1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2183 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Introduction and first reading –– 2183

An Act Respecting Public Representation on Executive Boards and Councils of

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

Introduction and first reading –– 2183

Oral questions

Coal export to Japan. Mr. Lauk –– 2183

Log exports. Mr. King –– 2184

Tree-planting program. Mr. Passarell 2184

Replacement of Pharmacare cards. Ms. Brown –– 2184

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

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office estimates

On vote 9

Mr. King –– 2185

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2187

Mr. Lea –– 2192

Division on the motion that the committee rise –– 2194

Mr. Lea –– 2194

Mr. Cocke –– 2196

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2197

Mr. Lauk –– 2200

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2202

Mr. Howard –– 2203

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 2206

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2206

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce guests who are seated on the

floor of the House today. They are Councillor and Mrs. T.C.R. Legge,

who are visiting British Columbia from Britain. Members who represent

Vancouver Island and the city of Vancouver will be particularly

interested to know that Councillor Legge, who is the chairman of the

West Norfolk District Council in England, represents as well the west

Norfolk District, which includes Kings Lynn, the birthplace of Captain

Vancouver. I would like you to know that the Legges have been

particularly hospitable to our agent-general while he had his tenure of

office in Britain. I would like the House at this time to welcome them

warmly to our province of British Columbia.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the opposition, we are pleased to associate

ourselves with the remarks of the lady minister who just spoke, and I

extend our warm welcome to the visiting dignitaries from Great Britain.

I also would like to extend warm congratulations on their visit to

Victoria to two visitors from Powell River who are in the gallery this

afternoon, Mrs. Florence Young and Mr. Orald Harrison.

I see

Cyril Shelford sitting immediately in front of them and I believe that

he and the gentleman I just referred to were born in the same small

town in the far north of British Columbia. Maybe they'd like to get

together.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery

today we have students and staff from Windsor Secondary School in North

Vancouver. I'd like the members present to make them welcome.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, we have 51 students visiting the buildings today from the

Ferris Elementary School in Richmond, accompanied by two teachers, R.

Pearce and Mrs. T. Herchak. I'd like them to be acknowledged, please.

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

MR. REE:

Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon we're going to be privileged with 28

students from Capilano College in North Vancouver under the guidance of

Pat Hodgson. I'd ask the House to wish them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

LIQUOR CONTROL AND LICENSING

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. Nielsen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 1980.

Bill

18 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT RESPECTING PUBLIC

REPRESENTATION ON EXECUTIVE BOARDS

AND COUNCILS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

On a motion by Mr. Leggatt, Bill

M208,

An Act Respecting Public Representation on Executive Boards and

Councils of British Columbia Professional Associations, introduced,

read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

COAL EXPORT TO JAPAN

MR. LAUK:

My question is to the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development. With respect to Sukunka coal and its shipment to Japan

through the port of Prince Rupert, the minister charged today that

Ottawa is dragging its feet on the rail-cost agreement with the

province. Can the minister confirm that the $215 million price tag for

the connection along the Anzac River route is for track only and does

not include locomotives and rolling stock?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The answer is yes.

MR. LAUK:

Can the minister confirm that negotiations have been completed or are

in progress with Toshiba Corp. of Japan that they will provide trains

and rolling stock to the operating company for no down payment and for

a sum per year, with the proviso that all the trains and rolling stock

for the Anzac River line are manufactured in Japan?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

In answer to the member's question, I can neither confirm nor deny the

matter about which he is talking. I have no personal knowledge of it. I

would suggest that that is not the case. However, as I say, I can

neither confirm nor deny it.

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

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly very pleased and honoured that the member

for Vancouver Centre is taking such an interest in the economy of the

province, because it remains in my mind that he was one of those who

accused me of going to Japan and coming home clean.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Now that he has been proven wrong again, he's taking a great deal of

interest in it. But as I said, Mr. Speaker, I can neither confirm nor

deny what he is talking about.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker,

we are instructed that the CNR has turned down cost-sharing through the

federal government for this line because of the proviso that rolling

stock

[ Page 2184 ]

will

be manufactured in Japan instead of in Canada and specifically in

British Columbia. Is that what the minister means when he says Ottawa

is dragging its feet?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker,

again the member is talking about what the CNR said. I had a meeting

with CNR officials in my office; if I can recall correctly, it was a

week ago yesterday. We discussed this great project, and I want to tell

you, the CNR is enthused about this great project, because they

recognize the economic benefit not only for British Columbia and

Canada, but they recognize that it's great for the CNR, great for the

port of Prince Rupert, great for western Canada, because it will open

up great, vast new opportunities to ship from all of western Canada.

But I didn't hear the CNR talking anything about this.

question whether the member is manufacturing a mothball, because I

don't really understand what he's talking about. My opinion is that

there will be great economic benefits to Canada and that these railcars

should be manufactured in Canada.

MR. LAUK: From the

minister's statements, Mr. Speaker — both inside and outside the House

— we are to understand that an agreement is very close with respect to

Japanese interests in the development of the northeast coal project.

Can the minister confirm again that he does not know — seeing we're so

close — where the rolling stock and locomotives for the project will

come from?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There again, Mr.

Speaker, the member is putting the cart before the horse. This is a

vast project with a lot of ramifications. You're putting the caboose in

front of the train, my friend. I want to tell you, we'll get the

contracts and then we'll proceed. But I am not aware of what you're

talking about, Mr. Member, in all sincerity.

LOG EXPORTS

MR. KING:

I have a question for the Minister of Forests. Has the minister

received a recommendation from the log export advisory committee to

relax restrictions on the export of unprocessed logs from British

Columbia?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The answer is no.

TREE PLANTING PROGRAM

MR. PASSARELL:

I have a question to my friend in the corner, the Minister of Forests.

Can-Cel requires five million seedlings for their Nass Valley

operation. They were ordered from the Forest Service and the Forest

Service can supply only one million seedlings. What steps has the

minister taken to assist Can-Cel in acquiring the four million

additional seedlings?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm sure

the member is fully aware of the program which has been announced by

this government whereby we will very substantially increase the

seedling production over the next five-year period. Our objective is to

have a 135 million seedling capacity in this province within five years

time as compared to about 75 million to 100 million right now. Right

now the figure is 100 million.

Growing seedlings is just not

a matter of growing X number of seedlings and sprinkling them around

the province. Seedlings have to be grown specifically for the area in

which they are to be planted. I don't know what the particular problems

are with Can-Cel, but if the member would care to give me more details

of the subject he's inquiring about I'd be very happy to research it

for him.

MR. PASSARELL: I have a new question to the

Minister of Forests. The Pacific Reforestation Workers' Association

advises that some six million seedlings have been ordered from private

nurseries in Washington and Oregon at a cost of up to three times the

rate charged by the Forest Service. Can the minister advise whether

these higher costs will be fully recoverable by the companies from

stumpage offsets?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm not certain

of the number of seedlings that have been ordered from the northwestern

United States. In any event any cost of reforestation is a cost which

is allowed for in the stumpage appraisal system. The costs allowed are

based upon the experience we have in British Columbia and would not

include the extra costs for seedlings grown elsewhere.

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

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, the requirement for seedlings is not a static thing; it

changes all the time. First we have to determine what acreage must be

planted, what the planting density should be and what the species

should be. The question asked by the member is so vague as to really

not be answerable in any specific manner.

REPLACEMENT PHARMACARE CARDS

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Human Resources. It has

to do with the replacement of Pharmacare cards. In view of the delay of

sending out the replacement Pharmacare cards and the confusion that

this has caused, especially among our senior citizens, has the minister

decided to extend the deadline of the old Pharmacare cards so that

recipients can use them until they receive their new cards?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, the member should know that there have been a few people —

it has not been a great number — who have not received their Pharmacare

cards, and they have been told that their Medical Services Plan card

will suffice. The Pharmacare division tells me, though, that they are

very quickly getting caught up on those that have been missed, and that

is all fairly well in hand at this point in time. A few weeks ago, I

think, the question would have been appropriate, but I think they have

got it well in hand now.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, Mr.

Tidball, the director of Pharmacare, was on "The Barrie Clark Show" on

Tuesday morning and he received a large number of phone calls from

people who haven't received their Pharmacare cards. My own office

received 15 calls in one day from people who haven't received their

Pharmacare cards. When I contacted Mr. Miller of B.C. Hydro in

Victoria, he advised that he would only be accepting the updated

Pharmacare cards on the

[ Page 2185 ]

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

the minister planning to make a public announcement that the B.C.

Medical Services Plan cards will be accepted. If so, would she phone

B.C. Hydro, both in Victoria and in Vancouver, to let them know that

fact?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: First of all, let me just

say that if the member had 15 inquiries come into her office, I wish

she would give those inquiries to mine. I'd be very pleased to look

after them immediately.

Secondly, may I say that in your

original questioning through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member — I'm

sorry that I did not get the reference to B.C. Hydro. I thought the

member was suggesting Pharmacare cards — could the old card, or in the

absence of any card at all, could the medical card be used? That was

what I was responding to.

In the other part of the question,

however, regarding B.C. Hydro, I would be very pleased to refer to the

capital Greater Vancouver Regional Districts, who operate the UTA and

who will be able to straighten that out with the senior citizens and

those who use that card.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the

minister's office was contacted about those 15 phone calls, and I was

told that the contact should be made by letter, even though there was

urgency. That's the reason why the people named were phoning. I was

told that a letter had to be sent on behalf of those 15 people.

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

I'd like to take that question as notice, and I'd be pleased to report

back to the House. However, in reference to the statement that was made

regarding contact with my office, I would like to just suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that the member who has made the statement that my office has

referred her office to someone else could always refer it directly to

me as I'm in this House every day, as is she.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, this is my final supplementary. In view of the fact that

the minister seems to be hard of hearing, I will do this very slowly.

While

she's taking the cost of the change as notice, would she also explain

why it was necessary to replace the blue Pharmacare card with a green

Pharmacare card, presumably at some expense to the taxpayer, in view of

the fact that the only difference on both cards is that in one instance

the word "department" is changed to "ministry" and in the other the

word "pharmacist" is changed to "pharmacist supplier"?

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

PROPOSED CHANGES IN

WORKERS COMPENSATION ACT

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

view of the widespread concern about the proposed changes to

schedule B

of the Workers Compensation Act, has the minister decided to request

the WCB commissioners to delay the implementation of any changes until

such time as the estimates of the Minister of Labour have been before

thisHouse, so that the views of all members of the Legislature may be considered?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

That's rather a difficult question to answer at this time, but I think

in fairness I can mention to the member that I am advised that a number

of briefs have been submitted to the board and the commissioners for

review, and many of them relate to

schedule B. The board is

independent; it's something that the political process has thought

best, and there is at times a reluctance to interfere in their

workings. However, with respect to that question, I would be pleased to

take the matter under advisement and perhaps allow it to be considered

during the estimates. I'm hoping, Mr. Chairman, that this matter can be

resolved in the proper forum — that is, with the board.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

It is a rare opportunity for me to have any members of my family

present in the House, because of the distance we live from the

Legislature, but I'm very pleased as a mother to welcome and ask you to

welcome our younger son, Pip, and his two friends, Craig Lauridsen and

Milan Djordjevich, who are at the end of a biological tour of the west

coast. I'm pleased to have you and your friends here, Pip, and I would

ask the House to give them a very warm welcome.

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

Leave granted.

MR. STRACHAN:

On behalf of myself and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) I

would like to introduce two guests of ours from Lakeland Mills, Mr.

David Parker and Mr. George Killy.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

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

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, we have been here for a considerable length of time

dealing with the Premier's estimates. I'd like to give a brief

background of the problems that the committee has been having eliciting

information from the Premier of the province, and so creating quite a

delay in dealing with the estimates of the first minister of the

province. I would just like to point out that we started our

questioning as a responsible opposition with respect to those matters

surrounding slush funds, which it had been revealed were collected

through the Premier's office. We sought information from the Premier as

to precisely who the signing officers were for those slush funds that

were dispensed from the Premier's office to fight the last election

campaign and of

[ Page 2186 ]

which

there was a significant portion left unreported under the Provincial

Elections Act — to be precise, some quarter of a million dollars. The

Premier has very consistently refused to respond to our queries in this

regard. He has, quite frankly, evaded those questions and refused to

answer.

Since that time we have asked the Premier a series

of questions about a meeting that was convened in the parliamentary

precincts wherein a group of Victoria businessmen were brought together

and a guarantee of some $3 million was made to this group relating to

the operation of a jetfoil service between the city of Victoria and the

city of Seattle. We have consistently asked the Premier if he would

kindly tell us who attended that meeting and what kind of contractual

arrangements were made for the payment of taxpayers' dollars to

guarantee this venture as a proffered replacement to the Marguerite , which was withdrawn from service.

The

Premier has avoided answering any of those questions. So day in and day

out we go through this performance in the Legislature of putting

forward questions which we humbly believe are valid questions, and

opposition in a free Legislature has a right to know and, indeed, the

taxpayers of British Columbia have a right to know. We have asked the

Premier similar questions about the authorization of dirty tricks by

the Social Credit Party. We have asked the Premier questions such as

why he personally intervened in an RCMP investigation of Social Credit

caucus research staff. He has failed to respond.

So, Mr.

Chairman, it wasn't with a great deal of surprise, I guess, but with a

good deal of chagrin that last night I witnessed on television on CTV

news — both in the evening and late night news, that the Premier of the

province of British Columbia had addressed a high school gathering in

this city and had spoken to them on his views with respect to the

development of British Columbia. Then I guess he made the unusual

gesture, which was certainly not the customary gesture by this Premier,

of holding a question period. That's when he got into trouble, because

those young people in the high school in the city of Victoria have free

thought processes and they are intelligent and discerning. They asked

the Premier of the province: "Whatever happened to the committee on

ethics which you, as Premier, announced publicly following the

revelation of the dirty tricks in the province of British Columbia?" I

thought it was a pretty straightforward question and is similar to

those, I believe, which have been put to the Premier by members of the

opposition over the past weeks. The Premier stood in the bold,

unyielding glare of television lights and he said: "It wasn't me. I

didn't do that. I never announced publicly that there was going to be

an ethics committee to bring a decent standard of behaviour to the

Social Credit Party." He said: "Oh, no. That came from the former

president of the party — somewhere internally. I never announced it

publicly."

Isn't it a shame that certain television tapes

are retained, because right after that barefaced assertion by the

Premier the camera flipped back to a couple of months ago when the

Premier said that he was going to cut the cancer out of the Social

Credit Party. There had been enough tricks. There had been enough

forgeries of letters. There had been enough attempts to manipulate the

press and the media in the province, and he was going to cut the cancer

out. He said he was going to set up an ethics committee.

The

first time it was ever mentioned in the province it was mentioned by

the Premier himself on television. He was going to have this debated at

the following convention of the Social Credit Party. Yet when one of

those discerning students put the question to the Premier, "What

happened to the committee?" he said: "It wasn't me who announced it; it

was somebody else." I'm not going to say anything unparliamentary

because I respect the rules of this Legislature, but I'm sure that

every member of this Legislature and certainly everybody in the gallery

is discerning enough to apply the proper description to that kind of

barefaced inconsistency and categorize it appropriately. I'm sure

they're competent to do that.

The only thing the Premier

lacked when he denied the evidence of television cameras was his

seatbelt. That was the only thing he lacked. Remember the time when he

attended a meeting in Vancouver and they asked: "Were you wearing a

seatbelt, Mr. Premier?" He said: "There's none in the car." Remember

that. And all of a sudden that cruel television camera focused on the

inside of the car and there was the seatbelt lying there for all to see.

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

MR. KING:

Why did that camera lie, Mr. Premier? Mr. Chairman, I'm becoming fairly

frustrated. I don't know how we can expect to get straightforward,

candid answers from the Premier of the province with respect to the

business of this House if the young people, the schoolchildren of

British Columbia, cannot rely on the answers they receive from the

Premier. I don't know how we can expect to get candour if the Premier

won't be candid with the kids in our schools.

There's a press report here; let me jog the Premier's memory. It's dated October 17, 1979 — the Vancouver Sun .

It's an

article by Tom Barrett — he's no relation to my colleague, Mr.

Chairman — a very impartial source. Mr. Chairman, it says:

"Victoria — Premier Bill Bennett attempted Tuesday to explain

the dirty tricks affair by painting a picture of a Social Credit Party that

didn't know what it was doing. Nobody in authority in the party listened

to the dirty tricks tapes until it was too late, he told reporters during a

65-minute press conference. The conflicting statements and 'no comments'

that flew after the tapes became public were due to a lack of coordination and

cohesion in the party, he said."

Then the Vancouver Sun uncovered an official party cassette

recording on which Kelly again explained how to select fake names for letters.

He said this was done inevitably with aliases, and that "we do play dirty

and we don't really worry about that too much." This was followed by

Socred Party and government officials denying responsibility and saying they

knew nothing about the tape before it was made public — Kelly, and Ron Grieg,

the former assistant to Bennett's communication adviser. Social Credit,

he vowed, would "cut out the cancer before it develops." This was the

Premier. "As well as dropping from the government payroll those immediately

involved in the scandal, the party will be asked to strike an ethics committee

to draw up a statement on principles within a year," Bennett said. That

was the Premier's statement. "The party will be asked to strike a committee

and file a report within a year." And yet when he was asked this straightforward

question by a student at the meeting yesterday in this city, the Premier said:

"It wasn't me; I never announced it."

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

[ Page 2187 ]

this province. He is doing nothing to maintain the integrity of the

office that he has been elected to by the people of British Columbia.

light of repeated examples of flagrant inconsistency between what the

Premier says and what is the truth, it's small wonder that his own

colleagues are starting to attack him as soon as he leaves town. It's

small wonder that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm) says that the Premier is not open enough and he would like him to

be more forthcoming in answering questions in debate. It's small wonder

that the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr.

McGeer), the former Liberal leader in this province, says that the

Premier is stiff and doesn't sparkle in debate.

It's small

wonder that kind of criticism is coming from his own benches, when

example after example of the Premier's failure to be candid on issues

that are the legitimate business of the public are treated with

disrespect and disregard by the Premier. It's even gotten to the point

where the backbenchers over there are looking for replacements for the

Premier. The member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) is running

around sizing up the other cabinet ministers and deciding who has the

kind of integrity and who has the kind of intellect that might make an

appropriate replacement for the Premier of the province, and his own

party. It's reported that he considered the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Mair) for a little while, but then he decided that the Minister of

Health was not quite stable enough — he loses his cool.

Well,

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you, that whole government has lost its

stability, if not its integrity. We have a government that is so

obsessed with the "internal cancer," as the Premier termed it, that

they, are incapable of governing, they are incapable of charting any

policy for this province. While economic chaos is breaking all around

the province, here we have a Premier with a bunker mentality. He

retrenches into his small office and jeers at the press and says

they've been drinking Mexican water. He blames everybody but himself

because he is obsessed and completely preoccupied with the cancer

within his own party. Little wonder that we have no government

initiative in this province to deal with the growing layoffs in the

forest industry, the loss of markets, the crunch that small business is

in because they cannot find loans or interest at reasonable rates.

is a sad day for British Columbia when we see through the electronic

media, through the headlines that the Premier made just a few small

months ago, a complete denial of any appreciation of truthfulness.

That's the issue. I don't know what we're going to do about it. We

can't force the Premier to answer questions in a forthright way if he

wants to sit there and stonewall. He has that right under our

parliamentary system but it hardly shows due regard for the

parliamentary system. It hardly shows due regard or accountability to

the public. Perhaps most serious of all, it hardly inspires the

citizens of the province of British Columbia to have any confidence in

the office of Premier. That's very sad.

It was interesting

last night, after the Premier's speech to high school students in

Victoria, when some of those students were interviewed by the press as

they left the meeting. Some of them said the Premier did all right in

terms of his speech, but almost unanimously those young students said:

"The Premier doesn't answer questions." The last young lady interviewed

said: "The Premier evaded every question." That was her comment. I hope

the Premier doesn't attack those young high-school students the way he

attacked the press and the way he attacks the opposition for his own

failure to be forthright and candid. It' s out there for everyone to

see; everyone is aware of it — everyone but the Premier. Someone should

tell the Premier he is not the emperor, because the emperor has no

clothes. Even members of his own government are attacking him for his

failure to respond to questions in a forthright way, for his failure to

provide information on government to the public of British Columbia.

don't know what we're going to do about it. It's very seldom that I've

seen such a blatant and bare-faced example of a person in public life,

much less anyone else, being caught in the fashion that the Premier was

caught yesterday by his television performance — forgetting what he had

said a couple of months earlier and completely denying it, only to be

confronted with the evidence that indeed he had done the very thing

that the student suggested he had done. When we have that example, not

by some partisan political opponent but by the press and by the

students in a high school, surely members of that party must be

embarrassed and they must be concerned; they have to be. Any

intelligent person would look at their leader and say: "What goes on?

Why are you afraid to level with the people of British Columbia? What

are you afraid of?" Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to belabour the

point. I'd like very much to hear the Premier's explanation of that

conflict which I've outlined. I'd like very much to hear the Premier's

explanation of how this inconsistency occurred. If he can explain it

away in an intelligent fashion, and persuade me that there's some

logical reason why he denied saying the very thing he was confronted

with by the students, where the proof was provided a short time later

by the television, if he's got some rational explanation, I'd be very,

very pleased to hear it from the Premier. But I'm not going to hold my

breath. If the Premier will just take his seat until I conclude my

remarks, he'll have ample time to speak on it. I'm not too optimistic

and I'm not going to hold my breath, because this is not the first time

that the Premier has been confronted with that kind of conflict. I

would like him to explain that. I would like him to answer some of the

questions that we have been asking here for the last four weeks — in an

open way, in an honest way and to the best of his ability.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Thanks for the opportunity to get up and give my version of what, I

understand...although I don't have the opportunity to watch a lot of

TV, as does the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) — we were

having a working meeting in my office last evening — and, of course,

not all of us have that opportunity.

Yesterday I did have an

opportunity to speak in one of Victoria's high schools, and it was a

good opportunity to have unlimited questioning from the students, and

it was a good opportunity for those who develop their own questions to

get answers to things that concern them. For the most part, the

questions were very good questions. The students are really not

political; they're not concerned with political parties. Most of the

questions they appeared to have developed concerned.... Some of them I

didn't even know about, such as the police in Saanich patrolling beach

parties. I couldn't answer such a thing because, there again, I don't

get a chance to spend a lot of time reading the Victoria press, let

alone the other.

[ Page 2188 ]

was asked a question, and my impression of the question was clearly

this — you know, to clarify, because I will be dealing with the TV

reporter who was there, and the television station — why hadn't the

committee I set up to do with our party met. This is not a government

committee. I said — and this is paraphrasing — number one, I didn't set

up the committee; the committee was set up on a motion, because our

party is democratic. I may have had the good idea, but the committee

was set up on a motion by the president and by the convention; it's up

to the president of the party and the executive to both set up such a

committee And call it. That's paraphrasing my answer, but that was the

explanation I gave them. It's my understanding, again from news

reports.... This answer has already been given; I was asked before by

the news — which I suppose is where this question came from — why the

committee met. I think the party president, Bernie Smith, said that he

has appointed the vice-president, Gerry Strongman — who members of this

House know is a very able former member — as head of it. Mr. Strongman

has yet to call the committee. I said my suggestion as to why it has

not yet met is that it would be on a need basis. That's clearly the

situation, and it's a matter of record from our party convention by the

reporters who covered it — both the motion and the seconding, and the

debate there, and the setting up of the committee.

Now there

is some question in any party whether it would be necessary. I

understand that some parties — even the NDP — have means of dealing

with members within their party. Our party has had no formal way. We

have had an open membership. I understand that the New Democratic Party

at times has said they would reject certain people if they attempted to

join their party. Our party has not had that. It has been the policy of

the party to accept anyone who sought membership. It would then be the

opportunity of the party, if the member could not act in the best

interests of the party, to deal with it later, but not to prejudge him.

I think that's always been the history, long before I became the leader

of the party and long before I was involved in debates on the floor of

our conventions.

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

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The Leader of the Opposition asks if we accept communists. I would

presume that anyone seeking a membership in our party would share the

philosophy, or they wouldn't be putting out the money to join. Now what

the Leader of the Opposition suggests by the question is that he would

think that the communists might try to infiltrate different parties. I

have no knowledge of that. Perhaps he does; I don't.

But

rightly or wrongly, that's been the philosophy of our party. It has a

large membership. I'm sure we don't agree on many things. But my

impression of the question was the setting up of the committee: why,

after setting up a committee, it hadn't met. I explained how the

committee was set up, accepting it as public knowledge for the news

media and the members here. I'm sure you watch what we do at our

conventions, who makes the motions and how they're voted, and I'm sure

you know how your party executive works, if it sets up such a

committee, and who would call it.

One of the criticisms in

our party has been that they want more autonomy for the executive; they

don't want to be run by the leader. Of course, the party never has

been, but they certainly have expressed their wish to make sure that

those things of a party nature are run by them, and I'm quite glad that

they have and they do, and they've always had that opportunity anyhow.

So that's the way that would run.

In light of the

difficulties our party had with publicity, there was no doubt it was

necessary for us to take a look and find ways which we didn't have. We

have publicly apologized for the problem the party had, and we've dealt

with it. Certainly our new president, Bernie Smith, who is no stranger

to many of the members over there, is a hard-driving, sincere and

concerned individual. The executive of that party is doing a good job.

Our executive are elected from the various regions of the province.

They meet regularly. Such things as would need to be brought before....

After they set it up and passed the motion at the session, they

appointed a chairman, Gerry Strongman. It hasn't met, because I guess

the executive haven't had anything to refer to it. That's quite simple.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't attack Strongman.

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

So,

Mr. Chairman, that's the way it works. I think it's a question of Mr.

Harvey Oberfeld misinterpreting what I said. My

interpretation was that

the question concerned the committee I set up and why didn't it meet

because of that. I think I gave an explanation to them of how it was

set up and how it would be called. I'm on record as suggesting the

idea; but it's like every suggestion I have, public or private. It may

be brought in by a minister in legislation; the proper authority sets

it up. Lots of good ideas come from me; lots of bad ideas, too, and

hopefully they don't react to the bad ideas.

In the debate

I've tried to respond to a number of questions. On some of them I have

given the answers; some questions have been persistent in their

repetition even after the answers have been given. Some of them, Mr.

Chairman, as you know, are to be dealt with in other ministerial

estimates and do not come under the guidelines of being answered here.

More properly, the minister responsible in those areas can probably

give a broader and more detailed answer.

I've dealt with

those areas that we could, Mr. Chairman, and also talked about the

increase of the vote for the office and the increased number of people

and the new appointment of the deputy minister, Mr. Lawrie Wallace, and

a number of other people. I must say that Mr. Wallace has already got

my office in turmoil; desks are being moved today and people are moving

to different offices, and it looks like a good structural change. The

only office that seems to be remaining intact is my own, at the moment.

So Mr. Wallace is already making his presence felt in a very real way.

Now,

Mr. Chairman, there is one thing, I attempted to deal with before, and

I would like to bring it to the attention of the committee. I had meant

to deal with it before committee. I will be visiting Speaker Schroeder

this Friday at his home in Chilliwack, where he is now recuperating

from a heart attack and has been in the hospital. I will be circulating

either later today, if I can get it, or tomorrow a card which I would

like all members to sign, and I will be pleased to take it to Speaker

Schroeder, who is a friend to all of us in this assembly. I ask for

their consideration; if some of their colleagues are absent, could they

get it signed by those who are absent before I leave late Friday

afternoon?

[ Page 2189 ]

Further,

Mr. Chairman, yesterday the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) moved into

areas that properly belong in the ministry responsible for

communications.

I think I dealt with the opportunity that

the first minister had, questioning me on my concerns about B.C.

Telephone jurisdiction under the proposed public utilities commission.

The member had some questions about what the ministry was doing,

whether it had been persistent, and whether additional pressure had

been put on the federal government. Of course, that would be the

responsibility of the minister. I'm sure the member then indicated he

was aware that as first minister I had made that representation to the

federal government — in fact, to all other governments — talking

explicitly about communications in this country, in those areas in

which this province alone, of all the provinces — because B.C.

Telephone does not cross provincial boundaries — does not have control

of its own telephone system.

Two options are open. One is to

nationalize it, as has been advocated by the New Democratic Party in

the past. The other would be to bring it under a provincial regulatory

body, which is the policy of this government. We feel we can serve the

public interest there and make sure they have a forum which can react

quickly and meet the provincial interest. That has already been

mentioned in the throne speech, as the member brought up yesterday.

Hopefully it will be part of a public utilities commission which, when

introduced, will have a much broader opportunity to regulate — more

than B.C. Telephone — public agencies.

MR. KING: I

want to thank the Premier for responding. I was interested in his

remarks with respect to how his party functions. He says they have an

open party. Well, we have an open party too. Anyone can apply for

membership in our party, but our constitution makes certain provisions

that members must agree to adhere to as a member of our party. One of

those is that you can't belong to another political party, so there's

no conflict of interest. I would think that was pretty fundamental.

Social Credit chooses not to do that; so be it. I don't think we take

in extremists who do not support the parliamentary system of government

in the province of British Columbia, whether extremists of the left or

the right. So we have certain fundamental groundrules for membership in

our party. Once again, if the Premier and his party do not, so be it.

was very concerned, though, when the Premier said and I wrote his

remarks down; he sounded ominous — "I will be dealing with the TV

reporter that was there."

HON. MR. BENNETT: Speaking to him.

MR. KING:

Well, you didn't say that, Mr. Premier through you, Mr. Chairman. He

said: "I will be dealing with the TV reporter that was there."

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

Interjections.

MR. KING:

Now look, Mr. Chairman. It's not the first time this government and the

Premier of this province have attacked the media. They have chased them

away from cabinet meetings, saying: "You can't stand out here anymore."

They have said they must be drinking Mexican water, and the minor

insult that went along with that. Everybody's at fault but the Premier.

I think it is serious when the Premier singles out a reporter that he's

going to deal with, because he didn't report that incident in the

fashion the Premier thought he should.

Interjections.

MR. KING:

The minister that was attacking the Premier last week is now coming to

his defence, Mr. Chairman. He's probably trying to gain favour with the

Premier, after saying that the Premier wasn't open enough, and it

wouldn't be his style to stand and stonewall in his estimates, as the

Premier has done. That little Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm) is probably on the way out, and he's now trying to curry

favour with the Premier for the alienation he created only last week.

That's what's happening.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The

Premier stood up and he gave an explanation of why he answered the

student's question that he had never announced the ethics committee of

the Social Credit Party. I want to ask how many members in this House

understood the Premier's answer. I don't think many people did. But let

me refresh the Premier's memory. He said: "Oh, the question was this

way, as I understand it." Here's a precise record of the question that

was asked and the Premier's response. Let me read it into the record.

"Question:

'Mr. Bennett, I understand that recently enough you announced that you

would be forming an ethics committee that would act as a watchdog over

separate party operations. Could you please explain why the committee

has not been formed?'

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

Mr.

Chairman, the Premier did announce it. He was shown announcing it on

television. I've read the press reports of saying the Premier was going

to cut out the cancer. He was going to set up an ethics committee the

first time it was ever referred to. He did announce it. His answer is

just not consistent with the facts. I'm sorry to report that his

answers these days are seldom consistent with the facts. He went on to

say: "It was brought by a motion by a former president of the party,

mostly to do what the party already did. That is to make sure...." How

do you make any sense of that?

What the party already did,

Mr. Chairman, was go around playing dirty tricks, and they said they

didn't mind. They forged letters, they tried to manipulate the media,

and then he says they’re going to set up a committee to do what the

party already did. And then he denies he ever announced that, despite

the fact that he is confronted with the bold, blazing glare of a

television review of him making the announcements only a few months

earlier. He was confronted with press reporting of the day he made that

statement, and now he comes in here and says: "I'm going to deal with

that reporter."

I don't know what he's going to do. I know

what "Tricky Dickie” Nixon tried to do in terms of manipulating the

press. He stonewalled for a long time. He blamed everybody else but

himself, but eventually he was caught out. All I can say to the Premier

is that it's a sorry kind of performance. Sometimes I suggest that, not

only in terms of his image and the position of his party and the

public, he'd be far better off politically and in terms of him living

with himself to come out and say: ''Look. I blew it. I made a mistake.

Yes, I didn't handle it right. I admit it." Why blame everybody else?

You've been caught out so many times that everyone knows

[ Page 2190 ]

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

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, we can go around the block all day with this, but I gave

the explanation to the member, who normally would accept.... That was

the impression of the question. Perhaps my explanation was not as good

as he would like, but I think it's very clear-cut. When he got to the

part that was a record of how the committee was set up, he stopped

reading and went into his shrug and smile routine. Perhaps given time

and if we were dealing with a single question.... But that did not seem

to be a question that would require a lot of answer. What the kids were

mostly concerned about were things like the marijuana laws. I know the

member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) would be interested in such

questions, and so would the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

They spent a lot of time asking questions on their concern in those

areas. Again I would have had to plead some ignorance in those areas,

like the beach parties. However, by explaining to them that it is a

federal responsibility....

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order, please.

MR. LAUK:

I have never raised any issue with respect to marijuana laws in this

province. If the Premier is intending to impugn my character, I wish

him to withdraw.

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

HON. MR. BENNETT:

No, Mr. Chairman, I'm not impugning anyone's character. It is on record

that the New Democratic Party nationally is in favour of

decriminalizing marijuana, that's all. Our party does not have a

position on it.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, the

Premier referred directly to "the member for Vancouver Centre." He was

pointing at me. I have my own views with respect to the laws of this

country. I think they should be obeyed, and so should the Premier think

that.

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Premier withdraw it?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Certainly, if he feels sensitive in that area. I felt that his party's

position on the record clearly demonstrated what the New Democratic

Party felt in that area.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I pointed out to the students that the federal government,

the present Liberal government, announced — and I believe it has the concurrence

of the federal Conservative Party as well — that this was an area in which they

were going to move. It is not an area for provincial jurisdiction. I only brought

this up in passing as a type of question to go along with the beach party. I

would say that some of our members might be interested, and I know they won't

take offence if they are interested in issues that are local in nature. I know

the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who is from Saanich, would be interested

in that because it is in his constituency. I'm sure he wouldn't take

offence.

Those

are the sorts of areas that the students were interested in. I felt, by

and large, the students showed a great capacity.... Most of their

concerns were for the future of their province, the ability to get a

job, the type of training they might have. However, if I wasn't clear

in my answer, I've certainly had an opportunity to clarify it today.

It's

a matter of record that the president of our party set up the

committee. I dealt with that question before with the news media. I

felt they were very clear about my answer, but apparently I wasn't as

clear as I should have been, that's all. I have been given an

opportunity today by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) to

clarify it.

Now back, I guess, to government business, which

is what we have been trying to deal with in the Premier's estimates,

and those things covering the Premier's office.

Members will

be interested, I know, in two very important events that are happening

in British Columbia next week, in which the Premier's office, the

executive council and the ministers will be involved. That, of course,

is the visit of a large number of federal cabinet ministers, in which

will be a cabinet-to-cabinet meeting, both as a group and as

individuals, in trying to deal with some very real concerns that can

only be resolved with the cooperation of two governments — the federal

and the provincial. Some of the questions from.... I hesitate to even

pick out a member over there, but a question from one of the members

over there during question period was directed to the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) which

related to northeast coal and the development of the transportation and

rail and port facilities, and the development of infrastructure of

community that will house the people in what may be a possible

development of a large tonnage — in the millions per year — of

additional export from British Columbia.

It is an important

area. It's one of the areas, Mr. Chairman — and I know you're

interested in this — that will be on the agenda along with a number of

other very major items of concern to this province. It is a new idea in

federal-provincial relations. This will the first time that we've had

this type of working cabinet-to-cabinet meeting with the government of

Canada coming to British Columbia in an attempt to give a voice to the

west and to British Columbia, or at least to deal with their problems.

told a meeting the other day that the success of these meetings will be

very significant. Also, if they fail it would be very significant at

this time in British Columbia. They mark a great opportunity for the

province. They offer an even greater opportunity for the government of

Canada to show that it is concerned with those things that we in

British Columbia, or in western Canada, are concerned with, and

concerned that we be heard in the power centres of this country. That

has been an area that's been much discussed in the media, and it's a

sentiment that has been expressed by British Columbians — whether they

are adequately represented; whether our voice is heard; how this

country or whether this country works for us at all. Next Monday will be

[ Page 2191 ]

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

number of other areas will also give us an opportunity to deal with

questions that have been brought up in this House. While they're not a

provincial responsibility, they are a provincial concern, and the

answer can be developed by cooperation between provincial and federal

governments.

So in many of the areas that I've tried to

discuss — sometimes without getting a response from across the floor —

such as unemployment and other areas during these estimates, we'll have

an opportunity to try and get some of the solutions developed. We have

some recommendations to make as a government. Some of those

recommendations have been made public. We've discussed them in

speeches; we've mentioned them, put them forward as ideas for

consideration — maybe not as the final answer but as ideas for

consideration. Some of our ideas that we will put forward were

advocated by us and agreed to in a major economic communiqué out of the

Western Premiers' Conference held recently in Lethbridge, Alberta, and

agreed to by the Premiers Blakeney, Lyon and Lougheed. Those will be

advocated again and reiterated by British Columbia ministers to their

counterparts. So I know that next Monday will be a busy day and I know

all members of this House will encourage those meetings and be

encouraged, hopefully, by the type of results we can obtain. That's a

significant new area in which I will also have an opportunity....

course, with the cabinet coming and with Prime Minister Ohira of Japan

coming to visit Canada and British Columbia next Tuesday and Wednesday,

we will also have opportunities in that area for international

discussions of those very same export contracts that are so important

to the long-term stability of our province and the employment of our

people. The provision of billions of dollars of funds to our country

will help to offset a loss in our international balance of payments,

which is one of the reasons why we have high interest rates in this

country. The second opportunity, of course, should present itself when

the Prime Minister of Canada is in British Columbia, giving an

additional opportunity, along with his cabinet ministers, to deal with

these topics between first ministers. So next week offers two unique

opportunities that could be milestones in both British Columbia's

progress within the country — understanding how we're listened to in

this country — and the development of our province and our export

markets.

The development we talk of, Mr. Chairman, will be

of particular interest to you, coming from the centre of our province.

The port development in Prince Rupert, the development of just one

resource — and the major resource we're talking about at this time, and

not to the detriment of our forests or others, is coal — will have

great impact in the northeastern part of our province, and also in your

community of Prince George, which would be the terminal for the CNR to

carry the freight to Prince Rupert. It will mean increased employment,

through the transportation activity, not only through Prince George but

also through the northwestern part of our province — through Terrace

and into Prince Rupert. The development of Ridley Island as part of

this great new vision of northern development in British Columbia will

bring a long-awaited port into being.

It isn't just recently

that our government talked of this great opportunity, and then set out

to do something about it. Many people scoffed. Some from this House

scoffed that it was just a dream and just a vision that we could bring

off this major development. The people of Prince Rupert had reason to

doubt, because the port of Prince Rupert as a major port had been

promised to them, not for a decade but for decades. It was one of the

original dreams of a major transcontinental route. Many's the time I've

heard the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) talk on this

subject — that it was one day closer to the Orient, that it was to be

the route of the silk trains from the Orient to New York. The lower

grades and the easier pass made it a logical route. Somehow, succeeding

governments were never able to bring that vision and that dream to

fruition. Today we're closer because of the actions of a government

that didn't believe the scoffers, didn't believe those who laughed and

said it couldn't be done, didn't believe those who only went along to

be polite but secretly didn't think we could do it.

worked at providing the type of studies that needed to be done on the

transportation routes, the projected infrastructure needed for that

area. We encouraged the companies. We went to Japan and other markets

to re-sell the reliability and stability of British Columbia, which

they were questioning. We went to regain their respect that we could be

a secure and reliable supplier. We went to end the domination that

Australia was having in securing new contracts. Australia's position

expanded during the early seventies. Their supply to Japan and other

Pacific Rim countries had almost doubled percentage wise, and they had

become the dominant force in a market that British Columbia helped

pioneer with the southeast — through Kaiser, Fording and other

companies, and aggressive government action in the 1960s.

went to re-establish a position, but this time we offered an additional

opportunity. We realized that security of supply requires more than a

single transportation system, such as we have in the southeast. It

requires more than a single port. That is why it was the policy of this

government to allay fears and to show that we could be a reliable

supplier. But it was also part of our northern vision of development,

providing greater employment and economic opportunity over the whole

province of a government whose knowledge of the province did not just

end in hope. We showed that we were a government that had

representation from all of the province, that understood the problems

and the opportunities in the northeast, the northwest and the central

part of the province, and that we were trying to rekindle the type of

economic buildup that was taking place in the early sixties.

Mr.

Chairman, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday are very key days in a very key

time and could be history-making. British Columbia will have all the

gain the most because British Columbia is a part of Canada and they

gain as we gain. But they gain fully in an international way in helping

to resolve our international balance of payments. They gain in the

increased revenues that will flow to the federal government in

increased personal and corporate income tax. They gain as the traffic

loads of the CNR are enhanced.

You've got to know what coal

did for the CPR and that the largest part of the revenues in western

Canada now are paid for by British Columbia coal. It's not paid for by

the grain from the Prairies which is subsidized, in that case, by the

Crowsnest rates or paid for by other products; it's coal. Coal has make

it viable and coal can give this greater opportunity of a broadened

traffic and commodity component to increase also the viability of the

CNR and the BCR — our own British Columbia Railway, developed by

British Col-

[ Page 2192 ]

umbians

— to play a role as well. This development will require an additional

rail line. It will be a rail line to somewhere, though, and a rail line

that is going to proven resources, which are there to carry, because

along with the vision you need to have the practical application of the

economic plan to make it work. You cannot just be a dreamer. Dreamers

who are only dreamers can dream you into trouble.

In this

case, the practicalities of this plan have been studied and developed,

player in the scheme, has a great opportunity to show that British

Columbia is a part of Canada, and a great opportunity to allay the

fears of those in the west who say the country does not work for them,

their navels or look eastward, and somehow the west is forgotten. This

is a good chance for them to allay those fears, a unique opportunity at

a very, very critical time in the political development of our country.

It is a time when, with the Prime Minister of Japan, we have an

opportunity, with federal cooperation, to reinforce and develop those

economic links which are going to be so vital to the future prosperity

of this province.

Mr. Chairman, you're interested. Your

constituency will be at the heart of the distribution system not only

of this commodity but of the commodities that are coming from our

provinces to the east. It can carry the grain from the Prairies, the

grain from our own great Peace River area, the potash from

Saskatchewan, and the increased development of timber, because in

opening up this area it's more than coal. It's making available and

giving access to another part of the province of British Columbia,

unlocking the treasures and also unlocking the opportunities which are

there and have been waiting all these years for a government with the

vision and courage to make things happen, waiting for a government to

overcome the scoffers, the negative people who said it wouldn't work

and will never happen.

Well, today we're poised on the brink

and now we put the test not to the government of British Columbia,

which has gone far beyond that area — we should go not only to

giving confidence to governments from the Pacific Rim, particularly

Japan, to their steel companies and others. We've gone beyond. Now the

challenge is there for the others to respond to. They will be in

British Columbia on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of this coming week.

That's the type of vision and leadership this government has

demonstrated. Next week could be a key time and more than an

opportunity for those to respond, a key opportunity in developing a

springboard for further economic success for our province and our

country.

Everybody in here talks about an embattled dollar,

high interest rates. The root of the problem is dealing with our

balance of exports, providing more trade, bringing more dollars to

British Columbia, strengthening our dollar, lowering our interest

rates, providing employment, securing a greater economic future for our

people. Not only is it in employment; it is in securing the future of

all those in this province who demand — no, need, must have —

government services. Because, Mr. Chairman, you, above all, would know

that the services government provides can only be paid for by a healthy

economy with people working. They can't be paid for by speeches. Those

programs and services that people need that are only dealt with in

speeches lead to chaos. They lead to mounting public debt and deficits

and deadweight interest, and eventually bankruptcy.

This

will also be a guarantee to those in need. You don't have to live,

then, in Prince Rupert or Prince George, or Terrace, or Chetwynd or in

the northeast to benefit from these projects; it will benefit every

British Columbian. It will guarantee a stronger provincial economy. It

will guarantee our hospitals, our GAIN program, our Pharmacare. It will

help us also, as a government, to be able to meet the commitment to a

dental-care program, initiated and brought in by this government. It

will help us, then, not only to maintain existing services but to

increase them.

This is the type of development and the type

of opportunities that British Columbians should assess. They should be

looking at the government of British Columbia, the government of

Canada, our customers. But they should always also be looking

backwards, at those who opposed this program of development when we

advocated it in this Legislature, when first forming government. They

should look back at those who laughed. They should look back at the

record of those who have been negative over the prospects for this

province. They should make an assessment on solid performance, and they

should make an assessment of who and what it takes to get this province

developing. It's more than visions; it's a chance for practical reality.

Next

week, May 5, May 6, May 7, will be the key days for British Columbia,

key days for Canada, key days in which whatever happens may change the

course of events very demonstrably in this province in the future.

MR. LEA:

For the last three weeks, Mr. Chairman, we've been asking the Premier a

number of questions surrounding the question of whether there's

morality in his office. The Premier says....

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

MR. LEA:

The Premier says: "Look, what the hell are you worried about? Who cares

whether there is morality in my office? Business is good." That's what

he says. "Business is good; there are coal trains running around; the

gross provincial product looks pretty good; there's money in the bank.

What are you guys worrying about whether I tell the truth or not for?

Let's get on and talk about the business of the province." I think the

frightening

part is that he believes it.

It's very

difficult, of course, to deal with the Premier's estimates when he's

not here. His deputy can make notes, but that isn't really the point,

is it? But I suppose even the Premier has to leave the room once in a

while.

While he's gone I'd like to remind other members of

the House exactly what did happen in that school yesterday here in

Victoria, Spectrum school. Because when the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) started quoting some of the transcript of

that meeting, he said: "Why didn't you read it all?" I'd like to do

that, because I think it's more damning than the first part.

The

Premier says: "Don't worry whether I'm consistent from one day to the

next. Don't worry whether I tell school children the same thing that I

told the general public a few months ago. After all, there's money in

the bank. Don't worry whether my party has practised dirty political

tricks and whether someone in my office may have forged a letter. After

all, the future looks bright economically." He says:

[ Page 2193 ]

"Don't worry whether or not there was absolute morality

around the shifting of the boundary lines when they had electoral reform when

Mr. Eckardt brought his commission report in. Don't worry about that. We

won, didn't we? Don't worry whether or not a number of employees took

the rap for their political masters — people from the Premier's office,

people from the caucus, people from the Social Credit. Don't worry whether

I wouldn't stand up and be responsible and accountable. After all, unemployment's

not that bad." Not if you're working!

There's

an old saying, Mr. Chairman, when the Premier's talking about how good

things are: it depends where you sit. We have a lot of new words these

days — economic jargon and social jargon — to take care of those sorts

of things. For instance, before we used to have either good times or a

depression; it was one or the other. Now we have good times, a

depression or a recession. We've got another little one they've thrown

in there that the economists and politicians have dreamed up. And the

Premier's one of those believers that you have a recession, or at

least.... No, he's not a believer. I'm a believer that what we really

believe in this country — or it seems to be what we believe if we

believe Social Credit — is that there's no problem at all with

unemployment as long as you're working. There's no problem at all with

mortgage payments as long as you can afford to meet them. In other

words, it's a recession when your neighbour's out of work; it's a

depression when you're out of work. That's what the Premier's talking

about.

If things are so good, why do we have about a hundred

thousand people out of work? If things are so good, why do we have one

of the highest rates of foreclosures...mortgages in the history of our

country? If things are so good, why is it, Mr. Chairman, that so many

people are worried sick that when their mortgage comes up for renewal

they'll have to lose their house? If things are so good, why is it that

never before in the history of our country are bankruptcies so high? If

things are so good, why are these things happening?

Interjections.

MR. LEA:

In B.C. too. The bankruptcies are away up; they're just down a little

compared with the other provinces at this particular time. They're way

up historically. Fred didn't know that.

The part that's

particularly embarrassing is that the Premier cannot understand why it

is people are worried about whether he's telling the truth when the

economy is not bad. He can't understand it. There was a simple question

to the Premier from a school child yesterday in a school: "Mr. Bennett,

I understand that recently you announced that you would be forming an

ethics committee that would act as a watchdog over separate party

operations. Could you please explain why the committee has not been

formed?" The Premier's answer: "First of all, I didn't announce it."

The Premier did announce it. Everybody in this chamber knows that he

announced it. The Premier said he didn't announce it. "Don't worry

about it, though. We've got money in the bank."

The Premier

says: "Well, first of all, I didn't announce it. It was brought by a

motion of the former president of the party, mostly to do what the

party already did." There we go again. He says: "...mostly to do what

the party already did." But a few minutes ago in the House here he said

they never did it. He said maybe it was a lack in the party that he

belongs to. They didn't do it, but he says here they did. One of the

things you have to have if you're going to do this sort of thing is a

good memory. "Well, first of all, I didn't announce it. It was brought

up by a motion by the former president of the party, mostly to do what

the party already did, and that is to make sure that every member had a

clear set of guidelines. They brought a motion that's run by the

executive of the party, not by me, and they would call it on a needs

basis." It's hard to imagine, Mr. Chairman, what the needs basis would

be. We have an executive assistant out of the Premier's office who

disappeared, who resigned with no explanation, although there were

rumours to the effect that the typewriter that executive assistant used

is the typewriter that wrote one of the forged letters of Gordon

Townsend. Don't worry about it; the coal trains will run on time. What

would the need be when you have a research group from the Social Credit

caucus going out and telling people to write phony letters and, if need

be, to forge them? Well, the Premier and his party don't feel that

there's any need to refer that to the ethics committee. That's why

they've never called it together. Another executive quit from the

Deputy Premier's office — again, in mysterious circumstances. There was

never a full explanation. What, for goodness' sake, would be the need

to call together this ethics committee that the Premier likes to talk

about?

We have charges that the report put in by the

electoral reform commission of Mr. Eckardt had been altered; no need

there to have an ethics committee look at anything. Just what is it

that this ethics committee would look at? If those members over there

started to level with the public of this province, that's when their

ethics committee would probably be called in to do their job — to find

out why this government has changed its policy, the policy they've had

for the last four and a half years.

In his answer to the

school children, the Premier — this is frightening too — explains to

them what a political party is all about. He said that there's no need

for an ethics committee; they haven't done anything yet that would call

the committee into play. All of those things are things that are pretty

ethical, I suppose, in the Premier's opinion. After all, there's money

in the bank. He said that that's not the government; that ethics

committee is not there to look into the government; the ethics

committee is there to look into the political party system. That's what

he said. In other words, the government can divorce itself from the

party and do anything they want. They can talk about seatbelts that

aren't there. They can have forged letters. As long as it comes out of

the government offices, then there's no need for the political party

and its ethics committee to take a look at it, because, after all, we

know that these people over here don't belong to a political party;

they belong to the government.

Then he said: "I might explain what a political party is." This

will probably interest all of us, because we didn't know this before.

"A political party is a volunteer membership of citizens who express a

particular political philosophy." Okay, so far, so good. He's saying

that a political party is made up of a volunteer membership of citizens

who express a particular political philosophy. I think we'd have to

agree with that. But then he also said:

"One

of the other requirements of that group, before they can be called a

political party, is that they're worried as a group about the conduct

of all their members — they're trying to set guidelines. If

[ Page 2194 ]

some

of them stray or if some of them advocate things that would not be part

of the party's strategy, they would have a way to deal with it

internally. And that's what they've done."

If you just take

a look at this statement here, you'll find inconsistencies in the

statement. Not only couldn't he remember what he said a few months ago,

when he got to the end of about three paragraphs he couldn't remember

what he'd said in the beginning. Up here he says that the ethics

committee is not there to look into government but to took into the

political party system. Then when you get down here: what's a political

party supposed to do? Well, he said that a political party is to look

into the conduct of its members — trying to set guidelines. And if some

of them stray or if some of them advocate things that would not be part

of the party's strategy, then they would have a way to deal with it. So

he's saying one of two things: either that's not true, or the party

condones the actions we've seen in the past few months in this province

from that government and its members. He's saying that the party

condones forgery. He's saying that the party condones saying that

there's no seatbelt when there is; that the party condones the Premier,

saying he didn't announce the ethics committee, when he did. He's

saying that the party condones all those things, so there's no point in

calling the ethics committee into action. He put Strongman in there.

Thank goodness for us he didn't put a weak man in there, because maybe

the committee would never be called. Do you think there's a good chance

of that, Mr. Chairman? Do you think that the ethics committee of the

Social Credit Party will ever be called?

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

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

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

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

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Sanford

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 28

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

Wolfe

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

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, this will only take a minute. I just wanted to advise the

committee that unfortunately the duties I left to attend took longer

and will take longer than anticipated, and I was longer than I

suggested I would be gone. I apologize to the committee if some member

took offence, but I will have to spend some time cleaning up an urgent

matter which will require me to leave the House for a few minutes later

on.

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

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. For the information of members, it is not possible to

raise a vote, that is on the floor in committee. The vote can be

defeated or passed; it cannot be lifted.

MR. LEA: It can be withdrawn.

You

know, I think we're skating on the thin edge of disaster here, Mr.

Chairman. The Premier said he was going to leave for five minutes; he

was gone for 13 and still wasn't back. I suppose that's okay, because

we've got money in the bank. You can't believe a word the Premier says.

For instance, you can't believe whether there is or isn't a seatbelt in

his car. Schoolchildren can't believe the Premier when he speaks. A

school child asked the Premier: "What about the ethics committee?" He

said: "I didn't announce it." You know, some people have forked

tongues; other people have tongues like a potato-masher.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I recognize where the debate is

coming from at the present time, but I think there is a time when you

have to back up a bit. It's a well-established rule in this House that

a member cannot say things like you can't believe a thing another

member said. It just isn't done in this House, and there is no point in

letting it go by. If we allow that to continue, Mr. Chairman, then

there will be no rules left in this House. It's rapidly getting to that

point anyway, thanks to some of the members like the one opposite who

was just speaking.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon.

member. Order, please. Again, all members must take upon themselves the

spirit of debate and all the other obligations that are on all hon.

members when speaking in the House. Among them is courtesy and civility

when discussing points.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I

don't see how we can achieve those very desirable ends when the Premier

says: "Oh, by the way, when you finish speaking, I'm going to leave."

In other words, he's....

[ Page 2195 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, perhaps I didn't make myself clear

enough. I was hoping that the Chair or someone would ask that member to

withdraw the statements that he made about not being able to believe

what another member of this House said. There's not much difference

between saying that and saying that a member lied. In fact, there's no

difference. That's not allowed in this House. The member should

withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With all due respect, the

Chair did not interpret the matter in the same way. Nonetheless, again,

I would ask the hon. member that if he was implying anything.... Or

perhaps because the minister finds a certain remark offensive to the

House, the member, in the tradition of this parliament, would withdraw

it.

MR. LEA: I didn't say anything about other

members in this House as to whether they're telling the truth or not.

But I think whether I believe it or not is my business. They can say

anything they want. Whether I believe it is neither here nor there to

the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, again, the traditions of parliamentary debate have been

that if a member has been asked to withdraw something that another

member finds in some way offensive........

MR. LEA: I

believe.... Yes, Mr. Chairman, if the member for Langley (Hon. Mr.

McClelland) has been insulted, or his feelings have been hurt, then I,

of course, withdraw the remark. You will remember, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The member withdraws.

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

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

With respect, on a point of order, it has nothing to do with whether I

feel insulted. That member couldn't make me feel insulted, because he

hasn't the capacity to do that. It's the House which feels insulted or

which is abused — not any particular member in the House. It's been a

long-standing ruling of this House that you cannot seem to do

something, or attempt to do something, by any method which the rules

say you cannot use. You cannot come in the back door to get out the

front, in terms of abusing the rules. When a member stands and says

that any member of this House cannot be believed, that you can't

believe something a member said, there is no difference between that

and saying that a member lied. That must be withdrawn under the rules

of this House. I'm not offended; I'm not insulted. But this House has

been insulted, and this House is offended by that kind of language. It

must be withdrawn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate the

remarks made by the hon. minister, The Chair did hear a withdrawal on

that matter. Again, I would caution all members that moderation of

debate is always in order in this House and ask the member for Prince

Rupert to continue on vote 9.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman,

my feelings are hurt. When that minister was a member of the

opposition, he brought a forged letter into this House and read it as

if it were a fact. I didn't accuse him of anything.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Selective memory.

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

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, order, please. Again, if we would continue to address the

Chair during debate, these particular outbreaks would seldom occur. If

those who are not on their feet and have not been recognized by the

Chair would keep their remarks to themselves, under the standing orders

of this House, the debate could continue in an orderly manner. The

member for Prince Rupert has the floor.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. LEA:

As I was saying before the Premier came back, it isn't that the Premier

has a problem remembering what he said two months ago. In this

statement, the Premier couldn't remember at the end what he said at the

beginning. We know that if you're going to talk like the Premier, the

first rule is that you have to have a good memory. You have to, because

it's very difficult to explain the mouthings of the Premier in any

other way than to wonder whether or not you're hearing the facts.

When

a school child asks the Premier, "Why did you set up the ethics

committee?" and he says that he didn't even announce it — when we've

got papers, documents and TV coverage to say the opposite — you do have

to wonder whether you're hearing the facts, or at which time you were

hearing the facts.

The point I made when the Premier was out

is one point I would like to make again before I take my seat. Every

time we've asked the Premier about those inconsistencies — the dirty

tricks, the forged letters, the innocent people who were fired to cover

up for their political masters, the electoral reform committee report

and Gracie's finger, all the things that we could call unethical.... He

has gotten up every time and said: "What are you worried about? We've

got money in the bank. The trains are running on time. We're going to

have coal running around the province. Who cares whether or not I'm

telling the true facts?"

Is it interesting? Is anybody

interested in whether there is morality in the Premier's office? Is

anybody interested in whether there is an ethical standard in the

Premier's office when the trains are running on time and we've got

money in the bank? The Premier doesn't think we should be. The Premier

can't seem to understand it. He says: "Why are you

[ Page 2196 ]

worrying

about whether or not I'm lying when there's money in the bank? Let's

get away from these silly questions. Let's talk about the economy,

interest rates and unemployment. Who cares whether there is a morality

standard in my office as long as business is all right?"

That's

what the Premier would want the people in this province to believe. The

frightening

part is that he thinks people in this province will agree

with him. The frightening

part is that he has no regard for the people

in this province and what they consider to be an ethical standard in

dealing with the people in this province in a moral way. He doesn't

care, because he doesn't understand. But the worst

part is that he

doesn't know that the people of this province do understand.

When

that woman in the gallery spoke out one day.... It was against the

rules for her to speak, but we were asking questions of that Premier

and that citizen of this province said: "We have a right to know." I

think we do have a right to know. I think every citizen of this

province has a right to know whether the Premier's office is one that

is being ethically run. We have a right to know where those funds came

from that came into his office from Austin Taylor Jr. and Ian Adams. We

have a right to know who signed the cheques on those political slush

funds. We have a right to know why Grieg is no longer with government

service. We have a right to know why Dan Campbell resigned.

After

all, we paid him, Grieg, Lenko, and Campbell. As citizens of this

province our tax dollars paid the wages of these people who have now

severed their relationship with government, either through being fired

or through resigning, with absolutely no explanation from the Premier.

And he says: "What do you care? We've got coal trains. What do you

care? We're having a problem with Ottawa. What do you care? We've got

money in the bank. What do you care about unemployment? It's not bad,

compared to the other provinces. What do you care about political

morality when the till is full?"

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

makes you wonder exactly where we are at in this province when the

Premier — the first minister — says: "Who cares about morality? Who

cares about ethics as long as there is money in the bank and the trains

run on time?" It reminds you of other leaders of other days and other

like parties.

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

also wish that the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) was still

here. That sanctimony is almost incredible when you think of it. I

guess he thinks that maybe some of us have short memories. I was here

from the time he got here, and when he stands up and gives that kind of

statement — in the first place, not a point of order and the second

place, a sanctimonious statement — it does offend me a little.

get on with the Premier's estimates, I received a letter a few days ago

written by one of my constituents. This is the only one I have received

but it was to the effect of why don't we get on with the people's

business. However, the person was thoughtful and had written a good

three pages indicating that we should slow down, we shouldn't burn our

wheels and strip our gears and all sorts of other things. So, Mr.

Chairman, my reply was: "Yes, if those were all the ingredients. If the

opposition was trying to hold things up by virtue of trying to

embarrass someone and take on a person rather than an office, you'd

have a point." What we have here — as I explained to my constituent —

is a situation in which the Premier, the first minister, is providing

the leadership and the precedent — I'll put it in legal terms for your

sake — for all the other ministers yet to come in their estimates.

The

opposition is charged with the responsibility of doing what we're doing

— asking questions of the government and making the government

accountable. That's the only balance in our system. If we, as an

opposition, accept behaviour from the first minister, then we can

expect to be placed in exactly the same position by the other ministers

to follow. And the people in the province will have no answers to the

questions that they require answered. I can't believe, for example,

that on a very simple question, such as the jetfoil, where the Premier

met with business people in this city in this building and made deals,

he came out of that meeting and said: "You'll have to ask another

minister what happened." He's the first minister. He called the

meeting. That's the kind of behaviour that we can expect. But that's an

easy one.

There's no question that if I were the Premier of

this province and had my staff and others dealing with slush funds, and

had one of my staff, who possibly was on leave of absence, handing out

money in thousand-dollar bills and not asking for receipts, I think I'd

be embarrassed and would have some difficulty answering that question.

Yet I should take the responsibility as the leader of the government,

leader of the party and the president of the executive council. That's

another question that was asked.

It's not fair to have this

kind of leadership, because it will seep through to the other

ministers. I can guarantee one — the one who was up on a point of order

a little while ago. His behaviour has never been the epitome of good

behaviour, but I can just imagine what it will be after this.

asked some questions about political polls. Maybe they weren't

political polls, but you know, I will continue to call anything that

Goldfarb does a political poll until somebody can get up and tell me

that it wasn't one, because that's what Goldfarb does. That's what his

company does for a living, and they do some consultation based on their

polling. The Premier just has to answer about that one little invoice

which went to his faithful servant, Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown worked for the

Premier and the province and got a bill from Martin Goldfarb. Martin

Goldfarb doesn't send bills to people who don't ask him for services.

If he did that very often he wouldn't be a man of great fame and have a

corporation of high profile among politicians, because they're the

people who use him.

I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that

somebody asked Martin Goldfarb for some political advice, and that

somebody was in the Premier's office, where the bill was sent. Then the

billing number was changed on it so that it could be sent on to the

Provincial Secretary's ministry. Now we're told: "Wait until you get to

the Provincial Secretary." I say to you that if we wait until we get to

the Provincial Secretary, under these circumstances, he'll follow the

leadership, because that's the leadership that's been given. The

leadership is: "Cover up. Don't do anything that you don't have to do."

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

[ Page 2197 ]

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, I'll withdraw the words "cover up" if that's what would

make the Premier happy. I However, I suggest that however you look at

it, it's bad behaviour on the part of the first minister of this

province, who a little while ago was telling us how he's going to be in

touch with those great powers in the east and put B.C. on the map.

Fortunately, the thing that puts B.C. on the map, under the guidance of

this government, is the good fortune to have some trees, some minerals

and a lot of hard-working people. Otherwise we'd be off the map with

the kind of leadership we've had from that Premier and his government.

It's a sad day.

I just want to briefly go over.... I'm not going to go through it the

way my colleague did, but when I saw the news I was quite amazed, when the Premier

said last night to a school child: "Well, first of all, I didn't announce

it." And then he was speaking to a school person who had asked the question:

"I understand that recently you announced that you would be forming a political

ethics committee to act as a watchdog...." I want to go back — I don't

think this has been brought forward — and forget about the tapes that were run

on the Premier at that time. I want to go back to October 17, 1979. Here's

the story, "Red-faced Bennett Vows Party Cleanup," and in the body

of the story he says that although it distresses him to have to do so he "will

bring forward" — note "he" — "a resolution at the November

Socred convention for the establishment of an ethics committee to lay down guidelines

to ensure a similar affair is never repeated." That was October 17.

AN HON. MEMBER: What has happened since?

MR. COCKE:

I'll tell you, a lot has happened since. A lot has happened since this

House has convened. I can tell the Premier very simply we could have

been through his estimates two or three weeks ago had he come into this

House and told us the answers to the questions that were asked. He

says: "But don't ask me embarrassing questions." Well, then he should

not place himself in an embarrassing position. That's all. If you don't

want to be asked embarrassing questions, then don't place yourself in

an embarrassing position. Then nobody can ask you an embarrassing

question. I think it's fairly simple.

So really, Mr.

Chairman, I do think it's most unfortunate that we've come to this

stage where we're saying to ourselves we are spinning the wheels. I've

been here 11 years, and in that 11 years I have learned that nothing

that happens in this place is really spinning wheels because there are

lessons that have to be learned. An opposition charged with the

responsibility of gleaning information, making sure that the checks and

balances work in our parliamentary process, is absolutely right in

doing what we're doing. We must continue, and I'm warning the rest of

the ministers that there'd better not be this kind of behaviour,

because it will be just as tough and long with the rest of them. This

is absolutely unacceptable.

My standing committee met to

convene. There are standing committees in this House that have never

met to convene. The fair elections practices committee — has it met? It

has not even convened, Mr. Chairman. What a shameful waste of time. We

don't meet at nights; the press are giving us a little bit of a chat

today. We put our position very clear on that. We should be meeting in

our committees, and that Premier should be seeing to it that we're

meeting in committees. When the New Democratic Party was in government

in this province we had committees out listening to people, talking to

people, helping people. We're not doing that any more, we're back to

the old shoddy ways. This is a government that's supposed to be full of

ambition, full of energy, full of the work ethic. They don't work and

they don't permit others to work, Mr. Chairman, and that's the shame of

it all. I hope that they're out enjoying the sun, but unfortunately

they're likely up in your riding telling the folks just exactly what

you're doing down here — carping away and doing nothing. There was no

positive statement from North Peace River — not a bit, except a foolish

circular that he sent up to his folks telling them all that he was

going to support the ministers no matter what.

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

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

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, my very good friend the Minister of Tourism, the member

for North Okanagan (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), makes some very, very useful

statements from time to time in this House. Her problem is that

sometimes she doesn't make them loud enough for people to hear.

just feel that, since the Premier is carrying on with this behaviour,

we would just like him to stand up and tell us that he's going to

change. I rather thought he would. There have been some hints of it in

recent days. We heard a nice political statement a little while ago,

but not a word of answer in that political statement. There's no

question in my mind that that's the case.

Mr. Chairman, let

the Premier get up and confess his faults. Turn over a new leaf, and

let's see if we can get this province rolling the way some people want

it to be rolling, as quickly as possible.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

It's good to see the member for Vancouver Centre back, in a better

humour and smiling. Just to respond again, I would like to put into the

record the answer to do with the Goldfarb invoice, provided by the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). I'll just read it again. It says:

"The invoice from Goldfarb Consultants, in the amount

of $2,500, that has been the subject of discussion in the House relates

to a professional consultation between Mr. Brown, communications

planning adviser to the executive council, and Mr. Goldfarb on the use

of research to evaluate government communication programs, the ways in

which research could be employed to ensure that government advertising

expenditures are effective to the greatest possible degree.

"There

was no political aspect to this discussion, and any inference drawn by

an employee of the comptroller-general that the work involved was

'politically sensitive' was purely a statement of personal opinion,

probably resulting from a layman's confusion over the role of research

as a management tool. It would lead some to think of polling when the

words 'research' and 'government' are linked together. The use of

research to test major campaign themes is now standard practice in the

preparation of government advertising programs, a device with no more

sinister purpose than to ensure the public receives and understands

information regarding government."

[ Page 2198 ]

It's

just as I told you from the first day: the $2,500 was not a political

poll. Mr. Chairman, they just didn't want to hear me say it, because

they had a couple of days' talking.

The member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and a number of members, I notice, keep

mentioning the amount of time. I don't know why they're keeping score

or a record. Certainly none of the rest of us are conscious of a long

period of time. Time sure flies when you're having fun. Obviously it's

a preoccupation of theirs.

Public business can take a long

time, depending on the way in which various members approach their role

and how they're going to serve their constituents or their constituency

and the priorities they put on what's important. Of course, all of us

should set our own priorities. Government is very capably proceeding

with very, very aggressive programs, both in the preparation and

introduction of legislation and in the management of the people's

affairs, in doing those things that do not require additional

legislation. In fact, things are going very well in the province of

British Columbia. We've identified the problem areas that we're working

on that spill over into our province as part of Canada, and spill over

into Canada as part of a North American problem, the U.S. recession.

The

member for New Westminster seems to feel that somehow it's important

that he keep reminding the committee of some record that he's

attempting to establish. I don't know what it is, whether it's for

tediousness or for repetition, or whether he feels that somehow their

political game is to frustrate the government. The government is

proceeding very well. By the standards of the opposition, I think that

this committee is proceeding as well as it has ever proceeded, with

their style, from the legislative committee meetings that I remember

over the past four or five years. So I don't know what the member is

talking about when he says he's not happy with the way the committee is

proceeding. Obviously that may have something to do with his own

interpretation of his own performance or that of his party.

get on, I have again provided the answer to do with the question,

supporting again that the $2,500 wasn't for any political poll. That

was mentioned right off the bat. Of course, that correct answer

frustrated the opposition, and they had to keep asking the question in

order to get it in some people's minds, and perhaps even get it

reported. You don't have to be accurate to be reported. All they want

is the headline on the radio, asking the question. Some people take the

question as a fact.

The tactic of framing an allusion or an

incorrect impression in a question has been an art well mastered by the

New Democratic Party in this province over a number of years. I

remember, Mr. Chairman, when I was just a private citizen up in the

Okanagan, having my name mentioned incorrectly in connection with this

chamber by two members of the New Democratic Party then in opposition,

a Mr. Dowding and a Mr. Williams. The New Democratic Party...still very

active, still very strong.... It was a matter for a court case in which

a judge made a very serious statement about their conduct and their

willingness to use this chamber in order to unfairly attack persons. I

remember that judgment very well, and I will bring it in and read it to

the members verbatim.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order,

Mr. Chairman, to reflect upon a judgment of the court, which has gone

through the system, and to raise the question of judgment by a court,

knowing full well that members in this House cannot properly comment on

judgments of the court — that is to say, disagree with the views of a

judge, because it would be considered a contempt.... No other member is

entitled to raise the opinions of the court other than the actual

decision, and not the opinions of the judge as raised. If the hon.

member is going to do so, he's in breach of the standing orders.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The ruling of the Chair would be that if reasons for judgment have been

filed by a judge and thereupon have become a matter of public record,

it is certainly open for members of this assembly to read those reasons

or quote from them.

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

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

MR. LAUK:

That's precisely the standing order, and I agree with Mr. Chairman: the

only time a member may refer to the judgment of the court is when

reading the reasons for judgment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The

ruling of the Chair, for the benefit of the first member for Vancouver

Centre, would be that a member of this assembly is at liberty to quote

from reasons for judgment once they're handed down, or to comment upon

them in the same way as, for example, a student of law or a citizen in

a community law school in the course of an educational course can

debate the wisdom or merits of a particular judgment. My ruling

therefore is that in his remarks so far the Premier is not in violation

of any of the standing orders of the House.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, I'm encouraged now, because it does make a point on

matters brought up. In estimates tomorrow I will bring in the judgment

and, rather than paraphrase it or refer to it, I will read it to the

members, because that judgment was hard won by a private citizen trying

to protect his name against those in the Legislature. We talk about the

privilege of the Legislature. It's a very difficult thing; it takes a

lot of courage and a lot of expense to clear your name. That's why a

historic milestone in the judgment — which clearly puts into

perspective what happened to affect the rights of that citizen — is

very important and should be a reminder to all of us of the tremendous

responsibility we carry in this chamber. Because of that I'm going to

bring it tomorrow in my estimates and read it for the members, because

I think it's a good reminder. History revisited is always a good

reminder for members, especially if the tactic may be seen to be copied

or repeated, and especially if the tactic which became the object of

the judge's remarks in the judgment could provide some guidance. I have

read it and made it available before, but obviously some haven't taken

note of it. I'm going to be pleased to bring it tomorrow and read it to

the members. I know the member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is

interested; I believe he was a witness at that trial. It's very, very

interesting, and I hesitate to say that the member for Vancouver

Centre, as a lawyer, will be interested in it.

[ Page 2199 ]

Now,

Mr. Chairman, again I'd like to read the answer to do with the Goldfarb

report, because the question has been asked a hundred times. Again I'll

read the answer provided by the Provincial Secretary.

"The

invoice from Goldfarb Consultants in the amount of $2,500 that has been

the subject of discussion in the House relates to a professional

consultation between Mr. Brown, communications planning adviser to the

executive council, and Mr. Goldfarb on the use of research to evaluate

government communication programs and the ways in which research could

be employed to ensure that government advertising expenditures are

effective to the greatest possible degree.

"There

was no political aspect to this discussion, and any inference drawn by

an employee of the comptroller-general that the work involved was

'politically sensitive' was purely a statement of personal opinion,

probably resulting from a layman's confusion of the role of research as

a management tool, which leads some to think of polling when the words

'research' and 'government' are linked together. The use of research to

test major campaign themes is now a standard practice in the

preparation of government advertising programs, a device with no more

sinister purpose than to assure that the public receives and

understands information regarding government."

Yesterday we

did go through although we strayed from those responsibilities under my

vote, the way in which government information should be made available

because the public must understand what programs we provide for them.

It's not just enough that British Columbia has the best programs for

people in Canada. It's no good at all if they don't know about them.

They don't know about them so they can take advantage of them. Now all

of us that work in our constituency offices, when we're there on

weekends away from the House tending to the individual needs of the

constituents, know.

The member for Vancouver Centre is

shaking his head. I know that doesn't mean that he isn't home on the

weekends looking after his constituents. I'm sure he'll bring in his

schedule and will show that every week and that every Saturday, every

10 minutes like I do, he's got appointments in his constituency office

helping his constituents as I do and is finding out that one of the

problems is this: many of them are there with great concern. It means a

lot to them. They don't have high salaries, they don't have a lot of

money; they're average people that need help; they're not legally

trained to know all the intricacies of government. The help they need

is there to be received and they just don't know how to get it. Somehow

the government offices frighten them. They come to their MLA,

especially when they've got a friendly MLA that is there working

weekends to help them. I talk to them and they say: "Mr. Premier, what

has happened is that I'm a single parent and I need help." I show them

the programs the government has, and the allowances which have recently

been increased by this government and the Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), and how we can bring some help to them. They

didn't have to wait for me; I'm pleased to help.

But, you

know, it's government information programs that have got to be

improved, and that's what they're trying to do. Those people know, so

there won't be a second's delay or a day's delay in receiving the type

of help that government must bring to them. Those are the people to

whom the politics of the situation and the political yammering means

nothing. They look on government as whether there is any help here for

them. "Can somebody tide me over a difficult period in my life? I don't

want to be a ward of the government forever, but I'm having a tough

time. Is there anything to help me?" We can do it as MLAs but the

government information should be clear enough, aimed at the average

person — not just at the lawyers who know how to get the information,

how to interpret all the loopholes and how to get government land or

whatever it is, but to the average person so they know how government

works for them, how they can get services, whether it's a single-parent

family or whether it's applying for other government services or taking

advantage of government opportunities.

One of the

opportunities the people are understanding better, particularly in the

small communities, is the ability of government to provide small

business loans up to $30,000. I shouldn't say "loans"; I should say

assistance of up to $30,000. Last weekend, as part of servicing my

constituency, meeting with them I had an opportunity to preside at an

opening of a firm called Kelowna Craftsman, which gave me great

pleasure. The gentleman, Peter Webb, comes from England. He's a fine

craftsman of furniture that has made his mark in England in developing

reproductions of period pieces, of Georgian furniture and others. His

furniture has been sold to members of the royal household; it has been

sold to famous personages in Britain, to famous personages in the

United States.

Two and a half years ago before the election

of the Thatcher government, frustrated with high taxes and the growing

bureaucracy in Great Britain, he decided to sever the ties with the

country in which he was born and had built a reputation because he

could no longer take the government interference, government taxation

and bureaucracy that was throttling initiative in that country.

went to British Columbia House, and the agent-general may know this

story well. He'd heard of British Columbia, he'd heard of the

opportunities that this government provided. He went to British

Columbia House and he said: "I want to come to Canada. I want to go to

British Columbia, where the opportunities lie." Mr. Chairman, I know

you'll be interested. He said: "I want to go to British Columbia, this

great place British Columbia, that no longer throttles initiative like

it is being throttled here in Great Britain. Yes. I'm a success here

and I can live with it, but we know we can do so much better. I've

reached that age in life" — he's younger than I am — "where life's too

short to spend it fighting that type of big heavy government." And he

said: "The year 1984 is getting closer here in Great Britain. I don't

want to live through that here."

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

[ Page 2200 ]

velopment

— the ASEP program that helps small business. It's a small business

program that puts a regional economic and industrial development

officer in each region. So he went to the development officer — whose

salary is paid for by this government — working in that region, and

explained the problem. And this is the way he came to Canada.

also had occasion to visit me in my constituency, because — he thought

he was leaving bureaucracy behind — his permit to be a landed immigrant

in Canada was all fouled up and he needed some help. You know what I

said? "Boy, oh, boy, that's the type of initiative we like to see." And

I was pleased to work with my federal MP in cutting out the unnecessary

delay in his entry into the country. Well, today he started Kelowna

Craftsman.

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

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

Anyhow,

I want to say that Saturday we opened it up. His shop is open. He is

employing 19 people. He's training a number of apprentices in the craft

of furniture-making and tradesmen who have come from British Columbia,

who are not noted for their skills in international craftsmanship. He

hired them through Canada Manpower. He went to the trouble of

interviewing people who didn't have jobs through Canada Manpower. On

Saturday we went through the shop, and his 19 employees were there.

They were very proud to be taking a

part in entrepreneurial initiative.

The member from Fraser Valley is going to be interested in this,

because he has a profit-sharing plan for his employees, to encourage

them in the type of ownership and productivity the member has been so

strong on — giving all our people that type of opportunity.

This

furniture is not just for the local market. In fact, the furniture is

for the international market. He already has through his visits and

initiative, set up a shop and developed orders for 17 months'

production from the United States alone.

There are 19 people

there, either learning a trade or using a highly-skilled trade, through

the help of government placement and government encouragement. But the

general atmosphere attracted him to British Columbia. Saturday was

worthwhile.

Now those are the sorts of things that we work

on in our constituency offices, that I was talking about. Those are the

types of things where you need the information programs, such as

Industry and Small Business Development had, to make them known, to put

the people in, to make sure the advertising reaches the people that

need to hear it, to even let those as far away as Great Britain

recognize the opportunity we have, not only for themselves but also for

19 British Columbians.

He's training young apprentices in

what will be a highly specialized craft. It's an international

industry, small as it may be. You think of international industry as

pulp mills, or mines; but this type of thing — labour-intensive,

skill-intensive.... A minister who was described as the greatest

Economic Development minister in the history of British Columbia....

MR. LEA: Yes, but he said it.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

He was described by an unimpeachable source as the greatest Economic

Development minister in the history of the province. And now, Mr.

Chairman, that minister has a chance to be, and is in fact, already the

greatest Minister of Industry and Small Business Development in the

history of the province — setting records with every ministry, with

every undertaking.

Anyhow, it's those sorts of things, small

though they may seem.... I noted a few chuckles from the other side;

they may seem small to them. Not everyone can be a highpriced

entrepreneur, or has the chance for legal training and great

opportunity for earnings. Mr. Chairman, would you be interested in.... ?

But

you know, these types of opportunities benefit everybody. It's a type

of work that needs the information services of government, and the type

of research that has been touched upon in the answer that was given

yesterday, and again today. They assist the people so that they don't

have to wait until they can get to their MLA, even though there are

some MLAs in this House who are prepared to be in their constituencies,

meeting with them every Saturday — as many Saturdays as they can,

appointments every ten or fifteen minutes, giving the people access,

nobody turned down, as many as they can see. It's the type of thing I

do, when I go up to my constituency, Mr. Chairman, even though the

office of Premier is very demanding on my time — the type of thing I

know all MLAs are doing, as their itineraries will attest to. That's

why information is so important. You've got to let the people know the

opportunities and the services available for government. You don't do

that with quill pens; you use all the modern techniques that are

available.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the first

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), the Chair is constrained to say

to members that the Chair noted with interest the enthusiasm with which

the Premier has told the House that he's found another citizen of

Kelowna also having a daily interest in cabinet-making.

The first member for Vancouver Centre continues on vote 9.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Was that your plan?

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

have a question for the Premier with respect to policy concerning his

office and I'll wait for his attention. A very serious matter. If I

could have the Premier's attention, Mr. Chairman....

HON. MR. BENNETT: I can hear you.

MR. LAUK:

It was reported that the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) in

reply to questions on a recent report criticizing tourism and the

Ministry of Tourism in the province, described the report by using a

term which I'm not entitled to use in this chamber. She said it was

nothing but "expletive deleted." I want to ask the Premier if the

minister's statement accurately reflects government policy. If the

Premier can consider whether that is government policy then we'd like

to hear about it. Whether the report is nothing but "expletive

deleted...."

[ Page 2201 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Censored.

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: Called what?

MR. LAUK:

The tourist report — the Ministry of Tourism report. It's well

reported, Mr. Chairman, I say to the Premier. We're just interested. We

don't want to pursue the matter much further. We're just interested to

know whether it's....

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

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

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

The

Premier has spent some time this afternoon on a further rambling speech

without coming to grips with the many questions that have been asked by

the opposition members. There were questions concerning credibility and

questions of his performance with the high school students the other

day. It was interesting to note that the Premier talked about a member

in his riding who has recently immigrated from Great Britain to escape

government interference. I'm always amused at people who complain about

government interference because the chart