[ Page 6979 ]

CONTENTS

Private Members' Statements

Treatment for hearing and speech impairment. Mr. MacWilliam –– 6979

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Provincial-Municipal Partnership (Taxation Measures) Act (Bill 21). Report

Third reading –– 6980

Critical Industries Act (Bill 31). Report

Third reading –– 6980

An Act To Incorporate Chilliwack Foundation (Bill PR404). Committee stage 6980

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Premier's office estimates. (Hon. Mr. Bennett)

On vote 4: Premier's office –– 6981

Mr. Howard

Mr. Williams

Ms. Brown

Mrs. Dailly

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Reynolds

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Committee of Supply: Office of the Ombudsman estimates. (Hon. Mr. Smith)

On vote 3: office of the ombudsman –– 7001

Society Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 48). Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Introduction and first reading –– 7001

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today is a very famous gentleman from my home town of Penticton, Mr. Bob Gauchie. To give you some of his background, Mr. Gauchie was a bush pilot in northern Canada. On February 2, 1967, his plane went down, and he was rescued 58 days later. On April 1, a plane discovered his downed plane on a lake. I just want to quote this comment made by the author about the time he spent: "For 58 days, in temperatures as low as 60 below zero and almost without food, bush pilot Bob Gauchie fought back longer by far than any other man who has ever survived stranded in the northern winter." Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce Mr. Bob Gauchie to the House today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I think it's most appropriate this very delightful Friday morning for all members on each side of the House to express their sincerest appreciation and thanks to the Pages, the Sergeant-at-Arms staff, and the guides for their most efficient and courteous service since we have been in session.

MR. HOWARD: There's no question and no doubt about joining unanimously with those sentiments. I didn't catch that he had included the Clerks-at-the-Table in those accolades. In any event, in addition to those who keep us on the straight and narrow — procedurally anyway — I want to wish them a good summer.

Also this day is the last day upon which we will have the delight of working in conjunction with the interns — at least in our caucus — some of whom are in the gallery glaring down upon us at the moment, having come to the conclusion that internship has proved to them that they don't want to proceed any further in this business. But we do appreciate the opportunity of having worked with them, and wish them the best when they leave here as well.

Private Members' Statements

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the original purpose of filing my statement was to effect an alteration and a change in a situation which I thought should not have prevailed. Yesterday we were advised during the estimates of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) that that change had taken place, and beneficial change at that. I think therefore there's no need for me to proceed any further to deal with the statement, if that's agreeable to the House.

TREATMENT FOR HEARING
AND SPEECH IMPAIRMENT

MR. MacWILLIAM: I wanted to talk a little bit today on assistance for hearing and speech impairments as a result of a number of concerns that have been addressed...

HON. MR. GARDOM: Louder!

MR. MacWILLIAM: He almost caught me on that one.

...in the North Okanagan area from families whose children have been suffering from hearing and speech impairments. I want to point out at the outset that the problems deal not the quality of treatment but rather with access to the treatment program itself.

At a recent meeting of the North Okanagan Union Board of Health, many questions were raised about the productivity and the lengthy waiting-list for such services. Dr. Len Ellis, a consultant with the speech and hearing division of the Ministry of Health, has said that the public health speech pathology program has been recognized throughout North America for its high rate of success, and he indicated that rehabilitation rates in the area of 50 percent indicate that if a child can get access to the treatment program then the chances are very good of resolving the initial problem.

I'd like to reiterate that the problem here is not one of quality of service, but rather one of access to that treatment. Nor is the problem due to an inadequate number of speech and hearing pathologists in the province. B.C. has about 230 qualified personnel, but when you look at it there's only about 38 — citing Dr. Ellis's numbers — that work directly with the Ministry of Health in community health clinics. Most of the others are employed in the public school system, where they serve in that capacity.

Dr. Ellis recently stated that early diagnosis and early treatment of hearing and speech impairments is paramount in effective correction procedures. It's recommended that treatment should be started when the child is between 18 months and two years of age. Treatment after the child reaches school age is more difficult and more costly. Here lies the crucial element of the issue at hand. All our resources appear to be focused in the wrong area; that is, after the child reaches school age. Eighty-three percent of our speech pathologists are in the school system, where it's almost too late for effective treatment to be implemented. Only 17 percent of the specialists seem to be involved in preschool treatment programs and in community health clinics, where the preschool programs are critically needed. So we've got a recognized program, we've got sufficiently and highly qualified personnel, we've got a high success rate when the children can get treatment, but we lack access to that treatment. I want to re-emphasize that the lack of access is the critical element.

Very briefly, I want to cite a few cases in the North Okanagan area. Last March 19 a family with a three-year-old son was put on a waiting list for speech therapy. Eighteen others were ahead of the individual on the waiting list. They were told that they could expect a two- to four-month wait just for the assessment, and a further one-year wait for therapy to be implemented. In another case a family with a five-year-old girl is having to wait six to eight weeks for the initial screening, and there's been no commitment on the starting date for treatment. A family with a three-year-old girl, after a six month wait for screening, was told it would be another two years for treatment to commence. In a fourth case a mother with a three-and-a-half-year-old son has been waiting a year — since last spring — for treatment. In October that individual was told her son would have to wait another two years. So by the time this infant receives treatment he will be five and a half years old, and the treatment itself will be less effective because of that delay.

First question: how can we effect an early diagnosis when screening takes up to half a year in waiting? Second: how can we effect an early therapy program when waiting lists are growing up to two years?

[ Page 6980 ]

In concluding, Mr. Speaker, a successful and cost-effective program of speech therapy which we do have in the province is being compromised through a lack of access to that program. There seems to be a disproportionate number of professionals in the treatment process after the child enters school, when it's harder to obtain the results that are needed. There seems to be an inadequate provision of treatment or access to treatment in the preschoolers, in community-based evaluation and treatment programs. Perhaps the minister, if he wishes, would like to make some responses to that.

[10:15]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I think the member's questions and some of the comments he made during his statement to a very large degree supply their own answers. The member suggested that there seems to be a reasonable number of these specialists throughout the province and that the expertise of these people leaves no question that their capability is very effective.

Providing the necessary manpower to those in greatest need at the optimum time is very difficult, for a number of reasons. The distribution of such people throughout the province is very difficult. The accessibility of such clinics to the person requiring them frequently can be very difficult, because, simply, of where the person may reside and whether the service is available. The assessments are somewhat inconsistent, depending on where you may be in the province. For some period of time a large part of that was conducted at the school level. It appeared at one point in time that the school level — the early elementary level — was the best opportunity of assessing the needs of such children, because they were available for testing. The private availability of testing is relatively new.

There has been a long history of improper diagnosis of what may have been wrong with the child with a hearing or speech problem. Very frequently it was considered that the child was slow or retarded in some way. More recent examinations have indicated that in many cases it's a matter of hearing deficiency. But the problem is being attacked by the preventive health side of our ministry, I think, with some effectiveness.

I would be more than pleased to have an analysis done in that specific area the member mentioned. The preventive services branch of our ministry is most concerned about being effective in this area, as are the various health units and those people who are engaged in that special form of care. Certainly I don't disagree at all with the member's concern and with the questions he has raised; we have the same questions. We are attempting to try to determine how we can most effectively utilize the people we have in that area, and how we can more effectively target their expertise to those in greatest need. I agree with the member that a couple of years' wait for treatment seems to be far too long.

I can assure the member and other members that we are looking at this program most seriously. We are recruiting additional people, and we are trying to improve the availability and access to those in need. We're also expanding our clinics for adults and those who are beyond that stage of life, to try to assist them as well. But the greatest emphasis will be on the earliest possible detection and correction, to avoid difficulties later in life.

So I have very little disagreement with the member's statement or his questions, and we share his concern. Perhaps at some time we can assist in trying to resolve specific problems. But I would be pleased to have specific details on some cases to see if perhaps a direct intervention could assist; recognizing the limits we have on the people available through a province. I appreciate the member's statement. I think it has identified a problem we consider to be most serious as well.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's response to the questions that were raised. May I forward to the minister some recommendations that I've considered at length with this problem. I think the minister has touched on some of these, but I'll go over them. There are three recommendations here: firstly, that the Minister of Health investigate the problem of inadequate access to preschool treatment programs for the speech and hearing impaired; secondly, that the Minister of Health consider the expansion of current programs through the provision of more qualified speech pathologists in the community health clinics; and, thirdly, that the Minister of Health develop an integrated program of assessment and therapy in coordination or in liaison with the Ministry of Human Resources and the Ministry of Education that will focus our present resources that we do have to where they will serve the greatest need, and that is at the preschool level. I would hope that the minister would take those recommendations in the spirit in which they're made. I know that he will give them his consideration.

MR. SPEAKER: The final speaker, the member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I plan to defer my statement to later in the session.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 21, Mr. Speaker.

PROVINCIAL-MUNICIPAL PARTNERSHIP
(TAXATION MEASURES) ACT

Bill 21 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 31, Mr. Speaker.

CRITICAL INDUSTRIES ACT

Bill 31 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill PR404.

AN ACT TO INCORPORATE
CHILLIWACK FOUNDATION

The House in committee on Bill PR404; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 47 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

[ Page 6981 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill PR404, An Act to Incorporate Chilliwack Foundation, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

On vote 4: Premier's office, $694,396.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before recognizing the member for Skeena, I will point out to the committee that both the members of the government and the members of the official opposition have had their 30-minute opening statement comments. So the time limit on all debate now will be 15 minutes.

MR. HOWARD: Even my own members applaud that, Mr. Chairman. The office of the president of the executive council is the supreme and most powerful political office in this province. It transcends that final sort of inherited authority which used to be the Crown, and the Crown in the full power of government in a historic sense and in a current sense resides in the office of the president of the executive council, the Premier, and therefore affords and should afford the opportunity for a very thorough, wide-ranging examination of that all-powerful office and the influence that that all powerful office has upon every aspect of economic, social and political life in this province.

I think the government House Leader is acting in a contemptuous way to the people of this province by proceeding to call the estimate of the office of the president of the executive council without the holder of that office being here. It would have been much more appropriate, I think, and in keeping with the hallowed and time-honored obligation we have to ourselves, to pay due respect to the question of responsible government.

When responsible government emerged on the scene some centuries ago, it was that government would be responsible to the people through the legislative assemblies or through the parliaments. The essence of responsible government means that people who have the responsibility for administering either a ministry or the whole of government should be available at the given moment to exercise and show respect for that question of responsibility. That has not been the case here.

The government House Leader is the one who makes these decisions about when to call whatever estimates are to be called. He is the person who every day stands up and says what government business is and what the government wants to deal with today. He has decided in this last moment when the holder of the office is away.... And it's not a question of why the person who holds that office is away; he's on government business, but he is absent, and it therefore falls to the government House Leader to make that decision about the processes to be followed in dealing with government business. That is an insult to the people of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I will remind the committee that the Committee of Supply does not give us the latitude to discuss the agenda of estimates. We have an estimate before us, and we must be relevant to that estimate, not to the actions of another minister.

MR. HOWARD: Well, I thought that was what I was doing, Mr. Chairman. We are here with this estimate before us, and I am arguing that the government House Leader, who is the one responsible for bringing it here, should not have done that; should not have placed the Committee of Supply in that impossibly awkward position of having to deal with voting nearly $700,000 of taxpayers' money to an office when the holder of that office is not here. It's not the fault of the holder of that office; it's the fault of the government House Leader, who does this to us. And now he may reflect....

[10:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That is not....

MR. HOWARD: It's a question of procedure now. The government House Leader's decision may reflect what government wants. If that is so, then obviously this is the only vote under which that can be discussed, because there is no vote of funds for the government House Leader's position. There are votes for funds for the holder of the office of the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, but that is a different office than government House Leader, and the only place in which we can discuss the activities of the government House Leader in the calling of the business is under this vote, because it is government that's involved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Some latitude has been allowed, but we clearly are discussing the estimates of the Premier. All the Committee of Supply can discuss is that vote and the expenditures of that office. Further, I'll point out to the member for Skeena that according to Sir Erskine May, Committee of Supply does not afford the proper opportunity for discussing which minister should represent the government in respect of estimates under consideration. I would ask the member to relate his remarks to the office of the Premier.

MR. HOWARD: I was seeking to do that, and need to reiterate that it's a contempt of parliament to proceed in this fashion. We can stand that. We're all grown people here and take our lumps from and with each other with a little bit of humour sometimes, with a little bit of anger at other times. But it's contemptuous of this assembly, which represents the people of this province — the taxpayers, the voters. All residents all over this province have determined, under an inherited system of political democracy, that this is the assembly and these are the people in the assembly who should be representing those folks back home. We are not able effectively to do that, I submit, when the government House Leader moves to call a vote for an office when the holder of that office is not able to be here. That's the contemptuous part about it.

There's not much point in proceeding any further to deal with the estimates themselves when the government seems hell-bent to deny the opportunity to examine them. That's what we said last night. We had a more stringent discussion about this last night than we're having at the moment. The only course available, I suppose, is to express our view by passing.... They will pass; I don't think there's any doubt

[ Page 6982 ]

about that. When vote 4 passes, we can do so with the new procedural opportunity to say, "on division." I say it publicly so it'll appear on the record: when it appears in the votes and proceedings "on division," it will show our disagreement with the contemptuous way in which the government House Leader is handling things.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All hon. members will come to order. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) will come to order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the member for Skeena takes the attitude he has with regard to the Premier's absence in these estimates, because we all know that the Premier is in Washington doing something that even the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) said was one of the most important aspects of business between Canada and the United States — all-important. Our Premier is in Washington working on behalf of the province, working on behalf of the workers in this province, working on behalf of the lumber industry on a very important matter.

I'm also sorry he took that attitude because the Premier's estimates were before the Legislature, and they were debated for some three and a half hours in which the opposition didn't really take too much time to do anything but try to be political. There was no debate on the main issues facing this country today, and this province, in which the Premier has certainly been a leader. If you want to talk about people being absent from this Legislature, I think that the member for Skeena should look at the Leader of the Opposition, who has been absent from this Legislature and doing his job as leader of the official opposition — a very important job in our parliamentary system — for some 21 days, approximately 4 weeks, or 25 percent of the time we've been sitting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The committee was reminded earlier when another member was speaking that we must be relevant to the vote before us. That is the administrative actions of the office of the Premier, vote 4. Only that debate which is relevant to that expenditure will be allowed.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As I said, I'm quite disappointed in the attitude that the member for Skeena has taken in these very important estimates, and I'll be quite prepared to answer any questions I can.

MR. HOWARD: Obviously, the minister of international travel does not listen to what's said in this chamber. He has a preconceived determination to say a certain thing himself, and it bears no relevance to what other people say. Either that, or he does listen and seeks to distort what is said to suit his own conveniences.

Let me reiterate: we were talking about the contempt shown to the people of British Columbia by the government House Leader calling a vote when the person who holds that office is not here. Was the person who holds that office away for good reason? That's what we're talking about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Skeena will come to order. Some latitude was allowed to the member for Skeena, but we are now clearly into the estimates of the Premier, vote 4. The Chair has cautioned the member for Skeena as well as the Minister of International Trade and Investment. I now ask all members of the committee to return to vote 4, the Premier's office, and to debate relevant to that expenditure. That is all the committee can discuss.

MR. HOWARD: All I was saying is that what I had to say had nothing whatever to do with the contentions put forward by the minister of international travel — nothing whatever. This is just a determination to make some flappy political statement that he thinks will gain something for him. We're not into that. He might be. He might continue to want to live in the past, but on this side of the House we're not into that kind of stupid game.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To the vote.

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't know the way you people have been running this House this last while, I'll tell you, but this is a great affront to the whole idea of parliament, the whole idea of accountability. It is a pure and simple affront to the whole public process in this province. Never, never, in the days of this man's father, W.A.C. Bennett, would this kind of running stuff take place, this kind of abandoning ship — giving orders to your lackeys to ram his own estimates through while he's away. Never would it have happened before. It is absolutely unheard of. It is an absolutely disgusting piece of work on the part of this Premier. He should be here to answer questions.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The second member for Vancouver East will please come to order.

Hon. members, the Chair, as was indicated earlier, has offered some latitude to the member for Skeena, the Minister of International Trade and Investment and the second member for Vancouver East, but I think that scope of latitude — please take your seat; I'll just be a moment — must now be condensed; we must return to the Committee of Supply and to what is relevant to the office of the Premier. I'm sure all members are aware of that. And if we keep that in mind, I'm sure we can maintain orderly and relevant debate.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. WILLIAMS: What we have here is this nobody minister in a sinecure, so-called intergovernmental affairs, the holiday boy, answering for the person who is responsible. Absolute nonsense that the geriatric brigade from Point Grey should be the one who answers for the Premier of British Columbia.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

Interjections.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The personal references to another member of this House are quite unparliamentary. I'll ask the second member for Vancouver East to withdraw any personal references.

[ Page 6983 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: Whatever.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The member continues on vote 4.

MR. WILLIAMS: It is absolutely disgusting that the Premier of this province provides only three and a half hours of his time. He comes here like a space cadet off the jet from his two weeks abroad in Japan, then takes off to Washington, dealing with very important matters....

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. With every respect, socialism's answer to Prince Charming can carry on this way if he wishes to, but you're demeaning the process. Why do you have to involve yourself constantly in personal attack? Why do you have to do that? Why don't you...?

MR. WILLIAMS: It's not a point of order. There's no order.

HON. MR. GARDOM: If you don't mind, Mr. Member, I do happen to have the floor at the moment.

I would say, on behalf of the Premier, that I find those remarks offensive — calling the Premier of the province a space cadet. He thinks it's funny, or he thinks he's making marks. Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully request that this official opposition's tower of babble withdraw those remarks.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is there no order, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we have a little problem here, but we can sort this out. I'm going to ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations to withdraw that personal reference, and following that I'll ask the second member for Vancouver East to withdraw personal references to any member.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm delighted to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Now the second member for Vancouver East with respect to the comments made about another hon. member of this House — will the member so withdraw?

MR. WILLIAMS: If the Chair requests, yes.

The day the Premier was here he was, clearly, in deep trouble. He clearly was not able to handle the debate very well. That is the reality. It may well not have permeated the ranks on the other side, but it was abundantly clear that he was not able to handle the debates very well at all. It was a stumbling and stammering performance.

His father would have been here, he would have dealt with these estimates and he would have dealt with them and stayed in British Columbia. He would have stayed in his seat and participated in the debate. This offspring does nothing of the sort. The offspring disappears from the chamber when he should be here to listen to the debate and the arguments about how he carries out his office. He carries out his office inadequately, Mr. Chairman. He's had ten years in office, and we have an economy on the skids unlike any in any other part of Canada. Here this blessed, resource-rich province is on the economic skids. He should be here to take his lumps for his part in that process, because he has played a big part indeed in the decline of the provincial economy. But he is not here.

There are other matters that could be debated at this moment; there are other sections we could be debating today. But we are not. It is reasonable indeed that these estimates should be considered when he returns at the beginning of next week. I'm sure you got orders from long-distance: "Put my estimates through. I don't want to face the Legislature." That's the sort of stuff that's going on here.

This is a Premier who intervenes in the process of these ministries more than we've ever had in the past. In the question of deputies we've got a Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing who was one of the last to know that his deputy was being fired. John Johnston, who was the Deputy Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, was an extremely competent deputy minister. He was given the axe by the Premier, and Mr. Brummet was the last to know. He had to meet with Mr. Johnston, and he was embarrassed and said he was embarrassed, because this was an action by the Premier that he had no part in.

This is the man who's intervening in all these ministries in that way, along with his deputy, Dr. Spector, a man who never has to report to the public at all. Dr. Spector, the author of forestry as a "sunset industry." That's the real author of that phrase: the Premier's executive assistant. He's the guy who weaves the web in terms of the real process of government in British Columbia; the man from Montreal who always has the Premier's ear; the deputy of deputies, who deals with all their deputies. That's the way British Columbia's run now. They're running it as an executive, running it in a presidential way, with the assistant to the president calling the shots and calling all your deputy ministers and telling them what the rules are and how they are to respond, and, in effect, providing the linkage in control over the rest of the cabinet out of that office.

That's the way this administration is run today, and that is something less than adequate. We desperately need people with roots in this province getting to work in the field, in the regions, and who understand the resources of British Columbia. That is not happening. That's because we have this person — with the ear of the Premier all the time — who does not have his roots in British Columbia at all, and who's got some kind of academic background hardly relevant to the realities of British Columbia today. That's why we get these great leaps, the stop-go in terms of the economy. Let's try a special economic zone as one policy; let's throw all the tax money for corporations into the pot; let's try this and that, but never rebuilding the basics, if one really understood the basics of our industries in British Columbia.

[10:45]

So there it is: a whole bunch of cabinet ministers, and all they have control of is their expense accounts. This deputy with the Premier calls the shot right down the line, and they've put in new deputies who will jump to the line out of the Premier's office, so that you don't get the kind of pluralistic process that should take place in any genuine democracy or any cabinet worth the name. There is not the pluralism in here that would reflect the range of abilities in this province and the range of regions in this province.

And we have a Premier who has abandoned the ship. First he flies into this Kinsella-proposed arrangement in terms of a partnership for renewal, and then he finds that one's not flying very well. He abandons the ship and he flies all around the province, but only speaking to chamber of commerce

[ Page 6984 ]

dinners, never meeting with the real, hard-working people, the unemployed and those in the welfare lines, the bread lines, the soup banks and the food banks, and never talking to those citizens of British Columbia. He is always at the expensive dinners at the chamber of commerce — always with the Kens and Barbies of the world, the nicely dressed folks in their stuffed shirts at fancy dinners. That's what the process is: never dealing with the hard realities, the people who have been abused by his mistakes through a decade — never facing up to that. And now today he is not even facing up to the opposition itself in this House.

There is no way that three and a half hours before the opposition is acceptable. Let the people of British Columbia know this guy will not face this Legislature. Let's understand that.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: You've got your orders. You take orders all the time, little fellow.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: Dr. Spector runs the shot, and on it goes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) will come to order, and the second member for Vancouver East will avoid personal references.

MR. WILLIAMS: It is nothing short of incredible. Never would W.A.C. Bennett have tried the tactics that this man tries — never, never, never. He would be here. He would give and get in the cut and thrust of debate. But not this fellow. Now we don't even have the sinecure fellow in the House. There is nobody here to represent this man who's away again today. That is nothing short of incredible.

Do you people on the other side have no feeling about this process? Do you not think that the Premier of the province should respond in the debate? I couldn't believe that this man pulled off the same caper last year. It's such an incredible affront. That's what he did. So this is no accident. This is clearly a pattern. This guy doesn't face up to the full debate of this House as he should. There is a process. That's what parliaments are about: parliaments are about accountability, about dealing with the questions of the opposition and responding in public on the public issues of the day. This man chooses not to do that. This man abandons parliament. People who do that deserve to get the full treatment of the electorate.

He has abandoned the democratic process. He has established a presidential system in British Columbia. This is not the United States of America. This is not a world where you have a Ronald Reagan who sits in the White House, where you have an executive that is separate from the legislative function. This is a region of British parliamentary justice. We don't have that happening. That is simply inexcusable and unacceptable.

MR. PARKS: Pursuant to standing order 43, it has been very difficult to understand why you have allowed much of this debate to be considered relevant, but assuming that it is relevant, Mr. Chairman, it clearly in the span of the last 10 to 15 minutes has been unbearably duplicitous and redundant.

If the hon. member wishes to make a new point, I think we should be willing to listen, but I would urge the Chair to cease the member's wanderings.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will decide points of order, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, the point of order is specious and foolish, especially coming from a person...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. HOWARD: ...who offended the dignity of this House, then went to a Socred convention and sold his damn boot off at an auction.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! We were doing so well.

MR. HOWARD: Spurious points of order should....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The member has not been recognized.

The Chair listened to the point of order expressed by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam. The Chair has advised the committee and the member that the Chair will decide on points of order and on the application of standing order 43. The matter is finished.

Does the member for Skeena wish to continue debate on vote 4?

MR. HOWARD: I just want to point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that spurious, false points of order should not be used to try to stifle debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair simply recognized a point of order. All members are afforded an opportunity to express a point of order if they wish to bring it to the committee.

Returning to vote 4, the Chair recognizes the Minister of International Trade and Investment.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I've been listening to the second member for Vancouver East, and I'm a bit concerned. There's the member who led the NDP to defeat in 1975, and who accepted $80,000 to get out of politics. I would like, in the same line of reasoning, to ask why the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Skelly) is not here to take his place in the debate on the Premier's estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. Hon. members, the Chair has listened to some points of order with respect to relevancy. I would now ask the minister if he could be relevant to the estimates of the Premier's office. That would be most appreciated by the committee and would, I think, serve us well. We are not here to discuss the actions of other members, only the estimates of the Premier's office.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I realize that, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to point out, as I said before, that the Premier indeed is in Washington carrying on a very important conference, discussions on behalf of all of the people of British Columbia, while the Leader of the Opposition is off playing politics at some political convention which has nothing to do with the province of B.C. It's strictly a political convention in Ottawa and will do absolutely nothing for the people of

[ Page 6985 ]

British Columbia. Usually, when there are political conventions in the province of British Columbia we understand that; we adjourn the House, which we have done in the past.

The point I'm making, Mr. Chairman, is that the Leader of the Opposition is not in the province of British Columbia, not here to debate the....

MR. D'ARCY: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. There's no mention in vote 4 of the spending estimates of the Leader of the Opposition, or of any member of this House except the member for Okanagan South in his capacity as Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The point of order is well taken. The Chair expressed it earlier, but I thank the member for reminding the committee of that.

Before I recognize the minister, I will point out that we should be relevant in committee; we must be. We are clearly limited to discussing only the administrative actions of the minister's office whose vote is before us.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I certainly realize that. I wanted to point out, because there has been a great deal of debate as to the Premier's whereabouts and why he isn't in the Legislature.... You know, it's funny to me. Here's an opposition that has been ineffectual all during the session — completely ineffectual in question period, completely ineffectual in debate — and in the dying days of the Legislature they are trying to make a last stand. It's like Custer's last stand as they go down to defeat.

[Mr. Ree in the chair]

While on his trip to Korea and Japan, the Premier was working on behalf of all workers in British Columbia trying to expand trade in the Pacific Rim, which our Premier recognized, back in 1976, as the fastest-growing trade area in the world. No other province, no other leader, recognized that that was where the action was going to be. Because of the leadership of Premier Bill Bennett, British Columbia has led the rest of Canada kicking and screaming into the Pacific Rim. He is the only leader in Canada, I might point out, who has been welcomed as an official leader to the countries of Japan, China and Korea. No other Premier, no other political person in Canada, not even our Prime Minister, past or present, has been welcomed as an official visitor to all three countries, and our Premier certainly has.

We listen to that member for Vancouver East, who took the NDP to defeat in 1975 and will lead them to defeat again in 1986 or 1987 or 1988 or whenever it is, stand here and chastise our Premier, one of the most respected political leaders on the North American continent, a man who showed leadership, a man who has shown leadership in face of opposition from the NDP, which has never in this House brought in a suggestion to improve the climate or the conditions in British Columbia — critical, harping, negative, against everything this government has done, against everything our Premier has done to provide jobs and to provide leadership.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There we get a little hack from Victoria who is a puppet of Peter Pollen: "Yack, yack, yack." You've never done a thing for the province. You've never worked a decent day in your life, my friend.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) will have his opportunity to stand in debate.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, I find the words "a little hack from Victoria" offensive. I ask that the member for South Peace River withdraw them immediately.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I will happily withdraw that, and I regret it. I certainly didn't mean it. It was a Freudian slip, I guess.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I want you to recognize that everything that our Premier had done in leading this province has been criticized by the NDP. Expo 86, which will lead British Columbia and Canada into the decade of the eighties and nineties and into a new world of a different, changing economic scene, will invite the rest of the world to British Columbia so that they can have a look at the opportunities that exist here, and so that it will put the business world in contact with the business community in British Columbia — a great opportunity criticized and chastised negatively by the NDP. It took leadership, I'll tell you, years ago, to realize that we should go out and seek and work in Paris in order to get Expo here.

[11:00]

When they were building B.C. Place and the dome, criticized by the NDP, the only province in Canada to have a closed stadium, built on budget and on time, criticized by the NDP.... There is that great province of Ontario still arguing and fighting among themselves as to where they are going to have a covered dome. Under the leadership of Premier Bill Bennett, we have a dome, the first and the largest in North America. That took leadership, my friend; that took business ability.

What about the ALRT?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the hon. minister direct his comments to the Chair, and would the second member for Victoria....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What about all the good things that are going on in the province of British Columbia? I want to tell you....

MR. BLENCOE: Soup-lines.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, there's soup-lines in NDP too, my friend; soup-lines all across Canada, soup-lines everywhere. What about NDP Manitoba? You seem to forget about that, don't you? I'll tell you, they're leaving Manitoba. They're leaving the other provinces in Canada, and they're coming to British Columbia.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that's leadership. Contrast that with your own leader, who ran from the House during the debate on education and stood with the lawbreakers on the steps of the school board. That's not leadership. I'll tell you, your leader couldn't hold a candle....

[ Page 6986 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would you please direct your comments through the Chair, hon. minister. Would the second member for Victoria remain silent.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, remind that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair is speaking.

The Chair is saying that if the hon. minister would direct his comments through the Chair, we may have less disruption in the House, and if the hon. second member for Victoria would remain silent, he will have his opportunity to stand and debate.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I just wanted to point out again, Mr. Chairman, that our Premier is a respected leader — the only Premier in Canada, by the way, who saw what was happening during the changing economic times during the last three years. He had the strength and the courage and the conviction to do what had to be done so that British Columbia would be in a position to have economic renewal, which is happening at the present time — oh, yes, practically now on a daily basis. Practically on a daily basis new economic developments are happening. Contrast that with a leader who had to be elected on the third ballot and then just barely made it, who doesn't have the support of his party, and who allowed a dogfight to develop in this Legislature last night. They were fighting to see which one was going to be captain of the mud team.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please. Mr. Minister; this is the last time. Will you direct your comments through the Chair. And we are on vote 4.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I just wanted to say that the people of British Columbia and the people of Canada are proud of our Premier because of the leadership that he has shown in some very difficult world economic times. Certainly over here.... When our Premier is away, there are no dogfights developing here, because he is a leader — unlike what happens when the leader of the NDP is away and a dogfight immediately develops. But here on this side of the House we have leadership; we work together for the common good; there is discipline, and there is absolutely no discipline whatsoever on the other side. I'll tell you, that takes leadership. I want to tell you that our Premier was one of the great leaders during the constitution debate, when he helped keep Canada together. He was respected all across Canada. To listen to the likes of the man from Vancouver East who accepted $80,000 to get out of politics and who led your party down to defeat in 1975 have the audacity to stand in this House and criticize our Premier....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes the member for Skeena on vote 4. The member for Skeena defers to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds on vote 4.

MR. HOWARD: I'm sorry, Rosemary. I didn't see her.

MS. BROWN: That's not his fault; it's the chairman who has problems with his peripheral vision.

I just wanted to remind the members of government that the agenda for the calling of estimates is theirs and that if in fact they know that the Premier has a lot of travelling to do, whenever he is in town would be their opportunity to call his estimates. The opposition members had no control over that. We could not call the Premier's estimates; we do not have that authority.

MR. REID: That's not true, and you know it.

MS. BROWN: We cannot call the Premier's estimates! The only person who can call the Premier's estimates is the leader of the government, the House Leader over there. And the House Leader is also the only person who knows the Premier's travel plans and should have made arrangements for the Premier to give more than three and a half hours to have his office examined and his policies and the programs of his government investigated by the opposition.

Instead of that, the government and the House Leader deliberately withheld the calling of the Premier's estimates so that the opposition did not have an opportunity to examine the estimates while the Premier was here. That was a deliberate decision on the part of the government and a deliberate decision on the part of the Premier. The member for Vancouver East is absolutely correct. Because the Premier got away with it last year, a precedent has been established, and now as long as he is Premier — for the next six months or a year or whatever until the election is called — this is the pattern which has been established for him.

He's never going to be here to give an account of himself. There's never going to be an opportunity for the opposition to be able to question him about the incompetence of his government and the incompetence of his ministry, and about the disastrous economic situation which we have in this province. There is no point in arguing with the Minister of Lands, no point in arguing with the Ministers of Forests or of Industry and Small Business Development or of Intergovernmental Relations. The person responsible for the fact that there are a quarter of a million people in this province on income assistance is the Premier. The person responsible for the fact that another quarter of a million people in this province are on UIC is the Premier. He has to take full responsibility for the unemployment and for the bad economic situation which this province is in; and because he does not want to take that responsibility, and because he does not want to be accountable and to answer to the opposition for that, he saw to it that his estimates were not called until he was out of town. That was a deliberate decision on his part, and I do not think that the government should expect the opposition to accept that quietly.

I can remember when that minister, the member for South Peace (Hon. Mr. Phillips), was in opposition over here. "Not a dime without debate" — that was his motto, and he held the government to ransom until he had had his debate. Now he is telling us that we are to allow the estimates of the Premier through in the absence of the Premier for the second year in a row. The pattern has now been established. Whenever the Premier gets this province into a mess, whenever we find more of our young people — 25 percent or more — unable to find jobs, whenever we find our education system being eroded or our health care system under attack, we are to accept that and not be able to question the Premier about that. The Premier will absent himself and send in his place the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and other ministers to run interference for him. That's the

[ Page 6987 ]

I don't know what we can do about it, Mr. Chairman, except to register our disapproval and our rage, and be sure that the message is going to go out across this province that the Premier of this province is never in this House when his estimates are being debated. The Premier of this province runs and hides, ducks and dives, and does whatever he can do so as not to be in this province when his estimates are being called. The Premier of this province has the authority and the power to call his estimates on the floor of this House any day of the year that he wants to, and he makes damn sure that they're never called when he is in the province and can be held accountable for them. That's the kind of cowardice that we have to put up with, Mr. Chairman, from that government over there.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) will have his opportunity to stand in debate. To the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, the Chair brings to the attention of the committee Sir Erskine May, seventeenth edition, page 739: "Committee of Supply does not afford proper opportunity for discussing which minister should represent the government in respect of estimates under consideration."

MS. BROWN: Well, Mr. Chairman, all....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the second member for Surrey please come to order.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I would suggest the member should withdraw that statement. You and your predecessor are requesting withdrawals on countless items, hardly as offensive as that. Will the member withdraw it?

MR. REYNOLDS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, they have selective hearing if they're asking the member for Surrey to withdraw. I would also like to ask the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) to withdraw his comments, which I happened to hear when I was listening to the two of them — one on either side of me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair did not hear the comments, so the Chair cannot ask for withdrawal of comments the Chair did not hear. Would the member for Burnaby-Edmonds....

MS. SANFORD: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, I saw you distinctly look at the member for Surrey when he made those comments that were unacceptable, and you immediately called him to order for those comments, but you did not ask him to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair did not hear the comments of the second member for Surrey. That was what the Chair stated, and the Chair will not be questioned on that. The Chair saw the second member for Surrey stand up and look as if he was speaking. The Chair did not hear the second member's statements. The Chair called the second member for Surrey to order because of what appeared to be disorder on his behalf. Would the member for Burnaby-Edmonds continue?

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, on this same point of order, I distinctly heard those comments. A number of people sitting around me distinctly heard those comments. We find them offensive and we would like to have them withdrawn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the member did make comments which another member might find offensive, would the member please withdraw?

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I repeated the comment of the second member for Burnaby about the word "coward." I withdraw the word "coward."

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to your comment from Sir Erskine May, seventeenth edition, page 739. In discussing the Premier's vote, vote 4, I was under the impression that we had the freedom to make a general discussion about the responsibilities of that particular minister. We've certainly been doing that with all the other ministers, and as the chief executive officer, who is responsible for the way in which his cabinet conducts the business of the land.... I thought I was quite within my right to comment on the fact that they were incompetent and that he should be here to be held accountable for their mismanagement of the economy of the province. Is that okay? Okay, fine. Because that's what I was trying to do, Mr. Chairman.

[11:15]

Just to repeat: for the Premier, for the second year in a row, to absent himself from the House during the debate on his estimates is to undermine the democratic process. That's what he's doing. He is depriving the people of British Columbia, who elected the members of the opposition to represent them, of their democratic right to question the Premier on his actions and the actions of his government. If this had happened once, as it did last year, we could say it was unavoidable. But clearly, now that it has happened a second time, a pattern has been established, and the pattern is that the chief executive officer of this province, the Premier, has decided that he is never going to be held accountable to this Parliament. When the time comes for his estimates to be debated, he is going to absent himself and not be on the floor to respond to questions or listen to concerns expressed; not be on the floor to explain the action or inaction of his government. He's going to leave it to other members of the cabinet to just stand up and make little speeches to the effect that he is wonderful, he is beautiful, he is great and he is pure — none of which is accurate, of course. That's what he's decided to do, and that is just not good enough, Mr. Chairman.

I think there has to be some recourse for the opposition, on behalf of the people we represent, to have that minister, the chief executive officer, on the floor of the House for more than three and a half hours so that he can be questioned about the actions of this government, so that he can hear the concerns which we have to express about the actions and the policies of his government, and that he can give us some indication of what direction his government is going to be taking and what they're going to do about the fact that we have a quarter of a million people in this province on income assistance, welfare, and the number is growing; about the

[ Page 6988 ]

fact that another quarter of a million people are on UIC and the number is growing; about the fact that our young people are unable to find work, and that the highest percentage of unemployed people in this province are young people coming out of the school system, out of universities, colleges and technical institutes ready to contribute in a positive way to the growth and development of this province. They're being stymied as a direct result of the actions and policies of that government.

That Premier has to be here to address those questions. It is not good enough to send messages via the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations and the minister for external affairs or external trips, or whatever that new name is we keep giving the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips). That is not good enough. We are not going to accept any messages sent by the Premier. The Premier has to be here so that he can deal directly with our concerns and questions.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It contributes absolutely nothing to the well-being and the welfare of the province to stand here and criticize a leader who is respected all across Canada and in other nations in the world. For a lady who has contributed absolutely nothing except a bunch of harping, carping, negative criticism to stand here.... I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, our Premier has been the most accessible this province has ever had — always out, always around, working in the community, making himself available.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Why don't you go and take another $80,000? No wonder your leader is away when you are in the Legislature. No wonder the Leader of the Opposition is away.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) and the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) please come to order. And would the minister address his remarks through the Chair and not directly to other members?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I am. What I am saying is that our Premier is the most accessible of any we have ever had in this province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I don't see your leader. Where is he? Down in Ottawa playing politics, while you and the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) have a dogfight about who is going to be captain of the mud line. You call that leadership?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the minister direct his remarks through the Chair.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Again, our Premier is accessible — working with the people, working with the community. He's the hardest-working Premier this province has ever had, a man who sets terribly difficult standards for himself and expects those who surround him.... He's a man who has given of his personal life, who has sacrificed his family, who doesn't need the money but has come forward to lead this province, and who has made great personal sacrifices. He's not a political hack who wants to be in politics for the sake of being in politics and for the sake of power, or for the money, the pension and everything else. Our leader came forward when he didn't need the money. He came forward to lead this province, and he has made personal sacrifices. I want to tell you that he will go down in history as the greatest Premier this province has ever had.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There will be no monuments built to those negative, harping, carping critics over there, my friend.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't run against him, my friend. Nor did he come in third; he came in first.

MR. HOWARD: You don't know how much I appreciate the entertainment just afforded this chamber by that hon. empty barrel from South Peace River. He reminds me of an aged, near-senile comedian. He still remembers some of the lines that used to get a laugh; he still remembers some of the clichés. But do you notice how flat they fall? Even his own members on the government side plug up their ears. Even the members behind him say: "Oh, my God, not again! Are we going to have to listen to that tripe all over again?" They've heard it so many times in the past. In a sense — and like an aged, near-senile comedian — some of it is still laughable, some of it is still humorous. And perhaps the only thing for which the member for South Peace River will ever be remembered is an element of ancient, lost humour.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We know what they will remember you for.

MR. HOWARD: Say it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. minister and the member for Skeena will come to order, please. We are on vote 4 and references to other ministers are out of order.

MR. HOWARD: I want to tell you something, Mr. Chairman. You should get something clear, and that is that the same rules you apply to the opposition should also apply to the government. I notice you have not been doing that. You let the member for South Peace River act like he was on stage and talk about everything under the sun that he wanted to talk about, with a meek little comment from the Chair: "Order. Order, please." But when it gets a little tight for the government, then suddenly we're all out of order on this side of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair's comments still stand. Would the member please come to order on vote 4, the Premier's estimates.

MR. HOWARD: All I want to say is that I enjoyed this morning's humour from the minister of international travel, and I look forward to as much more of it as he wants to give the House. It's laughable — stupid but laughable.

[ Page 6989 ]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, the main point in that harangue of the minister who just took his seat.... It's rather hard to find a point, but there was the threat of a point, and that was that his Premier is very accessible. The point I want to make is that the issue we're debating in this House is the accessibility of his Premier to the members of the opposition in the Legislature. That's the issue.

The tragedy of this debate today is that I do not think that many of the members on the government side seem to understand what the issue is. It has gone past the whole line-by-line discussion of the estimates of the Premier. It is now based on our concern that the Social Credit government and its leader do not recognize what the British parliamentary system is all about. That means, basically, that every minister in the cabinet has a responsibility to stand up before this House until the opposition is finished with them — to put it bluntly.

Some of you, including the minister who took his seat, remember the days when the NDP was in government. May I say that as a cabinet minister who had to put herself before this Legislature for seven and a half days to answer questions, I happen to know that it is not pleasant, but I know that it was my duty as a cabinet minister to do so.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll ask the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) to please come to order and allow the member for Burnaby North to continue uninterrupted.

MRS. DAILLY: May I say that the issue of debate at the time I went through my seven and a half days was important, certainly, but compared with the Premier, who's responsible for the economy of this province, it pales in comparison. Yet, Mr. Chairman, we in the opposition are being denied the right to question the leader of this government until we are finished.

We have files. We have concerns to express on behalf of the people of British Columbia. All we are asking is.... You have the right to do so. We have a right to stand up here, even though it's the dying days of a session, and express our concern. Out there the public of B.C. may not be too concerned about the fact that the NDP is holding up a debate because the Premier is not here, he's in Washington. But we have to point out to you and to the people of British Columbia that if this continues year after year, the parliamentary system in British Columbia is going to be destroyed. That is the issue. We are asking you not to allow this to happen to this parliament.

The Premier of this province, before he left, should have arranged his itinerary so that the opposition would have an opportunity to debate his estimates. That is the issue.

I want to close on this note. May I suggest that years ago.... I hate to keep using what happened years ago, but there were some good things. When the new members came to this House, many years ago, the Clerk of the House.... He was Mr. DeBeck at that time. Most of you have heard of him: 90 years old, sitting where you're sitting, Mr. Chairman.

MS. BROWN: He looked just like you.

MRS. DAILLY: No, he didn't quite look like you; 90 years old — although you may feel like it by the time you get out of here, I know.

But on a serious note, Mr. Chairman, Mr. DeBeck took every member of this Legislature — I know the member for Vancouver East well remembers this — into his room, and he explained to us the traditions and the importance of the British parliamentary system. I say to you that the members of the Social Credit government, and particularly the Premier of this province, should be taken into somebody's room and have that explained to them today.

[11:30]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, it's very difficult in open debate to really respond in an angry or aggressive tone to the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), because in almost all instances her debate is in a very reasonable manner. But we're questioning the attendance in the Legislative Assembly of the Premier for his estimates. Mr. Chairman, it's worth noting that during this session a very real effort has been made between the Whips of the two sides to coordinate the estimates....

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You wouldn't know, Mr. Member, because no one speaks to you about anything, in or out of caucus.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Minister of Health will come to order and please address vote 4.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: With respect to the Premier's estimates, as an example, Mr. Chairman, a very real effort has been made, as is traditional in our parliamentary process, for the Whips to try to coordinate the estimates. During this session we have postponed estimates of certain ministers to ensure that the minister would be here for the necessary time to complete the estimates, and also to permit the official debate leader of the opposition the opportunity of being here when those specific estimates were to be called. The schedule changed frequently, because of the unavoidable absence either of a minister or of the official debate leader, or critic, from the other side. That type of accommodation is necessary in a very difficult system of coordination. The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) said that the members in the opposition do not have the opportunity to question the Premier on his estimates because he's in Washington, D.C., on behalf of the people of British Columbia with respect to the great dangers facing our lumber industry. Mr. Chairman, in this concept of coordination, one would anticipate and expect that if the Premier's estimates were open for debate, his critic would also be in the House available for that debate. His critic is the Leader of the Opposition, who, I understand, is in Ottawa attending a socialist convention.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. As has been pointed out to the committee previously, and quite often, we are here to discuss the estimates of the Premier. That is the vote that's before us, and there's no other office or expenditure of funds

[ Page 6990 ]

that can be discussed. Will the minister please restrict his debate to that estimate before us now.

On vote 4, the Minister of Health continues.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, when we're discussing the estimates of the Premier under the best possible conditions, the debate we would all look forward to at some time today, as an example, would be to have the two principals present for the debate. But I would think that if we had called these estimates earlier in this session, we would have been requested by the official opposition not to proceed with them until their leader were present so he could debate. So we have the absence of the leaders of the two parties, and the debate is continuing in the chamber, available to all members to make such points as they desire, with respect to the Premier's estimates.

I think it's only fair to point out, Mr. Chairman, as has been pointed out in the absence of the Premier at this time, that the official critic is also absent. So if one is away and the other is away, obviously the debate must take place between those members present. It seems to be balanced. Our Minister of International Trade and Investment (Hon. Mr. Phillips), is carrying the book forward today quite capably, and if the opposition do have questions about the Premier's estimates, there are no restrictions in asking, and they will be answered.

MR. WILLIAMS: Answered by one of the nobodies over there. That's what it will be.

The person who's supposed to be representing the Premier is the one.... Do you recall, folks, when he was in London on another one of his joyrides at public expense, when his executive assistant was canned, when his executive assistant was fired? Who fired him? Why, the Premier's office. The political hack in the Premier's office, Bud Smith, is the one who did him in, simply because there were no cabinet members available for a meeting on poverty, for a meeting on food banks in the city of Vancouver. And the reason? They were all in Maui. They were all in Hawaii. And who got fired? Who got fired?

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: A person in his office. But where did it happen?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Just one moment.

MR. WILLIAMS: The work was done by the Premier's office. The Premier's office is where it was....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The second member for Vancouver East will come to order. The Chair has asked many members during this debate to confine their debate to the relevant aspects of the minister whose vote is before us now. We are currently discussing the administrative responsibility of the Premier's office, vote 4. As has been pointed out to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), and many others, and now to the second member for Vancouver East, we will confine our debate to that vote and that estimate. The member continues.

MR. WILLIAMS: The Premier's office indeed! Even junior people in the other ministries are fired out of the Premier's office. That is so with respect to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom). That's what happened. Mr. Smith, the political hack in the Premier's office, did the job simply because the man made a minor joke about everybody being in Hawaii and not being able to attend a conference on poverty last winter. That's the reality. It was not done by the minister himself when he got back. No, it was done out of the Premier's office. That's the kind of operation there is in the Premier's office. You're a bunch of nobodies — that's why we need the Premier here to debate the estimates. That's why.

Who else is the major contributor to policy in British Columbia? Who else out of the Premier's office and who among the advisers in the Premier's area do the bulk of the work? Why none other than one Patrick Kinsella. None other than the marketer — the guy who can sell soap or incompetent Premiers, who are bouncing around like pugilists. He is the one who can do it. And make no bones about it, when the Premier did make it back here for one day a week ago, and dealt with his estimates for only three and a half hours, he was like a wavering pugilist in this chamber. That's why he's not here today, because he can't handle it. He simply can't handle it. He has to be away.

I want to read for the record in Hansard the kind of job that was done on the people of British Columbia by one Patrick Kinsella, at the hire of the Premier of this province. Let's get it straight. What it is is a market manipulation game, in terms of trying to market this man who's done such a poor job over the past decade. All kinds of funds are spent in terms of that image-building and in terms of trying to put a mask on this mess that is the Premier of British Columbia.

Let's read what Patrick Kinsella says, which is as follows, taped at Simon Fraser University. Let's get it on the record so that in the future the people of British Columbia will know the method by which this man is marketed in British Columbia. He says:

"About 1975 it occurred to Bill Bennett, leader of the opposition, that in order to get back the government, he had to run a special type of campaign, bringing the Social Credit Party into the twentieth century in terms of technique. In 1975 the Socreds were elected. They hung on barely in 1979.

"Then about 1979-80-81, Bennett realized what he had to do was to develop a structure that would allow the party to develop a campaign technique that would get him elected in 1983, or whenever the election was called."

MR. CHAIRMAN: If I could just interrupt the member for a moment, not to frustrate what the member is saying, but to remind all hon. members that when referring to a member of the Assembly, even when reading, one should not refer to them by their name, but rather by their office or riding they represent. I'm sure the member can paraphrase, if you will, to satisfy that rule.

MR. WILLIAMS: Indeed. Okay. Mr. Kinsella continues in his tape on the marketing of the Premier and the managing of elections and the manipulating of the public, which is the process that this Premier adheres to consistently. Mr. Kinsella says:

"I came out in the fall of 1981. I was executive director of the Ontario Conservative Party and had been involved in the party there for seven or eight

[ Page 6991 ]

years, working in various campaigns — both federally and provincially.

"I was involved quite a bit with the Republican Party in those days, in the sense that we as a Conservative Party, both in Ontario and Canada, have a working relationship with the Republican Party in the United States. That allowed me to go to candidate schools and candidate colleges and so on that the Republican Party puts on on a regular basis.

"Frankly, I stole all of their ideas. If something works, you steal it, and see if you can employ it in your own way, for us. So that's what I did.

"When I came out in '81, one of the things I indicated to the Premier was that it was important that we really get into polls."

Let's remember that at this point the man was a civil servant.

"Polling in British Columbia was nonexistent. I think Barrett did a bit of it. The Premier did some, but not very much — and that which he did he didn't share with anyone. The poll was done, and he probably put it back in his drawer.

"One of the things that I persuaded the Premier to do was a 'baseline survey.' We would probably do it with 300 or 400 as a sample size. But we wanted to do a massive sample, decreasing the margin of error, and have a good idea as to what people in British Columbia were thinking."

We still have not resolved the question in terms of how much public funds — and out of the Premier's office, and out of Crown corporations and in other departments — were expended in terms of public spending for this kind of polling data, Mr. Chairman. But it is clear that Public Affairs International is paid — that is, the Decima people and their related companies — in countless ways through various departments including the Premier's office, the Provincial Secretary's office and Crown corporations. And the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development — he, too, has had those people on the payroll.

So Mr. Kinsella continues:

"That was done in October of 1981, about two weeks after our arrival. As far as we were concerned, politically we were measuring the Premier versus David Barrett. I'll share the analysis with you, now that it's 'history, ' three years later.

"When our polling compared the two leaders, it told us very clearly that David Barrett was far more popular. He was much more likeable. He had a sense of humour. Most of the things about a leader that you like — David Barrett was it! He was friendly, he had good relations with the media. He had a strong party, of which he was truly the leader. He was perceived to be strong. And he was, frankly, the kind of guy that you would take to a Canuck game or take home to dinner."

But what does Mr. Kinsella say about Mr. Bennett — or the Premier, rather? He said:

"This man, on the other hand, was perceived to be not a guy that you'd take to a Canuck game. He was seen to be a guy who was a strong businessman, with very strong views on how things should be. Inflexible. A man who was perceived to be a strong leader, but who had bad relationships with the press, and bad relationships to some extent — it was felt — with his party, because there was always someone like a Vander Zalm who wanted to be God or king.

"So the contrast was very clear to us. Here was the Premier on the one hand: seen to be lacking in the sort of things that you may feel are necessary to be a leader."

Lacking indeed, I say.

"And on the other hand you see David Barrett, who everyone liked, was friendly, with a sense of humour, and who did all the things right — or seemed to.

[11:45]

"So the problem we had was one of marketing. How do you market a guy who, in contrast to the other leader, is seen to be less friendly and less likeable? Well, of course, what you do is take advantage of both their strengths and weaknesses. We felt there was a weakness in Barrett being, quote, 'the ordinary guy.'

"Broadbent used that very effectively in the '84...campaign, talking to you as 'ordinary Canadians.' However, the contrast that Mulroney tried to get across is that we don't think you want 'ordinary Canadians.'

"But I want to complete the saga of the Premier versus Mr. Barrett. We developed a strategy to market the Premier on the basis that, in these tough economic times, we should have a tough guy leading us."

MRS. JOHNSTON: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that under standing order 43, the member's comments are completely irrelevant. We could be reading any newspaper or from any speech that any former government employee made, and really, I don't see the relevance. I would hope that you would rule this type of speaking out of order

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, during the comments of the second member for Vancouver East there has been some reference to the minister whose vote is before us. Unless the member strays too far from that, then I would rule that he can continue.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think that's the whole point: that in this man's eyes, and with his advisers at hand, everything in British Columbia is seen as simply a marketing strategy. It's not a question of managing the province in the best way. It's not a question of looking at the long-term best answer for the economy of British Columbia. It's not a matter of dealing with unemployment, of dealing with the poverty that's out there. It's simply the question of a marketing strategy, and it's an image game all the way. It's an image game before the chamber of commerce, not before the average working people of the province. It's an image game abroad, with the minister with the travel card going to the Pacific Rim again during the session. Travelling around the province during the session, traveling to Washington during the session.

It's absolute nonsense for the Minister of Health to say that all these attempts have been made in terms of coordination. This is the most improperly run House in the land, Mr. Chairman. The kind of coordination that should take place in terms of advising the opposition of the debate changes day in and day out, and we get word of the agenda at two in the afternoon or in the middle of debate. Does anyone believe that in a six-month session, which we've nearly had here now, one couldn't have coordinated more than three and a

[ Page 6992 ]

half hours for the Premier? Nobody would believe for a minute that you couldn't coordinate more than three and a half hours in six months. For the Minister of Health to try to sell that line is hopeless. Nobody would believe it.

So Mr. Kinsella continues that it was playing the tough guy in tough economic times, and it was just a matter of having enough money to sell that soap. That's the soap that was peddled, and at public expense more frequently than not.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister will come to order.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Kinsella continues:

"It worked because we contrasted the position David Barrett was trying to sell you — that is, that he's friendly and likeable, but that he'll be a good premier: 'Please try to forget about what I did in 1972-75. I know I made some mistakes, but I wasn't experienced.... There were some things that I should have done that I didn't do, and things that I did that I shouldn't have.... But try to forget all that, because I'm really a friendly guy, and if you elect me premier"' it'll work out.

He carries on that in 1982-83 Mr. Barrett set out on that deliberate course. Mr. Kinsella carries on in terms of the tough-guy image, and says that the peddling of that tough guy image was, to quote him again, "the beginning of what we now know of as 'Restraint.' That started in April 1982, based on data that told us what the people out there were feeling. They knew we were in tough times. They knew someone had to make some tough decisions and they were prepared."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, there's more from that weak member from Vancouver East.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that comment will be withdrawn.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'll withdraw that. I'm sorry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's avoid personal references.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, certainly. The member stands here with nothing to say, so he reads from some newspaper article or some.... As usual, Mr. Chairman, he's way out in left field, because he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I want to tell you something about our Premier. Policy in this government is made by working together, unlike when he was the chief potentate and the czar of everything. He moved everything that moved while the NDP were government. The member for Vancouver East, whom Barrett had to have bought off so he could find a seat for himself, was in charge of everything.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To vote 4.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, policy is decided by consensus — cabinet sitting down with caucus, developing policy. It's not developed by a one-man show as it used to be, with cabinet ministers in the NDP running off in all directions at the same time — no control, no policy. In government they were like they are in opposition today: no policy, no coordination and no leadership.

Now I want to tell you that in this government policy is developed by consensus. I don't care what paper the member for Vancouver East is reading from. Let me tell you how the policy for restraint was developed, and how all policies are developed.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, you can guffaw and laugh all you want to. I'm going to tell you how policies are developed. You seem to forget that we had a cabinet retreat. The Premier called a cabinet retreat in January 1982. That's where the policy for restraint happened to be developed. It was in effect in this province a year before the 1983 election, and the member for Vancouver East knows that. I remember it well. I remember the Premier calling me back from my honeymoon to go to Bennett Point in Campbell River. I remember it well, and I was not happy. But I had a leader, and I came back, and I left my young bride, and I came back to Bennett Point, and that's where the policy for restraint was developed. Now I'll tell you, you could read from all the papers you want to, but restraint under the leadership of Premier Bill Bennett was in effect a year and some months before the election in 1983, and it was because Barrett said he was going to fire it out, but the people of British Columbia fired him out and re-elected this government. That took leadership, my friend; that's the kind of Premier we have.

How many times did the NDP ever have a caucus meeting? Never! How many times did they ever have a cabinet retreat? Bennett Point, Cowichan Bay, Lake Okanagan Resort: that's where policy is developed by consensus, under a leader who brings his cabinet together and develops policy and discusses it with caucus. Bills are discussed with caucus. I'll tell you, you were a one-man show. That guy over there for Vancouver East thinks that everybody runs things the way he ran. I'll tell you, we have leadership. That's why we're government. That's why they were thrown out: because they had no leadership in 1975. You're the guy that was responsible for the NDP demise.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. As the Chair has pointed out on numerous occasions, we must confine our remarks to vote 4, the administrative office of the office of the Premier.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I am containing my remarks, Mr. Chairman, to the leadership of our Premier, and how policy is developed under his leadership at cabinet retreats, and I don't care what Pat Kinsella said. The record shows that the decisions were made when our Premier recognized that it wasn't just an ordinary recession, that indeed the economic times were changing and that the world would be a changed place when we came through this change. That's why the policies were developed. That's the leadership that this government took under Premier Bennett to do the things that had to be done in the tough times.

That's what bothers the NDP. They wanted to throw it all out. They wanted to take the easy road; they wanted to be flamboyant and not come to grips with the difficult times we were facing. That's leadership, and that's why our Premier will go down in history as one of the most respected leaders of

[ Page 6993 ]

any province in Canada, and that's what bothers that leaderless, directionless, policyless NDP opposition. They're performing the same dismal job in opposition as they did in government, and the people recognize that and they'll stay in opposition forever and ever and ever.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes the second member for Victoria.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have I got the wrong suit on today or something? He hasn't been here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time will come. Debate reciprocates, hon. member.

MR. BLENCOE: That member talks about policy developed by this government. The only policy that they have developed is one that has brought us memories that British Columbians won't forget for many a year. Thanks for the memories: that's the theme. Thanks for the memory of the highest unemployment that we've ever seen since the recession in the province of British Columbia. Thanks for the highest welfare rates we've seen in many, many a year. Thanks for the memories, and thanks for the thousands of people who can't find work because of your policies. Thanks for the soup-kitchens and the thousands of British Columbians who want jobs and food. They thank the Premier of this province, who's become known as the Premier of soup-kitchens in this country.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Thanks for the incompetence of this government. Thanks to that minister for getting the hole in the wrong place. Thanks for the memories; thanks for the incompetence. Thanks for the memories of Expo, the fiasco and the fun times you've been having at the expense of the taxpayers. Thanks for the immoral parties of half a million dollars while people are in the soup-kitchens and you have half-million dollar parties at the expense of the taxpayer, People look for work, want decent livings and a decent position in British Columbian society, and at the same time you have half million-dollar parties at Expo. Thanks for that immoral memory. While people are starving and want food and jobs, thanks for that memory.

Thanks for that fine bunch of policies you people have developed over the last few years — incompetence in government over the last ten years. Thanks for the memories of firing thousands and thousands of public servants who were loyal to this province and loyal to the people of British Columbia. Thanks for those memories. Thanks for firing the child-abuse workers. Thanks for those fine memories, and thanks for those fine policies. Thanks for the huge deficit, the biggest deficit in the history of this province, and the incompetence you have shown; thanks for that memory. The highest deficit per capita we've ever seen in the history of this province: that's your policies. Thanks for that memory.

Thanks for declaring forestry a sunset industry. Thousands of jobs could be created in forestry today if this government had the determination, will and leadership. Thanks for declaring that our forestry industry, the number one industry in the province of British Columbia, is a sunset industry. You are telling our young people they can't have employment in the forest industry. Thanks for those memories and those policies. The people of British Columbia will remember that, Mr. Chairman.

Thanks for the memories in education and the removing of teachers and shortchanging our children. Thanks for the memories of some of the best people in our university system leaving this province. Thanks for those memories; thanks for those policies. Thanks for the memories of well-known Canadians who wish to return to the university education in British Columbia who are now saying they can't return to this province because it's a laughing-stock in North America. You don't believe in university education, and when you talk about university education you say it's only urban slickers that support education. Thanks for those memories of shortchanging our young people; thanks for those policies. Disgraceful!

[12:00]

Thanks for the environmental concerns we've seen in the last few months; thanks for the pumping of sewage into our oceans and our beaches. Thanks for the memories here in Victoria where you won't provide proper sewage treatment. Thanks for those memories and thanks for those policies. What a history of total incompetence by this government! Thanks for the jet-setting at public expense by so many of these cabinet ministers while people are in the soup-lines and want jobs. Thanks for those memories; thanks for those policies.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Thanks to that minister there, the minister of aviation, the minister of the grossest jet-setting we've ever seen in the history of this province while people want jobs. Thanks for the gross manipulation of the people of this province by this Premier and this government by your polls, advertising and in excess of $20 million on misinformation that is pumped out by this government. Thanks for those memories.

We have years and years of bad memories, bad government and total incompetence by this government. It's time for a change, and this Premier.... Not only has he only spoken for three hours in this five- to six-month session, he didn't even speak in this Legislature for nine months. We didn't have this Legislature in session, so it's been in excess of fifteen months. The Premier has spoken through this chamber to the people of this province for only three hours. That's accessibility. That's Socred accountability to the people of British Columbia as you rip them off and put them on welfare rolls and unemployment rolls. That's the memories we have of Social Credit government, and that's the memories we have of this Premier. Three hours in fifteen months he has spoken, through this chamber, to the people of the province of British Columbia. Thanks for that memory.

Now we have a government that is determined to wrap this session up, where the Premier of this province will not answer the questions. I had a number of questions to ask him about certain things in his riding, Mr. Chairman — about the Rutland sewer patronage deal that he got for his riding at the expense of all other tidings in the province of British Columbia. But he's not here to answer these questions.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Minister of Forests please come to order.

[ Page 6994 ]

MR. BLENCOE: What a history, Mr. Chairman, of total incompetence. The highest debt, the highest deficit, the highest unemployment rate, the highest welfare rate we've seen since the recession, and this minister says: "We have policies for the future." They bring forth on an ad hoc basis all these grandiose plans, with no sense of long-term purpose and long-range planning. Thanks for the memories. I suppose over the next few months we'll hear about these ministers jet-setting around the world, having great fun while people want jobs, jobs, jobs. They want jobs. They don't want jet-setting ministers. They want jobs, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Let's have jobs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid)....

MR. BLENCOE: We can put 15,000 people to work in the forestry today if this minister would get off...and do his job. Yet what do you do? You spend $20 million on manipulating the public into thinking that everything is great. You send out free advertising at public expense and you manipulate public opinion and you jet-set around the world. Thanks for the memories.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Barber's protege.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the second member for Victoria. All other members should remain in their seats until recognized.

Would the member continue.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, this year is the international year of youth.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'll speak on behalf of youth. What kind of future can they see with this government and its policies and the memories that it's given British Columbians over the last few years? What chance of work, what opportunities, when you're cutting the very things that will, with this Premier leading this incompetent government, cutting the very things that allows those young people to get education and university training in the twentieth century, to enter the modem workforce...? What are you doing? We know what's happened in education. We know what's happened in the universities and post-secondary education: short-changing young people — thousands of them unemployed in the province of British Columbia. What does this government say? "Well, we'll devise some media package in a month or so that will try to convince the people and those young people that we have their interests at heart." Partnership in enterprise we've all heard about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What are you for?

MR. BLENCOE: I'm for a government that is prepared to tackle the most serious problem in the province of British Columbia today: that is, jobs for our young people and a future for our young people. That's what we're prepared to do and tackle. That's the most important thing — not jet-setting around the world, having fancy parties in other parts of the world.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If you had half a brain in your head, you'd be down on the floor playing with it.

MR. BLENCOE: There's the minister right there who is increasing rents for senior citizens.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, increasing rents for senior citizens. There he is. The people of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman.... The polls now say that they recognize the incompetence of this government in economic affairs. They know it. They have seen it. They have seen the biggest so-called megaproject that the Premier talks about, and the minister — now no longer the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development; the minister of jet-setting — talks about his fancy project. And what does he do? He gets the hole in the wrong place. He can't even dig the right hole. The Premier, of course — we don't hear him talking about that project now. They don't talk about that project now. The Premier doesn't talk about it now. He goes running off somewhere else to try to attract public attention that he's concerned about the youth and unemployment.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Have you ever been to Tumbler Ridge?

MR. REID: No, he's never been out of Victoria.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Can we please have parliamentary decorum and that the member who has been recognized be allowed to speak, with silence from others, including the members for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston and Mr. Reid).

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, it's time in the province of British Columbia that the people had a say in where they want to go, because they're tired of the incompetence and the unemployment and the welfare that this government has given to the people of British Columbia. They want a chance to express their views. Let's have a chance to express the views. Let's have an election as soon as possible, and let's see where you are on your incompetence. Let's go.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Thanks for the memories: unemployment — highest. Thanks for the soup-lines. Let's go to the people, and let's look at the policies and look at what other jurisdictions have managed to do. It's time that the people of British Columbia had the opportunity to express their pent-up frustration with this government at incompetence, unemployment, welfare, soup-kitchens, half-a-million dollar fancy parties and jet-setting, and at no economic policy that could lead this province into the future, no regional policy to lead the regions into the future, no new-enterprise planning to lead this province into the future and no properly staffed universities to lead this province into the future. That's what the people of British Columbia want to hear. Those are the policies they want to see, not a jet-setting, fun-loving bunch of cabinet ministers, who, at the expense of taxpayers, go

[ Page 6995 ]

around the world and have great fun. That's not what they want to see. They want to see solutions.

Mr. Chairman, we have tabled in this Legislature our policies and our ideas for reforestation. We have tabled an alternative throne speech that lays out clearly where we would go. And what do we hear from the Premier? Three hours in fifteen months.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Three hours. He hasn't had the decency to come into this chamber and face the people of British Columbia with his archaic economic policies that were conjured up in the backroom by Michael Walker and his crazy economic fools. That's where we've been going. It's time for some common-sense approaches to economic directions, Mr. Chairman, and it's time to eliminate the memories of Social Credit incompetence in the province of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair would indicate that a temperate debate leads to decorum within the House.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I will try to temper the debate with some facts. It's interesting, after listening to the second member for Victoria in another one of his tirades, that I couldn't help but think: thank God the Premier of this province is today in Washington doing things for British Columbia, instead of having to listen to this same nonsense from the second member for Victoria. He makes the same speech. The one promise I will make, Mr. Chairman, is that after the next election, which I, like the second member for Victoria.... I wish there was one right now, because I'd be able to come back in here in 35 days and sing that song, "Thanks for the Memories," to the new second member for Victoria and the new first member for Victoria, after the next election.

MS. BROWN: What a dreamer.

MR. REYNOLDS: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), down there, who wins by about 400 or 500 votes every time.... I'd be very careful if I were her, too, in the next election.

I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, the Premier of this province — in speaking to his estimates — is doing such a great job in the city of Vancouver for the people of Burnaby, New Westminster, North Vancouver, West Vancouver and Richmond with Expo coming there next year that the people of that area are going to see what the Premier of this province has done for British Columbia.

You only have to look at the advance ticket sales to Expo, because of the work the Premier has done and the vision he's had for British Columbia. It's just amazing to me, Mr. Chairman, to hear the second member for Victoria get up here and talk about the half-million dollar party and relate it to food banks and soup-kitchens. It sickens me, Mr. Chairman, that that second member for Victoria....

MR. BLENCOE: You bet!

MR. REYNOLDS: He can't even sit quiet while somebody else is speaking. But he doesn't understand marketing and promotion. He doesn't understand.

MR. WILLIAMS: Kinsella!

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, Kinsella gave me some good advice last week. He said: "If you want to get more votes than you got last time, just put pictures of Bob Williams all around the province, and you'll win in a landslide." This man who has the nerve to stand in this House and quit his seat to pick up 80 grand comes back here and starts to tell us how we should be running this province. He's the disaster in the NDP, a party that wouldn't have been defeated, probably, if it wasn't for this man alone.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. member refrain from personal references. We are on vote 4, the Premier's estimates.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I was doing so well until the second member for Vancouver East got carried away and turned around and yelled at me. If he's going to do that, I'll yell back at him.

[12:15]

Mr. Chairman, they want to talk about soup-kitchens and food-lines. Why don't they go to the province of Manitoba? They used to brag about that province of Manitoba in this House. They said how good it was. If you want to compare it with British Columbia, they've got their soup-lines. They've got their food banks. They're all around North America. We've been in some tough times, Mr. Chairman. Nobody likes food banks or soup-kitchens, but to compare them to Expo and other things that are happening in this province is rather childish. I think the public of this province just don't understand this type of debate.

If they want to talk about jobs, look at the fact that 47,000 more British Columbians were working in 1985 as compared with 1984. Why don't they talk about that figure and then compare that figure with what is happening in other western provinces and especially in Manitoba, in Alberta? As I said, 47,000 more jobs in British Columbia, and in Alberta in the same period of time, 7,000 more jobs. In Conservative Saskatchewan, 19,000 more jobs. In NDP Manitoba in that same period of time, 1,000 new jobs. Mr. Chairman, it is significant to note that Manitoba recorded the smallest year-over-year job creation increase in Canada, smaller than all the other provinces.

Mr. Chairman, it's the programs of this Premier that are moving this province ahead. They compare these socialists.... They want to talk about what is happening in British Columbia. We're doing better than all the other provinces.

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: They're saying: "Sell us some more ice cream; sell us some Good Humour." Mr. Chairman, they don't want to admit the fact that we're creating more jobs in British Columbia than all the other western provinces combined.

Mr. Chairman, those people that are getting those jobs, those people that are seeing the new projects that are being announced over the last few months.... The reason that the Premier has been travelling is to get more industry for British Columbia. We are hot right now. We're on a roll. We're increasing jobs faster than all the other western provinces combined.

[ Page 6996 ]

Mr. Chairman, these members opposite like to laugh about that. But they don't want to go back in comparing. I know in speaking to the Premier's estimates, I can go back and compare some of the things that happened when we had a different government in this province. I would like to quote one of the things that was said about a previous government, so that I can then expound on some of the other things that this government is doing.

In the Province in 1975, and I quote.... This is in the key resource portfolio.

"The resource minister, " the now second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), "has done a great job to kill off economic development in British Columbia. For three years the forest industry in this province has been waiting for some clear indication of the rules under which it must plan its future. It is still no nearer that essential knowledge than it was on election day in 1972. Instead it is still trying to cope with the vague threats and inconsistent judgments that have been the minister's habit since he first entered politics."

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: See, Mr. Chairman? He gets upset. He says: "Is this the Premier's estimates?" Well, that second member for Victoria wanted to quote lots of things. He quoted Kinsella. He can pass it out, but he can't take what they were saying about him. The most dangerous man in British Columbia can't take what they were saying about him.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. Reference to the second member for Vancouver East is not on point with the Premier's estimates. We would appreciate the member for West Vancouver being relevant.

MR. REYNOLDS: What I am trying to point out here is all of the things that the Premier of this province has done in comparison with what was done in the previous disastrous government that was here. Certainly I've talked about Expo. I could talk about the ALRT, which certainly the members on our side of the House appreciate and support. But I would also like to talk about what the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) was saying, when we see the activity on the NDP side: four of their members sitting here during the Premier's debates. Where are the rest of them if it is that important, if it is the big issue they are talking about?

Mr. Chairman, the Premier was in this House for his estimates, as the Whip of this party said. He's been trying to arrange all during these debates to make sure that the balance Of....

MR. BLENCOE: Fifteen months.

MR. REYNOLDS: Well, let's compare that, Mr. Second Member for Victoria. He talks about three hours and so on. Does he know that in all the estimates that have been done in this House since we started doing them, we've only averaged about four hours on every ministry in this place? Some of them, the Ministry of Human Resources, Health, Education, billions of dollars.... We're talking here about $600,000, and we've been debating over three hours on it with the Premier here. But no, they didn't take time when other ministers were here.

Where is their critic, Mr. Chairman? The Leader of the Opposition.... As we all know, as members of this assembly we must file a report with the Clerk of the House as to our attendance in this place. I am looking forward to seeing.... Oh look, they're going to get up on points of order now. It scares them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) on a point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: He's not even in his own seat.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, the Chair has recognized...

MR. D'ARCY: ...his salary or anything involving the other 56 members of this House, only the member for Okanagan South (Hon. Mr. Bennett).

MRS. JOHNSTON: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, the member who spoke was not in his seat. I don't think he can be.... No point of order.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The two points of order are well taken. We are on the minister's estimates.

MR. REYNOLDS: There is no question, Mr. Chairman: we are on the Premier's estimates. But in discussing the Premier's estimates, I want to discuss the number of days that the Premier has been in this House and the number of things that he's done. To do that, I must compare what other members of this House do. I think it's only fair that I be allowed, when I am talking about the Premier, to compare him with what other members of this House do. It has to do with his estimates. The Premier has been in this House the majority of the time, Mr. Chairman — I would suggest more time in this House than the Leader of the Opposition has spent here. I would suggest, in speaking to the Premier's estimates, that when these reports are filed as to attendance in the House — which the Premier will file, like every one of us — I'm looking forward to the cheque that the Leader of the Opposition will be writing to this Legislature for about $2,750, because it's about 11 days' absence over and above the ten you're allowed. I have calculated that he's been away over 21 days in this Legislature, with no excuse whatsoever. Our Premier, when he was Leader of the Opposition....

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: I wish you'd tell this mouthpiece over here for Mayor Pollen to slow down while I'm talking, Mr. Chairman. It's difficult to speak when a member is yapping away in your ear.

On the Premier's estimates, I was saying that the Premier of this province, when he was Leader of the Opposition, gave money back to this Legislature when he had to be absent more than the ten days that you're allowed. He was out working on behalf of the party and, because the rules are as they are, he had to sign his form and honestly state that he was away more

[ Page 6997 ]

than the ten days. He wrote his cheque and paid the bill. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition doing the same thing after July I of this year.

Mr. Chairman, you can list off the things that are happening in this province. I mentioned Expo; ALRT; a liquid natural gas plant that we're talking about which is coming to this province; the gas pipeline over to Vancouver Island; the fertilizer plants; new businesses in Port Coquitlam where I spoke last week, where they are excited about some new industries in that area; northeast coal. It goes on and on. The Premier of this province is doing a job like no other Premier in Canada is doing. That's why the province of British Columbia is a location that people are looking now to come to, to move their plants here — because they like the legislation we've brought in in the last couple of years.

The second member for Victoria, whom I've never heard say a positive thing since he got here.... I guess it stands in a tradition that the NDP members from Victoria tend to speak that way. We come back, and as our friend the Minister of....

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: Sure, the first member for Victoria hasn't been here for the last week or so. Other members from their party disappeared because summer vacation is here. It would be straying from the Premier's estimates to say that, so I won't. But as I mentioned, the Premier was in this House when the Leader of the Opposition was here. He answered questions for three and a half hours, a lot of it repetitious. Other major ministries weren't questioned that long by the opposition.

I could go on and on. I've got a lot left, but I could do some of that later. I expect they're going to get up and keep on talking because they think they've got a hot little issue. It's amazing that the second member for Vancouver East, the second member for Victoria and the House Leader from Skeena are the only three from their party who seem to want to delay things, not make agreements. Our Whip had agreements between people. They couldn't decide....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That is not a matter of the House.

MR. REYNOLDS: The Premier is doing a great job in this province, and I think all of us in this House are here.... We'll stay here and talk about that for the next two or three weeks of the summer. We're not anxious, like the NDP, to get out of here and get on our summer vacation, because we work for the people of the province all year round, not just when this House is in session.

I see the second member for Vancouver East getting ready. Well, I've got more quotes for him in the past too. I'd love to get at them, so I'm going to sit down and let him get up again. I'm sure I can participate again, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WILLIAMS: One of the Premier's jobs is to appoint cabinet ministers. That's a critical job. One of the things he has done in this session is to appoint parliamentary secretaries as well. Let's reflect on that. The member who has just spoken was appointed by the Premier, and what was the job that he gave him? Why, it was parliamentary secretary for the poor, for Human Resources. It's a kind of black joke, when you think about it, that the member from Little Mountain, the woman from Little Mountain, the minister and the assistant are the Ken and Barbie of the Legislature; the sartorial splendoured duet who could join with those in the food banks. That's the kind of black joke that the Premier sees in terms of appointing his cabinet. It's a kind of black humour in terms of dealing with the hundreds of thousands of people driven to welfare by his economic policies and mismanagement of this province's economy. It is more and more a kind of black joke. Only this Premier would appoint Ken and Barbie to deal with Human Resources and welfare. Only this Premier would appoint Ken and Barbie to deal with those serious, difficult problems.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Hon. member, the proper parliamentary procedure is to refer to other members by their office or constituency; other names are not acceptable within this House.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think it's also worth looking at the kind of things the Premier said when he began his tenure, in those early days when he was probably less jaundiced and may have had a clearer view of what a Premier could or should be doing. Back then he said he was nervous that governments borrowed to pay their year-to-year operating costs, without using the good years to pay back the debts. He also said we could restrict borrowing for operating costs, and then restrict dependency on outside capital. Well, how times have changed! We are now at the state in British Columbia, under this Premier, of borrowing money to pay people on welfare. That is the equivalent of using your Chargex to buy your groceries.

This man has clearly been calling the shots in terms of the ombudsman's office in this province. There is a route that the ombudsman must follow in dealing with problems that citizens and individuals have — serious problems. The route is to deal first with the minister, then with the Premier, and then with the executive council; and if nothing moves, if no adjustment takes place, then it comes to the Legislature. But the key player in this operation is the Premier himself. The Premier has set the standard for all the others in this cabinet in terms of stonewalling: always stonewalling the ombudsman; always stonewalling the man who is the last line of defence for the average citizen. Consistently through this spring and summer and on countless other occasions, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) has refused to meet the ombudsman. Why? Because the Premier plays that game of stonewalling the ombudsman — never dealing with the problems, never trying to unravel and accept the solid information he receives.

[12:30]

[Mr. Strachan in the chain)

And now today we have another report out of that office, with respect to the Nishga Tribal Council and tree-farm licence No. 1. What we find there is actual breaking of the law; what we find is that the civil service are being forced to do things they should not be doing — and all under this Premier. Yesterday, dealing with the Ministry of Forests, the minister said he would deal with professional foresters who didn't work to professional standards, if they were sending in false documents. Well, the report indicated, with respect to the Nass Valley land, that false reports were being deposited

[ Page 6998 ]

and being accepted by the Ministry of Forests. Now we hear that in fact it has gone further.

This Premier abandoned the ship, when he should have been here facing the opposition and answering questions. Three and a half hours is not adequate. Think, across this land.... What garbage from the Minister of International Trade (Hon. Mr. Phillips), singing the praises of our spacey Premier! Good lord!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That will be withdrawn. Hon. members, we've had quite enough intemperate language from both sides of the House. Members have been asked to withdraw personal references. I will ask the second member for Vancouver East to withdraw any personal reference.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Think about it. Across the land.... Let's look at the other Premiers in this land. Does anyone think for a minute that Peter Lougheed would have abandoned the ship and not faced the opposition on his estimates? Not on your life! Peter Lougheed would be in the Legislature dealing with the questions and the debate. Does anybody think that Allan Blakeney or Mr. Devine would not be in the Legislature? No. Does anybody think for a minute that Mr. Pawley in Manitoba would not be there in the Legislature dealing with the debate? No, not on your life. Does anybody think that Mr. Davis in Ontario would have applied that kind of strategy in terms of abandoning ship and not facing up to the debate? No. Does anybody think that Mr. Levesque would not be there in the forefront in the Legislature in Quebec? Does anybody think that Mr. Peckford would not have been there in the Legislature, in Newfoundland? And so across Canada, no Premier in the land would have carried on his office....

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: Nobody in the land would have carried on the way this Premier has.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, hon. members, please. Interjections are unparliamentary at any time, but for a member to interject and not be in his place is most unparliamentary.

MR. WILLIAMS: This Premier is not here again today. He's not here to answer, and he should be. The member for Point Grey says he's the surrogate, even he isn't here. He says he's here to answer questions for the Premier. I want to ask some questions about the levels of borrowing that this Premier has accepted. When will we have the minister that is supposed to be responding, Mr. Chairman? Is he out chewing gum? Is he out in the sunshine?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: The level of unacceptable standard increases daily in terms of your operation. The Premier abandons, the Premier flies away, takes off with the credit-card kid over here, and we barely see him in this House. Now the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, or whatever that sinecure is that he has, isn't even in his chair. Who is to answer?

Welcome back, Mr. Member.

There is a kind of contempt for this process, a contempt for Parliament that seems to know no bounds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Where's your leader?

MR. WILLIAMS: This member, the member for North Peace....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Pursuant to standing order 38, a member can only rise in his place. If you rise in your place, you will be recognized, if you are requesting a point of order.

MR. D'ARCY: On a point of order, I have made the point before, and I'll make it again. We are not discussing any other member of this House except the member for Okanagan South (Hon. Mr. Bennett) and his estimates. But I also want to assure those members opposite that when the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) is Premier of this province, he will have the guts to be here, and he will be here during his estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order. Does the minister rise on a point of order?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I was going to say that the Leader of the Opposition hasn't been here most of the time, so I don't know why he'd be here....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That's not a point of order either. What we've done is interrupt the second member for Vancouver East, who will continue debate on vote 4.

MR. WILLIAMS: The member for North Peace joins in the heckling over there, and yet the Premier is the one that pulls the strings in that office, just like all the other offices. It was the Premier that moved in and simply said that your deputy was going and he fired the deputy of the member who is responsible for Lands, Parks and Housing. Mr. Johnston was one of the most competent deputy ministers in the province, without question. But who did the firing? The Premier did the firing. And the man who was embarrassed by it all, and said he was embarrassed by it all, is the member for North Peace River (Hon. Mr. Brummet). He was the last to know. When it became a matter of a reappointment and placing somebody else as deputy minister....

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, I'm very loath to interrupt the light-hearted remarks of the member for Vancouver East, but I do recall, and was in the House when he developed this premise at great length this morning.... He's using the same material, I'm afraid. So I would tend to think, with all respect to the hon. member, that perhaps he could hearken to standing order 43.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. The Chair has said many times that we cannot be tedious or repetitious. Perhaps we could introduce new material.

MR. WILLIAMS: The new material is the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, Mr. Chairman, who's now in the House. What happened, in fact, is that the person who got

[ Page 6999 ]

employed as deputy minister was a man who had been on the campaign trail with the Premier.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You said that this morning too.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, I did not say that this morning, Mr. Member. If you had even stayed in the House you might be aware. I did not say that the new appointment had been a political hack. I did not say that he had been on the campaign trail with the Premier on numerous occasions. I did not say that the new modus operandi in British Columbia is that political hacks become deputy ministers. I did not say that the new modus operandi in British Columbia is that the Premier determines who the deputy ministers are. It doesn't become a process in terms of merit — a meritocracy within the civil service. This is now a process in terms of the Premier determining who your boy is. Is it the Premier who has decided that the Minister of Health's hit man is going to become the new interim ombudsman? Is it the Premier that's made the decision that Mr. Bazowski is going to be the new interim ombudsman — the guy who always jumps to your tune, the guy who is your hit man, the guy who was willing to take on people carrying out the audit function and give them no work when he was in your agency, in terms of isolating them and not letting them have any work if he thought they had a somewhat different political persuasion or view than your own? Is that what it's going to be?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Time has expired.

HON. MR. McGEER: I want to rise and support this vote by saying that dollar for dollar it's the best deal British Columbia ever had. There isn't any higher value for this particular vote. No sir, Mr. Chairman, this isn't an $80,000 vote. The Premier's chair is priceless, and I consider it very ironic that today the Premier should be working on behalf of the forest industry in Washington, D.C., not because that forest industry is a failure, as it was when that member was minister of lands and forests, but because it's a success. The Premier is in Washington, D.C., because last year a record amount of forest products was shipped from British Columbia to export markets, especially in the United States, and new records are being set this year.

What a contrast! What a contrast to when that member running from the House was Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. What a contrast it is. If that member, who has had so much to say in criticism of the Minister of Forests and the Premier, were in the chair of responsibility today, there wouldn't be any need to go down to Washington, D.C., to protect the forest industry, because they wouldn't be cutting and shipping the record amounts of timber that they have done so far this year. That's why the Premier can't be here today, because of the success of the policies of this government. Under attack in the U.S. Senate and the House of Congress, not because of the failure that these people preach out of envy and jealousy — not that kind of failure, no. The success has terrified the forest industry in the United States.

That's why the Premier is in Washington, D.C., to try to get a fair deal for Canada, because of the tremendous export wealth that comes not just to this province but to Ontario and all the other provinces across Canada. While this process is taking place in the real world, what do we have? We have the false accusations of the second member for Vancouver East, the $80,000 man, who, when he had the seat of responsibility for that portfolio in British Columbia, brought despair and disaster.

No, Mr. Chairman, it's ironic. I only say that this is the best value that could come for British Columbia, and I'll be supporting this vote.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I think that the opposition has expressed to the government members how very strongly we feel about the Premier being here so that we can have an opportunity to question him, to raise and share with him some of our concerns, and also to get some responses from him.

[12:45]

I am wondering whether the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), who is standing in for him, would consider putting his estimates over until whenever he is available so that we can continue to do in a clear and democratic way the job which we were elected to do.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: That's fine. That's why I am asking the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations if he is willing to put over the Premier's estimates until the Premier is available. Because in fact we want to speak to the Premier. We want to share our concerns with him. We've been waiting very patiently for the minister's estimates to come onto the floor of this House so that we could question him, so that we could hear from him some of his plans and some of his decisions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Poor baby.

MS. BROWN: You know, the minister of international travel likes to use sexist terms. I guess he sees himself in the same light as the federal Minister of Justice, Mr. Crosbie, and thinks it's okay to go around calling women "baby." Well, if that's what he wants to do, that's fine. He can go ahead and do that. I'm not going to be a part of what he is doing.

The reality of the situation is that we do have questions which we want to put to the Premier, and the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) cannot deal with those questions. He doesn't have the answers. He can't respond to them. We don't want to send messages to the Premier through the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. We want to speak directly to the Premier himself. That's what w.....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Why didn't you do it while he was here?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the minister of international travel, who has sucked the people of this province of $1.6 million just to pay for his airline tickets so that he can go gallivanting all over the world, has had his opportunity to stand on the floor of this House and participate in this debate.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think we'd better tell that lady that she's exaggerating about a millionfold, the same as she always does, and doesn't know what she's talking about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll advise the minister that that is not a point of order, and advise the member for Burnaby-Edmonds that, first, we should always refer to a

[ Page 7000 ]

member by the correct title of the ministry or riding, and no other appellation will be allowed; and secondly, we should confine our remarks to the vote before us.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the problem that we have with that minister is that his title keeps changing. That's the reason that we're having problems with him. By tomorrow morning he may have another title change. So it's always difficult to keep up with his titles.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not the business of this estimate, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: In any event, Mr. Chairman, even if his travel budget were 10 cents, it would still be 10 cents too much.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Finished?

MS. BROWN: No, I'm not finished.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I wasn't talking to you. Please continue.

MS. BROWN: I just got started.

Mr. Chairman, as I raised earlier, I want to speak to the Premier about the fact, for example, that the federal government, when it was brought to its attention that de-indexing federal old age pensions was going to be a hardship on the senior citizens of this province, reconsidered. The Prime Minister issued instructions to his Minister of Finance, and the federal government has reversed itself on that topic.

I wanted to bring to the attention of the Premier, hoping that he would have learned something from the federal debate over de-indexing, a telegram which I received concerning the fact that pensions for people who are handicapped and disabled in this province have been de-indexed. I wanted to talk to the Premier of this province about the experience which his federal counterpart learned when he tried to de-index old age pensions, and the instructions which he gave to his Finance minister in terms of reversing that decision.

The Premier is not here. The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, who is standing in in his place, does not have the authority to go to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) or the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and say to either or both of those ministers that the de-indexing of pensions for the disabled and handicapped in this province should cease, and that in fact their pensions should be fully indexed. They should get the full indexing of the federal pension; it should be carried over to them without any deductions being made from the provincial contribution to that pension.

Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations have the authority, Mr. Chairman, to deal with that issue? That's my question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who is standing in for the Premier. Do you have, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, it's very difficult to speak to a minister who insists on turning his back to you when you are placing a question to him.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Well, I've asked the minister a question. Does he have the authority to deal with this issue?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, we are straying somewhat from the estimates of the Premier. We're discussing federal relations, and we're discussing other things that really would not be appropriate to this vote before us now. We are on the Premier's estimates, vote 4, the expenditures of the office. We cannot discuss other ministries.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm asking the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, who has told us that he's handling the Premier's estimates, if he has the authority to reverse the decision concerning the de-indexing or the carrying over of the de-indexing of the pensions to the disabled and handicapped in this province.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, I admire the honourable lady for filling in some time, but she knows as well as I do that that's a question that should be properly put to the Minister of Human Resources. I can assure the hon. member that we're going to be around for a bit. She'll no doubt have the opportunity to do that.

MS. BROWN: That is just one example of why this minister cannot handle the Premier's estimates. It doesn't make any sense at all to be discussing the Premier's estimates with this minister, because he does not have the authority to deal with the issues which should and could be raised under the Premier's estimates.

MR. BLENCOE: We've heard....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. One moment, please. Once again I'll remind the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) that it is most unparliamentary to interject or interrupt another member, and it is exceedingly unparliamentary to do that from a seat other than your own.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've heard over the last few hours various cabinet ministers try, in a desperate attempt, to protect their Premier, who unfortunately is not with us today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lay your feather down. I can't stand it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister will come to order.

MR. BLENCOE: We've heard that particular minister, in his usual hollow way, try to protect the incompetent Premier of the province of British Columbia, and say that he is the most popular Premier in the history of British Columbia; that he's doing all these marvellous things; and that the people of British Columbia have great faith in that Premier. Well, Mr.

[ Page 7001 ]

Chairman, we all remember quite vividly the affair at B.C. Place. Thousands of British Columbians gathered to greet a British Columbia hero, Mr. Steve Fonyo, and when the Premier of the province of British Columbia was introduced to those thousands of British Columbians, hisses and boos emerged from that crowd towards that Premier they're supposedly proud of. Deep resentment was expressed by those people in that crowd towards that Premier.

Mr. Chairman, the people of British Columbia are tired; they are frustrated. They have a deep resentment towards this Premier, who doesn't seem to care about their concerns, about the fact they are continuing to have high unemployment. The crowds booed this Premier. All the indications are, and all the polls indicate, that we have the most unpopular government in the country residing right here in the province of British Columbia. And the Premier gets booed and hissed by the people in Vancouver, because they know.... They have a deep resentment for what this government has done to them, and they want change. They want that Premier removed; they want him out; they want him gone. And by all accounts he probably will go, because it's time for a change. It's time for that Premier to be eliminated and removed from the province of British Columbia once and for all.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The committee will come to order.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, this Legislature is entitled to a basic right, and that right is to have the Premier present in this chamber to answer questions about the running of this province; about the deep resentment; about the economic stagnation and continuing unemployment this province faces.

Mr. Chairman, we have seen no proposals from this government that will lead this province out of Socred stagnation and economic incompetence. We've seen nothing. We can't even have a Premier speak in this House for more than three hours in 15 months and tell the people in British Columbia why he has done what he has done to them; why he endorses half-million dollar immoral champagne parties, while down the road and around the block they have a soup-kitchen and lineups for food. He can't face the people of British Columbia to tell us why he is doing that to them. That's why, despite what this cabinet tries to tell this House and this....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. One moment, please. I'll advise all members of the committee once again, particularly the members of the government benches, not to interrupt and not to heckle the member who has taken his place in debate. The second member for Victoria continues on vote 4.

MR. BLENCOE: We have come to the end of the road in terms of this Premier not reporting to this Legislature. The people of British Columbia know that he ran from this house. He won't be here to do his proper job and report to the people of British Columbia about what he's doing. The results are clear from the responses the Premier has got in public appearances. The people of British Columbia are tired of the incompetence of this Premier, and they want real change.

Vote 4 approved on division.

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

On vote 3: office of the ombudsman, $2,031, 156.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I draw your attention to the clock.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair's attention having been drawn to the clock, the Chair will report to the Speaker.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, during Committee of Supply the Chairman's attention was drawn to the clock.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. When shall the committee sit again?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Later today, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

Introduction of Bills

SOCIETY AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

Hon. Mr. Hewitt presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Society Amendment Act, 1985.

Bill 48 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.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the House at its rising do stand adjourned for ten minutes.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:01 p.m.