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 15, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1975 ]

CONTENTS

Presenting Petitions

Taxing northern residents on benefits.

Mr. Passarell –– 1975

Reading and Receiving Petitions

Supplemental ferry to Powell River Queen.

Clerk-Assistant 1975

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Administration of Tourism ministry. Mrs. Dailly –– 1975

Minimum wage. Ms. Sanford –– 1976

Fluoridation. Mr. Cocke –– 1976

Hospital waiting lists. Mr. Cocke –– 1977

Ecological damage by all-terrain vehicles. Mr. Hanson 1977

Pollution of Penticton beach. Mr. Skelly –– 1977

Ministerial Statement

Increase in old-age pensions.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1977

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office estimates.

On vote 9.

Mr. Macdonald –– 1978

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1979

Mr. King –– 1979

Mr. Lauk –– 1981

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1981

Mr. Howard –– 1984

Mr. Lea –– 1987

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1990

Mr. Lauk –– 1990

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1990

Mr. Lorimer –– 1990

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1991

Mr. Cocke –– 1992

Mr. Macdonald –– 1993

Mr. Leggatt –– 1993

Mr. Howard –– 1995

Division that the committee rise and report progress –– 1996

Mr. Howard –– 1996

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1996

Debate on the motion to set the time of the next sitting.

Mr. Howard –– 1998

Mr. King –– 1999

Mr. Barber –– 1999

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2001

Mr. Lea –– 2001

Mr. Lauk –– 2002

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2002

Mr. Cocke –– 2004

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2004

Tabling Reports

British Columbia Cellulose Company financial statements for the year ending December 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 2005

TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Speaker, I don't very often get the honour to introduce people from

my home town. In the public galleries today there are several, all good

Social Crediters: my bosses Elaine and Peter Couldwell, Doug Couldwell,

Audrey King, Doreen Bourque, Jean Closson, and my wife Gertrude. I'd

like the House to welcome them.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I hope they don't stay here too long; they may not continue to be good Social Crediters.

From

the Royal City I would like to introduce the Legislative Monitoring

Committee. This is a group of 60 people that has come every year since

1970, checking to see how we're doing with the capital that was removed

from the Royal City. I hope that the House will welcome that group.

Mr.

Speaker, while I'm still on my feet, on behalf of the member for

Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), I would like to introduce the Ladysmith Junior

Secondary School students, and their teacher, Miss Hargreaves. They'll

be in the gallery later.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr.

Speaker, I have great pleasure in informing the House that today we

have some students from the riding of Vancouver–Point Grey, Kitsilano

Secondary School, and their teacher John Ippen. I hope the House will

bid them a warm welcome and be on their best behaviour.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, I've been informed that Mrs. Betty Williams, the 1976

Nobel Peace Prize winner, arrived in Vancouver today to keep a speaking

engagement in the province. She is the lady who, as all members know,

was awarded the prize for her efforts in rallying the mothers of

Northern Ireland in a very massive campaign to try to end the fighting

in that country. She is in our province, and I think all members would

like to bid her a special welcome and thank her very much for the work

that she has done.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I

have two groups to introduce to the House today: first of all, old

friends of mine from my credit union days, Mr. and Mrs. Art Langridge

from Vancouver; and with them are guests from England, Mr. and Mrs.

Raymond Puddifoot of London and Mr. Dudley Taylor of Dorset.

Also

in the gallery today, Mr. Speaker, is Mr. Les Moon, who is heading up a

five-man delegation from the B.C. Chamber of Commerce; this is the

agricultural committee. I've had a most enjoyable hour and a half with

these gentlemen discussing the role of agriculture in this province.

I'd like the House to bid these two groups welcome.

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Speaker, in the galleries this afternoon is a constituent of mine,

Miss Maureen O'Heam. I would like to ask the House to welcome this fine

person.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like this House to welcome a constituent

of mine who is in the gallery this afternoon, Mr. John Ewens, deputy executive

director of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

In our gallery today are members of the British Columbia Social Credit

Auxiliary — the Mae Bennett auxiliary, our provincial auxiliary. With

the members is the president, Mrs. Zonzabell Sather, and I'd like to

ask all members of this House to welcome them warmly.

Presenting Petitions

MR. PASSARELL: I ask leave of the House under standing order 73 to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. PASSARELL:

I have a petition from the northern communities of northwestern British

Columbia containing 900-plus signatures. The prayer reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, demand that the federal and provincial

governments resist taxing northern residents on our benefits, and we

further demand that the government cease and desist on the retroactive

taxing of our benefits."

Reading and Receiving Petitions

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Report, Office of the Clerk, April 14, 1980. Pursuant

to standing order 73(6), I have to inform the House that the petition presented

on April 14 last with leave of the House by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr.

Lockstead) is irregular in the following respects: the petition is not addressed

to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and the petition is without

a prayer.

All of which is respectfully submitted, 1. M. Home, Clerk of the House.

Oral Questions

ADMINISTRATION OF TOURISM MINISTRY

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Tourism. A report, asked

for and commissioned by the provincial government on the state of the

tourism industry in the province of British Columbia, severely

criticizes the running of the Ministry of Tourism and the government

for failing to give tourism the attention that it deserves and for

failing to plan ahead. I wonder if the minister could tell the House if

she has read this report.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: First of

all, the report to which you refer was commissioned by TIDSA, under the

federal and provincial governments — which I think would interest you.

Secondly, Madam Member, I wonder why you would knock success. The

tourism industry in British Columbia has never been better. Development

in British Columbia has never been greater, whether it is in Fort St.

John, where there is a new Holiday Inn, whether it is in Dawson Creek

or in Kelowna, where there has been the rebuilding of hotels.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Have you read the report?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: The report has not been released to the public, but the industry is booming.

[ Page 1976 ]

MRS. DAILLY:

On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, we seem to have a problem in getting a

very definitive answer from the minister. My original question to her

was: has she read the report? I presume from her defensive attitude

that she has read it. I don't think the people of the province are

interested in just short-term gains; we're interested in longterm

planning. I wonder if the minister could tell us if she is planning to

pay some attention to this report and do some long-term planning for

the tourism industry.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Madam Member,

I appreciate your comments and I'm sure everyone in the House does. As

you know, the government acted on some of the suggestions that you

suggest might be in this report, long before you seem to even have

heard of the report or known that it was commissioned. The Premier

appointed a separate Ministry of Tour ism and a separate minister. In

the Speech from the Throne in this House there was a very definitive

statement by His Honour that tourism was recognized and would be

recognized in British Columbia as a major resource industry of our

province. As such it now, as a ministry, sits on many of the

policy-making boards.

I would suggest the comments of the

hon. member, while well-intentioned, I'm sure, reflect a concern in

tourism right across Canada. The member will find in time that British

Columbia under this government picked up a very ailing industry and has

brought it to the forefront in Canada and in North America in terms of

its attractiveness to other areas, in terms of its development and,

yes, Madam Member, in terms of its planning for the future.

MR. HALL:

On a supplementary, I wonder if the Minister of Tourism could confirm

that the first full-time Minister of Tourism in this province was the

Hon. Leo T. Nimsick, member for Cranbrook, and that the first full-time

Minister of Tourism in this province was indeed appointed by the first

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) when he was Premier of this

province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question suggests its own answer, hon. member. Does the Minister of Tourism wish to answer?

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

I appreciate the member's comment. He did pick up on my statement. Yes,

indeed, under the NDP there was a lame-duck Minister of Tourism. The

figures were 42 percent of what the tourism figures are today, and it

was this government, Mr. Member, that took tourism and helped it come

together and become the major industry that it is in this province

today.

MINIMUM WAGE

MS. SANFORD:

My question is to the Minister of Labour. British Columbia's minimum

wage rate of $3 per hour for adult workers is the lowest in Canada as a

percentage of the average weekly earnings. Given that it is the workers

who are forced to work at or near the minimum wage who are particularly

hard hit by inflation, and that British Columbia has not raised its

minimum wage rate since June 1976, has the minister decided to raise

the minimum wage?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the question is out of order as it implies future action and policy.

MS. SANFORD:

I'm asking whether or not the minister has made a decision. I'm not

asking about future policy. I'm just simply asking whether or not he

has made a decision about the minimum wage rate in British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the question does definitely suggest future action of the government and as such is out of order.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, may I follow this up? I'm not asking what his decision is

or what future action he might take. I'm simply asking if on this day

he has made a decision with respect to the minimum wage rate. I'm not

asking what he intends to do about it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

To the hon. member, it's interesting that that matter should come up at

this time, because I have been reviewing the matter of minimum wage,

and I have recommendations before me. It is interesting that the

question from the opposition should come at this time because there's a

meeting scheduled on this this week, as I recall.

MS. SANFORD:

I thank the minister for his answer, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering if one

of the topics that the minister would consider with his committee would

be the matter of an indexing formula which would ensure that the

minimum wage rate goes up as the cost of living increases. Would the

minister consider bringing that up at the meeting to be held next week?

Has the minister considered bringing it up?

Mr. Speaker, maybe I could word it this way: has the minister circulated a

memo suggesting that indexing of the minimum wage rate be on the agenda for

the meeting to be held next week?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is in order.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer is no.

MR. LEGGATT:

My question is directed to the same minister. Under the present

Employment Standards Act of British Columbia it is mandatory that there

be a recommendation every year with respect to minimum wage. Now since

we haven't had an increase in the minimum wage in British Columbia for

the years '76, '77 and '78, can the minister advise us as to what the

recommendations were that had been made to that minister, or his

predecessors, with regard to the minimum wage over the past two years?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, I think I would like to take that particular question on

notice. I'm not sure what happened when it was done last, but I gather

that it has been done within the period of time to which the hon.

member has referred.

FLUORIDATION

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Now that the

minister has declared his support for fluoridation, would he advise the

House as to what steps he has taken to persuade the water districts and

the municipalities to implement his proposals?

[ Page 1977 ]

HON. MR. MAIR:

Mr. Speaker, first of all I have no proposals. Secondly, the member —

I'm sure unwittingly — has quoted me just a little bit out of context.

However, I think I'll be able to get a tape of the interview so I'll be

able to give him the precise words I used, if that's what he wants to

hear.

I did say that my staff informed me that the dental

costs in British Columbia would be about half what they presently are

if there were universal fluoridation. I also made it clear that the law

is — and probably will remain — that that's a matter for individual

people in areas to make up their minds on, not for this government.

HOSPITAL WAITING LISTS

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the same minister. Would the

minister inform the House what steps he has taken to alleviate the

waiting lists of one year and more in extended care? They have been

government for four years, and I'm asking the question.

HON. MR. MAIR:

Mr. Speaker, it would be helpful to me, in giving an answer to that

question, if the member would tell me what particular hospitals he's

referring to.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, there is a

universal waiting list for extended care. It's been broken down now

into regions. In the Greater Vancouver Regional District the

extended-care list, for instance at Queens Park Hospital, has increased

from eight months to over a year in the past three months. The minister

was asking; it was question period for him.

Mr. Speaker, I ask again:

what steps has he taken? They have been government a long time. Nothing

was done by the former minister, and I wonder whether this minister is

going to do something.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I

would like to be helpful and provide an answer to the member opposite.

However, I haven't got a very specific question to answer. I will,

however, look into the question, read the Blues, and see if I can

detect something capable of some sort of answer. If there is, I'll give

it to him.

ECOLOGICAL DAMAGE BY ALL-TERRAIN

VEHICLES

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question

for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Has the minister received

a report from the Similkameen-Okanagan Park Society regarding the use

of off-highway vehicles in ecologically sensitive areas around Okanagan

Lake?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I read their press release in the newspapers first, and then I did receive some kind of report from them.

MR. HANSON:

I'm going to assume, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has not read the

report. I have a supplementary question. The report outlines the damage

done each year by off-highway vehicle drivers who do not follow the

responsible example of their fellows. Since there are now very few

areas which cannot be reached by all-terrain vehicles — alpine areas,

wetlands, and areas and so on — has the minister decided to take any

action to discourage the continuing abuse of the landscape? It becomes

more and more imperative as the summer tourist season approaches.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes — before you ask the question.

MR. HANSON:

Would the minister please advise the House what specific action he has

in mind for discouraging the abuse of the landscape by all-terrain

vehicles? What specifically has he decided to do?

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's a matter of public record.

POLLUTION OF PENTICTON BEACH

MR. SKELLY:

My question is directed to the Minister of Environment. Water samples

taken at one of the most popular family beaches in Penticton in March

of this year indicate fecal coliform levels up to 23 times the accepted

health standards. What action has his ministry taken to locate the

source of pollution in order to evaluate the situation and remedy this

appalling and dangerous development?

Interjections.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'm getting all sorts of assistance, Mr. Speaker, but I'll take the question as notice.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a short statement, if I may.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Proceed.

INCREASE IN OLD-AGE PENSIONS

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

The throne speech in the federal House has indicated that there will be

an increase of $35 in the federal guarantee for Canadians who are 65

and older. All persons who are 65 and older are entitled to old-age

security, which is presently set at $186.80. In addition, the federal

government guarantees that no eligible senior citizen shall have an

income of less than $340.15 from all sources. In British Columbia the

provincial government provides for a higher guarantee level, which is

presently $379.03 for single persons who are 65 and older, and $720.28

for married couples. This is achieved by paying up to $38.88 to bring a

single person's income up to the provincial guarantee, and $99.66 to do

likewise for a couple.

It is the intention of my government

to pass along the federal increase to senior citizens in British

Columbia, as we have always done in the past. This will be achieved by

increasing the provincial guarantee level to accommodate the $35

increase to the federal GIS when it occurs.

My office

receives many letters of concern from senior citizens and from anxious

and concerned families every time there's a change in the payments

announced in the press — by any level of government, and particularly

in a federal initiative. In order to allay any fears that may arise or

may be initiated in some way — either intentionally or otherwise — I

wanted to make clear at this time that this government, as has always

been done by this government, will pass the federal amount on to the

senior citizens.

[ Page 1978 ]

MS. BROWN:

May I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Human

Resources and her government for passing on in full the $35 which the

federal government have indicated they will be giving to senior

citizens, and to say that I regret that the former Liberal member, Mr.

Gordon Gibson, who prodded the government into doing this in the first

place, is not here to join me in congratulating this government in

carrying on this practice.

Orders of the Day

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

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Before calling the vote, it's just come to my attention, Mr. Chairman,

that today is the twenty-sixth wedding anniversary of the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). I'm sure

this assembly would like to extend every congratulation and compliment

to his wife, and certainly commend her upon her tolerance and her

remarkable powers of understanding.

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

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

MR. MACDONALD: Everybody wants to be businesslike today, and we're on the Premier's salary vote. We have some questions that are still in Hansard

that have not been answered by the Premier in fact, all of them

that have been asked by the opposition. But let's not get into an

argument about that, but be businesslike today.

I want to

remind the Premier that about a week ago I asked him about serious

public business that nobody else can answer for but the Premier — and

at no other time should it be answered for but night now — and that's

the existence of the trust funds that were garnered around the

Premier's office — three of them, I believe. The questions I asked the

Premier I'm sure he has a note of — at least a mental note. They were

very simple. I asked him who the co-signer — whom Ian Adam referred to

— of these trust funds was. Was it the Premier? Was it a member of his

office staff, such as Dave Brown or Dan Campbell — somebody on the

public payroll?

The Premier at one point — and I don't know

whether it was a shake of his head or a nod; I suppose we should be

glad that at least he recognized the question.... I think it was a

shake of the head. It couldn't have been a nod. What do they say? A nod

is as much use to you as a wink from a blind horse, and that wouldn't

have helped us at all. That's the only answer we've got from the

Premier in ten days of questioning. What I detected to be a shake of

the head when he was asked directly, "Were you a co-signer of one or

the other of the trust accounts that were raised for campaign purposes

around your office...?" At least the Premier recognizes a legitimate

question when he hears one. But he didn't get to his feet, and I don't

know whether it was a nod or a shake.

I think he should

stand in his place in the Legislature and tell us whether he was a

co-signer of one of those trust accounts. I think the House wants to

know from the Premier whether any of the people who contributed to

these special funds that were gathered through his office — not through

the Social Credit Party.... Did any of the money come from outside of

Canada? That's a fair question and a question of importance to the

people of this province. I want to know whether any of the people who

contributed money through the Premier's office were doing business with

the government. It appears that they were. The Premier owes the people

of B.C. an explanation, because Austin Taylor Jr. is involved in the

brokerage firm, as everyone knows, that arranged the financing for two

of the ferries at considerable profit and safety as far as that

brokerage firm, McLeod, Young, Weir, in Toronto is concerned. So that

is a legitimate question that only the Premier can answer.

want to know whether any of the employees in the Premier's office were

engaged in the collection or disbursement of campaign funds,

particularly the funds that were not collected by the party. We want to

know why the funds that were collected around the Premier's office were

not reported in the election total declared by the Social Credit Party.

A false return was filed, as everybody in the province of British

Columbia knows, and we have had no explanation from the Premier. We

have not had the explanation as to whether this was the result of the

activities of Dan Campbell, who was employed by the government and the

people, or Dave Brown, Ron Grieg or other people in his office. Was the

Premier himself directly involved in authorizing the collection of

these separate funds around his office so that he would have control

over the Social Credit Party and be able to spend them on his own?

have asked, Mr. Chairman, why election bills for pamphlets and things

of that kind should, in this province of British Columbia, be addressed

as they were. They were sent to the Social Credit Party headquarters,

directly to the Premier's office and to the attention of Dave Brown.

Now that's a matter that is established on the record, and the people

have a right to know what the Premier knew about this, what he has done

about it and who the co-signers of these funds were. How much did the

Premier know about this illegal collection of campaign funds in his

office, and was he directly involved or were any of his employees who

were on the public payroll of the province of British Columbia

involved? Why should a false election return have been prepared when,

in good faith, the Social Credit Party declared all that they knew had

been collected and spent under the law? But other funds, including

thousand-dollar bills that were floating around, were emanating

directly from the collection of funds in the Premier's office. These

are questions of supreme public interest, because if people seeking

favours can give money directly to slush funds collected around the

Premier's office, then democracy is being undermined.

As I

ask these questions, Mr. Chairman, I would remind the Premier and all

of the members of this House that these funds would never have come to

light but for an innocent statement on another subject made by Tony

Tozer in answering another question. As a result of that, their

existence became known. So I'm asking the Premier about these funds and

what he has done about them. Who was the co-signer? The House should

not be content with what was either a shake of the head or a nod by the

Premier, which, while it recognizes in that little motion that the

question is legitimate.... It does not satisfy legislative requirements

of ministerial responsibility to stand up in your place when you are a

minister and answer questions that affect your conduct in the high

office that you hold.

Mr. Chairman, is the Premier not going to answer these questions after seven or eight days?

[ Page 1979 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Vancouver East has the floor.

MR. MACDONALD:

Really, Mr. Chairman, I still have the floor, I suppose. The disdain

that the Premier is showing is not really for the opposition. It's for

the people of the province when he refuses to answer direct questions

about his conduct. I guess you can call it stonewalling, or whatever

the word is. Mr. Premier, the people have a right to answers when your

salary vote is up. No one else can answer these questions. We want, in

effect, a full explanation as to whether your office has been bought by

wealthy people unknown to the Legislature or the people of this

province. We want to know whether your office has been bought and

whether people can buy the Premier's office by making their campaign

contributions directly there. Now I think the Premier should answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the Premier's going to answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Before the Premier answers, hon. member, I must ask whether, when you

made the statement of "buying the Premier's office," you were in no way

referring to any hon. member of this House. I ask the member, please,

to withdraw any such imputation.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the people have a right to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must, at this time, ask that you withdraw that imputation.

MR. MACDONALD:

I'll say who I was referring to. I'm saying that one of the main

fund-raisers who was bringing money directly into the Premier's office

was Austin Taylor Jr., and he was doing business to his profit with the

government of British Columbia. Now that's what I'm saying. Why should

I withdraw that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, in the

traditions of parliamentary procedure, I ask, please, that you withdraw

any imputation that the Premier's office was subject to purchase.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the statement because I see the Premier rising

to give an explanation. We've been asking questions on this and I

insist upon a full and proper explanation. That's what we're after.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank the hon. member for his withdrawal.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I would like a very explicit withdrawal and then I would like to

proceed to deal with some of the incorrect statements that have been

made during this debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Premier, the Chair has accepted the withdrawal of the statement by the member.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, my statements are a matter of public record, but never

one as the Premier, leader of our party. Number 1: no public funds are

used in the financing of political parties, and as such, no funds are

allocated from public funds to either our party or the New Democratic

Party, nor are cheques signed by myself. Although it falls outside the

responsibilities of the Premier, the allegation made, among other

irresponsible allegations by the member for Vancouver East, that the

Premier of the province involves himself in the collection of campaign

funds is incorrect. The campaign funds of our party are designated to

responsible people who collect funds in a legitimate way to fight

elections, and I presume so are those of the NDP. Those funds are

neither collected nor issued by me, nor have I ever signed any cheques,

either public or private.

I'd like to point out, Mr.

Chairman, that legitimate party expenses are made during campaigns for

legitimate expenses incurred. They are the responsibility of the party

and those assigned the task. At no time have I involved myself in

collection, nor do I think leaders or prospective leaders of parties

should be involved in what may be....

AN HON. MEMBER: You're looking at him, eh?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

No, I'm actually looking for your leader, whom I understand may have

acted as bagman for the New Democratic Party at one time and carried

the implication of those collections into office. Because I don't

believe anyone who is a leader or who professes to want to be a leader

should involve himself or herself in that implication of collection of

campaign funds.

Nor do I believe that the disclosure of

those funds should be requested by those leaders who may again have

information that would affect their judgment as government as such. I

have never asked nor requested a source of funds, nor would I want to

be compromised in judgments of government on funds that may be donated

in a legitimate way to elect, first of all, good and fair government,

and to prevent from being elected what many people would consider to

be, from both the record and their statements, bad government.

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald), did not raise a question regarding public funds; rather he

raised a question which is public knowledge regarding the

administrative responsibility for election slush funds which were

administered from the Premier's office. By the admission of the

Premier's executive assistant, Mr. Tony Tozer, and by the admission of

another assistant to the Premier, Dan Campbell, who admitted dispensing

thousand-dollar bills.... Both of these individuals worked in the

Premier's office under the Premier's jurisdiction and direction. He was

their employer and, as such, responsible in a ministerial way to give

direction to them, and, I submit, to accept responsibility for their

conduct while they functioned under his administration. It should not

be forgotten, Mr. Chairman, that they indeed were on the public payroll.

The

sequence of events, as I recall it, is that Tony Tozer did reveal there

were a number of bank accounts administered from the Premier's office;

he did not indicate who had the final signing authority for those

funds; Mr. Campbell admitted that he dispensed thousand-dollar bills.

The Premier, as I say, presided over the process. Whether he wants

[ Page 1980 ]

admit it, whether he wants to acknowledge it or not, he must accept the

responsibility by the essence of the fact that he was not only the

employer of the two individuals involved, but he as the Premier has a

duty and an obligation to uphold the law in the province of British

Columbia.

The fact of the matter is that the law was not

upheld. Those funds dispensed for election campaign purposes were not

declared under the British Columbia Provincial Elections Act —

requiring some patchwork investigation from a former Attorney-General

of this House, Mr. Les Peterson, and the subject of what was promised

as an investigation by the current Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams)

when he said that he would investigate the matter to determine whether

a breach of the provincial Election Act in fact took place and whether

or not prosecution should follow. For the Premier of the province, in

the face of that, to attempt to brush aside any involvement or

responsibility is absolutely appalling. It's shameful, it's scandalous,

and it's a complete denial of any responsibility which he must assume

as the first minister for the government of the province of British

Columbia.

I want to ask the Premier why we have an Election

Act in the province of British Columbia if he says there is nothing

wrong with Austin Taylor Jr. acting as the bagman, the procurer of

funds for the Social Credit Party, but he as the Premier stands back

and is not tainted by it — he's as clean as a whistle. Why do we have

an Election Act that says all funds spent in the province of British

Columbia by political parties competing in a campaign must be declared

and accounted for? If the highest office in the province, the Premier's

office, and those employees under his jurisdiction and direction are

not prepared to recognize that statute and abide by it, how in the

world can we expect the rest of the citizens of the province of British

Columbia to have any respect for the provincial Election Act?

There

is an old saying that he who pays the piper calls the tune. I don't

know what Austin Taylor Jr. had in mind when he procured funds for the

Social Credit Party, but I would certainly feet much better if all of

those funds collected and expended in that campaign were declared and

accounted for, as is required by law in the province of British

Columbia. For the Premier to get up and suggest, "I am untainted by

this; the party accounts for the campaign funds," is a sham and a

mockery. The former president of the Social Credit Party, Mr. Les Keen,

denies the Premier's proposition. He said: "It's about time that the

party did account for all of the funds. It's about time that the secret

slush funds were taken out of the purview of the Premier and restored

to the proper accountability of the party." That did not take place and

the Premier now expects to sit here and stonewall his way through this

matter.

The Election Act, I presume, exists to make sure

that there is no question of influence-peddling in terms of elections

and in terms of public policy. The Election Act requires the

declaration of spending for the precise reason that the second member

for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) raised: to ensure that no improper

financial manipulation, no implication of bribe, no implication of

purchase of a ministerial office or a government office in terms of

setting public policy can be undertaken. That's the very reason for the

statute.

What we have here is an allegation made some four months ago — indeed, public

proof — that about one-quarter of a million dollars was not declared by the

Social Credit Party, that a substantial amount of that fund was administered

from the Premier's office by direct employees of the Premier, and still

we have no accounting. We were promised an investigation and still there has

been no report to the Legislature. The Attorney-General of the province of British

Columbia stated that he would undertake an investigation to determine whether

or not charges should be laid. It is my understanding that he then called upon

his colleague, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), the individual responsible

for the administration of the Election Act, to have him investigate the matter.

The

people of the province of British Columbia have a right to know

expeditiously whether there was an abuse of the provincial Election

Act; whether there was abuse of power; whether there was an abuse of

the Premier's office in terms of the direction and the responsibility

for the failure to report a quarter of a million dollars in the last

provincial election. The people of the province of British Columbia

have a right to know now; they have a right to know expeditiously

rather than waiting four months so that some internal investigation,

another secret investigation conducted behind closed cabinet doors, is

undertaken with the impression going abroad to the public that it's yet

another whitewash of government mismanagement, misbehaviour and

misconduct.

It's about time that the Premier of this

province gave some leadership and direction to this Legislature and

certainly to his own party. He has the obligation to stand above that

kind of allegation, that unseemly charge — and yes, that illegal and

very, very serious charge — that has been made against the Social

Credit Party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Moral leadership.

MR. KING: There has been no political leadership and indeed no moral leadership on this issue.

want to suggest to the Premier, Mr. Chairman, that it's not good enough

for him to go to his party convention and suggest that a committee on

ethics be established. Where we need the ethical leadership is right in

the Premier's chair and from his office. That's where it has to start

coming from, and that calls for some open and frank response from the

Premier. He has an obligation to stand up in this House and level with

the people of the province of British Columbia on these particular

questions, on other questions that my colleagues have asked regarding

his meeting with people over the j etfoil service to Seattle, regarding

the question that I raised the other day about his intervention in the

justice system when it came to a police investigation of Social Credit

caucus research staff.

I do not suggest that in that

instance, Mr. Chairman, there was anything illegal, but I do think that

it's curious, and I do think it's somewhat of a double standard for the

Premier of the province of British Columbia to feel obliged to

intervene on behalf of Social Credit employees who are being questioned

by the police force regarding dirty tricks. Now when the Premier did

this, he admitted publicly that he was afraid that the police might

frighten and unduly cause stress to the Social Credit caucus research

staff. That's rather symbolic. It means that as far as the Premier is

concerned, his staff is entitled to one standard of protection in a

legal investigation that the rest of the citizens of the province are

not entitled to; it means that the Premier must have some concern

regarding the way in which police conduct their investigations in this

province. Certainly that's an inference that can be drawn. All I ask

from the Premier in that respect is that he stand up and give me his

rationale for so interceding.

[ Page 1981 ]

want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that as far as I am concerned, I have a

public duty to the citizens of my riding to ensure that there is one

standard of justice for all British Columbians. I certainly cannot

guarantee to people in my riding who may be subject to police

questioning and investigation that the Premier will intervene and alert

them to the fact that the police are going to question them. That's

what he did; that's what he did for the Social Credit caucus research

staff. Why is that, Mr. Chairman? I don't like those implications.

They're inequitable. It creates double standards in the province of

British Columbia.

If there is anything that must be

preserved, regardless of the political philosophy of the party in

government at this time or any other time, it is the arm's length

relationship between government and the justice system; it is the arm's

length relationship between the government, the executive branch and

the judiciary. There must be no inference or implication whatsoever

that political influence is creeping into that process. If anyone has

the obligation to defend and preserve that system as pure, regardless

of partisan politics, it is the chief executive officer of the province

of British Columbia, and we find him sitting in silence, refusing to

answer any question. He sits in Nixonesque style and stonewalls, Mr.

Chairman; he sits in Nixonesque style and refuses to respond in any

way. I suggest that is shameful and appalling.

Interjection.

MR. KING:

Well, perhaps the Social Credit backbenchers think it's comical, Mr.

Chairman; I do not find it humorous at all. I find this whole question

strikes to the very root of our system of democracy in this province,

and I think that the people of the province, whether they're NDPers,

whether they're Liberals or Social Crediters, in their heart of hearts

recognize that there must be complete separation of the political

process and the judicial process. By his silence the Premier has called

that separation into question.

The Election Act exists today

to protect against the illicit use of campaign funds. When a quarter of

a million dollars administered by employees of the Premier's office has

not been duly reported and accounted for, the Premier both morally and

legally owes this House a full explanation, not flippant answers, not

deviation from addressing the issue, not stonewalling and petulance. We

are supposed to be mature people. We are supposed to be responsible for

our public conduct and that of our office. It is incumbent upon the

Premier to get up and address himself to these questions like an adult

and like a senior leader of the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The answers are: no; no; your statement is incorrect; you're incorrect and your rhetoric is predictable.

MR. LAUK: The Premier has made a number of statements today, in contrast to other days.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: For a person who has been demoted you are certainly a little bit....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. LAUK: You failed in one portfolio; now you're going to attempt to fail in another.

The

Premier stated that no public funds were used to finance political

parties; those were his words in answer to remarks by the hon. second

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) and by the hon. member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King). He said "no public funds." Yet it's

readily admitted that Mr. Tozer of his office was handling Social

Credit Party slush funds. Mr. Tozer of the Premier's office is on

public salary. Perhaps the Premier could explain what he means by "no

public funds." Do you want to answer that question?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Number one, those members of my staff or those connected with

government who wished to participate in the election campaign took the

same steps relating to the issuance of the election writ as did those

who surrounded the New Democratic Party government when they went to

the election, and as such were on leave of absence during that period.

find it strange that the first member for Vancouver Centre would try to

put some suggestion of illegality on legitimate party expenses which go

on between election campaigns. As well as being Premier and

travelling....

There are times when we travel to political

events and the cost is paid for by the party; those funds are handled

by my executive assistant, to make sure the government doesn't pay for

those travelling expenses. It's a legitimate disbursement.

MR. LAUK:

I thank the Premier for clarifying that point, but I'm afraid it raises

more questions than it answers. With respect to Mr. Tozer, we're

talking about the period prior to the election. He was handling Social

Credit Party slush funds while he was being paid by the government. The

second point should be made: the Premier has not assured the committee

that anyone in his office had a leave of absence without pay during the

election campaign. Would he kindly assure the committee that that was

so? Can he assure the committee that these four persons working on the

election campaign on behalf of the Social Credit Party — Mr. Tozer,

Dave Brown, Ron Grieg and John Arnett — were not being paid through

public funds while they were working on the campaign?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

To my knowledge, only Mr. Campbell and Mr. Tozer were working on any

campaign. The suggestion of the other name would be incorrect.

MR. LAUK:

Can the Premier indicate why, then, Mr. Arnett, Mr. Tozer and Mr. Brown

were working out of Social Credit Party election campaign headquarters

in Richmond during the course of the election campaign in May?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Arnett, former press secretary in the office, did not take

part in

the political campaign. He participated only in functions booked by

government and government in nature prior to the election campaign.

MR. LAUK:

Why were Mr. Brown, Mr. Tozer and Mr. Arnett working out of the Social

Credit Party campaign headquarters, providing advice to campaign

workers along

[ Page 1982 ]

with other Social Credit Party workers and volunteers, in Richmond during the last campaign?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, those involved in the campaign took the same procedures

to take leave of absence as did those who worked for the New Democratic

Party government when they went to the election campaign in 1975.

MR. LAUK: I'm sure that the Premier will say that it's not the first time, but I'm confused.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's not the first time.

MR. LAUK: Thank you.

Here

we have a situation where we have admissions that Mr. Brown, Mr. Grieg

and Mr. Arnett were being paid by the government during the election

campaign. The Premier explains that they were only doing work

concerning government activities. I challenge that remark on the

following basis. Mr. Tozer, Mr. Brown, Mr. Grieg and Mr. Arnett were

working out of the Richmond Inn for the Social Credit Party during the

course of the election campaign. Now is that true, or not true?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I've made the statement that those members who took

part in the

political campaign took the same procedure as did those who worked for

the New Democratic Party government when they went to election in 1975.

Anyone I have knowledge of who worked in the campaign took the same

procedure.

MR. LAUK: I wonder how far the Premier's

knowledge travels, Mr. Chairman, because we're talking about people who

were directly working for the Premier. We're not talking about people

who were working in some other ministry, or, let's say somewhere down

the line, in the Social Credit Party. We're talking about Mr. Tozer,

Mr. Brown, Mr. Grieg and Mr. Arnett — close personal interoffice

advisers of the first minister of the province. He's admitted they were

being paid during the election campaign.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No.

MR. LAUK: Yes, you have.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We took the same procedure you did.

MR. LAUK:

All right, the Premier says that he took the same procedure as the NDP,

when we were government. The "same procedure" is as follows. All

executive assistants who worked in the election campaign in 1975 took a

leave of absence without pay. Now we know that Mr. Tozer did not take a

leave of absence without pay. Or was he the one who you said did take a

leave of absence? We know that Mr. Brown was being paid by the

government, we know that Mr. Grieg was being paid by the government,

and we know that Mr. Arnett was being paid by the government. All those

persons were working in and around the Richmond Inn from time to time

during the election campaign — all being paid by the government. So the

Premier is wrong when he says that his government took the same

procedures as the New Democratic Party government in years past.

He's

also wrong when he tells the committee that no public funds financed

political parties. May I point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that not only

was Mr. Campbell involved directly on behalf of the Social Credit Party

— almost on a constituency to constituency basis — but other persons

who were not on leave without pay were also involved, to the point of

organizing in constituency organizations, to the point of organizing

canvassers and raising money for the Social Credit Party, while they

were being paid by the British Columbia government, by the taxpayers.

Such persons as the research staff for the Social Credit caucus — in

those days — while they were being paid by the government, were working

in constituency organizations on behalf of the Social Credit campaign

in the spring election.

I say that the Premier's remarks to

this committee have been — to be charitable — careless. He is extremely

careless when he says that no public funds were used to finance

political parties. The legitimate question asked by the second member

for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) is the following. Can we be sure,

with such a careless Premier, careless with the facts, that the

commission from the taxpayer — the provincial treasury — paid out for

the lease of the ferries did not in some way find its way back into the

Social Credit Party slush fund? Can the people of this province and

this committee be assured, with a Premier who is so careless with the

facts that he said no public funds have been used for financing

political parties? We know now that that's not true.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

Don't try and direct the Chairman. I'm saying the statement's not true.

You have an opportunity to get up and correct my statement if you like.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, you cannot impute a falsehood or any allegations of falsehood....

MR. LAUK: No, no. Falsehood would mean that the Premier deliberately deceived the committee; I'm not suggesting that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is only commenting to the member that the member can....

MR. LAUK:

I'm suggesting that I have now brought this information to the

attention of the Premier, because we have to believe the Premier when

he says that he didn't know that Tozer, Brown, Grieg and Arnett were

working in the Social Credit Party headquarters during the campaign.

What I'm suggesting is that he is very careless in, first of all, not

knowing what his close personal advisers were doing during the campaign

and, secondly, careless with the facts with respect to the public funds

that were used to pay these people who were working almost exclusively

on behalf of the Social Credit Party and their re-election in the

spring of 1979. I challenge the Premier's statements in that regard.

Tozer, Brown, Grieg, Arnett, Kelly and McKay were all paid for by the

government and were all actively engaged in the election campaign. They

did not take leaves of absence without pay. They were being paid, with

the possible exception of Mr. Campbell and/or Mr. Tozer. Brown, Grieg,

Arnett, Kelly and McKay were being paid while they were in the field

working on behalf of the Social Credit Party during the campaign.

[ Page 1983 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The first member for Vancouver Centre again misleads the House. Three

members from my office were involved in the campaign. They were Mr.

Brown, Mr. Tozer and Mr. Campbell, and none was paid during the period

of the election writ from the time of the declaration of the nomination

day. It was the same procedure as the New Democratic Party. The member

for Vancouver Centre made a definite statement that Mr. Brown was paid.

I wish to advise that he has provided misinformation, perhaps

unwittingly, in his eagerness to try and present a situation which was

not as he presented it. The answers to his other questions are no, no,

no and no.

MR. LAUK: I'm amazed. Does the Premier

suggest that Mr. Brown was not paid a salary from the government for

the period of time that the campaign was going on? Is that what the

Premier is suggesting?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The three

members who worked out of the Premier's office, or Intergovernmental

Affairs, were instructed not to be paid from the same time period as

that taken by the New Democratic Party. That was from the period of the

date nominations closed, I believe — whatever the similar period was. I

am advised by message into the House that all of them took the

instructions and the three were not paid in the campaign. Other names

that worked in areas of either Intergovernmental Affairs or Mr.

Arnett.... Mr. Arnett was not involved in the campaign.

MR. LAUK:

The Premier suggests that Mr. Arnett, for example, was not involved in

the campaign. What was he doing at the Richmond Inn? The Richmond Inn

is not a government establishment. There's no department of government

that was involved there. Is he going to suggest, perhaps, the Ministry

of Tourism? It's nonsense. Mr. Arnett was there. What was he doing

there? He was consulting with party officials during the period of time

when the election was on. Is he suggesting that Mr. Arnett was working

on government affairs at that time?

What about the research

staff of the Social Credit caucus who were actively engaged in the

constituency level of politics? Their wages continued. Can the Premier

clear that matter up for the committee so we can be sure that the

Premier, who said no public funds went into financing political

parties, made a true statement?

The other point that the

Premier has raised is that he says: "It would be improper for me to be

aware of the funds. It shouldn't be disclosed to me where campaign

funds come from, so I won't be put under pressure." This is a very

confusing statement on behalf of the Premier. If it, let's say, came a

year ago and we had certain procedures whereby the committee and the

public could be assured that that indeed was the case — that the first

minister and his government were protected from influence — that's one

thing. But we have found out since that over a quarter of a million

dollars had been covered up in Social Credit Party expenditures during

the May 10 election period. Is he, with a straight face, seriously

suggesting to the people of the province of British Columbia that he

should not involve himself even at this stage to determine the source

of those funds as well as the expenditure of them? Is he not concerned

with the moral strength of his office, his leadership of the party and

the party itself? If things went wrong, shouldn't he do absolutely

everything in his power to immediately bring to the public's attention

what steps he has taken personally as the leader of his party to

correct them?

We have this feeble exercise of an ethics

committee out of the Social Credit Party convention. All the people of

that convention, who may or may not support the leader of their party,

were of the view that the action had to come from the leader's chair to

solve these problems and not some twofaced committee. Let's get

serious! An ethics committee. There's no problem with the ethics of the

ordinary members of the Social Credit Party. The problem with the

ethics is in the Premier's office and in the leadership of that party.

You don't need a committee at that level.

There's no point

in the Premier avoiding these important ethical and moral questions

surrounding his leadership and the conduct of the high officials of his

party and government. He cannot avoid the answers, because the New

Democratic Party, on behalf of the public — not on its own — is

embarked on a solemn task to bring the Premier and his government to

justice no matter how long it takes this committee and no matter how

long it takes this party on this side of the House. The public of

British Columbia are well aware of the cloud that's surrounding the

administration of justice in this province. They're well aware of the

false report of campaign funds originally filed on behalf of the

Premier's party. They're well aware of the letter-writing campaign that

went on under the direction and leadership of him and his party, all

the way through the province, which got themselves involved in the

dirty so-called Lettergate affair. And he says now that he feels it's

important that he not know the source and application of Social Credit

campaign funds — millions and millions and millions of dollars, in some

cases coming from outside the country, outside of Canada. You have not

adequately explained where that source of those funds is for the Social

Credit party slush funds.

This government — this Premier —

is the most investigated and impugned leadership of any government

party across the country. There was an investigation into the

Lettergate scandal going right to the Premier's office, with absolutely

no explanation why Mr. Grieg resigned. There was an investigation into

campaign funds: a quarter of a million dollars which they forget to

report; thousand-dollar bills floating around out of Mr. Campbell's

satchel. Are the funds American or Canadian? If they are American,

who's given them to the Social Credit Party and what strings are there

attached? Did any of the funds come from government funded

organizations indirectly?

There's only one way to solve

these tremendous questions which are facing the people of British

Columbia and that's for the Premier to undertake a full disclosure of

the source and application of Social Credit Party funds — that's the

first point. The second point to support that is that all across this

country, in several jurisdictions, it is required by law that the

disclosure of application of funds going to political parties be

completed and that it be published to let the people know who's paying

the Socreds and who's calling the tune. It must be clearly demonstrated

in a public way, because the public have a right to know who's paying

the Social Credit way in this province. Let them make the judgment, Mr.

Chairman; they're the best arbiters of all. Then the Premier will not

have to worry about the pressures on him from campaign donors, because

it'll be there for everybody to see. If a decision is made favourable

to a certain company, let him explain that it wasn't because of the

$5,000, $10,000,

[ Page 1984 ]

$35,000

or $100,000 donation from that company. Let him tell us how much money

British Columbia Telephone Co. gives to the Social Credit Party and why

that takeover by General Telephone of a further 5 percent of the

dividends of B.C. Tel was approved so readily by the Premier, who only

a month before so forcibly resisted the attempts of Canadian Pacific

Railway to purchase the shares of MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., saying B.C.

was not for sale. Let him explain if the difference in policy was

because of a campaign donation from British Columbia Telephone Co. to

the Social Credit Party. He would not be under those pressures, Mr.

Chairman, if there was a full public disclosure of campaign funds to

the Social Credit Party.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I

should remind the hon. member at this point that during committee we do

discuss the administrative actions of the minister whose estimates are

before us. However, we do not discuss the need for future legislation,

if that is what the member is telling the Chair.

MR. LAUK:

Well, Mr. Chairman, I merely point out to the committee and hon.

members here and to the public that there are other provincial

jurisdictions which have courageously — because they have nothing to

hide — passed legislation requiring a full disclosure of the source and

application of campaign funds. What could be fairer? There may be a

perfect explanation for government action that may or may not be

favourable to a certain company or group of persons. There may be a

perfect explanation in spite of the fact that there may have been a

heavy campaign donation from that company to the government party, but

the public should be allowed to make that judgment — not the back rooms

of a political party, not in secrecy, but in full light of day. As I

say, this is an important task for us, and we don't want to delay the

proceedings of the Legislature.

I repeat the questions to

the Premier. Can he explain to the committee why the research staff of

the Social Credit caucus were engaged in campaigning on behalf of the

Social Credit Party while on full pay from the public treasury? That's

the first point. Secondly, can he explain to the committee why John

Arnett spent so much time at the Richmond Inn if he wasn't working on

Social Credit Party activity but on government business? Thirdly, can

he assure the House that one David Brown received no payment during the

campaign period when the writ was dropped, which is the usual course of

events, until at least the day after election day?

HON. MR. BENNETT: You made the statement.

MR. LAUK:

I am asking if you would assure the House that he received no payment

from public funds from the time the writ was issued for the election

call until at least one day after voting day.

Fourthly,

could he describe the activities of one Ron Grieg during that period of

time? He suggests that Mr. Grieg of the Premier's office was not

engaged in any campaign activity. Could he assure the House that is

true and that he is satisfied himself that that is true? Those are the

questions I have for the Premier that are unanswered.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, most of those questions have been answered, but I will

seek to bring further information to the House and perhaps correct the

impression left by the member for Vancouver Centre. The member talked

about great courage in the government in bringing in types of

legislation. I would ask where the courage was when you were government

if that's what you attribute it to? Because I don't remember, on a

number of major issues, seeing any of what the member for Vancouver

Centre calls "courage" in a number of areas of public policy. Again, as

much as I can detect the questions, the answers are no, no and no.

MR. LAUK:

The Premier said: "As much as I can detect the questions, the answers

are no, no and no." I asked whether he could assure the House that Ron

Grieg was not active in political activity during the campaign. He said

no, he can't assure the House. I asked whether he could explain to the

House why the research staff of the Social Credit Party were involved

in campaign activity while being paid by public funds. He says no, he

can't make an explanation. The last question was whether he could

assure the House that Dave Brown did not receive any payment between

the time that the writ was dropped and the voting day. He said no, he

can't assure the committee. I take it when he says he can't assure the

committee that he is suggesting the opposite is true.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the member is incorrect in the sequence of questions I was answering.

MR. LAUK:

Perhaps the Premier could give us the proper sequence so that he could

give us the answers connected to the questions. Or is he going to play

cute games with the committee?

MR. HOWARD: Mr.

Chairman, when the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald)

commenced this afternoon's conversation, the Chair drew his attention

to what the Chair thought might have been an imputation of motive or

wrongdoing on the part of the Premier. I just want to indicate that in

the commencement

part I listened carefully to what the second member

for Vancouver East said, and there was no imputation and no intention

of imputation. But he did, as requested by the Chair, withdraw —

removing any thought that might have been in the Chair's mind of

imputation. I'm not saying this by way of criticizing the Chair,

because I know the way to do that is by a substantive motion. That is

not my purpose or intention this afternoon.

When the Premier

rose to reply, at one stage he made reference to the first member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) possibly having been at one time what the

Premier called a "bagman" for the NDP. I wrote down his words. The

Premier went on to say: "He" — indicating the first member for

Vancouver East — "may have carried implications of campaign funds into

office." The Chair was wont at that time to let that piece of innuendo

and slur on the part of the Premier pass by. I think it's worth saying

that the Premier doesn't mind tossing out little snide remarks from

time to time in the hopes that they'll stick, whether or not there's

any truth to them. Perhaps that statement of the Premier's — the

innuendo in his reference to the first member for Vancouver Centre — is

indicative of the way the Premier conducts all affairs in his office —

namely, not straight out, not right up front, not full, complete and

open.

The Premier, in reply, tried to dissemble the whole

question by saying there were no public funds for political parties out

of his office, that he didn't collect any campaign

[ Page 1985 ]

funds,

he didn't spend any money, either campaign or public funds, on

political parties or political activities. That's acceptable; that's in

fact, I'm sure, what happened. He said the other day, with respect to

some slush fund that was operated out of his office, that, no, he

didn't sign the cheques. He wasn't a co-signer on any of those cheques.

That's quite accepted; the word of the Premier is taken as stated. But

what we are involved in here, Mr. Chairman, and what we are examining —

what the general public wants to have examined — is not whether or not

the Premier spent public funds for party purposes, not whether or not

the Premier collected any campaign funds or spent campaign funds, but

the mixing of party functions and the Premier's office into one bag,

the merging of the Social Credit Party campaign fund machinery and

people in the Premier's office.

How did the general public

discover that there was a secret fund outside normal Social Credit

Party operations? How did the public come to realize that there was

this slush fund existing over here in Victoria, or back east in

Toronto, or that there was some bank account the party didn't know

about? The public discovered that as a result of inquiries, generally

by the press, as to who paid for certain tapes that were supposed to

have been made, advocating certain activities by Social Credit in the

conduct of an election campaign. Mr. Tozer, working in the Premier's

office and paid by the people of British Columbia, let it slip. He is

the one who said: "Oh, they were paid out of the special fund." Then

the inquiry began to be: "Well, what is this special fund? Where is it?

How does it exist? Does the party know anything about it?" That's how

this whole matter of campaign funds of a secret nature and origin,

spent in a secret direction and not reported — contrary to the

provisions of the law — that's how the whole knowledge of this secret

slush fund came into being. It wasn't until after the Premier had been

found out as knowing that this secret fund operated out of his office

that he came to make bits and pieces of disclosures, and say, "Well,

yes, well, maybe it is," and so on. Before that the Premier was content

to keep it under cover, to deny the general public any knowledge of it.

Mr.

Chairman, we're beginning a quarter of a million dollars of secretly

acquired campaign funds, secret even to the Social Credit Party,

campaign funds spent, for who knows what purpose during the course of

the campaign, and unreported in a violation of the Election Act — all

involving people in the Premier's office. It involves the fundamental

ethical question which the Premier has failed to respond to — mixing

his party's campaign fund activities with the operation of his office

as Premier, merging the two together, and then seeking to wash his

hands of the whole thing and claim purity and honesty and say he knew

nothing about it. I say the Premier did know something about it. He

knew what was happening in his office. He hired the people to work for

him and to work for the people of B.C. He knew who Dan Campbell was. He

knew what Dan Campbell was like.

For the Premier to refuse

to come clean with the general public about this matter is going to

leave this Legislature and the general public with the continuing

suspicion that something nefarious was going on there. Whether or not

he likes it, the Premier is going to be tabbed with that nefarious

activity and the suspicion of underhanded and unprincipled activity in

the conduct of public affairs and in the conduct of his office. As long

as he continues to dissimulate, to brush questions aside, and refuses

to level with the general public, then the more he brings onto himself

confirmation of the suspicion that already exists. Suspicion exists not

only in the minds of people outside of this chamber, but also in the

minds of government backbenchers. They are wondering what it's all

about; and they are just as concerned, because they have to answer to

their constituents when questions are raised as to why this quarter of

a million buck secret slush fund operated out of the Premier's office.

I thought you guys were all Christians true and honourable. They have

to answer those questions as well.

Perhaps the Premier is

supporting the position enunciated by Dan Campbell. When Dan Campbell

was discovered to have dealt in thousand-dollar bills, his response to

the general public — I saw it, as did thousands of people in this

province — when asked about that matter by the media, was: "It's none

of the public's business." That ' s what the Premier is saying today:

it's none of the public's business what he does in his office with

respect to secret slush funds; it's none of the public's business that

out of the Premier's office a quarter of a million dollars of private

funds were spent, and that the Election Act was violated in the

process, because they sought to cover up that expenditure and not

disclose it as required by law. The Premier is saying to the general

public: — It's none of your business about that sort of activity." The

Premier is saying: "It's none of your business insofar as the

thousand-dollar bills are concerned." The Premier is denying his role

as a participant in responsible government. Responsible government is

simply this: government is responsible to the Legislature and, more

important, through the Legislature to the general public for the

conduct of affairs for which the public has paid.

Justice

not only must be done, it must seem to be done. The people of this

province must not only see that it's justice that is happening; they

must feel in their hearts that it's justice. As long as the Premier is

going to endorse the concept of mixing secret party activities with the

functioning of his office and refuse to say anything about it except to

wash his hands of it all and say, "I didn't touch any of those funds; I

don't know anything about it," then he's going to substantiate the

suspicion that there's something wrong.

On December 4 there

was a BCTV broadcast with respect to some of these matters. The

transcript of that particular telecast is here. Certain questions are

asked and certain answers given in that. A question is asked of a

gentleman by the name of John Gilchrist, the party's former executive

director, whom the Premier was responsible for bouncing out on his ear

in order that the Premier could get one of his close buddies into that

office. That's neither here nor there; that's their business and his

internal business within the party. However, Mr. Gilchrist, the Social

Credit Party executive director at the period of time relating to the

examination of these subject matters, was asked what happened to

certain expenditures and certain bills that came in. He's quoted as

saying this:

"The bills came in originally to

head office and they were addressed to the Social Credit Party at 4219

Main Street. From there, when I opened it up — it was my job to open

the mail — I noticed that it was addressed to Dave Brown on the other

side of the invoice. So I took it to the president" — that's the

president of Social Credit — "and the president said: 'Well, you'd

better ship it across to the Premier's office and make it attention to

Dave Brown.' So I sent the bills over."

Here's the executive director of the party, with bills that

[ Page 1986 ]

come

into the party headquarters, being told by the president of the party

to ship them over to the Premier's office — that's where they're going

to pay it from. That's the nuts and bolts of this very serious question

of mixing secret party funds with the function and the operation of the

Premier's office.

Further questions were asked involving, in

this case, people who collected money. In that regard I think it's

worthwhile inquiring something else of the Premier. One of the persons

was one Austin Taylor Jr. A few years ago the government sold two

ferries owned by the people of B.C. through the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

They sold the ferries — or at least one of them, because I understand

there were two companies involved — to a stockbroker firm by the name

of McLeod, Young, Weir, and then leased the ferries back again. The

purpose of selling the ferries was to do two things. One was to have

some cash flow come into the public treasury so that they could say

they were on the profit side of the ledger without having to borrow the

money — it's an easy way of borrowing money, to sell some capital asset

you own, then lease it back. It was also designed to advance the

interest of McLeod, Young, Weir in a tax dodge, so far as the federal

government was concerned. Austin Taylor Jr., identified as a person

answerable to Premier Bennett himself, if not a principal plays a key

role in McLeod, Young, Weir. Austin Taylor Jr. is a bagman for Social

Credit, and here we have transactions between the government of B.C.

and McLeod, Young, Weir with McLeod, Young, Weir employing the bagman

for Social Credit.

Two things are involved. One is that the

people of British Columbia are paying lease fees to McLeod, Young, Weir

to lease back the ferries that the people of B.C. owned and sold to

McLeod, Young, Weir. Is Austin Taylor Jr. moving some of the lease fee

money that we are paying as citizens of British Columbia back across

the land and putting it in this secret fund that the Premier had? Is

that how some of that quarter million dollars got here? Public funds

going to lease our own ferries back so a portion of it can come back

into the secret slush fund — is that part of what's involved? By the

Premier refusing to open up and level with the general public about

these matters, these are the suspicions that develop. Was there a

finder's fee involved for Austin Taylor Jr.? Did his company say to

him: "Hey, that was a good deal you made, buying a ferry and leasing it

back. We'll pay you a finder's fee." Did part of that finder's fee find

its way back into the slush fund operated out of the Premier's office —

that secret quarter of a million dollars? These are questions that need

to be answered, very serious questions that strike at the very roots of

what responsible government is.

Both Ian Adam, another

bagman, and Austin Taylor Jr. are being identified as being answerable

to Premier Bennett himself. Ian Adam is quoted in his telecast as

having told one Clive Jackson.... I quote from the telecast: "Ian Adam

told me there was a co-signer to both accounts" — apparently there was

more than one secret account — "whom he won't identify publicly." Now

the Premier has said he wasn't a co-signer of those cheques, and his

word is accepted and not questioned one bit.

Somebody in the

Premier's office was a co-signer; that's where the bills were sent for

payment. Who was the other person in the Premier's office who was a

co-signer of those cheques? Was it Dan Campbell — a person paid by the

general public of this province to work on behalf of the people of

B.C.? Was he a co-signer? Was the general public of British Columbia,

the taxpayer of B.C., paying a political party functionary of the

Social Credit Party whose sole purpose was to deal with secret funds

and hand out thousand dollar bills? Was Dan Campbell a co-signer? The

Premier needs to answer those questions openly and honestly. If he

doesn't know the answer, he's obligated under our parliamentary system

to find out what the answer is. Otherwise he is tainted with the same

brush. Was Tony Tozer, the person who revealed in the first instance

that there was a secret fund that had paid for the tapes that the

research group in Social Credit had put together advocating that

certain things should happen during the course of the campaign, a

co-signer of those accounts?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, he was.

MR. HOWARD:

He was? If Mr. Tozer was in fact a co-signer of those funds, along with

either Ian Adam or Taylor, then the public should know that, because

the general public paid Mr. Tozer out of its pocket, from the tax

dollars of the people of this province. They provided the funds to the

Premier's office, and one of the functionaries in the Premier's office

used those funds so that he could activate himself as a co-signer to et

least a quarter of a million dollar secret slush fund. Those questions

need to be answered openly and clearly. The Premier can't hide behind

any declaration that he didn't know; he didn't pay any funds; he didn't

handle any funds; he didn't spend any funds. That's not the question.

We're sure the Premier wouldn't do that, wouldn't involve himself

directly in handling those affairs. But he knew they were going on, and

he knew they were going on out of his office. He knew that people who

were close to him, people whom he hired, were engaged in that sort of

activity. The silence about it on his part when he knew that was going

on is almost the same as participating in it.

I think it is

a sad day, Mr. Chairman, for the activities of the Legislature when so

many important unanswered questions revolve around the Premier and his

office. The fact that he went to Europe in 1977 and tried to sell

uranium and told this House that he didn't — that's a minor matter.

It's not minor that the Premier said something to the House which is

not, in fact, so, but it's minor compared with this.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, you cannot impute falsehood. If you made any imputation of

falsehood against another hon. member, then I would ask you to withdraw

it.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, there was no intention....

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's wrong.

MR. HOWARD: Just hold your horses. You may get a little upset, Mr. Premier, about your being out on the griddle here....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Chairman, I'm dealing with the question that you raised, and I was

trying to deal with it without interruption from the Premier. He is the

person you should be banging the gavel at, not me.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Don't lecture the Chair, hon. member. I have asked you simply: if there

was any imputation of falsehood then I would ask you to withdraw it.

[ Page 1987 ]

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Chairman, I didn't even get through the sentence before, and the

sentence I started to say was: there was no intention of imputing any

falsehood to the Premier. If he thinks or if you think, even by the

greatest stretch of imagination, that there was, then I'll withdraw any

possibility that there might have been.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. We'll continue with debate on vote 9.

MR. HOWARD: I also would appreciate it if you would protect me from time to time from the interruptions of the Premier.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. We are discussing vote 9, and a member has the floor.

MR. HOWARD:

I noticed also, Mr. Chairman, that when the Premier in his opening

remarks this afternoon by innuendo cast aspersions upon the activities

of the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), you didn't

intervene at that stage. The Premier was permitted to get away with

casting a slur upon an hon. member on this side of the House, and the

Chair sat there in dumb silence and didn't do anything about it.

All

I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that I would ask you to keep order on that

other side of the House and enforce the rules over there just as

assiduously as you attempt to enforce them over here. If you'll

continue to do that, we'll have an orderly debate here. But if the

Chair does not continue to do that, we're going to be in trouble.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, please. We could all remember that we should be courteous

in debate and not impute falsehood. We are in the estimates, discussing

the administrative action of the Premier.

MR. HOWARD: I still wish the Chair had been as careful when the Premier was speaking as it was just a moment ago.

The

question of uranium is insignificant compared to this question of

placing the Premier's office.... Let me rephrase that, lest the Premier

with his great sensitivity get into a state where he loses control of

himself again. The question of the Premier's having gone to Europe and

having talked there with respect to uranium in itself is not a very

significant matter. The reply the Premier gave to the House, when all

the logical rationale on the other side indicated that his reply

appeared not to be in accordance with the facts, is not a very

significant question.

We are looking at this moment at the mixing of the operation of secret source

campaign funds out of the Premier's office, with functionaries in the Premier's

office, paid by the general public, handling those funds. Those people have

got the temerity and the unmitigated gall, as Dan Campbell did, to stand and

say to the general public: "It's none of your business what we do with

these campaign funds that are being spent and operated and handled out of the

Premier's office." That's the important question that's got

to be answered. The Premier consciously, deliberately, knowingly, with foresight

and forethought, engineered the process that got his office and functionaries

in his office with their hands on the control of a great deal of the Social

Credit Party machinery. The Premier, once having done that, cannot now wash

his hands of the whole thing and say, "Oh, it's nothing to do with

me," like a little child at his father's knees saying: "Don't

blame me; I didn't have anything to do with it."

It's

far, far more important than that. So long as the Premier glibly

replies to that subject matter with short phrases like "no, no, no,"

and "the rhetoric is out of order," and keeps chattering from his

chair, trying to give direction to you, Mr. Chairman, about the conduct

of this Legislature, he will leave in the minds of the general public

the suspicion and I think a well-founded suspicion — that there is

something wrong in the Premier's office with the operation of those

secret campaign funds.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Prince Rupert.

MR. HOWARD: Is the Premier going to answer the question I posed to him?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Prince Rupert has risen and has the attention of the Chair.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Chairman, I listened very carefully to the speech by the member for

Skeena, and he outlined how there has to be a suspicion that possibly

some tax dollars were involved in the slush funds that were run out of

the Premier's office. Because the bagman, Austin Taylor Jr., works for

the company that the government has done business with and has spent

hundreds of thousands of dollars with. And lo and behold, what happens?

It turns out that one of the senior people in that firm, McLeod, Young,

Weir, ends up being a bagman for the Social Credit Party and the money

going to the Premier's office.

Isn't it a coincidence that

the other bagman stationed here, Ian Adam, works for Clarkson, Gordon,

the firm that was hired by the Social Credit government to find out

whether or not there had been a deficit when this party left

government? Isn't that just a little bit of a coincidence? And isn't it

a little bit of a coincidence to understand that probably there was

government money — taxpayers' dollars — that went to Clarkson, Gordon

for that report? Did any of that money find its way back into the

Premier's office? Did Tony Tozer and the other person in the Premier's

office who signed those cheques know that? Did the Premier know that?

The Premier says he doesn't want to know, because if he did know, Mr.

Chairman, he says he'd be compromised. What the Premier is saying is

that if he knew, for sure, who was paying Social Credit they'd get a

damned good deal from this government. That's what he's saying: "If I

knew who was giving me slush funds to run out of my office they'd sure

get a better deal than those people who aren't putting slush funds in

my office."

MR. HOWARD: McLeod, Young, Weir got a good deal.

MR. LEA:

They got a good deal. Imagine what kind of a deal they would have got

if he knew. Clarkson, Gordon got a good deal. Imagine the good deal

they would have got if he knew. The Premier can't expect the people on

this side of the House to be so naive to assume he didn't know in the

first place that the slush funds were being run out of his office.

[ Page 1988 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, if I could have your attention, you might notice the red

light. It is not functioning at this moment, and I will just inform you

of that. I will not have this announcement detract from your time. Your

time is not up, so please continue.

MR. KING: The Premier is not functioning either, today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. LEA.: I'll take your superior knowledge about red lights.

What

we have is a government doing business with private companies when

people who work for those private companies are bagmen for that Social

Credit Party and the money is ending up coming directly — don't stop at

go, don't go to jail — into the Premier's office.

The hon.

member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) pointed out that bills that were to be

paid by the Social Credit Party didn't stop at the headquarters of the

Social Credit Party, they were forwarded to the Premier's office. The

Premier said earlier today, Mr. Chairman, that no one in his office was

paid to do Social Credit business. What about the bill that came from

Gilchrist to Brown that the member for Skeena talked about? Surely when

that envelope came into the Premier's office, Dave Brown, to whom it

was addressed, opened it. It took some time. He was being paid by the

taxpayers for that time. Surely he took it over to Tony Tozer, the

admitted signer of the slush fund, and said: "Tony, you're working for

the taxpayers of this province, too, as I am; both of us are taking a

little time right now. We're both being paid out of taxpayers' money to

carry out Social Credit business." Surely that happened. Or was Brown

the other signer? Did he have to go and see Tozer?

Mr.

Chairman, obviously the Premier was mistaken. People in his office were

being paid by the taxpayers of this province to do Social Credit

business, not just during election time but year round. In fact, it's

hard to tell who they worked for. Did they work on behalf of the people

of this province, or did they work on behalf of only people in this

province who belong to Social Credit? We have to be charitable and say

they probably split their time. They worked some of the time for the

people of the province, and they worked some of the time for the

members of Social Credit. But they were paid all of the time by the

taxpayers of this province.

The Premier has not explained

why members of the Social Credit Party, who are being paid by the

province, were working on behalf of the Social Credit Party during the

election time itself. He hasn't explained why Ron Grieg, who worked in

his office, resigned when the whole Lettergate smell started to come

out through the province. He hasn't explained why Dan Campbell, even

after Lettergate, even after the campaign funds were announced, was

appointed to go to Ottawa to represent this province, and why Dan

Campbell resigned. He hasn't explained why senior aides in his office

resigned. The President of the United States resigned for less than

what's happened in this Premier's office. Yet this Premier, Mr.

Chairman, has the gall to sit here and say he doesn't even have to

answer any questions about it.

At this point the republican

system, where you have impeachment processes, looks pretty good. It

looks pretty good, because this Premier wouldn't be in office today if

we had an impeachment process within our system. The only reason he's

there is because he does not have what it takes to stand up and resign.

He won't answer questions, resign or tell us why he told this House

that he had people in his office — being paid by the taxpayers — who

were hired, it seems, to do Social Credit business. Why did the Premier

tell this House that Brown and Tozer did not get paid by the taxpayers

to do Social Credit business? Isn't that a question which the Premier

should answer? So I put that question to the Premier. Why did the

Premier tell this Legislature — and therefore the people of this

province — that Brown and Tozer did not work on behalf of Social Credit

while being paid by the people of British Columbia? That's a question

which should be answered. Why did the Premier deny that others, like

the research staff of caucus, were paid by the people of this province

while working during the election campaign itself?

Mr. Chairman, what we have, it seems, is a Premier who has to look

at this whole thing with an overview. He must have said to himself:

"I'm going to be in some sort of trouble if I answer these questions —

and I think I'm going to be in a lot of trouble. I'm going to be in

some kind of trouble if I don't answer the questions — but I think I'll

be in less trouble." So he has chosen, like electricity, the path of

least resistance. He's decided to be mum and not to answer questions,

and he hopes that it will all go away. It probably won't go away.

You know, for years

and years, if you grew up in this province, like I did, you heard about

the Social Credit slush fund, But the other Social Credit Premier — the

one before this one — was at least smart enough not to get caught with

it. We didn't find any Social Credit slush funds going through that

office when he was Premier, but we sure find it now.

I've

got some questions other than the ones I've asked. The ones that I've

asked are as follows. Why did the Premier tell this House that Tozer

and Brown weren't paid by the people of this province to do Social

Credit work, when the member for Skeena has proved beyond a doubt that

they did? During the campaign and during the whole year they were paid

to do Social Credit work in the Premier's office. Why did the Premier

tell us they didn't? I'd like that question answered. I'd like to have

the Premier also answer as to why he told this House that the research

staff of the Social Credit Party didn't get paid during the campaign

for doing Social Credit work, when they did.

I'd also like

to ask the Premier to tell this House why he thinks we should be so

naive as to believe that taxpayers' money spent to pay off McLeod,

Young, Weir and Clarkson, Gordon didn't find its way back into the

Premier's office — or at least a portion of it. Who is that other

person who signs the cheques of the slush fund? Is it the Premier? Are

there more than two signers? We know Tony Tozer was a signer, and maybe

still is. Did Dave Brown sign the cheques? We've a good suspicion that

it was somebody in the Premier's office. Otherwise, what would Tozer do

when he got the bill from Gilchrist through Dave Brown? Would he jump

in his car and drive across town to get these cheques co-signed? Would

he go to the mainland to get the cheques signed? Would he go to

Kelowna? I mean, where would he go? Wouldn't it just make good

administrative sense to have the other signer within easy reach?

Let's

assume that it may not have been the Premier's office that this other

signer was in. Let's say, sensibly, that it had to be somebody in these

buildings. Was it in the Deputy Premier's (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy'

s) office

that the co-signing on the slush funds happened?

[ Page 1989 ]

The

Premier cannot tell us: "Please go to another minister to ask these

questions; it's not within my purview." It is within the Premier's

purview. Slush funds, illegal slush funds, illegal money — nobody knows

where it's from. Was it from McLeod, Young, Weir? Was it from Clarkson,

Gordon? Was it from organized crime? We have no idea. Did part of the

money going into the Premier's office come from organized crime? How

would we know? Did it come from organized crime? That's another

question I'd like to have answered.

I'd like to know what

proportion of the illegal money that went through the Premier's office

was American. Better still: what proportion of it wasn't Canadian?

Where did that money that went through the Premier's office come from?

AN HON. MEMBER: A quarter of a million dollars.

MR. LEA:

There was hundreds of thousands of dollars. There was a quarter of a

million dollars not reported, Mr. Member. There could have been

millions of dollars going through the Premier's office, all illegal,

from God knows where — from out of this country, from organized crime,

from people wanting favours, from people wanting the resources of this

province, wanting a deal, wanting it on the cheap. How do we know who

was bribed? How do we know? The Premier says he didn't know who paid

the money in. Did the Deputy Premier know who paid the money in? Did a

cabinet minister other than the Premier know who paid the money in?

Where did the money come from? The Premier cannot sit there and say: "I

don't want to know where the money came from."

We do know

that coal royalties in this province haven't been raised for a long

time. I'd like to ask the Premier whether he personally ever asked Mr.

Kaiser for some money for the Social Credit — personally, not an agent.

Did he make the request? Did the money come? Or did it go to the secret

slush fund in the Premier's office? Is that why the coal royalties

haven't gone up in this province? Did Kaiser pay money into any one of

the secret slush funds going through the Premier's office? Did any

other resource company which was taking resources — owned by the people

of this province — out of this country pay money into that slush fund

that went through the Premier's office? Did anybody who makes alcohol

pay any money into the secret slush fund that went through the

Premier's office? Does the Premier still think — as Mr. Campbell

believes — that the people of this province don't have a right to know

where that money came from?

If, like the Premier, you don't

believe the people of this province own the resources, then they may

not have a right to know. But when the government is in the business of

selling off the people's resources, I think the people of this province

have a right to know whether money from resource companies went into a

secret slush fund in the Premier's office. Did that money find its way

into the thousand-dollar bills, American or Canadian, that were floated

around this province by Mr. Campbell? Does the Premier still believe

that the people of this province do not have the right to know whether

resource companies paid into secret slush funds — which were spent in

secret — in the Premier's office? Is there any member on that side of

the House who will stand up and take his place, defend the Premier, and

suggest that they don't have the right to know, and that the Premier

shouldn't know when his employees, who are paid by the people of this

province, are handling slush funds? Did any of the money out of the

secret slush fund in the Premier's office go to pay for those ads in

1975 that were supposedly sponsored by the insurance companies? Did any

money go to those ads? What was the tune?

AN HON. MEMBER: "Thanks for the Memories."

MR. LEA:

"Thanks for the Memories." Did any money from the secret slush fund in

the Premier's office go to pay for any part of those advertisements

called "Thanks for the Memories," supposedly put out by someone who

doesn't exist? Someone who doesn't exist had that account. Did any of

the money from the Premier's office go to pay for those "Thanks for the

Memories" ads? Just answer the question. Just clear it up. If my

questions are completely off base, get up and specifically tell me why,

not: "The answer to your question is no, no, yes, yes, no, no." We

found out already that that doesn't work when the first member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) found out that the Premier doesn't know

anything.

Did any money from the resource companies go into

the slush funds? Did any money from the liquor companies or breweries

go into the slush funds in the Premier's office? Did any money from the

resource companies who buy resources from the people of this province

go into the slush funds in the Premier's office? Did any money from

organized crime go into the Premier's office?

AN HON. MEMBER: Any money from bootleggers?

MR. LEA:

Good idea. Any money for wiretap equipment, for bribery? Now I'd like

to know whether there was any money from resource companies who buy

resources from this province, specifically Kaiser. Can the Premier take

his place and say for sure that no money from resource companies went

into the slush funds through his office? Can the Premier take his place

and say for sure that no money from liquor companies or breweries went

into the slush funds in his office? Can the Premier say for sure that

no money from organized crime went into his office?

Mr.

Chairman, is there any money from any of those areas being slushed

through the Premier's office illegally? We know the money is illegal;

we know it was collected and spent illegally out of the Premier's

office. We know that; all we're trying to find out is where the money

is from and where it was spent.

The Premier says he doesn't

care; he doesn't want to know. I'm asking the Premier to find out. Come

back to this chamber, and through this chamber assure the people of

this province that our resources aren't being sold out through bribery.

Assure the people of this province that we're not buying liquor and

beer with taxpayers' money from those companies that may have bribed

through a slush fund. What about Boeing? Did Boeing put any money from

the United States into the secret slush fund in the Premier's office,

or is it on its way by way of Japan?

Mr. Chairman, this

Premier and this government have a lot to answer for. It's not good

enough to find out that illegal money is passing through the Premier's

office, and we don't know where it's from and where it's gone. It's not

good enough for the Premier to sit there and say: "I don't want to know

who's bribing the government, because if I did I'd be compromised." And

that, in essence, is what he's saying: "If there are any bribes going

on, I don't want to know about

[ Page 1990 ]

it,

because I may be asked. Don't let me know about the bribes, boys. I

don't want to know about it, because if I did I might be tempted to pay

off."

So let's have the answers. Why did the Premier tell

this House that Brown and Tozer weren't being paid by public funds when

they worked in his office doing Social Credit work, when we now know

they were? Why did the Premier tell us that the researchers from the

Social Credit office weren't being paid by public funds to do Social

Credit work during the campaign, when we now know they were? Where is

the money coming from for the secret slush funds, and how is it being

spent? Is the Premier going to level with this House about those

illegal moneys that have passed through his office? I suppose they're

still passing through his office. That might be a final good question

for me: is illegal money still going through the Premier's office?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, the member for Prince Rupert was totally incorrect when

he said illegal money goes through the Premier's office. It is

consistent with his style. The campaign chairman in the last election,

Mr. Les Peterson, and the campaign manager, Mr. Campbell, with others,

ran the campaign and directed campaign spending. The $250,000 they talk

about was indeed admitted by the party and related to that period

during the election campaign, I'm advised by Mr. Peterson. It had

nothing to do with any operation of the party or legitimate expenses on

party matters that took place during the period prior to the election.

want to just give an example of how far these members are prepared to

go, particularly the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and the first

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), in presenting information in a

manner to make it appear that events had happened, and then running

away. The member for Vancouver Centre stated emphatically in the House

that members of the Premier's office were paid during the election

campaign. He amended it after I questioned him, but he did speak about

Mr. Brown. I would like to table with the chamber later, Mr. Chairman,

my letter to Mr. Price, comptroller, dated April 3, saying: "Please be

advised that Messrs. D. Campbell, W.A. Tozer and D. Brown are to be

taken off the payroll on voluntary leaves of absence effective April 4,

1979, to May 11, 1979. Yours truly, William R. Bennett, Premier " It

was a specific request to make sure that those people who worked in the

Premier's office, who had a legitimate opportunity to be concerned

about the future of their province — and one of the things we

campaigned for is the right to hold political opinion — could take

leave of absence and actively campaign to elect a government not only

that they were proud of but one that they wished to continue to build

the province in a very positive way. They, like many other British

Columbians, had lived during the period of the New Democratic Party and

they had also seen the positive effects of this government.

don't expect the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) to apologize. If we

bothered to correct him every time he made an outrageous statement or

an allegation then we'd never get to the real issue of the people's

business. I know, though, that the member for Vancouver Centre will be

pleased to receive this information and will withdraw any suggestions

he made about any of the three members concerned who came from the

Premier's office. I present that, Mr. Chairman, to you so that you

would know that, not retroactively but before the campaign, the

appropriate action was taken with those members advising Mr. H.J.

Price, comptroller.

MR. LAUK: I thank the Premier for

bringing that information to the committee. I’d still like to have some

clarification with respect to the activities of one John Arnett during

the election campaign. I accept the Premier's indication that Mr.

Arnett was working on government business, but I think an explanation

is required as he is reported to have been seen on several occasions

actively engaged with members of the Social Credit Party at the Social

Credit Party campaign headquarters. The clear impression given was that

Mr. Arnett, who was on public salary, was actively participating in the

campaign.

The second part of the question had to do with the

caucus research staff who we do know for certain were being paid during

the course of the election campaign. And we do know that they were

active in the election campaign itself. Has the Premier had time to

investigate that matter, and can he report to the committee?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I'm quite willing to deal with matters related to the Premier's office,

but I would think that members would confine their area to the

Premier's office. I've dealt with those members who came from the

Premier's office, who were appointed when we became government. They

wished to participate in the election campaign and were advised that

they were to be taken off the payroll during the election campaign from

the period of April 4, 1979, to May 11, 1979. That's the Premier's

office. Questions about other areas, I'm sure, would not be directed to

me as Premier.

I'm concerned about a line of questioning

that has run a thread through all of the members opposite. I've

attempted to be cooperative but to make the suggestion.... The first

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) said a certain member was

reported to have been seen.... I quite frankly said that during the

election campaign my media attention was covered by other than Mr.

Arnett, who was to work and cover those areas booked before the

election campaign as a public servant related to the Premier's office.

My functions with him were related to those government functions that

were not partisan in nature but related to government. But to use the

line of questioning — "reported" — would be for me to say it was

reported that the first member for Vancouver Centre sniffs glue or

smokes dope or takes cocaine or something like that. That line of

questioning.... And why isn't he denying it?

The member, Mr.

Chairman, is only exhibiting some of his theatrical legal talent which

I understand his clients pay dearly for when this House isn't sitting.

MR. LAUK: That's a slander. They're all on the street.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Anyhow, Mr. Chairman, that's in response to that question.

MR. LORIMER:

I'm certainly pleased, Mr. Premier, that you did send a letter advising

the comptroller that those people on the government payroll that are

going to work in the election campaign are off the payroll. I would

take that for granted. I would expect every person throughout the

government that was going to work on the election campaign would not be

receiving funds from the government at the same time.

We all know that all parties collect campaign funds for election purposes. That goes without saying. That's not what

[ Page 1991 ]

are discussing here today. They collect the funds, report them and send

in their notice as required by the Election Act. The same is filed and

reported by the chief electoral officer. The funds we are talking about

today are the ones that were sent directly through the Premier's

office, the ones from Austin Taylor Jr. that were put into these secret

accounts and controlled by the staff or some people within the

Premier's office. These are ones that are separate from the Social

Credit party funds; these are funds that go to the Premier's office for

use in the election campaigns.

We're told there was a

quarter of a million dollars in those campaign funds that was spent but

was not reported. This came from one of your ex-Attorneys-General, who

said that there was roughly in the neighbourhood of a quarter of a

million dollars not reported. They were never reported and never would

have been reported except for the fact that some months after the

election was over Tony Tozer made some reference to them. The only

people that knew about these funds were the Premier, his office staff,

and some of the cabinet ministers. The funds came to light when Tozer

was being questioned about payment to Kelly and MacKay for the costs of

producing tapes for the so-called dirty tricks material and for the

production of the total dirty tricks episode. That's the stage at which

it was reported that the cost of this material, promotion, and the

amount of material that was produced all came from these secret funds,

and that Tony Tozer had authorized payment from these funds. There's no

question that these were the dirty tricks accounts. This had to be kept

away from the Social Credit Party. These accounts were basically used

for the payment of the sleazy part of the Social Credit campaign.

Remember,

when it was finally found out that there were these secret accounts and

when it was found out that there were $250,000 not accounted for, they

called in Les Peterson. He was a person who had some prestige, not only

in the party but throughout the province. He was asked to see if he

could determine what should be done. He arrived in Victoria and, after

looking at the accounts, he said: "It's a pretty simple thing. Report

them under the act. They should have been reported before. Report them

now. It's late, but at least get the reporting in." So that was the

fastest internal review that this government has ever put on. He took

half an hour and had his report ready. So the report was filed. The

report was for $250,000 that they forgot about. It slipped their mind.

Now

the question comes: who were the signing officers of these secret

funds? I don't know if it was ever stated that Tony Tozer was a signing

officer, but he said that he "authorized" the expenditure of those

funds. We presume that he was a signing officer, but there were two

signing officers. Was the other one Dan Campbell? That's a good

question. Do you think Dan would be the signing officer for these

accounts?

These are the other questions. From where did

these accounts come? How much money was obtained from outside of Canada

to go into these accounts? How much money came from Canada? How much

came from British Columbia? These are questions to which the public of

British Columbia are entitled to know the answers. As a matter of fact,

the Social Credit Party is entitled to know. The backbenchers who know

nothing about these accounts are entitled to know what was going on in

the election campaign that they were left in ignorance of.

In this particular case the executive of the Social Credit Party did not know

about and they didn't condone the operations of secret funds. Les Keen,

the president at the time, was very upset that the control of the party was

being removed from the grass roots of that party to the back doors of the cabinet

and to the Premier's office. We want to know, and certainly the people of

this province and the executive of the Social Credit want to know, whether these

practices are still continuing.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

would like to know whether there was equal treatment in areas as a

result of the expenditure of these funds. I think the Social Credit

Party would like to know whether each riding was treated equally from

the revenues of these funds. We want to know whether Austin Taylor is

still collecting money and transmitting the funds to the Premier's

office. We want to know whether the secret slush funds are still in

existence. We want to know which members of the cabinet, along with the

Premier, had knowledge of the secret funds and were party to it.

The

Premier is the only one who can answer these questions. Now is the time

for those answers to be given. He can take his place and explain the

total situation with reference to the secret accounts, the accounts

that were not reported until some number of months after the election

campaign. He is the one who should stand up and explain this illegal

operation — it was illegal because there was no reporting of the

accounts — and show some repentance for his

part in the activities. He

should ask the people of this province to forgive his operations, and

give a commitment to everyone that those practices will be discontinued

and will never come about again.

The Premier can explain

these matters to us and to the people of this province. Over the last

few days a number of questions have been asked: simple questions to do

with the conduct and leadership of the Premier. This is the only time

in the life of this session that the Premier can be asked questions and

be expected to give replies, but there have been very few replies.

There have been quite a number of questions but very few replies. He

has a lot of power and prestige in his office, but that office also

requires a certain amount of responsibility. One of those

responsibilities is the answering of questions during his estimates. He

has failed miserably in that area.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, I've listened very quietly and carefully for some days

now to this debate on the Premier's estimates — what is it, 11 days

now? I've been in this House for a number of years, gone through many

estimates of Premiers past and witnessed a lot of irresponsible

questioning. What I'm waiting to hear is questions to the Premier of an

objective note, of things that would interest the people of this

province, to see what he and his government are doing.

don't hear questions about the economy. I don't hear questions about

unemployment. I don't hear questions about inflation. Those are the

real nuts-and-bolts issues that people in this province worry about. I

don't hear questions about energy pricing, which is one of the things

the opposition, if it were responsible, should be challenging this

government to address. I hear not a thing about the new mortgage policy

introduced by our Premier to offer some abatement of high interest

rates. British Columbia was the first province to

[ Page 1992 ]

introduce

any relief in this regard and at the same time to try to stimulate some

increase in housing construction. I haven't heard a word about that,

Mr. Chairman, or about B.C. Place — this Premier's innovative,

energetic effort to address matters which allow this province to

progress, to build. I don't hear anything but negative carping

criticism, a personal character assassination. It goes on and on. But I

guess you get immune to it after a while.

I've heard that

type of opposition — I won't admit for how many years now — for a

number of years. When they fail in other regards to come up with a

really aggressive, objective opposition, which is their responsibility,

they resort to character assassination, personal innuendo, and

suggestions of impropriety. Nothing is laid on the line but left out

there is a big cloud of suspicion about a man whom we all know and

respect. Do you think he puts himself forward to office with that in

mind? That is anything but the truth, and the members opposite know

this to be a fact. But what do they do? They come back with character

assassination and personal attacks, and if it wasn't for the fact that

we've all heard it before, I guess you could say that we've all become

rather disgusted with this type of approach.

So, Mr.

Chairman, I've listened carefully and I didn't hear any questions about

the economy. If there's one person in this province who has addressed

himself to this economy, it is our Premier. Look at his efforts before

the national government in presentations to Ottawa. Many times the word

comes back of the effective nature of those presentations. I don't hear

challenges to this government on those issues which are the important

issues of today, but muck-raking, mud-slinging innuendo passed out by

the new triumvirate mud line of the NDP. That's what I call them. Our

new hero, the new Leader of the Opposition, is outside, with a halo

over his head, playing this character role of being the responsible

person whom we can all admire, and he leaves in the House the mud line

— the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), the first member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr.

King), and the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). They know how to do it;

they know how to dish it out. I guess the truth hurts a little, but the

only thing is we've all heard it before.

They've had their

character assassinators of the past. I've sat here and known and

enjoyed them, but they all come up with their part to play. I'm

thinking of the former member for Vancouver East, Bob Williams. He

always dished out a fair amount of this type of approach during every

session of past legislatures; I can remember those occasions. The

members opposite smile, for they remember them as well. But that's the

kind of opposition we are faced with in the province of British

Columbia — not addressing the issues of the day which people want to

hear about and challenge this government on, but making a character

assassination.

So now we've had stories laid out here,

innuendos about improper election procedures, and not a word about the

fact that this government has just appointed a new chief electoral

officer for the province of British Columbia, Mr. Harry Goldberg. I

want to tell this House that's a very positive move which this

government has made to attract the most capable person who could be

obtained. He happens to come from the province of Alberta with a very

creditable record; he is very knowledgeable in the field of the

Election Act right across Canada, and we know he is going to address

himself to improving our registration system and other aspects of the

Election Act operation in British Columbia. This is a positive action

by this government in terms of an appointment, and we have announced

that very proudly in recent weeks.

We've also heard the

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke throwing out their usual little gem about

Clarkson, Gordon. I think they put it in different ways, that we asked

Clarkson, Gordon to tell us we had a deficit. To tell us we had a

deficit! The fact that we had a debt to the bank, that we had audited

statements that we had a deficit of $400 million, that's not something

to ask an auditor to tell us. There's another character assassination,

Mr. Chairman. To take a responsible firm of chartered accountants,

auditors who have a certificate to answer to, and to suggest that they

came in here and twisted the report to satisfy the needs of this

government is just utter poppycock.

That was another

positive action of this government when it first came to office. One of

the first things this Premier did was appoint that firm to very quickly

provide an independent assessment of the state of the accounts in this

province. And believe you me, I have some knowledge that they were

disastrous. That report did not overstate the facts. The fact that we

had a deficit for that year of $400 million was not overstated. The

fact that we had an accumulated deficit of $261 million for their years

of office — not exactly small potatoes — was not the result of any

directed action to an independent firm whom this government and this

Premier asked — as a positive measure, upon taking office — to provide

a report.

So I just say I've heard it all before — the same

type of opposition, the innuendo, the suggestion of impropriety,

without being specific, and no effort to address the important issues

of the day, I say the people of this province are getting very tired of

this kind of opposition. They can stand up here and say that this

Premier is not answering questions. But how many times, with all due

respect, is he expected to answer questions? Eight, ten, twelve times?

I mean, he's been asked questions and he's answered them. So on we go

with the same old questions, and other questions, like when did you

stop beating your wife? In the name of common sense, Mr. Chairman,

there should be an end put to this. I think the people of this province

get very tired of this kind of approach. Let's address the issues of

today — the economy, inflation, unemployment. What is this government

doing about them? Now that's what we should be talking about here —

energy pricing, mortgage policy, and what we're doing about them and

what we're not doing about them. Instead of that, we have the character

assassination which we are so used to, which we've become accustomed

to. But I say, let's get on with the business of this House and the

people of this province.

MR. HOWARD: I just have a

point of order with respect to the reference to