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)

TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1849 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Amend the Cultus Lake Park Act (Bill PR403). Mr. Ritchie.

Introduction and first reading –– 1849

Credit Union Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 12). Hon. Mr. Nielsen.

Introduction and first reading –– 1849

Oral questions.

Nanaimo-Vancouver ferry service. Mr. Stupich 1849

B.C. Tel service. Mr. Lauk –– 1849

Report on containment and remand facilities. Ms. Brown –– 1850

B.C. Place. Mr. Lauk –– 1850

Water pollution. MR. Hanson –– 1851

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office estimates.

On vote 9.

Mr. Macdonald –– 1851

Mr. Levi –– 1852

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1856

Mr. Barber –– 1858

Mr. Barrett –– 1862

Division on the motion that the committee rise –– 1862

Mr. Lea –– 1862

Division on the motion that the chairman leave the chair –– 1863

Mr. Lea –– 1863

Mr. Davis –– 1867

Mr. Howard –– 1870

Mr. Barrett –– 1873

Motion to set the time of next sitting.

Mr. Howard –– 1874

Mr. Nicolson –– 1875

Mr. King –– 1876

Mr. Barrett –– 1877

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1877

Mr. Barber –– 1878

Mr. Leggatt –– 1879

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1880

Division on the motion –– 1880

TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome three guests from the province of

Saskatchewan in the gallery today. Visiting Victoria and the Island

this Easter week are Mrs. Marion Riley and her daughter Maureen, of

Moose Jaw, and Mrs. Mary Riley, of Saskatoon.

MR. BARRETT:

I had occasion to phone the Chilliwack hospital this morning, and I've

received a report that the Speaker is in stable condition and would

welcome messages from the House. I would like to verbally record that

in Hansard . I'm sure all of us will be in touch with the Speaker for rulings and wishes of good health, and we hope he returns shortly.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

We indeed join, Mr. Speaker, in the good wishes articulated by the

Leader of the Opposition. This morning I spoke with Mrs. Schroeder, and

she informed me that Harv was resting comfortably. I also had occasion

last week to drop down to the IC unit at St. Paul's. He wasn't there;

he was downstairs taking a stress test. I would ask why he needed to

take a stress test, having survived question period.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, the Walter Lippmann of Canada is visiting the press

gallery today. He has deigned to visit this little fishing village on

the Pacific Rim — Mr. Allan Fotheringham.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

In the gallery today and participating in a tour of the legislative

precinct is a group of students from Stelly's Secondary School in

Saanich and the Islands constituency. Would the House make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE CULTUS LAKE PARK ACT

On a motion by Mr. Ritchie, Bill

PR403,

An Act to Amend the Cultus Lake Park Act, introduced, read a

first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing

Orders and Private Bills.

CREDIT UNION AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

a motion by Hon. Mr. Nielsen, Bill 12, Credit Union Amendment Act,

1980, 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

NANAIMO-VANCOUVER FERRY SERVICE

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Transportation

and Highways responsible for B.C. Ferries. I'm wondering whether the minister

has had any reports about the hopeless inadequacy of the service on route 2

between Departure Bay and Horseshoe Bay today.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Speaker, to the member for Nanaimo, yes, we've heard about the

problem. We were running 12 sailings a day, and we cut back to eight

following the long weekend, and there has been quite a build-up of

traffic on route 2. So we've authorized the Queen of Burnaby to get in there and clean it up. It's running extra sailings today.

MR. KING:

I have a query to the minister. I just wonder if the minister heard

about the fistfight that occurred in the ferry lineup on the weekend,

and I would ask him to check to see whether the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Mair) was in attendance in that line-up.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Transportation and Highways tell me what sailing the Queen of Burnaby will be starting today?

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Speaker, to the member, it is my understanding that it started

today, and it will continue until it catches up. This is caused by the

lack of service of CP Marine, which, as you well know, is not operating.

B.C. TEL SERVICE

MR. LAUK:

I have a question to the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications. As the deadline for filing a notice for intervention to

oppose B.C. Telephone's application for a rate increase is rapidly

approaching, has the government decided to file such an intervention?

HON. MR. McGEER: No decision, Mr. Speaker, on that point.

MR. LAUK:

Could the minister inform the House if a policy decision has been made

as to whether or not an intervention will be made before the deadline?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question reflects on policy, hon. member, and as such is not in order.

MR. LAUK: Decision on policy, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. McGEER: The policy will be announced in due course, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SKELLY:

I have a supplementary question to the same minister. The minister is

probably aware of the fact that some proposed technological changes in

the Cranbrook exchange between this year and 1983 will result in a loss

of between 60 and 90 jobs and remove about $3.7 million from the

economy of that area. With no improvement in service, will the minister

insist that the CRTC hold hearings in Cranbrook prior to elimination of

these jobs through equipment changes?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'll be pleased to take that question as notice and verify the statements that the member has made.

[ Page 1850 ]

MR. SKELLY:

I have another question, Mr. Speaker, and some further facts for the

minister to verify. Ultimately, B.C. Tel plans to eliminate all

operator services in British Columbia, except in Kelowna and Vancouver,

which will cause job losses in centres such as Victoria, Nanaimo,

Campbell River, Kamloops, Prince George, etc. Has the ministry examined

the economic consequences of these changes and demanded hearings by the

CRTC in these centres as well, prior to any technological changes which

substitute machines for human labour with no improvement in service?

HON. MR. McGEER: I take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

REPORT ON CONTAINMENT

AND REMAND FACILITIES

MS. BROWN: I have a question

for the Attorney-General. Your ministry completed a study on

containment and remand facilities in B.C. at the end of last year. Can

you tell us why that report has not been tabled in the House?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, the report to which the member refers is an internal

report and is presently being considered by the corrections branch for

its plans.

MS. BROWN: Can the minister confirm that

the report reveals that containment facilities, especially with respect

to juveniles, are being improperly utilized?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I can't confirm that.

MS. BROWN:

Since this report reveals that a large number of the juveniles involved

are in the care of the Ministry of Human Resources, can the minister

tell me whether he has shared it with the Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) ?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: A copy of the report has gone to that ministry for its proper purposes.

B.C. PLACE

MR. LAUK:

I have a question for the Minister of Environment, who is responsible

for B.C. Place. Pursuant to the agreement of July 1974 between the city

of Vancouver and Marathon Realty concerning lands now to be used for

B.C. Place, can the minister assure the House that the city's interests

as outlined in this agreement are being incorporated in negotiations

presently in progress between Marathon and the government?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK:

A supplementary to the minister. The agreement in question concerns the

interests of the community in the downtown core with respect to housing

and park utilization. By the minister's answer, can he clarify to the

House that none of those provisions, as outlined in the agreement

between the city and Marathon, are being put forward as an interest to

the government of British Columbia?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

The restrictions that were placed on the property when it was owned by

Marathon — as it is still owned by Marathon — were put on by the city

of Vancouver specifically with Marathon being the property owner.

However, those restrictions do not pass on to B.C. Place.

MR. LAUK:

Could the minister confirm, therefore, that the government has no

interest in preserving those interests of the city of Vancouver in the

eventual establishment of B.C. Place?

HON. MR. ROGERS: We'll take those matters into consideration, but we are not bound by the restrictions.

MR. LAUK:

The sketchy outline given by the Premier with respect to B.C. Place

does not indicate how the project will cope with either changes or

increases in traffic in the downtown core. Can the minister assure the

House that complete traffic flow studies have been completed or are

underway?

HON. MR. ROGERS: His Worship the mayor of

the city of Vancouver is a member of the board which is responsible for

B.C. Place, so at that point I would suspect that the city's interests

are being represented by their chief officer.

MR. LAUK:

Perhaps the minister did not understand my question. Even with the

Premier's sketchy outline of B.C. Place, it is clear to most traffic

engineers in the city that massive increases of traffic in particular

areas of the city will occur. Have complete traffic flow studies been

started or underway?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No.

MR. LAUK:

To the same minister, Mr. Speaker. The B.C. Place development will

attract a greater traffic flow to the downtown core, and the facilities

presently there, we are told, cannot possibly cope. Can the minister

assure the House that an improved transit system will be in place and

operational at the same time as the project is completed?

HON. MR. ROGERS: It's a multiphase project, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK:

I'm not sure who's fazed by it. Will the minister assure the House and

the people of Vancouver that an improved transit system will be in

place and operational at the same time as the project is completed?

Will the two phases be completed at the same time?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Perhaps the member didn't hear me. The answer to the question is: we

have no timetable on when the project will be completed. It will be

completed phase by phase. What particular phase are you concerned

about? If you're concerned about one particular phase and, perhaps, if

you have information from the engineering department of the city of

Vancouver, as it corresponds with this thing, and you are prepared to

table it, then I will answer.

MR. LAUK: The engineers

and the people of Vancouver are concerned about whether there will be a

transit system in place to cope with the increased traffic flow which

will be caused by B.C. Place, without a time lapse.

[ Page 1851 ]

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Once again, the Urban Transit Authority is in place. There are

improvements being made all the time to the transit system in

Vancouver. What particular phase and what particular segment of the

rapid transit system are you referring to? It's going to be a

development which progresses as phase one, and then some more transit,

and then the next thing comes along.... You pick the day, you pick the

time and you speak to the specific thing, and I'll tell you what will

be happening at that time.

MR. LAUK: That's what I

call planning, Mr. Speaker. The member for Vancouver Centre can pick

the phase and the time. That's what I was afraid of.

Can the

minister assure the House that B.C. Place includes plans for large

mixed-income housing development and that such housing will have

priority over exhibition space?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, I cannot give the House that assurance at this time.

MR. LAUK: Is it being actively considered by his ministry to include large mixed-income housing development as part of the project?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

My ministry isn't responsible for B.C. Place. I'm the minister to whom

the board reports, but it's not being considered by members of my

ministry.

MR. LAUK: Has the minister decided to hold

public hearings in the city so that a close examination of the effects

this project will have — which we've been talking about — on downtown

communities will be completely understood?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Within the next few weeks the development of British Columbia Place,

including the expanded role of the board, will be forthcoming. I wonder

if these questions might not be better saved for my estimates.

WATER POLLUTION

MR. HANSON:

My question is to the Minister of Environment as the minister

responsible for water quality in southern Vancouver Island. In view of

the recently announced policy on mariculture and fish farming, and in

view of the fact that some of the best areas for this type of activity

are in southern Vancouver Island, is the minister aware that the

Finnerty Cove sewage outfall has been pumping one and one-half million

gallons of raw sewage daily without a pollution control permit since

December 31, 1978, and that the McMicking Point outfall has been

discharging two million gallons per day at the shoreline in Oak Bay

without a pollution control permit?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.

MR. HANSON:

A new question. Would the minister be prepared to table with the House

the status of the various PCB permits from Macaulay Point around to

Sidney?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Put that on the order paper.

MR. HANSON:

A new question. Is it true, Mr. Minister, that your ministry is

transferring the majority of the waste management personnel from

Victoria — where we have a densely populated area with a serious

pollution problem — to Nanaimo?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, Mr. Speaker.

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 — continued.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Chairman, I really thought that after five days of the Premier's

estimates that the Premier was finally going to yak, yak, yak and

answer a single question that's been asked by the opposition. But we're

disappointed. I would yield to you, Mr. Premier, if I thought for one

minute that you were going to answer any of these questions. You're

setting an all-time record and you've won the unstinted admiration of

your backbenchers and your cabinet ministers for the way you've

stonewalled your estimates. It's marvellous — not a single answer to a

question asked by the opposition in five days. That's something of a

record to be proud of. Gordon Liddy would be proud of you, Mr. Premier.

You've kind of intimidated the opposition because we've asked very

simple questions.

The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam

(Mr. Levi) came along with a very simple question and asked — he's

asked you six times, Mr. Premier; I've counted them; you didn't make a

note of it: "Were you informed by the federal government of the

impending resignation of the chief justice of British Columbia, and

when were you so informed?" No answer was given at all, and we're

seeing it set sort of a record that will go down, I think, in the

annals of the history of the British Commonwealth of Nations — a

Premier who refuses to answer questions to the elected members of this

Legislature on his own estimates.

Because the Premier didn't

make some notes, I'm going to ask him again about some of the questions

we asked. We asked you first, Mr. Premier, about the seminar at the

Bayshore Inn, the mailing out of the tapes and the advocacy of writing

forged letters. And we asked the Premier this question — without

rehashing the whole thing, because it upsets the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland): "When did you know

about it, Mr. Premier? Did you know about it at the time of the

seminar? When did you find out that your party" — the party of which

you're the head — "was engaged in an organized forged letter writing

campaign?" When did you find out? That's what we're asking you.

You

know, your little guys have disappeared down the drain. Dan Campbell's

gone, and Grieg went without any explanation, right out of your own

office. And we asked you: "When did you know and how could you help but

know yourself?" It's a simple question. But you've never answered that

question, have you, Mr. Premier? You've never told us why Ron Grieg,

who was assistant to Dave Brown in your office — and your own employee

— resigned.

[ Page 1852 ]

You

never told this Legislature about the trust funds, which I presume

exist today, under Ian Adam, Austin Taylor Jr. and Tony Tozer, who are

all in your office, nor who the co-signer was. Were you at any time a

co-signer of one of those three trust funds, Mr. Premier?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, shall we address the Chair?

MR. MACDONALD: Through the Chair, Mr. Chairman, I'm asking the Premier whether he was a co-signer of any of those trust funds.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD:

I'm asking the Premier again, in spite of the interruptions over there.

Seriously, were you a co-signer, Mr. Premier? I'm asking you, and on

this one I have to admit you can take the fifth amendment, because I'm

asking you whether the Election Act was not breached in your office by

your employees during the last election, in the collection and

disbursement of campaign funds which did not come through either your

official agent or your party and which, of course, were not reported

for the very reasons I have given: that they were not officially and

properly received and disbursed. What did you know about that, Mr.

Premier? That too is a simple question.

I also asked you

whether you had instructed the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who is

sitting there as if he's bored by the whole thing, as caucus chairman

to discharge the caucus research staff. They were suddenly discharged

one day to the surprise of everybody, including, of course, the staff,

who were most surprised of all.

These are simple questions,

and I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier of the province of B.C.

doesn't have to answer them. He can stonewall. He can be the first

Premier, as I said, in the history of the British Commonwealth of

Nations not to answer any questions on his estimates. He can threaten

the people of the province of British Columbia as he has this

Legislature with the 30-minute, rubber-chicken circuit speech, which he

makes when we ask him a simple question. And I suppose that might

happen to a citizen of the province too; you ask the Premier's name and

you get this 30-minute speech repeated.

So, Mr. Premier,

I'll sit down if you will answer. Answer one of the questions asked by

the opposition on your estimates. You gave one very strange reply. What

were the words?

AN HON. MEMBER: Any answer he gave was "appropriate at the time."

MR. MACDONALD :

Yes, that's the best we've got out of the Premier's estimates, Mr.

Chairman. In the course of one his 30-minute speeches he said: "Well,

any answer I gave was appropriate at the time." Shades of Watergate,

Mr. Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: Make that "subject to change without notice."

MR. MACDONALD:

Yes, like the weather. You're the Premier, and you don't have to be;

but if you are, you have to answer to the people. And the time of

accountability is during your estimates. The questions are simple, and

I ask you to, as all Premiers in this province have done from time

immemorial, including W.A.C. Bennett, make notes of the questions —

that's point one in learning how to be Premier — and then answer them.

Don't answer them five days too late. But answer them even now — better

late than never, Mr. Premier. The questions are simple and the people

have a right to answers.

MS. SANFORD: Isn't he going to answer?

MR. LEVI: No, he's making notes, so it may be some time over the next few days when he answers.

Mr.

Chairman, I want to just pursue another topic with the Premier, and

then we can get back to some of the other topics which he hasn't

bothered to get up and answer. I want to ask him about the Crown

corporations reporting committee. I'm asking him because he was the

minister who introduced the bill into this House. At that time he said

that this would be — and it turned out to be — a unique committee with

respect to its role of investigating and monitoring what was going on

with the Crown corporations. What concerns me is that it was only a

week ago that the committee met again after some 17 months of not

holding any public hearings. The last public hearing was, if I remember

rightly, in the fall of 1978. We had a number of committee meetings but

we had no meetings in respect to the work of the committee. We did

issue a report....

HON. MR. GARDOM: You are out of order.

MR. LEVI:

The former Attorney-General is giving a lawyer's opinion — I'm sure

that's what it is — that I'm out of order. Well, let's ask the Chairman

of the committee.

The Premier introduced a bill in this

House called the Crown Corporation Reporting Act. Surely, Mr. Chairman,

that's the minister to whom I have to speak; I can speak under his

estimates with respect to this. He had a lot to say about it two years

ago when he brought it in. What I want to know from the Premier is: was

there interference from his office which prevented that committee from

meeting for almost a year?

We know that after we met as a

subcommittee, and not in public meetings, Actin respect to B.C. Hydro,

we were to pursue B.C. Ferries and BCR. We then had, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, at this point I must advise that it is very difficult, by

any stretch of the imagination, to see how a detailed examination of

the Crown Corporation Reporting Act would fall within the estimates of

the Premier.

MR. LEVI: Well, Mr. Chairman, with respect, he introduced the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, by that extension we could debate virtually every ministry of the Crown under the Premier's estimates.

MR. LEVI: No, wait — only the ones that he introduced, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: While passing reference is always in

[ Page 1853 ]

order

to some degree, a detailed examination in this particular case, hon.

member, would be very difficult to justify under the circumstances.

MR. LEVI:

Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not intending to make a detailed examination.

What I'm trying to elicit from the Premier is — he's the head of the

government — was there interference by the government with respect to

that committee being called? The election finished....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI:

Now we've got the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr.

Chabot) speaking for the Premier. Which one is the monkey and which one

is the organ grinder? Let's just get that straight. I go back to the

Premier.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: You're okay, kid. You just keep quiet; you're sitting behind him.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI:

No, no, no, we know where it is. We did that once before, long before

you were here. You used to do it when you were in council up in Prince

George. That member has made some very interesting speeches.

Getting

back to the Premier, Mr. Chairman. The Premier obviously had a

compelling interest in the role of the Crown corporations. It was his

idea. He introduced it. He spoke laudably about the possibilities that

this committee would have. Okay, that was fine; it was good. It was a

worthwhile effort, but for a whole year nothing happened. Now I'm

asking the Premier: why didn't the committee meet? Was there

interference from his office that that committee should not meet,

should not deal with the two reports that were put before it in August

and October of 1979 dealing with the export of power — a very important

issue that the Premier has talked about. We never met; we never had an

opportunity to discuss it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order,

please. Hon. member, I would call your attention to vote 2 under

"legislation," which is the Crown corporation reporting committee vote.

Therefore I must advise that further in-depth discussion under vote 9

is out of order.

MR. LEVI: Vote 2?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 2 covers this.

MR. LEVI:

With respect, Mr. Chairman, do you mean to tell me that we can get no

response from the Premier at all about the Crown corporations committee

— that having introduced the bill, having said all the horrible things

that he said, now we can't even ask him a question about that? We've

got to have an opportunity to ask somebody. Somebody over there has to

answer. We can't ask the Chairman, so we're asking the Premier as the

head of the government. How do you ask somebody under vote 2?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must advise again that under vote 9 the discussion on the Crown corporation reporting committee is out of order.

MR. LEVI:

Well, who do we ask, Mr. Chairman? Who am I going to get from that

government to tell me about why the Crown corporations committee didn't

meet?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it's not up to the

Chair to advise members on what they should or should not be

discussing; it is only to uphold the regulations which are before us

now. We are presently on vote 9, which is not the Crown Corporation

Reporting Act.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, you're a

laudable guy. I think what you're doing is excellent, but you're only

telling me who I can't ask. I want you to tell me who I can ask; that's

all. I mean, if you're going to take the trouble to say "you can't ask

this person," then perhaps you'd be good enough to tell me....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Why doesn't that chirping minister — that Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) — keep quiet!

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is quite obvious, hon. member, that you'll be able to discuss the matter under vote 2, when that vote is called.

MR. LEVI: And who am I going to...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we're presently on vote 9. We cannot discuss under vote 9 what is under vote 2.

MR. LEVI: Why not?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Because I said so.

MR. LEVI:

Mr. Chairman, under votes you normally have an opportunity to ask a

question of somebody who is responsible for that vote. Now who am I

going to ask, under vote 9 or vote 2, a question about the Crown

corporations committee? Who am I going to direct it to? I can't direct

it to you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, under vote 2 you may discuss Crown corporations. We are on vote 9; you may not discuss them.

MR. LEVI: No, no, Mr. Chairman. The object of estimates is not simply to have a debate. It's also....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, are you arguing with the Chair at this time?

MR. LEVI: No, I wouldn't argue with you, sir. I'm just saying....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then could I please ask you to move on to vote 9? I believe the matter has been resolved at this point.

MR. LEVI: No. With respect, it has not been resolved.

[ Page 1854 ]

MR. LEA:

A point of order, Mr. Chairman. It might be that was brought in as a

form of legislation. I wonder if maybe a quiet question to the Premier

asking if that act needs to be amended — is he the minister who would

bring those amendments in?

MR. CHAIRMAN: With all due respect, that is not a point of order, hon. member.

MR. LEA:

It is a point of order, because we are trying to figure out the

procedure in the House. If the Premier isn't responsible for the

legislation he brought in, who is?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Thank you, hon. member. May I just, for one moment, quote from the

sixteenth edition of Sir Erskine May: "The administrative action of a

department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and

matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of

Supply...." Hon. members, all I can do is uphold the rules that we are

bound to observe in this House. I ask all members for their cooperation

in this endeavour.

MR. LEVI: You're quite right, Mr.

Chairman. You'll get my cooperation. Because of your instructions, I am

not prepared to canvass the details of the Crown corporations

committee, but I can ask one question and then move on to something

else. The question is to the Premier. Has his office interfered with

the operation of the Crown corporations committee? That's my question

to him. That's about the twenty-third question that I've asked him, and

so far I haven't got an answer.

Now I'd like to go back to

some other questions to which I'm still trying to get answers. I've

been having exactly the same trouble as my colleague the second member

for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald); we can't get any answers.

MR. MACDONALD: You're having that trouble too?

MR. LEVI: Yes, and I think that the member and I should do a duet. We would like to have some questions answered.

want to go back now to the question I asked the Premier last Tuesday:

did he have a phone call from the Prime Minister of Canada regarding

the resignation of the chief justice of the appeal court? We canvassed

this last week; we think that this is a sufficiently important issue,

because of that Premier's interest in the matters of justice. If any

topic in this province is being discussed today, it is the whole

question of justice — the justice system, and what amount of equity

there is in that whole system. It is being discussed by the public

today. It is in all forms of media. People are having some second

thoughts and thinking about what people have said: that there is one

law for the rich and one for the poor. The Premier injected himself

into this debate. Since then he hasn't said another word. He

impulsively got up after a statement made by the Attorney-General and

made some statements about the justice system; he sat down and has not

said a word since.

The public of British Columbia and this

opposition would like to know whether he had any discussion with the

Prime Minister of Canada, or the Minister of Justice of Canada, at the

time the chief justice resigned; whether, in fact, after those

discussions he had discussions with the then Attorney-General, who is

now the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), on

this very important issue.

We've waited almost two years for

an answer, and we still don't have any information. Nobody wants to

talk about it. Did the Premier receive a phone call from the Prime

Minister of Canada? Did he tell him that because of certain information

they had the matter had been referred to the federal Judicial Council,

and that the chief justice of the appeal court had resigned and it was

necessary to appoint a new person?

The province is

responsible for the administration of justice. The Justice minister

under the late Conservative government, Mr. Flynn, was asked by a

member of the House of Commons about the reasons for the ending of the

investigation by the federal Judicial Council. Mr. Flynn replied that

the administration of justice is a matter for the province, and he

directed the questioner to the Attorney-General and the government of

British Columbia. Now I'm directing the question to the Premier. As a

result of the stopping of an investigation.... Because we're told by

the then Minister of Justice, Marc Lalonde, of the Liberal government

that an investigation was being done of that council but that it had

ceased being done because the judge was no longer a judge and,

therefore, it was not necessary to carry on the investigation. So that

is where that ended. No facts, no public information — it ended there.

We have from his successor a statement that if you want to know about

what took place or if you have some concern about the administration of

justice, go talk to the province; they are the people responsible for

administering justice.

This is a very important question, a

question which goes far beyond the kind of discussions we have been

having in this House for four or five weeks in respect to issues of

dirty tricks and in respect of involvement of certain public servants

in terms of allegations of interference and non-interference. We are

talking now about the total administration of justice, particularly by

the judicial system. We know that in this province the government has

no involvement in the appointment of judges, other than the provincial

court judges. This is done by the federal government; it is of a

political nature.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI:

It's okay, Jim, you can keep the Ministry of Agriculture but you can't

go back to Energy; there's no way they are going to put you back in

Energy.

Just to go back, that's a fundamental issue which

has got to be debated in this province. The first part of the debate

has to be initiated by the Premier answering the question I put to him

on a number of occasions: describe to us the circumstances in respect

to his conversations, if there were any conversations. It's very easy

for him to answer the question. If he didn't speak to the Prime

Minister of Canada, fine, then say so. But he must have spoken to his

then Attorney-General. There must have been some discussions about the

serious nature of the allegations and the circumstances surrounding

that particular resignation.

It has been suggested, Mr.

Chairman, and the Premier may have knowledge of this.... Does he have

knowledge of a coverup and where in fact the investigation was stifled?

Yet there was information in the hands of the police, in the hands of

law enforcement agencies, that, in fact, the chief justice of the

appeal court was involved in a very serious situation, connecting him

with a bawdy house, which subsequently went to court and an individual

received a $1,500 fine and some community work as a punishment.

Subsequent to that, the alleged partner in the operation has now been

charged with conspiracy to traffic in narcotics.

[ Page 1855 ]

Those

are the ingredients and that is the nature of the case we are talking

about. We're not talking about some little thing that happens in a town

and don't always affect everybody in the province. We're talking about

something where we have the ingredients, on the one hand, of the chief

of the judicial system in the province and, on the other hand, elements

of organized crime and the criminal world. Somehow they've come

together. They came together in two particular cases as a result of a

wiretap.

Sooner or later somebody over there is going to

have to talk about it, but that Premier is the one who talked about his

concern for the justice system. Well, there is a lack of equity in that

justice system, and he should have some concern about that. Last week

we heard a statement from the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr.

Ritchie) — his opinion of the system of justice in this province and

what kind of protection he could seek from the Attorney-General's

ministry. I'm not touching on the judgment, Mr. Chairman. I'll stay

away from that. I appreciate the delicacy with which we have to deal

with this problem. Nevertheless, we are talking about the equity in the

justice system.

We had a statement last week which severely

put a test to that system — what that individual said. I hope we have

an opportunity to hear your judgment, sir, or the Speaker's judgment,

so that we can get into this debate. But that is the nature of the

debate we have to have. No more of this folderol, no more of this

frippery, as we used to get from the former Attorney-General, who

didn't really know what was going on in his ministry anyway. We need

some leadership from that Premier. After all, he has some opinions

about the justice system.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. LEVI: My gosh, when is he going on a conference? We'll give you a one-way ticket to anywhere you want to go.

want to go from the judges affair now, and I'd like to ask the Premier

one more question. He was the one who made the statement.... I know,

Mr. Chairman, this might be a little difficult for you. I would just

dissociate yourself from what I'm saying because I'm going to talk

about the Annacis Island bridge. I know it's tough because you've got

to sit there and I'm going to be saying something about it.

wonder if the Premier, when he decided to make this report.... After

all, remember that the background to this statement was a public

statement by the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) almost a year ago, in

which he said if he didn't get his bridge he was going to resign. Now,

mind you, when he said that I don't think he realized that the

difference in the seating arrangement in this House would be so tight.

Nobody did. Suddenly the election is finished, and the government finds

that it has 31 seats and the opposition has 26 — a practical majority

of four, sometimes three.

Then we have the member — who was

doing a job for his riding, and he should be credited with that, Mr.

Chairman — saying to the Premier: "If I don't get my bridge, I'm going

to resign within six months." Well, he's going to take his marbles,

presumably, and go somewhere else to play with them.

There

was a time in this House when the Minister of Highways in the previous

government wanted to erect a set of traffic lights because so many

people were crossing the floor. Well, we may have to put those traffic

lights up now. Now we know that the secret for the backbenchers to get

at the Premier — and that's the kind of situation no Premier wants to

find himself in — is to say: "If I don't get a road going through Fort

Nelson, I'm going to resign." Well, you don't have to resign; you just

have to walk across the way. But don't come over here; there are a

couple of spare seats down at the bottom there. That's the way you get

action out of that Premier. He can count: 31 minus 26 is 5; minus 1 for

a Speaker, and you're down to 4; and if you happen to be in committee,

you are down to 3. And if the Premier wants to go to a western

conference, you may be down to minus 2 and you're out of business.

There

used to be a time, Mr. Chairman, when that group over there had some

mavericks who would take on the Premier. The member for Delta evidently

turned out to be a maverick, because he said: "If I don't get my

bridge, I'm going to resign." And he got his bridge. Actually, I think

he sold himself short. He should have asked for a bridge, a rapid

transit line, an airfield. He could have got all those things. He

should have gone to the Premier with a shopping list.

That's

the lesson some of those people over there should learn. After all, the

member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) — and where is he? He's not in the

House. He must be down in the Crown corporations committee office. Yes,

that's what he's doing: preparing questions. Now there's a man who has

a job to do. He could ask the Premier: "Look, if I don't get a tunnel

from Omineca to Vancouver, I'm going to resign." Tunnels are all the

vogue today. But that's the way that Premier is showing leadership in

this province. He gets pressure, and there he goes.

Maybe

the Premier has never seen this report. He gets a lot of reports. This

report is one of three prepared by the Greater Vancouver Regional

District rapid transit project. In that area they have spent some $20

million preparing reports. This is the definitive report of what should

take place in terms of how to deal with traffic problems, how to move

people around the GVRD.

That Premier makes a public

statement announcing a bridge. He tells us it is going to cost 130

million dollars, but those are 130 million 1931 dollars, because when

it was looked at five years ago the cost of that bridge was pretty

close to $200 million. Now what is the bridge going to cost? He's

certainly not going to build it for $130 million.

I would

hope he doesn't build it in the location they've talked about. I would

suggest that he go talk with the GVRD transit people, to all those

politicians who.... That group over there talks about freedom and

autonomy of local representation, and then we have a Premier coming out

overruling everybody, injecting a bridge that has no congruity in terms

of what goes on in this plan they've made. So much for that kind of

forward thinking.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Vander Zalm) — now there's a man who knows something about Surrey

and rapid transit. He contributed to much of the work of the GVRD. He

hasn't said anything about it.

MR. BARRETT: He wants to be number one.

MR. LEVI: Yes. Well, he's one and a half right now.

Who

did the Premier consult? Did he phone the chairman of the GVRD and say:

"Tomorrow I'm going to make a statement about Annacis Island. I'm sorry

it messes up your long, detailed plan, but I've got some trouble with

my member for Delta. If I don't give him his bridge he's going to walk

the floor"?

[ Page 1856 ]

Let

me ask the Premier: prior to the statement that he made on the

announcement of the Annacis Island bridge, did he have discussions with

anybody? Did he talk to anybody at all? Did he talk to his secretary?

Did he pick up the phone and talk to Alan Emmott, the chairman of the

GVRD? Did he talk to the Minister of Municipal Affairs? Who did he talk

to? He comes out with pat statements. One of them is: "Window on the

Pacific. " He says it is "appropriate at the time" when he says

something. Then there was a time, years ago, when he said: "Not a dime

without debate." He's sat there for five days and hasn't answered one

question in respect to issues that have been raised by the opposition.

He hasn't answered any questions on the justice system. He injected

himself into the justice system, and he also injected himself into the

whole rapid transit system in Vancouver.

My colleagues will

deal with the whole question of B.C. Place. But this particular issue

is one that I raise because of the riding I represent,

Maillardville-Coquitlam. It has serious implications for all

municipalities around. Whom did he consult? He didn't consult with

anybody. I suggest that what happened was that we got a knee-jerk

reaction from that Premier. He was caught in a box and he had to get

out of it, and that's what he came out with. He threw it in the faces

of all those people who work on the transportation committee for the

GVRD. All that money was completely wasted because of the impetuous

decision made by that Premier. Now if he wants to justify it, then let

him tell us on what basis he decided what to do. What reference did he

use? On what engineering data does he back up his decision in respect

to this bridge? It's certainly not backed up by anything in the report,

or by what the members of the GVRD and some of the councillors in the

lower mainland area have said. All he has to do is to stand up and do

what he did with the Seaboard thing — that is, come in and say: "I was

wrong. I'm responsible."

Be responsible. Stand up and answer

some questions. Right now you're coming across as somebody who is a

little scared, a little paranoid. You don't want to talk to anybody.

That's the way it is. You can't lead a province that way. You can't

hide back there by simply going into your bunker when the House isn't

sitting, and when the House is sitting you come in here and sit and say

nothing and make light conversation with your ministers. Just answer

some questions. It's very simple. Then we'll get on with some other

business. But the issues we've raised are the essential part of some of

the questions regarding your leadership in this province.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The member for Maillardville Coquitlam apparently threatens the

government by saying that we will have to stay here forever and ever if

we won't answer questions which may or may not be under the estimates

for the Premier's office. As a government and as members of this

Legislative Assembly, we're quite prepared to stay here and deal with

the people's business.

Let me start off with number one.

This isn't just my opinion, or the opinion shared by my colleagues or

those in the gallery and the press who are appalled by the opposition's

lack of concern about the major issues of this province and this

country, appalled by their lack of research, appalled that they only

deal with old newspaper reports, those they find convenient to use. The

people of British Columbia....

Over the past weekend I've

had a chance to discuss with a number of people what they thought of

the Legislature and the style, the questions and the concerns exhibited

by some members of the opposition in the Legislature. They said quite

frankly that they had never seen such a negative, foolish performance

in their lives.

In dealing with number one, I'm not going to

take questions to do with the justice system which should more

appropriately be asked of and presented to the Attorney-General under

his estimates. That is where those questions should be asked; that is

where answers may be given.

Having no questions to ask, it

may be that members of the opposition would wish to spin out the

Premier's estimates so that they can say they went out and held the

Premier on the griddle, that it was terrible and they held him on the

griddle for so many days. Really, the only persons they've got on the

griddle are themselves. Because they're looking foolish. Yes, the

Attorney-General can deal with his estimates.

Let me deal as

well with the Crown corporations committee, because if they don't know

it, that is a committee which is responsible to the Legislature. The

legislation does not in fact allow for representation by any member of

the cabinet or executive council. Remember, it was a committee which

was voted against by the New Democratic Party, which did not want the

committee to be set up in legislation. Apparently they didn't wish the

committee to function at that time. After their opposition to the

setting up of that committee and their voting against it — the first

member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) voted against that committee — I find

it very funny that they are trying to make it an issue here. It's a

committee that belongs, as a committee, to the Legislature. Again, Mr.

Chairman, I will not make comment.

MR. LEVI: You stopped it from meeting; you did.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Coquitlam-Moody, who showed....

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you got it wrong again.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Maillardville-Coquitlam. Well, you move constituencies so often. Once

you were in Vancouver South, then you were in Vancouver somewhere else.

You've been all over.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who moved him?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Well, I can remember that he was defeated in Vancouver South, just like

your leader was defeated in Coquitlam when it was all together.

I heard correctly, Mr. Chairman, the member called from his seat that I

had interfered with that committee. I'd like you to ask him to withdraw

that statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on — don't be silly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam withdraw the statement, as asked by the Premier?

MR. LEVI:

Mr. Chairman, could I have your guidance? I asked the Premier a

question when I was up before. I asked him if he had interfered with

the calling of the committee. He hasn't answered that. All he has to do

is to answer that. I said across the floor to him: "You interfered with

the committee." Am I upsetting him that much that I have to withdraw?

[ Page 1857 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, were you alleging any improper conduct on the part of the Premier?

MR. LEVI: The Premier?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Were you alleging any improper conduct?

MR. LEVI: I think that I'll have to say yes. I was, and I'll have to withdraw it. I was alleging improper conduct, but I withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The Premier continues.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, just as a point of procedure, is it required that members

take their place while the Chairman is speaking or are we allowed to

hold long discussions with you standing in our place?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The answer is no.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Well, Mr. Chairman, it's very difficult for those of us who wish the

Legislature to function correctly to see encouraged or allowed the type

of conduct in here that gives those who view these proceedings an

improper impression of the Legislature.

If I can continue

over the loud catcalls from the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), I

would just like to deal again with a couple of other areas that aren't

in the responsibility but will give the members opposite every

opportunity to deal with it. They appear to be caught up in some

numbers. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) seems to

have learned to add since he was Minister of Human Resources and had

his $100 million overrun, and was giving us a lesson in mathematics.

He's worried about people crossing the floor. The only person that's

crossed the floor since I've been in this chamber is the member for

Atlin, who left that party when it was government because he was

ashamed of it. I remember that since I've been here. He didn't respect

its leadership or its policies and he left. That again, Mr. Chairman,

is not a matter for my estimates but is the type of debate that has

filled the last five days.

I'm prepared to sit here and

listen to questions which don't involve the responsibility of the

Premier's office, but I'm not going to answer silly, foolish questions

or those that are what I call political questions. These make up the

type of tactic that the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) giggles

about so often in this Legislature. He's a good politician. I like him,

and I like to listen to him. I also like the second member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald).

Again,

Mr. Chairman,

areas to do with justice can be dealt with under the Attorney-General's

estimates. Questions to do with transportation or a particular bridge

which is part of a bill funding before the Legislature and part of the

transportation system of this province.... Let me just assure you that

this government is committed to transportation, transit, highways and

bridges. All of our decisions are made as a government. It may not have

happened when that group was in. In fact, I'm quite sure they didn't

talk to each other when they made decisions. But, Mr. Chairman, the

Highways ministry and the Transportation ministry do all of their

research, as they should do and do do in every province.They may not

have done in the past when that party in opposition was government, but

they do now.

The

Annacis Island crossing was recommended to cabinet by the minister, and

the government dealt with it. The government dealt with it, and it was

a government announcement. Yes, as the Premier I will deal with

government announcements. I want to say that I have full confidence in

my ministers and my cabinet. It's a good government; it's a government

that's provided the soundest government in Canada today. I say that

because the people like to see results, and they're getting results in

British Columbia. They have had their experience with those who are

clever and skilled with words, long on promise and short on the right

type of action, good action. They saw what happened when they had no

action, bad action. But the people of this province should be proud.

I'm proud of this government and every minister and every member of

this assembly, and the policies and the programs this government is

putting out. Yes, I'll defend a minister and the policies of the

government during estimates. Yes, I'm willing to talk about the

policies of this government as they affect the province and our

country, which I've tried to outline earlier. But those things which

the present Leader of the Opposition finds humorous and distasteful,

and where he wants to talk about old newspapers, and dirty tricks, or

silly tricks, or politics, in which he is skilled.... He's proven that.

He made a most remarkable comeback and entry into this House in 1976, a

story that has yet to be told in its entirety, Mr. Chairman. It's one

that will be told in due course. A figure of $80,000 has been reported

in the press; that story will unfold in its entirety at some time. But

he's a great politician to be able to accomplish that.

But

that this government has taken, as part of Canada. We've talked about

our policies in trying to build the economy of this province as a

province and a government with a philosophy. I'm proud of those

policies. It used to be you'd see that little group over there pick a

statistic every year to giggle about. Last year it was bankruptcies.

This year you don't hear anything about bankruptcies because you read

the paper and you find out that British Columbia had a decline in the

number of those who fail in business, the only province to do so. So

this year you don't hear that. What you hear is silliness, the type of

silliness the public is not going to accept from them and shouldn't

have to from those who would attempt to represent them.

I'm

quite willing to sit here and let them continue to show that to the

people of this province. But in those areas where those questions are

already answered, where there is public knowledge or opportunity in

this Legislature to respond to them under the appropriate ministry, I'm

not going to dignify them by being a part of their charade.

MR. BARRETT: Blab, blah, blah.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The Leader of the Opposition clearly said: "Blah, blah, blah.'' That is

one of his cleverer statements. "Blah, blah, blah," he said, and we all

heard the Leader of the Opposition.

Now if I had to respond

to the member for MaillardvilleCoquitlam (Mr. Levi), who talks about a

bridge.... I heard him clearly. He said "calculated in 1931 dollars."

Mr. Chairman, it is so preposterous for him to make that statement.

That's the same sort of person who, given a chance to

[ Page 1858 ]

be a part of government, would have had a $100 million overrun.

far as the Crown corporations committee, that's a responsibility of the

Legislature. As far as the justice system, it's certainly the

responsibility and a very important area of the Attorney-General of

this province. My concern for the justice system.... Yes, I express it.

I express it in the confidence I had in the past Attorney-General and

the present Attorney-General, and I continue to express it, because I

feel they are the greatest safeguard to our justice system.

I'm waiting for major areas to be discussed, and I will be prepared to discuss them, but the silliness — no.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Chairman, the opposition is entirely prepared to debate the present

and the future policy goals of this government; however, we will only

do so when we are satisfied with your past performance. In order to be

so satisfied we ask questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, if we address the Chair, we have a tendency to keep some sort of order in the House.

MR. BARBER: Thank you. And furthermore, Walter...! [Laughter.]

are absolutely convinced that until the Premier is prepared to answer

questions through you, put by us to him through you also, we're going

to ask a few more questions. He stood up at the beginning of his

remarks and he would have had us believe that he was going to answer

questions at that time. He answered not a single question the official

opposition raised. None. Not one. Zero. Zip. As usual. The comparison

with Gordon Liddy, I suppose, is more than a bit apt. We all know about

him. We know why he stonewalled; we know why he found it in his best

interest to take the famous fifth amendment whenever he could.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

think it's an important matter that the people of British Columbia know

whether or not their Premier was involved in the disposition of funds

that were improperly raised and improperly spent.

MR. LEA: He says it's silliness.

MR. BARBER:

He may think it's silliness; he may actually wish that people believed

it was a silly issue, but it isn't; and that's why your government is

in so much trouble today, through you, Mr. Chairman. You don't seem to

realize — even yet into the tenth month where people are concerned

about dirty tricks, your handling of them and your responsibility for

them — that you have failed so far to be honest, candid and entirely

open about your involvement, such as it may have been, with them.

The

Premier stood up a few minutes ago and said he was prepared to answer

questions, and then sat down a few minutes later, having answered none.

What kind of behaviour does that represent, Mr. Chairman? Is that what

you would consider to be leadership? It's very peculiar behaviour. He

knows it's a public issue; he knows it's a sufficiently grave public

issue that if an election were called tomorrow, he would lose.

hear no dispute; they all know they would lose. That is the current

stature of their party in the eyes of the people of British

Columbia. Everyone understands that people in your office were

implicated; everyone understands that Dan Campbell had something to do

with this. Who did he work for? He worked for the Premier. Everyone

understands that Ron Grieg resigned under mysterious circumstances. Who

did he work for? He worked for the Premier. And everyone understands as

well why the Premier is stonewalling today.

Of course he

would like to dismiss it as a joke; of course he would like people to

be persuaded that it's all just silliness, that it's all just politics

as usual. Well, in a small way, he may be correct. It is, in part,

politics as usual, Social Credit style, because we've seen it before.

We saw it for a period of 707 days when they stonewalled on another

famous case involving another Socred minister in years gone by. They're

familiar with stonewalling, and so are we. The problem for the Premier

is that the public no longer puts up with it; the problem for the

Premier is that no person in British Columbia believes that he is

entirely unaware, entirely innocent and entirely uninvolved in the

whole matter.

We all know something about the Premier's

style, Mr. Chairman. He is fundamentally temperamentally autocratic in

his relations with cabinet. He's fundamentally a strong-willed,

self-willed, self-made guy who brooks opposition from no one except the

Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy); from her he will put up with

anything. Apart from that one particular political and personal

relationship, the leadership style of this Premier is to control, is to

dominate, is to be in charge.

Once again, we hear nothing

but silence opposite. There is no dispute. Everyone knows that's how

the caucus runs; everyone knows that's how their cabinet runs. It's a

matter of public record that for almost five years that's the way this

province has been run. That record not being in dispute, how can the

Premier turn around and pretend he didn't know what Dan Cambell was

doing? Who, after all, gave Dan Campbell his orders every day of the

week? How can the same Premier who runs the whole show himself turn

around and have us believe that he didn't know what Ron Grieg was

doing? The Premier can't have it both ways. Either he is the self-made,

dominating, self-willed and somewhat heavy-handed leader of that

administration that we all know him to be and that his colleagues know

he is, or he's not running anything at all, and Dan Campbell and Ron

Grieg were going their merry way, spending money, handing out

thousand-dollar bills and forging letters. He can't have it both ways.

The

Premier has tried for five years to build up an image as a strong,

tough, powerful leader. In the last year that image has begun falling

apart, most spectacularly since September when the first of the dirty

tricks began to surface. Now the Premier wants to change the image. Now

he would have us believe that Dan Campbell worked autonomously; that

Ron Grieg was never supervised; that Glen Mitchell was never

instructed; that no member of the caucus staff ever did anything except

all by themselves, at their own whim, at their own wish. The Premier

can't have it both ways. He can't pose as the strong and dominating

leader for five years and then tell us that, unfortunately, one aspect

of his administration simply slipped him altogether. He never knew what

Dick Lillico was doing in the Alexis Building with all those letters,

eh? The Premier never knew about that? We have more questions about Mr.

Lillico's peculiar — shall we say — involvement in what's generally

called "dirty tricks."

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he now?

[ Page 1859 ]

MR. BARBER: We know where he is now. We know why he was sent there.

The

Premier owes it not just to the opposition but also to the people of

British Columbia to be entirely candid. The fact that he refuses to

answer these questions makes it clear that he is probably going to be

more embarrassed by truthful answers than he is now being embarrassed

by stonewalling. So he will make the sacrifice he has to and be

publicly criticized for refusing to answer opposition questions. We've

a lot more questions, as well, about the involvement of his office, of

his staff, and of himself, in the whole sleazy and sordid affair, which

in the last election caused the government party to almost lose it — to

almost go down to a defeat they so richly deserved.

The

Premier, as the head of cabinet, is a well-known meddler. He makes

decisions all by himself and then imposes them on his colleagues. Let

me illustrate. When the Premier made an announcement about the $200

million fund for housing — in fact, it's only about $40 million that

will actually be spent; the rest will come back — the Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) was in Australia; he wasn't

involved at all. Presumably he found out about it by a long-distance

call placed by the Premier's secretary. The Minister of Lands, Parks

and Housing had imposed on him by this Premier a decision to subsidize

mortgages for a very limited period for a good purpose, but with an

inadequate result. It is the style of this Premier to make

announcements himself because he makes the decisions himself.

Why

then would he have us believe that he never knew what Dan Campbell was

doing for four years? Why then would he have us believe that he never

knew what letters Ron Grieg was signing? Why then would he have us

believe that he never gave Dave Brown an envelope of letters published

in British Columbia by Gordon Townsend, and told him to do something

about it? I wonder if there is a connection between that and the fact

that shortly thereafter a forged signature appeared on a letter

published in the Cowichan Leader and the Victoria Daily Colonist ,

allegedly under the name of Gordon Townsend. I wonder if there is a

connection between the Premier's instruction to Dave Brown and Dave

Brown's instruction to Glen Mitchell to set up letter-writing

committees. Perhaps the Premier will answer that after he has finished

pretending to consult with the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich).

These

are important questions. The people of British Columbia cannot have

confidence in this Premier's abilities if they suspect those abilities

have been compromised by the involvement of his office in the dirty

tricks affair. The Premier, no doubt, will wish that we would shut up

about it, that the press pay no attention and that the public grow

bored. It's possible the boredom will set in; it's possible that

inattentiveness of the press will be the result of our debate along

these lines. That's fine; that's what happens. We are not here just for

the press, and we are not here just to deal with the boredom of the

public. We're here to do, as we best can judge it, the people's

business, which includes examining not just the present and future

policy aims of the government, but the past performance of the man who

leads it. It is impossible to be satisfied that it has been led

properly when the Premier continues to refuse to answer legitimate

questions about the role of his office in all those areas outlined by

my colleague the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald).

Why

did Ron Grieg resign? The Premier tells us he asked him. The Premier

would have us believe that Ron Grieg never answered. I myself find that

hard to credit. I confess I'm a bit skeptical.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER:

I'm all of 30 years old; I'm still the youngest member of the House

after two elections. I'm probably not as skeptical as some other

members of the House might be, having dealt here longer and having

lived longer. But I find it impossible to believe the Premier when he

says that he doesn't know why Ron Grieg resigned. It is just not

credible.

To the extent that the Premier continues to

stonewall, he becomes less and less credible and his government less

and less well regarded by the people of British Columbia. So it's not

just that the Premier here, in the face of the opposition, refuses to

answer; it is also that, in the face of the obvious concern of the

people of British Columbia, he refuses to answer. We feel obliged to

continue to ask. When he answers we will move on to the other topics.

want to talk about the Annacis Island crossing. I did so on Thursday

last; I will do so again. I want to talk about energy policy. I want to

talk about the Premier's responsibility for developing a conservation

ethic in this province. I want to talk about the total failure of the

Premier's marine transportation policies, because they are, after all,

his and not simply his ministers'. I want to talk about the

relationship of this administration to other provincial administrations

in Canada, and about new constitutional forms and features. I want to

discuss all of those things; and we will in time, if the Premier, in

quick time, answers the questions that we are putting to him. But until

the Premier clears up the tremendous grey cloud that hangs over his

administration and his own office, he can expect that no other debate

will be led. After all, Mr. Chairman, first things first.

want to know what you did, Mr. Premier, with the money we gave you last

time before we give you any more this time. Can I put it any more

plainly? You're asking us to vote for more staff. Well, how many more

Ron Griegs are you going to hire and what will they do? Before you ask

us for money to hire more Ron Griegs, tell us what you did with the

last one you hired. You want more money for your office? Why do you

want so much more money for your office, moving in one year from a

staff of 9 to one of 17? Do you want a larger letter-writing committee?

Are we going to see more forgeries in the newspapers? Are we going to

hear about more secret trust funds? Are we going to see more

resignations by the Dan Campbells in your political life? Before you

ask this Legislature for money to run your office next year, we want to

know what you did with the money last year. We can't put it any more

bluntly or simply, Mr. Chairman.

Of course the Premier wants

to slough off the questions, because he knows the answers — and we

suspect we know the answers too. His office was involved and the

forgeries did emanate from that office. If they did not, then stand up

and answer the questions. What did Ron Grieg do and under whose

instruction, under whose advice, under whose direction, and when did he

do it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I quote from the

[ Page 1860 ]

seventeenth addition of Sir Erskine May, and it has been quoted many times in the last week and a half:

"Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary

language. The right to claim courteous treatment in debate is due alike between

all members, and abusive language and imputations of falsehood uttered by members

of the House against members of the House are usually met with by immediate

intervention of the Chair."

These are words of advice to all hon. members. I will ask the first member

for Victoria to continue on vote 9.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's good advice, well taken.

Ron Grieg had nothing to do with forgeries, then let the Premier tell

us so and we'll stop that line of questions. If he resigned for some

other reason than his involvement in dirty tricks while an employee of

the Premier's office, let him stand up and say so. Don't simply call

across the aisle, Mr. Premier: "Hey, that's not fair. Don't ask that.

That's wrong. That's not right." That's no answer — across the aisle.

What kind of leadership is that? Stand up — through you, Mr. Chairman —

and answer, Mr. Premier. Tell us what he did. Did you know about it?

When did you know about it? How did you find out and what did you do

when you found out? Did you put a stop to it right away, or did you pat

him on the back and say: "Well done"? Or did you do nothing?

course they're not comfortable, Mr. Chairman. I know you are, because

you're a neutral, impartial Chairman and the fate of the Social Credit

Party is of no interest whatever to you. You're interested in this

debate also, and I thank you for your temperance. But we're interested,

and so are the people. So it isn't good enough and it isn't mature for

the Premier simply to hoot something or other across the aisle, like "I

wasn't involved," and expect anyone to believe it. If the Premier wants

us to believe that he had nothing to do with it, had no knowledge and

was innocent in every way, let him stand up here today for the first

time and, as a matter of public record, record it for all time in Hansard :

deny that he knew anything about it; deny that he knew anything about

secret trust funds; deny that anyone over whom he has authority had,

himself or herself, signing authority for those trust funds; and claim

that he was totally unaware that the Social Credit Party had failed to

disclose, as required by law, some quarter of a million dollars in

campaign expenditures. Let him say all of those things truthfully today

and that will be the end of those questions and we'll go on to some

more. But if the Premier does not answer those specific questions with

equally specific answers, then we and the people of British Columbia

will continue to presume — as you will, Mr. Chairman; you're a

fair-minded man — that the reason he doesn't answer is because honest

answers would be more damaging to his government than is his current

silence. Rationally, there is no other explanation. Or has some

political cat got his tongue? Not likely.

I've a few more

questions regarding the Premier's involvement in the jetfoil thing here

in Victoria. He had a meeting at 4:30 p.m., March 13, in his office. A

subterfuge then ensued. The Premier would have the people of Victoria

believe that he was simply responding to the spontaneous desire of our

business community to bring jetfoils into Victoria from Seattle two or

three times a day in the summer. The Premier has been involved, as has

his administration, in creating a mess of unprecedented proportions in

the entire marine transportation field in this province. I don't,

myself, blame the current Minister of Transportation (Hon. Mr. Fraser)

personally. It's not fair; he had predecessors.

But one of

the most powerful underlying reasons why this government is in such bad

favour with the people of British Columbia is that its marine

transportation policies have failed in every respect but one: we got

eight New Democrats elected on Vancouver Island last time. Next time,

we'll get nine elected when we win Saanich and the Islands. Vancouver

Island is probably, together with Mackenzie, the political focal point

of more discontent with that Premier's and his government's marine

transport policies than any other region of the province. It may or may

not have something to do with the fact that they were so foolish as to

double ferry rates in 1976 and then reduce them by 20 percent a year

later. It may or may not have something to do with the fact that the

Premier and his ministers would have us believe that the Marguerite is unfit for babies and tourists and that it's an unsafe and floating coffin.

His mother was on the Princess Marguerite

in October of last year. She went on a special cruise. His mother

evidently liked it quite well. Why didn't the Premier tell his mother

that it was unsafe for tourists and babies last October? Well, the

reason he didn't tell his mother and the reason they didn't tell anyone

is because the story never was true. As long as the ship is properly

maintained it won't be true. Unsafe for babies and tourists. What a

ridiculous claim. What an irresponsible claim. How could this Premier

allow one of his ministers to make such a claim? If it were unsafe the

Coast Guard would never have certified it as being safe. If it were

unsafe Lloyd's of London would never have insured it, because they

don't insure unsafe vessels. If it were never safe the Edwardson report

would have never said what it did on page 4 in the penultimate

paragraph. It said that "nothing in this report should be construed as

suggesting that the vessel is unfit for present service."

One

of the reasons this Premier is not respected is because he has allowed

members of his government — and has done so himself on several

occasions — to make public claims about that vessel that are simply

untrue. I know I won't be asked to withdraw that, because then they

would have to ask the Coast Guard to withdraw its certification. They

would have to ask the American Coast Guard why it allowed an unsafe

vessel to enter Seattle harbour. They would have to ask Lloyd's of

London why they insured an unsafe vessel. They would have to ask the

Edwardson company report why they said the vessel was perfectly safe.

They may even have to ask the former Minister of Transport, who two

weeks ago on the Jack Webster show, to his credit, said: "There's no

problem with the safety of the vessel. The problem is with the

obsolescence of its power plant." Am I right, Mr. Member? That's what

you said. We have the transcript. I know that's what you said.

Well, if minister number one responsible for the Princess Marguerite ....

And there have been five during the time of this government, plus

number six, the effective current minister, the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis) who made the announcement about the Prince Rupert .

If that minister, who is an honourable man, says as recently as two

weeks ago that the vessel is perfectly safe, why should we believe the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips), who would have us believe that it's unfit for babies and

tourists?

[ Page 1861 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, all members are honourable members.

MR. BARBER: That's right. Some with especial honour attributed to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a matter of opinion.

MR. BARBER:

It's a matter of our opinion anyway. We think they are. I think the

former Minister of Transport is. He has no reason to fib about the

safety of the Marguerite .

None at all. But the Premier has some reason to be concerned about his

role. The Premier has some reason to feel responsible for his meddling

in this mess. May I say it again? One of the most powerful underlying

reasons why his government is in such trouble is that the people, by

and large, recognize that their marine transport policies are a flop.

The Premier is responsible for the failure of those policies, just as

he's responsible for the total failure of his compulsory heroin

treatment plan. The plan was and is a joke. It's like flushing money

down the toilet. You wasted it. It didn't do a single good thing for

anyone. We told you so in advance. We tell you so now, and every expert

except one, Mr. Hoskin....

The Premier has to acknowledge responsibility for the several spectacular failures of his government. The Princess Marguerite

is a joke. You've lost tremendous support in the capital city because

of it. Nobody believes you did the right thing, and nobody believes

they're going to arrive in the Inner Harbour at eight o'clock in the

morning and see the Marguerite

rolled over on its side because it's sunk in the Inner Harbour

overnight. It's not going to happen. They didn't believe you about

Seaboard. They don't believe you about the Rupert . They know the Prince Rupert won't serve in its place. They knew doubling the ferry rates was wrong, and they're doubtful about the tunnel.

The

people have some reason to be suspicious of your competence, Mr.

Premier. You've made a lot of mistakes in four years, not just certain

of your cabinet appointments but many of your policies which you

yourself have announced. One of them is that a jetfoil will serve, and

I have some questions about the jetfoil.

Did you, Mr.

Premier, on the afternoon of March 13 make the following promise? Did

you advise, explicitly or implicitly, that two years from now when the

jetfoil service has worked because the Rupert

has not, that service will be turned over to private enterprise in

greater Victoria? Did you promise, implicitly or explicitly, on March

13 that if the jetfoil went as a government venture in the next two

years they could have it as a private venture two years from now? It's

an important question, because once again the people of Victoria are

not satisfied with what you've done with an important part of our

tourist industry and one of its vital transportation links. No one

believes the government, Mr. Chairman, that the Princess Marguerite is unfit for babies and tourists, or that it is a floating coffin. No one believes them.

No one believes that the 387-passenger capacity Queen of Prince Rupert could possibly replace the 1,800-passenger capacity Princess Marguerite .

Even if they increase it to 800 passengers, that's still grossly

inadequate. One of the reasons it is inadequate is proven by the fact

that the Premier has announced a jetfoil service, because once again

the logical argument presents itself. If the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Curtis) knew what he was talking about on January 31, then there is

no need for a jetfoil today, because if, as he told us on January 31,

the Rupert was an adequate

replacement, why would the Premier meet on March 13 to plan an extra

adequate replacement? They can't have it both ways. Either the Premier

is right, or the Minister of Finance is right. But neither of them can

be right at the same time, because each has contradicted the other.

Of course the Rupert is hopelessly inadequate. It's a ridiculous replacement. It won't work.

MR. BRUMMET: How did you become an expert at such a young age?

MR. BARBER:

Because I've lived in Victoria for my 30 years, and I know something

about the tourist economy of the capital city, and because I talk with

people in business who know the business particularly well. I certainly

know better than to talk to members from North Peace who know nothing

about the subject.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The first member for Victoria has the floor, and that member will address the Chair.

MR. BARBER: I certainly will.

The Princess Marguerite is

an admirable vessel of great character and charm which, if you had

maintained it properly for the last four years, would be serving this

year. But because the Premier deliberately chose to wipe out one more

piece of evidence of a New Democrat success — as they have deliberately

wiped out as much as possible of the New Democrat record — they found

it politically expedient to sack the vessel, even though their own

people tell them it is perfectly safe in every aspect.

now we have this mystery of the meeting in the Premier's office, a

meeting that the businessmen did not ask for, but that the Premier

called; a meeting which did not take place in the offices of the

businessmen themselves, because, you see, it wasn't their plan, but

rather took place in the office of the Premier, because it was his

plan. I want to know if a specific promise was made, implicitly or

explicitly, that if the government agreed to run the jetfoil for two

years, to take all the risks, to spend all the money, to do all of the

things that private enterprise allegedly does, two years later they

would be prepared to turn that service over to private enterprise in

Victoria.

I think that's what the Premier's strategy has

been. The government will create the jetfoil market, obtain the jetfoil

equipment, establish the jetfoil public concern, take the jetfoil risks

and, two years from now, the service will be turned over to friends of

the government who have done none of those things to make a tidy

profit. That's not our view of the role of public enterprise in

assisting private enterprise to serve all of the people. That

apparently, though, is the Premier's view of how you use public

enterprise to benefit a very few people through a jetfoil or some other

service. So I want to know what his policy is on that.

the Premier denies that he made any such promise, I want him explicitly

to state that during his administration no jetfoil service between

Victoria and Seattle will, in fact, be turned over to private

enterprise a year, or two, or three or any from now. It's one thing for

the Premier to deny that he made such a commitment implicitly or

explicitly. He may find a way around it, although I doubt it. He may

say, "Yes, I did make such a commitment," or "I offered it out as a

[ Page 1862 ]

theoretical

possibility," or "I held it up as something that may happen." He may

skate around it that way. If he does, then I'd like to hear a

commitment from him that his government would not see that two years,

or three, or any from now, the people having taken all of the risks,

having done all of the work, the Crown having done all of the necessary

preparation, the end result will be to turn over that service to a few

favoured friends of his government.

If he makes such a

commitment today I'll be satisfied with that, and I will remind him of

it as well if ever that commitment should be broken, because it's an

important distinction that we make, at least on this side of the House,

between proper and improper roles for public enterprise in

collaboration with private enterprise.

Let me conclude, if I

may, by asking the Premier to answer those questions about what went on

in his office — the questions put repeatedly by my colleague for

Vancouver East — with Ron Grieg, Dan Campbell and the others. Let me

conclude by restating again the questions put by my colleague for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi): did you receive a phone call from

the Prime Minister or his agent advising you of the impending

resignation of John Farris? Yes or no. Finally, what commitments have

you made in regard to the future of the jetfoil, the profits that may

be won from it, and who may obtain those profits in years to come,

courtesy of your government, which so badly downgraded the service that

a jetfoil becomes economically feasible,

whereas it never was before?

MR. BARRETT:

I think it is appropriate that the Premier indicate whether or not he

intends to answer questions related to his office. If he intends to set

up rules that are appropriate to him as to what kind of questions on

his office he'll answer, perhaps he should send us in writing what he

is and is not prepared to answer.

My colleagues have asked

some specific questions related to the Premier's office. These are not

personal questions; these are questions related to the person who sits

in that office, for whatever period of time the voters select that

person for — maybe short, maybe long.

Could you tell us and

the public of this province what was discussed over the jetfoil, what

deals were made, and what commitments exist that the taxpayers of this

province have to meet? Perhaps if you write it down, think about it and

refer to your notes it will be useful.

Could you tell us why

Mr. Grieg left your office? Could you tell us, if you knew, who were

the signers on the secret funds out of your office? Can you tell us

when you knew about the letters that have been described by the present

Attorney-General as "cowardly, reprehensible and irresponsible"?

These

are not foolish questions. They are not silly questions. They are the

responsibility of the leader of this government to answer, because they

directly relate to his office and actions and decisions he took.

Mr.

Chairman, as my colleague for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) has said,

we've witnessed an incredible series of days of debate. A significant

amount of the debate, so far, has been taken up by government members

getting up to make lengthy speeches. We've seen the Premier get up.

We've heard one speech about four or five times, but today was the

weakest performance of all: fumbling, unsure, insecure and unaware of

the importance of the questions being put to him.

As a

matter of fact, it's beyond just the questions themselves. It's a

question of the Premier's perception of his responsibilities. Does the

Premier perceive that he is responsible for decisions made out of his

office when he sits in that office? Does the Premier understand that

when he has employees in his office he is responsible for their actions

or explanations of their actions? Does he understand that?

think it would be appropriate if the Premier had a little time to think

about what he's doing or not doing — mumbling to himself and getting

red in the cheeks, and every other response that's totally

inappropriate for the nature of this debate. 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 — 21

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Leggatt

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 29

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

Mr. Barrett requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. LEA:

We have rather an unusual session this year; the Premier is not

answering any questions put to him. Every once in a while the Premier

will stand up and make a 30-minute speech which has nothing to do with

those areas being canvassed by the opposition. It's a strange pattern

of behaviour; it's rather new for the Premier. I can remember those

first heady days of Social Credit government under the now Premier.

Things were quite different. I guess you could even say that it was a

sort of honeymoon of the media and the people of B.C. with the Premier

and the new Social Credit government. It went on for some time. I think

it's worthwhile to examine when it started to fall apart and we could

see the government and the people of B.C. heading for the divorce

court. Now we have what I would call an illegal separation between the

government and the people: that uneasy feeling that the relationship

isn't working; that possibly one side of the relationship isn't being

quite truthful with the other side. When did it all start to fall

apart? When did the Premier start to make blunder after blunder?

I think we have to go back to the problems that arose

[ Page 1863 ]

when

the previous Speaker, Mr. Smith, placed a friend in the

auditor-general's department. The pressure started to build for the

head of government to deal with the problem; there was silence from the

Premier. Day after day and week after week there was silence from the

Premier. In fact, the silence became deafening. That was when the

Premier had to start answering. What did he do? He acted but, he felt,

too late. He felt he had been criticized and justly criticized. It was

the first time the present Premier had ever been under attack. It was

the first time the people of this province had had an opportunity to

see what the man was like under fire. He was reeling from that first

attack to the second disaster facing the Bennett government: the Jack

Davis affair.

It is kind of interesting to reflect on how

that all came about. The opposition took its place in question period

and started to ask various ministers of the Crown whether they had ever

received any favours or any pay from different airlines — PWA, CP. We

were onto something quite different. We had received information that

PWA had carried information around the province for Social Credit at a

much cheaper rate than they were charging the NDP.

Interjection.

MR. LEA:

Tons of pamphlets. We were trying to find out exactly what had

happened. Let's look back at that scene. The Premier was reeling from

his first attack over the actions of the previous Speaker, Mr. Smith.

It was the first time he'd ever been under attack from the media, and

he didn't react that well. Then here is this second thing.

already knew about the member for North Vancouver–Seymour when he was

the minister. He already knew, because it had been reported to him,

that that minister had been transferring first-class air passenger

tickets into second-class and getting the money for the difference at

home. So what was happening in the Premier's mind that day when in

question period the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) started

saying to this minister and that minister: "Did you receive anything

for free from the airline?" What did the Premier do? He stood in his

place before the next question could be asked, and out of hand — he

even made an error in spelling when he wrote it out — fired that member

for North Vancouver–Seymour from the cabinet.

MR. NICOLSON: Without leaving this House.

MR. LEA:

That's right. He took his place in this House and said: "I really blew

the Smith thing; I looked weak. Now I'm going to look strong, and I'm

going to fire that minister just out of hand. In fact, he's going to be

tried and found guilty by my words here in this Legislature this

afternoon." And he was. For days neither the minister nor the members

of this Legislature, the media or the people of this province knew why

that minister had been fired — nobody knew. So in order to try and make

up for his sloppiness over the Smith affair.... He tried to make up for

it on the back of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, to ascertain

or to re-establish that he is a tough man in Kelowna. He doesn't care

who gets hurt, as long as it's not himself. So on top of the Smith and

Davis affairs....

Mr. Speaker, I move that the Chairman do now leave the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Could I ask all hon. members to retain their places during divisions.

This request has been made quite often, and I hope we don't have to

make it each time there is a division.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Nicolson

Hall

Leggatt

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

NAYS — 29

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Mair

Hyndman

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

MR. LEA:

Mr. Chairman, I was going over the track record of the Premier over the

years because, as the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) has

pointed out, before we are going to vote on money for next year we'd

like to find out what he did last year.

What has his record

been, generally? So far, we've gone back to where it all started to

fall apart for the Premier. That was when he couldn't be decisive and

wouldn't make a decision surrounding former Speaker Smith and the

placement of one of Smith's friends in the auditor-general's

department. The Premier came under fire for the first time. The Premier

felt the wrath of the people for the first time. The Premier had to

show what he was made of for the first time, and he felt he'd failed.

Then

came the second crisis in the Premier's political life. That was the

member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). When the opposition,

not knowing a darn thing about the member for North Vancouver–Seymour,

when he was a minister, getting refunds on his tickets.... We didn't

know anything about that. All we were doing was standing up asking

whether any of the ministers had received favours from PWA and other

airlines. The Premier, of course, did know about the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour, and he panicked. He panicked that afternoon in this

House, and he jumped to his feet and fired the minister on the spot, so

hastily that he even misspelled the note that he wrote down.

That's

when it all started to go bad. But then along came the election. We

didn't know how badly it was going until after the election, when we

found out there had been unreported slush funds, money that had been

gathered by the Social Credit or by the Premier's office; money

gathered by

[ Page 1864 ]

the

Premier's office, as far as we can ascertain, illegally; money being

spent out of the Premier's office, as far as we can ascertain,

illegally, according to the Election Act.

Now if it's legal,

Mr. Chairman, for one of the Premier's employees to take

thousand-dollar bills, collected by Austin Taylor Jr. or collected by

Mr. Adam....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Provincial Secretary on a point of order.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, the member has very clearly inferred that certain

transactions were handled illegally. I would ask him to withdraw the

inference of illegality.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the member

for Prince Rupert, I would ask, if any allegations of impropriety were

made on the personage of the Premier, that he would withdraw any such

allegations of impropriety.

MR. LEA: No, I'm not saying that at all. We're trying to find out who in the Premier's office....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, would you withdraw any allegations of impropriety.

MR. LEA:

Of course. I didn't make any. I'm saying that there was money collected

illegally flowing into the Premier's office. There was money being

spent out of the Premier's office illegally, according to the Election

Act. Now that is a fact. That's public record. If the Provincial

Secretary wants to stand up and tell us how it really happened, be our

guest. We do know that there were bagmen for the Social Credit and the

Premier's office in Toronto and Vancouver. We do know that they were

collecting money that was not reported. We do know that there was money

being spent and not reported.

MR. LAUK: That's illegal.

MR. LEA: Of course it's illegal. We do know that Dan Campbell was using thousand-dollar bills to pay for political work.

AN HON. MEMBER: Favours.

MR. LEA:

Favours! Who knows? We know what was being spent, we know it was

thousand-dollar bills, and we know that he worked directly for the

Premier as the Premier and as the Leader of Opposition when he was the

Leader of Opposition.

MRS. DAILLY: No receipts.

MR. LEA: No receipts; no questions asked. Spend the money. Collect it. Where did the money come from?

MR. KING: I wouldn't run a hardware store that way.

MR. LEA: If you ran a hardware store that way, you'd be broke.

Then,

also starting way back when he was the Leader of the Opposition, we had

the Premier instructing Social Credit members to write phony letters to

the editor. We know that's a fact. The Premier says: "Don't be silly.

Don't call me to task for those things I've done. Call me to task for

those things I'm about to do."

HON. MR. BENNETT: On a

point of order, the member for Prince Rupert has suggested that the

Premier, while Leader of the Opposition, asked people to write phony

letters to the editor. I would ask him to withdraw that.

MR. LEA: I've just asked one of my colleagues to go out and get the letters.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Premier has asked an hon. member to withdraw an allegation impugning through impropriety.

MR. LEA: Would the Chairman entertain an adjournment until I get the letters? They are coming in from the office right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I would ask you....

MR. LEA: Okay, I withdraw it, and I'll bring the letters in in a minute.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Phony letters!

MR. LEA: They're not phony. He says we are talking about phony letters.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Premier on a point of order.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The member for Prince Rupert clearly said that I encouraged people to

write phony letters. That is untrue, and I ask him to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: My understanding was that the allegation was withdrawn. The member did withdraw the allegation. Did he, hon. member?

MR. LEA: Oh, yes, I did.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, did you withdraw the allegation?

MR. LEA: Yes, I did. Now what did happen....

Here's

a letter written May 27, 1975 — that's before the provincial election

we lost. "Personal and strictly confidential," it said on the letter,

and it's signed "Yours sincerely, W.R. Bennett, Legislative Assembly"

and written to "Dear Friends." We'll just let people decide whether or

not it was suggested that phony letters be written.

"Dear Friends:

"From

time to time over the past few years each constituency executive member

has received copies of a sheet called 'Do You Know?’ These have been

used by constituencies for newsletters and for providing information to

those members of the executive who have written letters to the editor.

My office is now proposing to initiate a new program. The new

[ Page 1865 ]

sheets are not intended to be replacements for the 'Do You

Know?' material but are to be completely new mailings called 'Say It Isn't

So.' "

Cole Porter would have loved the guy, wouldn't he?

"It's

hoped that this new material will be useful to those in the

constituency who are directly working in the field of communicating on

hotline shows and in the preparation of material in the 'Letters to the

Editor' column in newspapers circulating in your area. I would urge in

particular that constituency members outside the greater Vancouver area

make it a point to send material for 'Letters to the Editor' to the

metropolitan newspapers in the Vancouver and Victoria area. The

appropriate mailing address for each of these newspapers is as follows.

Then he's got a list.

Here's

another letter that the Premier objected to. He objects to his own

letters. I would too if they ever came to light, I'll tell you that.

I'd say I didn't even write them. The question is: did the Premier sign

these when he was Leader of the Opposition? Because, you know, that's

not been cleared either. I remember in Prince Rupert during the same

election a little thing appeared in the paper in the Prince Rupert Daily News .

It said: "If we are elected, the pulp mill outside of Prince Rupert

will not close." It was signed "W.R. Bennett." When I brought it to the

attention of the candidate running against me it was denied by the

Premier. He said he didn't sign it. The Premier said he didn't sign

that telegram. Do you know who said he did? He said it was Dan

Campbell. Dan Campbell signed the Premier's name in that case, so maybe

Dan Campbell signed the Premier's name here. Who knows.

MR. KING: Who should we believe?

MR. LEA: All I know is the Premier hasn't denied writing them.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's a straightforward letter.

MR. LEA: Okay, let's read the straightforward letter of May 28, 1975.

"Dear President and Regional Director:

"We

hope that all constituencies will be gearing up a massive

letter-writing campaign both in their own area and outside of it. Some

material which can be used in communicating letters to the editor will

go on 'Do You Know?' sheets and some will be going through to you on

'Say It Isn't So.' The first of the 'Say It Isn't So' has already been

sent to you."

What was the Premier doing sending "Say It Isn't So" letters out?

MR. KING: Is that on government letterhead?

MR. LEA: No, it's not on government letterhead. He was in the official opposition at the time.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Nice try, Bill.

MR. KING: You acknowledge writing it then, do you?

MR. LEA:

We want the Premier to answer some pretty straightforward questions.

Did the RCMP or some other police force find the typewriter that had

written the Gordon Townsend letters in the Premier's office? Was the

typewriter that wrote the forged letters discovered in the Premier's

office? There's one that the Premier shouldn't consider too silly. Was

that typewriter the one that was used almost extensively by Mr. Grieg?

Now is that a silly question? The Premier's going to write it down. I

guess it isn't that silly.

Is the Premier the person who

co-signs the slush fund of money that is gathered by Austin Taylor Jr.

and Mr. Adams? Is the Premier the person who signed, other than Mr.

Tozer? He says: "No." He shakes his head. In that case could the

Premier tell us who it is, and is that person in the Premier's office?

Is that person still in the Premier's office?

Another

question that I'd like to ask concerns a car, I believe, a Chrysler

that's owned by the government and is used by the Premier's office. I'd

like to have the Premier's attention on this one. I'm talking about a

brown Chrysler. Has the Premier ever personally driven that brown

Chrysler? Not somebody else driving it but the Premier. I'd like to

know that. Just a silly little question — so silly you don't mind

answering, I'm sure.

MR. LAUK: Certainly you can recall — can't you, Bill.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Incredible.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. members, the Chair is finding some difficulty in

relating.... May I for all members.... Would the member for Prince

Rupert please take his seat.

MR. LEA: Surely.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Under

section 61(2) of our standing orders dealing with relevancy:

"Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to

the item or clause under consideration." And again, going back to the

sixteenth edition of Sir Erskine May: "The administrative action of a

department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and

matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of

Supply."

Hon. members, try as hard as the Chair can, I

really fail to see how some of the debate that we're engaged in under

vote 9 really falls under or is relevant to vote 9. I would ask members

again if they couldn't more closely relate the discussion to the vote

presently before the House.

MR. LEA: Surely, Mr.

Chairman. Talking about employees who worked directly for the Premier

and therefore spent money out of the votes, what we'd like to do is to

ascertain whether the money was spent well, whether it was used as the

taxpayers would want it to be used. Mr. Campbell and Mr. Grieg, of

course, both worked directly for the Premier and both now are gone.

Mr.

Chairman, I don't think there is anybody in this Legislature so naive

as to believe that it isn't the Premier who decides when we come in

here for a session, when we leave from a session, when we come in for a

sitting and when we leave from a sitting. I'd like to ask, through you,

Mr. Chairman, to the Premier, is it because of laziness that we are not

having night sittings? Is it because the government doesn't want to

work here at night? Is it because the Premier figured that if he was

going to sit in his estimates for two weeks that would be five hours a

week he wouldn't have to sit here, and

[ Page 1866 ]

therefore

all work has to stop because of the Premier's feelings? Has the Premier

spoken to the Whip or the House Leader about night sittings? Is it the

Premier's wish that no night sittings be held because the Premier

doesn't like the griddle, or is he just a lazy-bones, Mr. Chairman?

Now

here are a number of things that have been announced by the Premier in

the last year, as he was getting paid by the taxpayers. All of these

things surrounded the dirty tricks, because in a desperate bid,

spending the taxpayers' money willy-nilly, he tried to retrieve his

image; he tried to show that he was an able administrator of the

people's money. You have the list. I probably left some of them off,

but he announced the mortgage plan. What date was that when he

announced the mortgage plan? It was some time around the middle of

January. Do you know that it was January 12 before he even told the

credit unions that he was going to have a plan? January 12 was the

first they ever heard of it. Isn't that interesting?

It's

like when Mr. Helliwell was on television talking to Mr. Fotheringham,

and Mr. Fotheringham said: "Was it your idea to have the BCRIC plan?"

"Oh," he said, "no, no, no." He said: "The Premier came to us and said

he wanted to give the people something for nothing. Work out a plan."

You know, that independent agency, BCRIC....

Mr. Helliwell

said that on television, Mr. Chairman. We can, I guess, always get the

record of that from the CRTC. So that's what Mr. Helliwell said, that

the Premier came to him and said: "I want to give everybody something

for nothing" — in other words, "I'm in political trouble, give them

something for nothing and I'm going to call an election," and those

kinds of things.

Mortgage plan — the first the Credit Union

ever heard of it was on January 12. Annacis bridge — everybody knows

that the Annacis bridge is going to cost about at least three times as

much as the Premier announced. The Premier likes to announce these

things and then, when we get to his estimates, he says: "Oh, ask the

appropriate minister." He just wants to have the right to announce

them; he doesn't want to answer for them, and I don't blame him. As

things become more desperate, we see more desperate plans like the

cabinet shuffle — pretty desperate. I've been looking at what he's got

to work with, and with people being knocked off for one thing and

another, it becomes more desperate all the time, doesn't it?

Then

we've got B.C. Place. He held a big breakfast and announced B.C. Place.

At the beginning of one week we had a tunnel going from the mainland to

Vancouver Island; by the end of that week we had a floating bridge. I

mean, my God, Mr. Chairman, you've got to be in a lot of trouble. But

we do know one thing, Mr. Chairman. We know that the image of this

Premier held by the people of this province has been going downhill,

and it's been going downhill ever since Smith put his friend in the

auditor-general's department and the Premier wouldn't deal with it. We

know that that brought on the Davis affair, which he handled so

immaturely. We know that it happened when the dirty tricks thing came

along and he came back from Japan and, instead of answering, put on a

headband and made funny faces and then started announcing mortgage

plans, bridges, tunnels, B.C. Place and a cabinet shuffle. Then what

comes along? It gets to the point where we find out that the old boys

in the province are looking out for the old boys and we find the one

thing we didn't suspect, that the new Premier, the new boy, was going

to go along with helping to protect the old boys. But we find out that

even that is a fallacy, that he'll do anything.

So there are

a few simple questions that should be answered. Was the typewriter that

wrote the Gordon Townsend letters discovered by the police in the

Premier's office, and was it Grieg's typewriter or the one that Mr.

Grieg used most of the time? Who is the other person who is the

cosigner on the illegal slush funds — or persons? The Premier shakes

his head and said it isn't him — which tells us that he knows who it

is. If he doesn't know who it is, then we're in a real problem, aren't

we, Mr. Chairman? Illegal funds are coming through the Premier's office

and he doesn't even know who signs the damn things.

Then we

find out that one of the Premier's friends from Central Fraser Valley,

who is destined to go into the cabinet, doesn't go into the cabinet.

Then we find out that that member says that, by gosh, if it weren't for

the Ministry of the Attorney-General he wouldn't even be in public life

today, because the RCMP and the Crown prosecutor would have had their

way and he would have been charged. The question is: did the Premier

talk to the Attorney-General's ministry during all of that? Did the

member for Central Fraser Valley talk to the Premier about it and did

the Premier talk to the Attorney-General? It would be a fair question

for the Premier answer; I don't think it's too silly.

You

know, Mr. Chairman, these are not silly questions. Is it a silly

question for the people of this province to want to know whether a

typewriter that was used for forging another person's name in political

dirty letter-writing was in the Premier's office, and whether one of

the Premier's staff was the one who used it? Why did Grieg resign? Why

did Campbell resign for that matter? The Premier had already announced

that Campbell was going down to Ottawa to be this province's

representative in Ottawa, and that was after the dirty tricks. And

then, bang, out of the air, Campbell resigns. Why? Why did Grieg and

Campbell resign? They were both out of the Premier's office. Campbell

was with the Premier all the time he was Leader of the Opposition.

Campbell was there when Aurthur Weeks forged Levi's cheques.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Withdraw.

MR. LEA: Withdraw what, Mr. Premier? Withdraw the fact that he worked for you when the cheques were forged?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I don't know how far you're prepared

to allow members of this Legislature to use such words as "forge" and

attach them to people who are not here to defend themselves, when

they're clearly not true. I would ask them to be withdrawn. But, Mr.

Chairman, quite frankly, I would like to know how far we can go in

debate, making allegations by innuendo, question, or directly, that

cannot be true, against people who are not here to defend themselves. I

have some experience with this — the court case for members of that New

Democratic Party, in which the judge was quite harsh on them. I've been

quite prepared to bring that up again in this Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Thank you, hon. Premier; you have raised a point of order. Before

recognizing the member, may I just say at this time that all hon.

members in this chamber

[ Page 1867 ]

take

full responsibility for what they say. The Chair can only step in when

members of this chamber have been named. Other than that, members must

take responsibility in full for their statements.

MR. LAUK:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman; that was the point that I was going to bring

to the Chair. I'm glad that you stated it so well. I also, as a member

of the committee, resent even veiled admonitions to the Chair from

either side of the House. To ask how far the Chair is going to go is an

admonition that I think is disrespectful to the Chair, and I want the

Chair to know that I don't appreciate that — nor should any hon. member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If all members on both sides of the House would show that same respect, the job of the Chair would be much easier.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Chairman, I don't imagine the Premier likes the record drawn out.

But look who has worked for him over the while, directly in his office:

Campbell, Weeks and Grieg. Where are they today? Weeks resigned because

he used private information that he gained while in government service

to play the stock market. Arthur Weeks signed Levi's cheques before

turning them over. He wrote things on the back of the cheques and tried

to pass it off that it was on the cheques when he received them. He

handed them to Marjorie Nichols and other people in the press and said:

"This is the way we got them." We find out later that Weeks altered the

cheques. He worked for the Premier.

We find Campbell dealt

in thousand-dollar bills during the election campaign, probably

gathered by Adams and Taylor. We find money that was going through the

Premier's office was being signed by Tozer as one of the co-signers.

Tozer worked for the Premier, signing the slush funds. Campbell used

the money coming out of the slush funds. Grieg worked for the Premier.

Weeks worked for the Premier before he worked for the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) after they

formed the government. The Premier denied it, but we know it's a fact.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Did you learn that in law school?

MR. LEA: Never mind about law school, Mr. Premier. You may need to know more about that than you imagine.

have a few simple questions. Does the Premier ever personally drive

that Chrysler? If it's so silly, just answer it, yes or no, when you

get up.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Did you drive a taxi?

MR. LEA:

You're darned right I drove a taxi. I think you were one of my better

customers, but I won't tell where you went in North Vancouver.

What

I'd like to know is whether the Premier ever personally drives that

Chrysler. He knows which one I mean. I'd like to know whether Grieg

resigned over the dirty tricks affair. I'd like to know about the

typewriter. Did the police find the typewriter in the Premier's office

that wrote the Townsend letters, or some of them? It's my information

that they did. Can the Premier clear that up? Can the Premier tell us

why Campbell resigned after the Premier announced he would be going to

Ottawa to represent this province? What happened that made Campbell

resign? Did he do something that he didn't think was proper? Did the

Premier ask him to resign?

We'd just like to know the

answers to these questions. We don't think they're silly. We think

they're questions to which the people of this province have a right to

know the answers. Let them decide whether they're silly, after he

answers them.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the Premier

made an important statement in the House last week. He said that

natural gas was an important source of revenue to the province. He also

said we will continue to export our surplus gas to the United States.

We will make these sales not only to keep our treasury full but to make

sure that exploration and development in northeastern British Columbia

is continuing apace.

As the Premier says, our export sales

have made a number of people programs possible in this province. The

sale of drilling rights and the income from exports to the U.S.A.

brought more than half a billion dollars into our provincial coffers

last year. This industry, with the right kind of encouragement, can

provide a billion dollars a year on the average for this provincial

treasury during the 1980s. But we will have to pay higher prices to our

producers, and we will have to recover our basic costs insofar as sales

in the province are concerned.

With regard to exports, I like the way the government's recent Orange Paper on energy put it:

"While

British Columbia produces and exports surplus quantities of some energy

resources, it is vital, particularly for non-renewable resources, that

the long-term future supply of British Columbians will be given first

priority. Therefore the government will set up a special review process

to assess in advance the proposed removal and sale of surplus energy

from the province."

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

This

involves forecasting our own medium- and long-term needs for gas. It

involves keeping a reserve supply on hand for emergencies, And it

involves making sure that our export sales are priced as high as

possible. The National Energy Board, when it holds its hearings on

exports to the United States, uses similar criteria. However, the

province may wish to be more cautious even than the National Energy

Board when it comes to the quantity and the price of gas we sell in the

United States. We must build up at least a 30-year reserve of

deliverable gas, and we must make sure that our export price is at

least as high as the world oil price. That way our future requirements

will be protected and we will get full value for all the gas we sell to

our neighbours to the south.

As an exporter of natural gas

British Columbia has moved into a happy position. Border prices can be

increased at three-month intervals so we will be charging all that the

market will bear for our surplus energy. Volumes, meanwhile, will go up

or down, depending on the availability of alternative fuels in the

United States. Off and on, residual oil is in surplus supply along the

Pacific coast, so industrial usage of our gas in Washington state,

Oregon and California will vary, but residential and commercial sales

will remain firm. They also will generate most of the revenue we obtain

by selling our surplus gas in the Pacific Northwest.

As for supply, I don't doubt that we have abundant

[ Page 1868 ]

reserves

in the northeastern corner of this province. Given adequate markets in

terms of both price and volume, we can find enough gas to look after

our long-term needs, with plenty to spare. Revenues to the industry and

the government will mount. If we manage things right, revenues alone

can fund at least 10 percent, and perhaps as much as 20 percent, of the

government's annual expenditures in the 1980s. This is possible, even

probable, but we will have to make some important policy decisions

meanwhile. We must allow the field price for natural gas to rise to a

point where it is on a par with field prices in neighbouring Alberta.

Also, we have to indicate what our export policy will be in the 1990s.

The industry is well aware of the fact that our current export

contracts run out in 1989, and if they are not renewed, the industry

could suffer a volume drop in overall sales of as much as 40 percent

ten years from now.

Two questions, therefore, plague B.C.'s

petroleum industry at the present time. One is: will B.C.'s field

prices catch up to those paid in Alberta? The other is: what about

exports after 1989? Price and volume, volume and price. Anyone who is

going to invest in exploration and development in this province will

have to know the answers to these two questions, and soon; otherwise we

are going to see a slacking-off of drilling activity at a time when the

search for fresh energy resources is being increased elsewhere.

Specifically

on the matter of price, it has been 30 months since our last field

price increase in B.C. Today, old gas — that's gas flowing from wells

in production prior to November 1973, roughly the time of the Suez

crisis — sells for 3