told those people at that same meeting that they would be the first to know about the future of that community, in spite of the fact that I am the MLA for the area — obviously I have to read the newspapers to find out — and in spite of the fact that I've written to the Premier and have received no answer.

What I am saying here is that the closure of that community, the fact that 250 to 300 people are tossed out in the street without jobs at a time when there is a recession in this province as there is in the rest of North America, is the Premier's responsibility. Not only that, Mr. Chairman; let me point out to you that we were assured, once again from the Premier's own press releases, that there would be an operation in that community regarding a flitch and chip mill. The fact is that we know that the government has not made available to these people who wish to move into the community to start this new small-scale business in Ocean Falls.... They have not been allocated any wood whatsoever. In the meantime what do we have? We have a number of people staying in that community without jobs because their homes are there, in the hope that this new proposal will go, into operation this fall.

The fact is, Mr. Premier, that no wood has been allocated by your Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). That responsibility has to be your responsibility. He has been dawdling for three years. He has on his desk right now a study of central coast wood allocation which he refused to make public. It is your responsibility to see that that study is made public, that wood is allocated through this new proposal in Ocean Falls. That is your responsibility, Mr. Premier — through you, Mr. Chairman. That is how this whole question relates. It is totally on the Premier's head. I was out of order the other day, but I'm not out of order today. I'm discussing this very important topic on this issue with the Premier.

The other point I'd like to make is that while all these people are being laid off in that community, they have no way to get out. Once again, the Premier must take full responsibility for the worst botch-up in water transportation in the history of this province: many millions of dollars being wasted and putting day ferries into night ferries and refitting night ferries into day ferries, that whole thing. I won't go into it; I can see you shaking your head, but the fact is exactly right.

The Premier signed that agreement with the federal government subsidizing water transportation on the coast of British Columbia. I might point out for the edification of this House that under section 4(2) the agreement is very clear. It says: "The province agrees that in accepting the subsidies from Canada as provided herein for ferries and coastal freight and passenger service in British Columbia coastal waters it will ensure reasonable and adequate service and appropriate supervision thereof." May I point out to you at this time, Mr. Chairman, that there is no water transportation of any kind at the present time into Ocean Falls, Bella Bella and some other communities on the coast of British Columbia. I don't call that living up to the agreement.

In the meantime we have people laid off in that community, and they have no way to get out. They are trapped; it's as simple as that. I am extremely angry about it. I hope the Premier will answer that one question in regard to the future of that community, at least the flitch and chip mill and water transportation into that community, and at least direct the Minister of Forests to allocate some timber.

While we are on the topic of coast transportation, I might just throw in a little odd and end. About three weeks ago I presented a petition to this House of some 4,500 signatures — which has increased now, by the way, to well over 5,000 signatures — from people living in the Powell River area who are very upset that the supplementary vessel will not be put in place this summer. You can't tell me that the Ferry Corporation and the highways ministry don't have the vessels to service that community. We are facing six- and eight-hour line-ups this summer, and the government just keeps saying nothing can be done. This is the Premier's responsibility ultimately. The Premier must be aware of the botch-up of the transportation system in this province, particularly on this coast. He must be aware of it. The situation is getting worse, not better. Perhaps the Premier could comment on that little item.

To change topics, Mr. Chairman, I've written to the Premier on another matter and that's the matter of a proposed mine on Gambier Island. I've not received any reply to my correspondence.

AN HON. MEMBER: When did you write?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The first letter I wrote was October 31, 1979.

AN HON. MEMBER: And he hasn't answered it?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No answer. A nice letter from the secretary saying she had received the letter but nothing else from the Premier. The Premier, as I said before, Mr. Chairman, does not answer letters. What's he doing? I know he went to Hawaii, California and Japan. I guess the travelling takes time. However, these are important issues to people.

But in any event, I did write to you again, Mr. Premier, as well as to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) and the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) regarding this topic. But here's the proposal I want to put forward to the Premier at this time. The Islands Trust has come out flatly against a proposed mine on Gambier Island. We're not sure that there's a mine there; in fact we have evidence to indicate that the ore values are probably too low.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You said: "we have evidence." Who's we?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Myself and your Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member has already pointed out the point that I was just about to make, that this would be much more appropriately discussed under another ministry. Particularly when....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You're absolutely right. My question to the Premier.... Am I interrupting you? Sorry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. In this particular instance, hon. member, the discussion is really out of order at this time, particularly the subject that the member is now canvassing which would much more appropriately be discus-

[ Page 2274 ]

sed under, for example, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: But, Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to determine why the Premier won't answer my letter regarding proposed mining on Gambier Island. Perhaps when the Premier gets up to answer.... I must refresh his memory. He may not have seen it. His very competent secretary may have mislaid the letter somewhere. In any event, I would like to know from the Premier whether he received my correspondence, whether he ever intends to answer the correspondence, whether he intends to direct his Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) to do something about this very important topic.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. We would be embarking on a very difficult program for the Chair to maintain any kind of order at all if simply by referring to a letter to or the holding of a meeting in the Premier's office that that in fact would entitle the member, or members, to engage in discussion under the Premier's estimates. It has been a very broad principle that we can discuss in a general way, but, hon. members, we would lose total control of the purpose of this committee if the mere writing of a letter to the office of the minister currently under review in committee were to, in fact, by that method, entitle the member to continue to question. We must again get back to section 61(2) regarding the strict point of relevance. At best it's difficult for the Chair to maintain control in the Premier's estimates. We'll continue with vote 9, and the matter under discussion would be best dealt with under the estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll broaden the aspect of this particular topic. First of all, the Islands Trust was set up by our government supported, I presume, by this government, and I'm concerned that, one, the Islands Trust may be facing extinction over this issue, that this government has decided to make an assault against the Islands Trust on this issue — wipe out the Islands Trust — and two.... Oh, I was waiting for another two-minute penalty.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, again I must advise that the argument that the member has given still in no way would relate the present discussion to vote 9 which is currently before the House. Hon. member, please, we must relate back to the administrative responsibilities of the ministry currently under review. That is vote 9. The member is wandering somewhat and I must ask that he return now to vote 9, the Premier's estimates.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, I am discussing the Premier's estimates because the Premier, I think, Mr. Chairman, is ultimately responsible for the conduct of his cabinet members. There's a time, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we have engaged in that discussion before and it is certainly the feeling of the member, obviously, that this is the case, but the Chair has already advised members that that simply is not sufficient to bring a matter under discussion of vote 9. Otherwise we need have no other votes before us other than the one vote, vote 9.

The Chair is advising the member again that we must be strictly relevant to the matter presently before us, and that is the administrative responsibility, not the policy-making, of the Premier's office.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'll try to make the point very briefly. This is an overall responsibility involving the environment of a very sensitive area, and time is of the essence. By the time — next fall — when we get to the spending estimates of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), for all we know, it will be far too late. Every day that goes by, there's a promoter putting thousands of dollars into exploration for a mine on an island that should not be mined. I'm not against mining, but I do support the Islands Trust which has come out against a mine on this particular island. I think the Premier must direct his Minister of Mines to look into this matter very quickly and very seriously, because it's a major issue in the province. In conclusion on this particular topic, I might point out that the ministry's own environmental and land-use study indicates that this area could be and should be another Stanley Park to the lower mainland area. The Premier must direct the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) to take the necessary steps to stop that work on that particular island, and support the Islands Trust's position now.

We have another problem with unadjusted stumpage rates on the coast of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With all due respect, hon. member, at this point I must.... The Chair is always reluctant to instruct any member to discontinue his speech, but at this time, hon. member, for the third or fourth time I must bring to your attention that the points you were about to embark on could not, by the strangest stretch of the imagination of your Chair, be brought under vote 9. As I say, I'm reluctant to advise the member to discontinue his speech, but I must at this time advise the member that he is putting the Chair in a position that leaves him very little alternative.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'll take your advice seriously, Mr. Chairman.

Just to remind the Premier, as Harry Truman once said, "the buck stops here." I think, in the case of the Premier, he is the ultimate...

AN HON. MEMBER: ...buck-passer.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, that may be. He does pass the buck occasionally to Ottawa.

But the fact is that the Premier is ultimately responsible for these actions in this province, and he must take that responsibility. He hasn't answered questions on uranium mining or the sale of uranium overseas, on the jetfoil or on many, many other questions which have been brought before this Legislature. We could go on all summer asking the Premier questions, and we may just do that.

The point is, I think, the parliamentary system here is being perverted, in my view. We have a minister of the Crown and leader of a major party in this province — of the government party, as a matter of fact — refusing to answer questions of significance to many, many people in British Columbia. If we can't receive the answers from the ministers responsible — in this case, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser),

[ Page 2275 ]

the Minister of Environment, the Minister of Forests — who then does take responsibility? It has to be the Premier. If he's not giving direction to his ministers, then what the heck is he doing? What is he collecting his pay for? So I'm suggesting to the Premier that he take these questions seriously, answer his mail and consider some of the questions that I've posed to him, particularly the questions on Ocean Falls, Gambier Island and coast transportation.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member answers a lot of his own questions when he admits he was asking questions which would be more appropriately asked under other ministries, particularly that of the Minister of Forests. The only thing I can say is that where ministries relate, they're not waiting for your questions. The hon. member may be very confident that the government waits for him to ask a question before we do anything; but appropriately, the ministers responsible, where they have to meet, are meeting. I tell the member that where a letter has been acknowledged by my office, it's brought to my attention so that I can take it up with ministers. I'm sure he's glad that we're discussing his concerns as well as those of others.

The member mentioned the Minister of Transportation and Highways. You still have the opportunity to deal with him during question period in the House, if it's a matter of the moment.

MR. BARBER: I have some questions of the Premier regarding a statement he made on October 13, 1978. I propose to relate my questions and my remarks entirely to that statement, and thus be entirely in order. On October 13, 1978, the Premier was reported as making certain comments about B.C. Hydro.

Do you want me to wait until you come back? Gosh, it was going to be a good speech too, and now he's left the room. I wonder why that is.

AN HON. MEMBER: Never mind, Charlie, you've given it before.

MR. BARBER: No, I haven't. It's a brand-new subject. You'll be interested in it, too, I'm sure.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: As with the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), Mr. Chairman, will you protect me from this audience opposite?

I want to talk about the Premier's involvement in the setting of B.C. Hydro rates, as they relate to the formula for transit. I want to talk about the Premier's involvement with the board of directors of B.C. Hydro in making an announcement on October 13, 1978, that never came true. It's yet another case, Mr. Chairman, of false promises. It would appear to be yet another case of the Premier talking in a fashion absolutely ignorant — in this case of Hydro's transit finance policies, in other cases of other policies — that we've come to recognize — his typical "say anything at the time and hope they forget it tomorrow" attitude.

On October 13, 1978, the Premier told us that because of the establishment of the Urban Transit Authority, B.C. Hydro would no longer be liable for transit deficits. That is at least correct, Mr. Chairman. The Premier said it; it was true; it remains true. The Urban Transit Authority, as you know, is an instrument which allows local administrations to raise the funds and to make the decisions regarding the provision of transit services in British Columbia. The first thing the Premier said was true. He said that when Hydro lost responsibility for transit, it also lost an obligation to pay for transit deficits. In 1978, the transit deficit for Hydro was, if I recall correctly, approximately $51.5 million.

The Premier made a false promise on October 13, 1978, and when he gets back, if he gets back, I'd like to ask him some questions about the basis of that promise, because the Premier told us: "While B.C. Hydro is warning customers unofficially to brace themselves for a steep increase in natural gas and electricity rates next year, Premier Bennett expects Hydro to lower its rates." That's the Province of October 13, 1978. Now in a few minutes I will read direct quotations from remarks, word by word, that the Premier is, according to the Province, said to have made on that date.

But what he did on October 13, 1978, Mr. Chairman, was to hold out false promise. He did so in a deliberate way; he did so in order to tell people that the hints Hydro was dropping at that time concerning another general rate increase weren't true. He did so in order to further amplify the case for the Urban Transit Authority; he did so, I expect, because in part he simply didn't know what he was talking about.

In a few moments I'll be quoting from a Hydro document, available to all MLAs, that talks about how Hydro views the transit deficit. But let me bring you up to date, in order to discuss further the false promise made by this administration concerning funding for transit and its relation to Hydro bills. Let me point out again that I'm refer-ring exclusively and solely to a statement that the Premier made on October 13, 1978, Mr. Chairman:

"In the last fiscal year Hydro reports that the operating deficit of its transit division amounted to some $61 million. In the coming fiscal year the operating deficit for the transit division of B.C. Hydro will be precisely zero. They no longer have responsibility, but rather two corporations — the operating corporation and the planning corporation, to give them their general description — will now and in the future be responsible for transit planning."

But on October 13, 1978, the Premier seemed not to be aware of that, or, if he was, he chose to misstate the case, because on October 13, 1978, the Premier told us that when Hydro lost its obligation to fund transit deficits, we could look forward to a general reduction in Hydro rates. Well, surprise, surprise, Mr. Chairman! There has been no such reduction. In fact, not only has Hydro now managed to hold itself no longer responsible for $16 million in operating losses for transit but, further, this year they obtained a general rate increase of 7 percent for residential customers.

The Premier has been made a fool of twice. Not only did Hydro not lower its rates but, lo and behold, they actually raised their rates. One then has to ask why the Premier would have made such a false promise on October 13, 1978, when he told us that he fully expected B.C. Hydro to lower its rates because it was no longer obligated to fund the transit deficit.

I for one, Mr. Chairman, on October 13, 1978, almost believed the Premier. I presumed he had done his homework; I presumed he had consulted with Hydro officials; I presumed he was conversant with internal Hydro financing policies; I presumed that he'd talked to those members of the B.C. Hydro board who are also members of the executive

[ Page 2276 ]

council. They are, after all — at least for the time being — members of the same political coalition; presumably they talk to the Premier. So a lot of us presumed that when the Premier said on October 13, 1978, that he fully expected Hydro to lower its rates, he knew what he was talking about. Now it turns out that he didn't know what he was talking about. There has been no rate reduction; to the contrary, there has been a rate increase. This can only be the result of two things: one, a false promise; or two, a false reading of information.

HON. MR. MAIR: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I didn't think that that member who has been a member of this House for some time would breach the rules. I thought I misheard him when he used the words "false promise," but he has now used them over and over again in relation to another hon. member of this House. I consider that to be a breach of the rules, and I would ask the Chair to protect the member who has been so abused.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. I would ask the member if he would withdraw the term that he used. It has been found unparliamentary by another member just one moment before the Chair was about to bring it to his attention as well. Would the member withdraw the offending remark?

MR. BARBER: Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I always withdraw remarks which are, in the opinion of others, unparliamentary.

I can certainly talk about what I believe to be a breach of promise because a promise was made and not kept. Whether or not it was made sincerely I will not comment upon. But it was clearly a breach of promise, was it not, Mr. Chairman? Shortly I will read into the record the precise statement the Premier made on that day. Here he is and he will certainly agree. On October 13, 1978, the Premier said that because Hydro would no longer be responsible for the funding of transit deficits, the people of British Columbia could look forward to a general reduction in the Hydro rates. While the Premier is talking to Lawrie he can be reminded. Sure enough, there are the notes. Now the Premier knows.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Again, I would have to caution the member about the use of first names. It's just one more thing that weakens the attitude and the genuineness of debate that takes place in the House. I would ask that the member take a more formal approach in referring to anyone in the chamber.

MR. BARBER: Certainly.

To continue, the argument that I am trying to put forward....

MR. HYNDMAN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself very strongly with what you have just said. As a new member of this House I ask your ruling and your force in seeing that a very distinguished member of the public service of this province is properly addressed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the matter raised, the matter had already been dealt with by the Chair and it at that time ended. Hon. member, the point of order you made was, in fact, not a valid point of order.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I apologize also if it is unparliamentary to address a person whom I respect and like by his first name.

The Premier has now seen the notes provided to him anonymously about my comments. It concerns me that the people of British Columbia were misinformed about an important matter of public policy. It concerns me that the government's intentions may have been misrepresented. It concerns me that the correct financing of transit — a field in which the Premier meddled and involved himself and thus it is within our rights to discuss it.... If he had said nothing, we'd have no such rights and wouldn't discuss it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, again, for the information of the members, and it has already been canvassed many times in this House, the mere fact that a matter has been brought up — whether it be in the statement of a policy or otherwise — by the Premier or by a minister, does not in fact entitle the bringing of that matter into the administrative responsibilities of the ministry currently before us. It is very difficult for your Chair, during the Premier's estimates, to relate the rule of strict relevance. There are some instances in which giving a passing reference will be accepted; but an in-depth study and a detailed examination of a matter which is clearly the responsibility of another minister cannot continue if we are in fact to maintain any kind of orderly debate on the estimates before the committee.

MR. BARBER: I quite agree, Mr. Chairman, which is why I propose to ask the Premier a number of questions about a statement he is reported to have made, which is why I propose to ask him whether or not he consulted — here are the questions, Mr. Premier — with members of the board of B.C. Hydro before he made his statement on October 13, 1978, as reported on page 4 of the Vancouver Province, that with the assumption by the Urban Transit Authority of responsibility for the transit deficit and the subsequent relinquishing of it by B.C. Hydro, the people of British Columbia could expect a general decrease in the hydro rates.

I have a series of questions. Did you, prior to making that statement — through you, Mr. Chairman — consult with any member of the board of B.C. Hydro? Did that member of the board advise you that Hydro, in fact, was planning to reduce its rates concurrent with losing its liability for the transit deficit? I have further questions to the Premier, Mr. Chairman, regarding his statement of policy, October 13, 1978. If you did not consult with any member of the board of B.C. Hydro, did you consult with Mr. Bonner or any other senior administrative officials in the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority? If you didn't do any of those things, who did you consult with prior to making this statement?

Let me restate, Mr. Chairman, that when I read it I was pleased. When I read it, I thought that was a good argument to have been made; I thought that it was right and appropriate and fair that Hydro reduce its rates while at the same time it had been relieved of a significant financial obligation — $60 million in the last year for funding transit.

I'd like to read briefly into the record a statement from Hydro which I've obtained, because it's totally at variance with what the Premier said. Then I have a few more questions about that as well.

I refer to a paper published by B.C. Hydro on April 17, 1980, and made available to all MLAs. It is entitled, at least

[ Page 2277 ]

in part, "Transit Deficits." This is what Hydro has to say in three brief paragraphs:

"Removal of transit from Hydro will not result in a reduction of electric and gas rates, neither of which are designed to cover transit losses. Since April 1, 1962, passenger transportation deficits have totalled $290 million, of which $15 million was met by special transit subsidies from the provincial government.

"In addition, the government provided Hydro, with two general subsidies of $32.6 million, one in 1976 and the other in 1977. If these are deducted from transit deficits paid by Hydro, the total remaining deficit is $210 million, which had to be covered by borrowings or revenues from sales of surplus electricity or both.

"Thus, rather than ease the burden on electric and gas rates, removal of transit will leave Hydro with annual carrying charges on unsubsidized past transit deficits. These deficits total $210 million net accumulated between 1963 and March 31, 1979, plus an estimated $56 million operating loss to March 31, 1980. Similarly, the transfer of transit assets from Hydro for a nominal value will add to this burden."

Well, Mr. Chairman, we are advised that that in fact has been Hydro policy for some time. What I've read into the record, a statement from Hydro, is no new policy at all; rather it is a summary of a long-standing policy. It is a policy which apparently the Hydro board of directors has had in place ever since the government first announced — I believe in 1976 — its intention to establish the Urban Transit Authority and to divorce that public service from B.C. Hydro's functions. If I'm not correct on that, I'd be happy to be corrected; but that's the best information we have. That has been, as I just read it, Hydro's policy not simply this month but for some considerable time. In fact, we presume that it was Hydro policy on October 13, 1978, when the Premier made a promise that has not since been kept.

Why would he have made such a promise? When the Premier made that commitment, that he expected Hydro to lower its rates, having been held no longer liable for transit deficits, he surely must have known something or other about the subject. If he didn't, he had no business talking about it. But we'll presume he had done some homework, asked some questions, and consulted with someone or other at B.C. Hydro.

Again, I want to know who he spoke with, because if those people misinformed him about Hydro's policies, we should know their names. Perhaps they shouldn't be offering such advice any longer or be found in such positions. If someone on the board of B.C. Hydro misled the Premier about their policies, we should know about that. If some employee of B.C. Hydro deliberately misdirected the Premier about Hydro's policy as set out in this Hydro directive, then we should know about that too. On the other hand, if the Premier didn't consult with anyone in Hydro on the board or in its employ, then we should also find out about that. If that's the case, once again we have further proof that this Premier is prepared to say anything at all in order to obtain quick political result. The fact that he didn't do his homework, didn't do his research, consulted with no one, read no documents and met with no person is immaterial to him, or at least that's what we've come to expect. Once again, the Premier can't have it both ways, Mr. Chairman. If he did consult with Hydro officials before he made his statement of October 13, 1978, then it's fairly clear they misdirected him. If he consulted with Hydro officials and Hydro has subsequently changed its policy, then we should be informed of that also.

Those two possibilities exist within the ranks of Hydro. Logically, those are the two possibilities: it was or it was not their policy. If it was not their policy, then that policy's changed, and I have some questions about that too. But I am informed that it has been their policy for some time. That policy has not been changed by this document; it's simply restated. Therefore we can only conclude that the Premier either did or did not consult with Hydro before he made his statement in 1978. If he did consult with them, they may have misinformed him. If he did not consult with them, the Premier may have inadvertently misinformed the people.

How is that possible? It's possible because of inadvertent misrepresentation of Hydro policy. Because, you see, Hydro never had any intention of lowering its rates. Hydro never had any intention of doing what the Premier said they would do. Hydro never intended to lower its rates even a nickel.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did they tell you that?

MR. BARBER: We have it on what we consider to be good authority.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's that? You?

MR. BARBER: That's absolutely correct: our authority listening to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, it makes you sound like you know what you're talking about.

MR. BARBER: I try to say it as well as I'm able. Have you got anything against that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, again we seem to be embarking on a rather detailed examination that is not in order under vote 9. It has been pointed out numerous times today and previous days that while passing reference.... Passing reference, hon. member, hardly entails, with all due respect, an in-depth discussion as the member is currently embarking on. I must ask him to relate his comments to the administrative responsibilities of the Premier under vote 9 presently before us and to more or less get onto that subject as opposed to the one he is currently engaged in.

MR. BARBER: That is quite fair, Mr. Chairman. I don't propose to debate Hydro's finance policies or its internal arrangements for funding deficits, other than in a brief way by reading into the record something Hydro said. Rather what I am trying to do is to determine on what basis the Premier made an announcement — that is important and that is most certainly within his administrative responsibilities as has been ruled time and time again.

I am trying to determine, as we have asked about the jetfoil and any number of other things, who he met with. Who provided the advice? What was that advice? And if that advice changed, what is the nature of the change? I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, whether or not in October 1978 Hydro advised the Premier that he could make such a statement because it was then in line with Hydro policy. I would

[ Page 2278 ]

like further, if I may, to restate the fact that we happen to agree with the Premier's announcement of October 1978. What we are annoyed about is that he never kept the promise. That is all. The promise itself is a good thing but I won't debate the actual content of its policy. I am talking about its process and how it was that the Premier came to make that statement. Who advised him? When did they advise him, and what was that advice? The Premier ended up in a very embarrassing position. He is being reminded of it today. He is out on a limb. He made a commitment regarding hydro rates; he made a public statement regarding hydro financing policies. Not to debate the policies but rather to debate his responsibility, I am asking the Premier who he met with and when.

I'd like to remind the Premier that we never had any Hydro reduction at all but, to the contrary, had a general rate increase. By the way, residential customers were required to pay the rate increase right away; industrial customers were given one year's notice. Hydro always does favours for its industrial customers. Hydro hardly ever — at least under this administration — does favours for its residential customers. Nonetheless, the consequence of what the Premier said has been this: Hydro continues to borrow enormous sums of money and is well over $4 billion in debt; Hydro has been relieved this year of a debt in excess of $60 million. What do we have to show for it? Improved transit? Not at all. Reduced rates? Nowhere to be found. Improved Hydro service? Nowhere to be seen.

All we have is the distant memory of another broken promise. All we have is the spectre that once again the Premier was talking through his hat. All we have is, once again, more evidence that when the Premier talked about this on October 13, 1978, he hadn't done his homework. If he had, we believe, Hydro would have told him what their policy was. Hydro planned no rate reduction; Hydro planned nothing of the sort for electricity or gas. Rather, they proposed to keep the entire windfall of reduced obligation and, once again, go to the public markets to borrow money and put this province further and further into debt. That being the apparent case, Mr. Chairman, it's important for us to know how it was that the Premier ended up making a commitment about rates for Hydro that he apparently had no business making. His commitment did not reflect Hydro policy, and, as it turned out, his commitment did not reflect government policy.

Let me offer another caveat. If, in fact, every news story of the day was totally wrong and the Premier never said such a thing, then let him correct the record today. I suppose it's possible that a year and a half after he made the statement he may now discover that the statement was not correctly reported. If that's the case and if the story is totally wrong, we happily withdraw all these arguments. But I doubt that it is. I suspect the story is correct, because the Premier has had a year and half to correct the record; he hasn't bothered to do so. I expect that's because the record is accurate. Well, fair enough. If this accurately reported the comments of the Premier, who said in Victoria on Thursday that he expects Hydro to reduce rates because it will save $60 million annually once it loses its transit division to the Urban Transit Authority, then we have to know why, once again, this important matter of public policy was mishandled and misrepresented.

It's an important question. It demonstrates the extent to which, once again, the people of British Columbia are justified in losing confidence in the ability of this Premier to make a promise and keep it, and in the ability of this Premier to understand the consequences of the promises he makes when he makes them.

The Premier can't have it both ways. If there had been a rate reduction, he would have been the first to tell us, but there was none. If the Hydro losses were not $60 million a year for transit but somewhat less, he would have been the first to tell us. But there's not such statement because those indeed were the losses. If the Premier had any business making this statement in the first place, he probably regrets today having made it at all.

The financing of public transit is a matter to which the Premier should properly address himself. It's an important public debate; it's an important public issue. The gross irresponsibility of B.C. Hydro for planning transit in this province is a matter of clear and public record. It's a good thing, in my opinion, that another source and another centre now has responsibility for transit, because Hydro didn't do the job very well. They never wanted the job; they couldn't handle the job. The Premier told us that they were no longer to have the job, that they were no longer to have the responsibility, but a year and a half later we find out that the Premier never did anything about it. He made a quick statement for quick political gain, and that was the apparent end of it.

One has to suspect that what happened was that the Premier, confronted with the rumour of a Hydro rate increase, as reported in this article, said, "I hope the people wouldn't respond to something that I wouldn't give any credibility to," and went on to try and suggest that there would be no general Hydro rate increase. Covering his tracks further, he went on to make a case that Hydro should, once relieved of its transit obligations, reduce its rates.

I suspect that after the Premier did that he may well have gotten a call from Robert Bonner. Mr. Bonner would have phoned up and said words to the effect: "Hey, don't you realize what you've done? What you said is contrary to our policy. What you said will cost us $60 million a year in lost revenue. What you said is something we can't afford. Forget it, Mr. Premier!" Click! Well, if Mr. Bonner didn't advise the Premier that this announcement of his was not to be pursued, who did? Was it the minister of science and tunnels? If it wasn't him, who was it? Someone or another told the Premier that he was out to lunch. Someone or another told the Premier he didn't know what he was talking about. Someone or another told the Premier that his statement was ill-advised and misdirected. Were it not so, the commitment would have come true. Were it not so, the promise would have been kept. Were it not so, the rates would have been lowered. But none of those things came to pass. Rather, once again, the Premier went way out on a political limb for quick political advantage. Once again he hoped we'd forget. Once again he hoped that the people wouldn't notice that he'd made a promise he never intended to keep.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Now if in fact Robert Bonner phoned the Premier and said, "Forget it, Preem. You've got the wrong idea. You made the wrong announcement. Here's the right announcement," it would, I'm sure, been a very interesting conversation. But nonetheless, it's led us to this point. We want to know on the basis of what advice the Premier made that statement On October 13, 1978. We will allow that if the

[ Page 2279 ]

Premier says the statement is completely false, he never said that and the newspapers and the radio and TV got it all wrong. Well, I suppose that'll have to stand and we'll have to take his word as an honourable member. But if in fact he did say it, we want to know why it didn't come true.

The questions are, therefore, in summary, Mr. Chairman: before he made his statement, with whom did he consult? What reports did he read? What policies did he examine? What meetings did he have with members of the board, or employees of the corporation of B.C. Hydro? Did they advise him that this was Hydro policy and that he could go ahead and talk about it? Did they advise him that it was not? After he made the statement, did they turn around and advise him that he shouldn't have made it? Because sure enough, subsequent to making the statement, nothing happened. Hydro rates went up. Hydro rates are going to go up again. And the transit deficit will never, ever prove to be a factor in Hydro's calculation of its rate structure. They will simply and blithely go along pretending that they have not been relieved of an obligation which in fact they have been correctly relieved of by the Legislative Assembly, which passed the Urban Transit Authority Act.

The Premier may tell us it's another minister. If he does, we'll be back another day with more of the same questions, because we don't accept that reply. The Premier made the statement. The Premier said people could look forward to reduced Hydro rates. The Premier presumably did some homework and research and engaged in some consultation before he made it. If so, we want to know what it was. If he didn't do any such thing, we'd like to know about that too. Either way, the Premier has lost credibility on this issue, as with so many others.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to draw to the attention of hon. members that by virtue of the death of President Tito the plans of the Prime Minister of Japan have been slightly altered. Meetings that were planned for Wednesday are now being scheduled for tomorrow, Tuesday. In view of that fact, the government will not be calling for debate tomorrow of Motion 10, but will be proposing to call Motion 10 on Wednesday.

I would also recommend to the House that the order that was passed on Friday, setting the hours for the sittings on Wednesday from 3 o'clock to 7 o'clock, be discharged and that we return to the usual hour of commencement of 2 o'clock. I so move.

Motion approved.

MR. HOWARD: The Premier also quoted from some documents with respect to the subject matter contained in the letter I have just tabled. I wonder if the Premier would be disposed to table the document he quoted from.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We can't have one member suggest to another member to table, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: On a point or order, Mr. Speaker, what is the ruling in the House about quoting from a document and then not making it available to the Table?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair, hon. member, has no idea at this time what took place in committee unless it's advised otherwise.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, the only thing is that the Premier took occasion to quote from a particular document relating to exactly the same subject matter that is contained in the letter that I've just tabled. I think it's only fair the Premier should table that document as well. He quoted from it to substantiate a position that he took, and fair is fair, I'm told — obviously not to the Premier, but....

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would take it under advisement and advise the House whether it is obligatory to have tabled a document that is referred to and read from in the House by a member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member, I will take the matter under advisement.

Hon. Mr. Rogers tabled answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled the 1979 annual report of the British Columbia Marketing Board.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.