1977 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 31st 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, FEBRUARY 22, 1977

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1137 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Unethical conduct in Chilliwack land deals. Mr. Skelly — 1137

RCMP evidence-gathering methods. Mr. Wallace — 1137

Contact by B.C. police forces with U.S. Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit.

Hon. Mr. Gardom answers — 1138

Saanich pheasant shoot. Mr. Barber — 1139

Availability of ICBC loan funds. Mr. Cocke — 1139

Committee of Supply: Executive council estimates.

On vote 18.

Mr. Stupich — 1140

Ms. Brown — 1145

Mr. Macdonald — 1150

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1151

Mr. Loewen — 1154

Mr. Barrett — 1155

Mr. Cocke — 1156

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1158

Mr. Wallace — 1161

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1164

Mr. Skelly — 1166

Ms. Brown — 1167

Mr. Barber — 1169

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1977

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation):

Seated in the gallery today is a group of 20 Victoria citizens from the

Victoria Silver Threads centre. I would ask the House to bid them

welcome.

Also seated in the gallery today are my wife, Marnie, and my son, Chauney. I would ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Yesterday during the discussion

on the Vietnam committee problem, the Premier suggested that perhaps

information should be tabled in the House dealing with the committee

activities in 1975. I ask leave to table these documents.

Leave granted.

Oral questions.

UNETHICAL CONDUCT

IN CHILLIWACK LAND DEALS

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): I have a question for the

Attorney-General. With reference to the serious allegations of

collusion, conflict-of-interest and political patronage by the

Chilliwack Save-the-Farmland Committee involving at least one member of

the Social Credit Party and the former Chilliwack municipal solicitor,

will the government call an immediate inquiry into those allegations?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I'll have to take that question as notice, Mr. Member.

MR. SKELLY: As a supplementary question to the Attorney-General....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Oh! Blocking opposition!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Attorney-General has

taken your original question on notice, hon. member. If it's your

preference to have him answer the first question along with a

supplemental, that will be permitted, but I hope you realize that you

can't engage in another full debate when a question has originally been

taken as notice.

MR. SKELLY: I am not going to engage in debate at all, Mr.

Speaker, during question period. This is simply supplemental

information and a supplemental question that he may take on notice.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order by the Minister of Health.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Just in the

interests of clarification and order in the House, Mr. Speaker, I'd

like a ruling on a practice that has been observed in this House since

I've been a member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: When a question is taken on notice, a

supplementary is not asked at that time but is asked at the time the

question is answered.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, speaking to the point of order, it

has been established both ways in this House that supplementals have

been asked and other times they have been deferred until such time as

the original answer came back. I've checked with other jurisdictions

and the same thing does happen occasionally in other jurisdictions. So

all I would suggest to the hon. member is that he very quickly and

closely tie his question to the original.

MR. SKELLY: I intended to do that, Mr. Speaker. What action

is the Attorney-General taking on allegations made to him concerning

the role of a provincial court judge, David Hinds, in the Chilliwack

land reserve dealings?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll take it as notice.

RCMP EVIDENCE-GATHERING METHODS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General: I had

already raised the issue of the David Ross murder trial where evidence

had indicated some questionable techniques of interrogation by the

RCMP, together with the promise of $50,000 to a witness. The

Attorney-General had said that he would look into the matter and I

wonder if he could report on that.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Thanks, hon. member. I did inform the House

that I would have a complete report by yesterday. I do not have a

complete report. I do have an interim one and I prefer to respond to

the question once I'm in receipt of the full information.

The hon. member for Oak Bay a few days ago, though, did ask me a question concerning wiretapping

[ Page 1138 ]

— could I confirm that cases are on record where a

wiretap was left in place after an arrest of a suspect? I would like to

respond to the hon. member's question. In discussion with the joint

forces of CLEU, which does all of the wiretapping save and except the

drug cases, they inform me that they do not have any information of

such things happening and the policy with respect to wiretapping is as

follows: all wiretapping information’s conclude once a charge has been

laid.

Now the exception to that rule is, perhaps, where there is a

possibility of joint charges being laid. In such a situation,

wiretapping can continue after one person has been and could continue

until further arrests have been made or the investigation is concluded.

If the hon. member has any specific information concerning any

specific event which he would like to inform me of or inform the

enforcers of, would he please do so?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, responding to the

Attorney-General's answer, one of the reasons I raised this issue in

the first place is the rather staggering statement coming out of the

B.C. Bar Association meeting recently, where Judge J.T. Spencer

stated....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What's the question?

MR. WALLACE: Questions sometimes require a

preamble, Mr. Minister.

Judge J.E. Spencer had stated that one wiretap conversation took

place between one of our judges and a known criminal, and that the

conversation was stated to have involved a former B.C. judge. I wonder

if the minister has been made aware of this statement, which was a

public statement at the B.C. Bar Association meeting. Will he look into

that matter, since it casts serious aspersions?

HON. MR. GARDOM: To the hon. member, I have not received any

specific information concerning the point in question. My only

information is, as was yours, the statement in the press.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the

Attorney-General's answer, could I ask him if the B.C. Bar Association

has made any representations to the minister, since there seem to be

members deeply concerned. Have they or have they not brought this to

the attention of the Attorney-General?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, Mr. Member — not to my knowledge.

CONTACT BY B.C. POLICE FORCES WITH

U.S. LAW ENFORCEMENT INTELLIGENCE UNIT

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would like also to respond to a question

asked a few days ago from the member for Burrard (Mr. Levi) . He is not

in his seat today but he'll be able to read it in Hansard . He

asked me a question as to whether or not the Law Enforcement

Intelligence Unit, which is a private organization operating in the

United States — I think it started in 1956 — was participating with any

of our police forces in the province of British Columbia. I have been

informed that neither the RCMP nor CLEU belong to this organization.

Dealing with municipal forces, my information is that the only one that

has an association with the organization is Vancouver city police;

they've had an association for about one year. It's too early to assess

its success or otherwise.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Can the Attorney-General

inform the House if he has any information as to the nature of the

relationship between the Vancouver city police force and this private

intelligence agency in the United States? Just yes or no.

HON. MR. GARDOM: My information is that they had been

participating with this United States organization for just about a

year. That's really all the information I can give you.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Participating in what?

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's a question of relating information from one side unto the other.

MR. BARRETT: Is it a private organization?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, yes, of course it's private. Your

member raised that question and the response is that it is a private

organization. That's what I'm told.

MR. LAUK: A further supplementary to the Attorney-General.

Sometimes, I'm instructed, the Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit does

deal in what the RCMP would describe as security and intelligence

investigations. Will the Attorney-General satisfy this House that he'll

look into it further? There is some fear involved in a private

organization of this nature having Canadian police information.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Sure. If you have something specific that's

giving you concern, Mr. Member, please let me know and I'll endeavour

to do my level best to find out about it for you.

MR. LAUK: I point out to the Attorney-General, by way of a

supplementary, that he brought the answer to the House that there is an

association between this private network and the Vancouver city

[ Page 1139 ]

police force. Surely the matter shouldn't end

there. Will the Attorney-General please look into it further and report

the full nature of the association to the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. GARDOM: If this would assist you, it was formed to

supply an intelligence exchange service to member agencies in the field

of major and organized crime. So I guess it's a sharing of information.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Would the

Attorney-General check as to whether this private American organization

also engages in political surveillance of people suspected of political

tendencies — left and right? This information may be interchanged

within Canada and should not be.

MR. BARRETT: Is Grace McCarthy on the board of directors?

HON. MR. GARDOM: You seem to know a little more about this than I do, Mr. Member. Maybe you had better send me a note on it.

SAANICH PHEASANT SHOOT

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Were the MLA for Saanich and the

Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis) here I'm sure he'd ask this question, but as

he's not, I'll do it for him. It's to the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation. Last night at North Saanich council they took the first

step to approving an application from Mr. George Aylard of Brackenhurst

Farm to operate a pheasant shoot. Part of the consideration given by

council in their approval of this was information that had been

received by the proponent, Mr. Aylard, that the minister's department

has, in fact, endorsed this application. My question to the Minister of

Recreation and Conservation is whether, in fact, his ministry has

endorsed or supported in any way the application made by Mr. George

Aylard of Brackenhurst Farm for a pheasant shoot.

If I may put in a supplemental at this point, I would ask the

minister if he's aware that this has raised considerable objection on

the part of the neighbours in North Saartich, and the leader of this

neighbourhood organization is a Mr. Bud Mesher — who I'm sure is

familiar to all opposite — I am informed by the press. I wonder if the

minister has been in contact with him as well.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Barber under glass.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the

question. This matter was brought to my attention this morning. On

inquiry, I discover that the ministry has indeed encouraged programmes

of this sort in the lower mainland and elsewhere in the past. I have,

this morning, ordered a stop to such programmes until I've had an

opportunity to review the whole question of this type of programme.

SUBSISTENCE HUNTING PERMITS

HON. MR. BAWLF: If I may, I would like to respond to another

question asked some couple of days ago by the member for Nelson-Creston

(Mr. Nicolson). The question was:

With regard to subsistence hunting permits for native

peoples, has the minister instituted a new programme whereby these

people must submit to a means test at the Department of Human Resources

before granting of a subsistence hunting permit?

The answer to that question is simply no. I have not instituted a

new policy. Native people are not required to submit to a means test

before the granting of a subsistence hunting permit.

AVAILABILITY OF ICBC LOAN FUNDS

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): I have a question for the

Minister of Education, in charge of ICBC. The Insurance Corporation of

B.C. has a considerable amount of funds available to loan on a

short-term basis. An answer to a question recently indicated that was

an amount of about $272 million. The question, Mr. Speaker, is: would

the minister advise the House whether some of these funds are made

available to the forest industry?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker,

corporations with a high rating in B.C., regardless of their particular

field of interest, are eligible for short- and long-term borrowing from

ICBC because it's the policy of the corporation to invest in British

Columbia wherever possible.

MR. LAUK: Has there been?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: I would ask a supplementary: would the minister

advise the House specifically whether any funds are loaned at this time

to MacMillan Bloedel?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, we have one member from

MacMillan Bloedel on the board of directors. Because of that, MacMillan

Bloedel is not eligible to borrow funds from ICBC.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, I understand that member on the

[ Page 1140 ]

board is Mr. Gillen. I wonder if the minister could tell us what salary Mr. Gillen is drawing as vice-president of ICBC.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Gillen is receiving no salary from ICBC.

The normal rate of remuneration for directors of ICBC is $250 a day for

work done for the corporation, but Mr. Gillen receives a monthly

stipend in lieu of director's tees in order to save the corporation

money.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Subject to correction, Mr. Speaker, I believe it's $3,750 a month.

MR. WALLACE: A further supplementary: in light of the fact that....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: It would certainly assist the question period if

you would allow the person who has the floor to ask his question

uninterrupted.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that Mr.

Gillen is deriving $3,000 a month from a public body — and I believe

he's vice-chairman of strategic and planning services for MacMillan

Bloedel, which is a private company — can the minister tell us whether

he considers this not to be a conflict of interest on the part of Mr.

Gillen?

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

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, since the Attorney-General didn't

answer my question, I would ask leave to move adjournment of the House

pursuant to standing order 35(1) for the purpose of discussing a

definite matter of urgent public importance. If I may, I'll state the

matter of importance.

The matter is the statement in today's Vancouver Province which says as follows:

"The Save-the-Farmland Committee says it has evidence

that indicates collusion, conflict of interest and possible political

patronage in the alliance of municipal authorities and developers in

their persistent and continuous applications for the release of

farmland from the agricultural land reserve."

The

article further states:

"They call for an inquiry into the role played by former

Chilliwack municipal solicitor, David Hinds, in the land dealings. Hinds is

now a provincial court judge."

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, at the present moment I don't think that the Speaker requires assistance.

I would like to reply to the matter raised by the hon. member for

Alberni (Mr. Skelly). Without determining the motion to be either in or

out of order, I would like to comment quickly on the fact that it has

been held many times that a matter raised under this standing order, if

there will be an opportunity immediately or in the future or in time to

discuss the matter, could very well lose the battle as to being in

order because of that very definitive suggestion. There are many other

grounds on which this motion may or may not qualify in terms of urgent

public importance. But I'll reserve my decision on it without in any

way prejudicing the member or his position if, in fact, it proves that

the motion is in order. I'll deliver a decision as quickly as possible.

MR. BARRETT: Considering the motion, I would like to stress

the emergency aspect is that it's an allegation contained in a major

newspaper rather than emanating from this Legislature.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

(continued)

On vote 18: executive council, $713,648 — continued.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Chairman, quite apart from

the matter that was raised in question period and the matter upon which

the Speaker is now deliberating, I think there is this whole question

of the B.C. Land Commission and the Premier's attitude with respect to

the Land Commission. I speak about this because of a newspaper story

quoting the Premier and commenting on the Premier's remarks before he

became Premier. It's a newspaper story in The Vancouver Sun dated November 15, 1975, and the heading is "Bennett Vows to Oust B.C. Land Commission."

If it were just the headline, I perhaps wouldn't think it worth

bringing it up at this time. Although I have never had occasion that I

was misquoted by the news media, I did have occasion two separate

times, just a week apart, when one of the columnists called me to

apologize for the heading that was put on the

[ Page 1141 ]

story. But in this particular case it's not just the heading; we have the actual story itself in quotations. The lead paragraph:

"Bill Bennett promised Friday that a Social Credit government

will strip the powers of the B.C. Land Commission established by the once-contentious

Bill 32."

Mr. Chairman, then there is a quotation:

"'If we form the next government, we will return that

power to local governments.'"

And finally on this question, Mr. Chairman:

"Bennett did not use words such as 'repeal' or 'amend'

in his references to the Land Commission Act, but the fulfilment of his promise

would almost certainly require its repeal."

— referring to the Land Commission Act.

Mr. Chairman, I think we'd like to have some assurance from the

Premier that he does not agree with the Leader of the Opposition, as he

was on November 15; having seen the light of day, having been elected

to the office of Premier, he now feels differently about the Land

Commission. I bring this up only because it is the same person, and I

feel there is sufficient interest in this subject in the community that

there should be some assurance from the Premier that he has changed his

mind about the ousting of the B.C. Land Commission. That is one of the

questions I would like to put to him.

The newspaper story goes on to talk about other election promises of

the Social Credit government that I think are worth repeating at this

time to find out the current Premier's attitude towards these election

promises he made as quoted in the press on November 15, 1975.

I bring this up because of his remarks yesterday when he spoke about

the priorities of spending of his government. In this

article he

mentions: "One of the priorities will be to remove sales tax from

building materials so that people will find it easier to own their own

homes." Mr. Chairman, you will recall that the only change in sales tax

was to increase it. I wonder where on his list of priorities the

Premier feels the removal of sales tax from building materials should

come.

Another of the promises in this story is help for municipalities.

Mr. Chairman, you will recall that was mentioned in the throne speech.

But you will recall also — I don't intend to get into the details now —

when we get into the budget itself, it would appear that the help is

actually negative when it is transferred into actual dollars. There is

actually going to be a decrease in the real level of financing for the

municipalities as offered by this government. So I wonder again just

where his priorities are with respect to help for municipalities in

this his second year as Premier of the province of British Columbia.

Further on in the same story; he told a woman who asked him about

the social programmes in the Socred platform that there would be no

chance to implement programmes that cost money within the next year.

But now, Mr. Chairman, we are into the following year, into the second

year, and again I wonder about the priorities.

I don't mind, really, no. But I am to talk to you and I think that I'm doing that. You don't have to listen.

Mr. Chairman, the government did give up certain opportunities to

get additional revenue that might have given it the money to carry

forward with some of its priorities, as described by the Leader of the

Opposition on November 15, 1975. For example, it had already been told

to the coal companies — and this has been said already — that they were

going to pay an extra dollar a ton which would have contributed

something like another $12 million. It had already been told to the

producing companies for natural gas that they were going to get 60

cents a thousand cubic feet for old gas. Instead of that, the

government gave them 65 cents, which cost BCPC perhaps another $15

million. We have been told that we are getting rid of succession

duties, which is going to cost us something like $30 million. So we are

talking about a loss in revenue of some $57 million a year.

Where are the priorities? Remember the millionaires' Monday budget?

Apparently the priorities are for millionaires only. I ask the Premier

when his list of priorities is going to change so that he starts

looking after some of the election promises that he made on November

15, 1975.

This same newspaper story says: "We must have a government that will

provide opportunity for capital and opportunity for employment. We want

work and wages." Shades of Duff Pattullo. "We want work and wages..."

HON. MR. GARDOM: He's not that old.

MR. STUPICH: I am. Perhaps the Premier isn't, but I am, Garde. "We want work and wages, not waste and welfare."

Well, Mr. Chairman, I think this is perhaps as good an opportunity

as any to compare the record of the NDP administration — as the Premier

has tried to do during his remarks in this debate — and the record of

the Social Credit government.

Let's look briefly at the record of the NDP. I draw on the

government's own publication, the second quarterly report. I am going

to deal only with those new Crown corporations, the ones that were

established in spite of the opposition, in particular from the minister

in charge of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). I'll deal with

every one established by the New Democratic Party.

We look first at B.C. Petroleum Corporation. In

[ Page 1142 ]

the second quarterly report, we are dealing with

the results for six months. We find that in that six months, B.C.

Petroleum Corporation made a net income of $79,101,000.

B.C. Cellulose, the second one alphabetically, established by the

NDP government, in a period of nine months had a net income of

$1,106,000.

B.C. Development Corporation in the first six months — net earnings of $410,000.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Hold Your applause until all have been introduced.

MR. STUPICH: B.C. Steamships — here's a loser — nine months and they lost $27,000.

Let's go on, Mr. Chairman. ICBC auto insurance: In the first six

months a net income of $25 million — I hope the Premier will respond

when he's recognized, Mr. Chairman, as well as when I'm recognized, but

that's fine. In the first six months the auto insurance fund,

$25,856,000 net revenue; general insurance, a net loss in that same

period of $332,000; a net overall profit in those six months — or

income — of $25,524,000.

Dunhill, which was attacked so vigorously, in particular by the

member I mentioned previously: the first nine months' net earnings were

$958,000.

Kootenay Forest Products, first seven months: $336,000.

Ocean Falls, first nine months: $1,163,000.

Plateau Mills, first nine months: $1,184,000.

Panco Poultry, first six months: $447,000.

Mr. Chairman, if you add all those up — taking into account that

some of them are six months, some are seven months and some are nine

months — and work it out on an average monthly, you'll find that in the

course of the year, by pro-rating those figures — which aren't

necessarily accurate but nevertheless it gives us a figure — at those

rates of return, the combined income, including the losses — I've

included all of them — will be $217,368,000.

Now that's a record of achievement, Mr. Chairman, and I challenge

the Premier to produce his list. That's $217,368,000 net income. Mr.

Chairman, if you assume that government assets should be earning at the

rate of 10 per cent, those assets would be worth $2 billion. But, Mr.

Chairman, the total cost of all of those investments to the people of

the province of British Columbia is less than the combined net earnings

for one year — approximately $217 million. For a one-time expenditure

of $217 million we have assets that are earning in this particular

current period income of $217,368,000. Now what, Mr. Chairman, is the

record that the Social Credit coalition can put up against that after

15 months in office?

Well, let's look at some of these, some of the records. We look at The Province ,

February 22, 1977, and the heading is "Calgary Hit Hardest." Mr.

Chairman, we're talking about the cost of living, and right down on the

bottom we find out that Vancouver, British Columbia, still has the

highest cost of living in the 12-month average for the whole of Canada.

Mr. Chairman, with the exception of one area, the increase in the cost

of living in the last period is greater in B.C. than anywhere else.

Mr. Chairman, you will recall that in the dying months of the NDP

administration we took steps to see that didn't happen in B.C. We

imposed price freezes to control the increase in the cost of living. We

did make the AIB programme work for a short period in B.C. But since

then it's gone all out of kilter again — all out of balance — and the

cost of living in B.C. Is rising higher than anywhere else in the

country, due in part, Mr. Chairman, to the heavy user charges imposed

by this government and the heavy increases in taxes levied by this

government.

Not just cost of living. What about unemployment? Mr. Chairman, there's a story in Monday's paper, the Victoria Times .

In fact, it's an editorial I'm quoting from, Monday, February 21, about

previously unpublished figures confirmed — and this is interesting, Mr.

Chairman — by Manpower Minister Bud Cullen. "Here in British Columbia

the official unemployment figures for 1976 were 8.7 per cent or 98,000

jobless." But then there's the hidden unemployment, the unreported

unemployment, as far as those figures are concerned, Mr. Chairman, and

these:

"...added another 49,000 to the list for a real total of 147,000 unemployed or a rate of 12 per cent for the whole province."

Mr. Chairman, I told you about the record of the NDP in some three

years in creating jobs and in maintaining employment. I told you also

that the only record the Social Credit coalition can point to is one of

tremendously increasing cost of living and tremendous increases of

unemployment. It's not just what I have to say, Mr. Chairman; we have

economists such as Dr. Leonard Laudadio saying that under the NDP

British Columbia was better off economically than the rest of Canada.

But under the Socreds this province is worse off. We have Judith

Maxwell, director of economic policy with the prestigious C.D. Howe

Research Institute:

"In the short term the provincial government has added to the inflation and helped the recession."

Mr. Chairman, those are the only good things I can find to say about

the Social Credit government. Now perhaps the Premier would like to try

and match our record of something like $205 million cost of assets that

are producing in this year $217 million of net income.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with another newspaper story, in

yesterday's paper. The heading is again — I realize I'm relying on the

heading: "Bennett

[ Page 1143 ]

Charged With Mis-statements." "Premier Bill Bennett

was charged Monday with using mis-statements and selected information

to give wrong impressions to the people of B.C. Lauk at one point

accused Bennett of using half-truths." Well, Mr. Chairman, it's right

that he should have withdrawn that because he was only half-right. He

was only half-right in saying that the Premier was using half-truths.

If I could deal with some of that, there were two items mentioned in

this particular story. The references to B.C.'s export performance, and

that was officially dealt with yesterday, I think, by....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I think the member

has been in the House long enough to know that we cannot, under our

standing orders, do something indirectly which cannot be done directly.

We cannot use the ploy of a newspaper

article to lay charges which

cannot be laid directly here on the floor except by substantive motion,

and I must ask the member to withdraw any imputation of wrongdoing.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw any imputation of wrongdoing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. STUPICH: Now if I could go on with my remarks, I think

the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) dealt sufficiently

with what the Premier had to say about B.C.'s export performance and

showed that he used the figures improperly. With respect to Dunsky

Advertising, I think this was dealt with yesterday when the Premier

said the Dunsky agency was favoured with all of the government

business. Mr. Chairman, I would remind you that I did withdraw without

any equivocation at all, gracefully. When the Premier was asked to

withdraw that, or was questioned about this, he said, according to the

Blues: "Mr. Chairman, if the Leader of the Opposition is worried about

the word 'all,' I'll say then 'the large bulk."' Now that is hardly,

Mr. Chairman, what I consider to be an unequivocal withdrawal.

Nevertheless, mine was unequivocal and I am not surprised that the

Premier chose that particular method of making his withdrawal.

Mr. Chairman, you'll recall the Clarkson Gordon report and the

Premier saying that this was going to be a full investigation. He

implied that it was a complete audit of government accounts. You will

recall Clarkson Gordon saying: "All we were asked to do was add up

figures given to us by the Premier and the Minister of Finance." Now I

won't say that was a half-truth, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the matter of the seatbelts was mentioned yesterday, and I think

the Premier could then have withdrawn that remark just as gracefully as I did

when he saw that they were there. Well, he probably didn't see them in the

first place. I think he has reason for saying he didn't notice they were

there and assumed they weren't there, because often they aren't in the

back seat. But I think he should have admitted it instead of refusing to admit

it at that time.

Mr. Chairman, there is something else that's harder to accept, and

that is his presentation at the recent Social Credit convention of what

he described as "the 1976 NDP budget for the province of British

Columbia." That was no half-truth, He knew full well that was no

budget. He knew exactly what it was. As Minister of Finance in that

administration I had never seen that material put together in one

document. Mr. Chairman, how would you describe it? He knew full well

that he was not dealing in the complete truth when he described that

mess of papers as a budget.

There is the reference attached to the second quarterly report to

the employment possibilities: "The government has authorized the

Department of Highways to embark on a highway programme of an

additional $120 million which will create jobs this winter." Now the

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has tried to explain this and

tried to tell everybody what the Premier was saying, but the Premier

has never once, to my knowledge, confessed to the people of British

Columbia that in saying that he either didn't know what he was talking

about, or he knew but he hoped that nobody would question it. Mr.

Chairman, that's no half-truth.

He said no blacklist left his office. Mr. Chairman, he could have

been mistaken. I think he should not have been quite so forceful in

saying that at the time. He should have checked, but he said, "no

blacklist left my office," without any equivocation at all. He has

found out since that it did.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I interrupt you, hon. member, just long

enough to suggest that this particular subject likely has been well

canvassed in yesterday's debate. I've made notes to that effect here.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't bring this up

except that it did come up yesterday when the Premier again said that

no blacklist left his office because there was no blacklist. Well, Mr.

Chairman, I think you will accept that there was certainly a list that

left his office and, at the very least, we would like to know.... The

Premier was asked yesterday: "Did you reprimand Mr. Campbell for having

passed this list on?" You'll recall when the hon. first member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) was talking about the blacklist and said

that it was in the Premier's office for 30 days, the Premier

interjected to say it was only five days.

[ Page 1144 ]

MR. BARRETT: He knew what it was all about.

MR. STUPICH: So he knew what was going on. He knew there was

a list, and he knew how long it was in his office, or he established

later on how long it was in his office. Mr. Chairman, if he didn't

reprimand Mr. Campbell I think the least we should know — and I think

he should answer this question is: did he at least discuss it with Mr.

Campbell after the issue was first raised in this House something like

10 days ago?

Mr. Chairman, the legacy of debt — now this really falls in the

category of all the rest of it where the Premier was certainly not

speaking in half-truths. I could quote from the Blues of February 18

and February 21. I am reading now from February 18: "You can budget in

a cyclical way but you have to have the restraint to build up the

surpluses in the good years, and to show the judgment of what is a good

year, so you'll have the money there for the poor year."

Well Mr. Chairman, let's take a look again at the record of the New

Democratic Party government while it was in office. When we arrived in

office the public accounts for the year ended March 31, 1972, will show

that the total assets for the province of British Columbia were $2,726

billion. They will also show that at the end of March, 1976 — and I

have to go to 1976 because there were some dips there and I think we

should include that to give the true picture or I'd be accused of not

using the bad news as well as the good — the total assets were $3,986

billion, an increase of $1,260 billion in the assets of the province of

British Columbia during that period when the NDP was in control of the

government of the province of British Columbia.

Capital surplus at the end of March 31, 1972, was $1.679 billion. At

the end of March, 1976, in spite of what happened in 1975-76, it was

$2.393 billion, an increase of $714 million. Revenue surplus was $99

million at the end of March, 1972. There was a deficit, as the Premier

reported in the Blues on February 18, at the end of March 31, 1976, of

$261 million, of which, Mr. Chairman, you'll recall, $181 million was a

gift to ICBC that ICBC didn't need and still has to this day — still

had at the end of December. Nevertheless, there was a deficit.

If we consider we started with a surplus of $99 million and we have

a deficit of $261 million, that's a decrease in revenue surplus of $360

million in that period. Special-purpose funds — you know, the

mattresses where you hide the extra money or where you put the extra

money away for a rainy day — totalled at the end of March 31, 1972,

$351 million. On March 31, 1976, they were $552 million. There was a

net increase, in spite of the money that was drawn out of these funds,

of $201 million.

Add up all these surplus accounts — the capital surplus, the revenue

surplus and the special-purpose funds: March 31, 1972 — $2.129 billion;

March 31, 1976 — $2.684 billion. There was a net increase of $555

million. Does it really look to you, Mr. Chairman, as though the NDP

didn't know what it was doing, that it wasn't saving money in good

years and spending it in lean years, that it didn't recognize good

years when it saw them and that it didn't recognize a poor year?

Let's go a little more into the details and see what happened year

by year. In 1973, for example, quite apart from the budgeted revenue

and expenditures, what did we do? By way of non-budgetary expenditures

in 1973 to Crown corporations — investments, advances and grants —

there was a total of $9 million in 1973. Transfers to special-purpose

funds amounted to $85 million. That's a total in that year of $94

million that was put into the mattress.

In 1974 to Crown corporations by way of investments, advances and

grants, there was a total of $70 million, and to special purpose funds,

a total of $165 million. To other organizations such as cooperatives

and grants there was $29 million, for a grand total in that year, which

was a good, year — we recognized it as a good year and we put the money

away in the good year just as the Premier said we should have — of $264

million in that one fiscal period that was entirely within the control

of the NDP. In 1975, $27 million went to Crown corporations, $1 million

to a cooperative and $80 million into special purpose funds. It was

still a good year — this was running from April 1, 1974, to March 31,

1975 — for a total that year of $108 million.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we come to the bad year — March 31, 1976 — when

things were going down. What happened then? We still made grants — $6

million to other than Crown corporations. We still put money into

special-purpose funds to the extent of $25 million. Money went to Crown

corporations by way of investments, advances and grants, including the

amount that went to ICBC, to the extent of $234 million. We have to

include that because it's part of the deficit we talked about earlier.

In that one year then, when everything was so bad, $268 million was put

away into the mattress. In that period a total of $731 million was

saved because we were generally in a good period for that time.

Subtract from that the decrease of $360 million in the revenue surplus

account alone, and we find that instead of being wastrels in a period

during which we had control of the province of British Columbia, we

actually socked away a net, after paying for the political promises of

the Premier, of $371 million.

Mr. Chairman, in addition to what I told you was the cost of those

Crown corporations — something like $207 million, perhaps, to produce

income of $217 million in one year — we know that the assets of some of

those corporations are worth considerably more than that. We know that

in one case alone, the

[ Page 1145 ]

case of Canadian Cellulose, it has been said that

the assets of that company are worth $0.5 billion. I haven't tried to

add up all the rest of them.

Mr. Chairman, the economy of the province was well handled in that

period. It was handled along the lines the Premier suggested. We should

have recognized the good years and we did recognize them; we should

have saved money in the good years and we did save it; we should have

spent it in a bad year and we did spend some of it in the bad year, but

not as much as this government has spent in the current fiscal period

to March 31, 1977.

We know that no money is going into special-purpose funds have been

wiped out and that money has been taken into current revenue. We know

that three ferries have been sold to some eastern financial

moneylenders and that money taken into revenue. We know in spite of all

that it will be a bare break-even or a modest surplus, with no money

left to do anything like that with.

Mr. Chairman, it is a record of much better management during the

course of the NDP government than the record of the Social Credit

coalition government. I challenge the Premier to try to show us where

his record of high unemployment, of high increases in the cost of

living, of no investments in Crown corporations nor advances to them —

general deterioration of the economy in the province of British

Columbia — compares favourably with what I have told you happened

during the 3 1/3 years that the New Democratic Party was the government

in the province of British Columbia.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, I would also

like to add my disappointment that the Premier did not support the

motion of the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) that the House go into

adjournment to discuss the allegations in this morning's....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The committee has no knowledge, and as a result it's out of order.

MR. LAUK: Can't we debate it?

MS. BROWN: Then maybe I should say to the Premier — certainly

as the leader of that government — that it would have been nice if the

Premier had himself suggested that maybe there should be some

discussion under his estimates of the allegations....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I draw to your attention that

you're trying to do indirectly that which is not allowed directly. May

I suggest that you move to vote 18?

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Try again, Rosemary.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, under vote 18, I'm wondering whether

it's possible to discuss some of the Premier's responsibilities. One of

his responsibilities surely is to deal with libelous accusations made

by the Vancouver Province this morning concerning a matter of

the land under the Land Commission which there is struggling to be

released in the Chilliwack area.

MR. LAUK: The cookie-jar party.

MS. BROWN: It would have been very nice, Mr. Chairman, if the

Premier had taken the initiative and initiated that debate himself, as

Premier, under his estimates. But since he hasn't, I can only say how

very sad I am that he hasn't. I'm through; I'm not going to say any

more.

MR. LAUK: The Chairman is unbiased.

MS. BROWN: Oh, yes, I'm sure the Chairman is very unbiased.

The Premier on Friday, in introducing his estimates, told us that

the running of his office actually costs the people of this province

only 28 cents each.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's 28 cents a cookie.

MS. BROWN: My argument is that, actually, we're being

overcharged because we're all paying 28 cents for a 5-cent and 10-cent

administration. That, in fact, I am going to try and prove. The member

for Okanagan, who believes in a tight budget, will agree with me when I

am through showing that we're paying 28 cents each for a department

which really should be getting 5 cents or even a dime because it is a

nickel-and-dime operation.

I want to talk first of all about his responsibility for the members

in his cabinet. The thing that disturbs is that he seems to be unable

to discipline the members of his cabinet — one member in particular who

is consistently out of line. This is not my private observation. I was

really intrigued — this morning to note that The Daily Colonist

has also noticed the contradictions and the problems that the Premier

is having with the members of his cabinet. In particular, I want to

talk about the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) under

the Premier's estimates, Mr. Chairman, because, of course, the Premier

is responsible for his executive council and for his government. I am

concerned about his lack of control and his inability to discipline

that particular minister.

When the minister made his statements about French on the cornflake boxes, the Premier then

[ Page 1146 ]

exercised his prerogative and dissociated himself

from the statements of that particular minister. Maybe that was his

first mistake. It's not enough just to dissociate yourself from an

unruly or an undisciplined member of the cabinet; I think a reprimand,

even a very gentle one, should be called for at the same time. Maybe if

the Premier had taken the initiative at that time and reprimanded that

minister, we wouldn't have had the fiasco which we saw recently when

that member moved to take over the Ministry of Agriculture.

If I can remind you, Mr. Chairman, that member made a statement

recently concerning egg marketing boards. He said that the concept of

egg marketing boards is a pretty rotten system. That's fine; he's

entitled to his personal opinion about egg marketing boards. In fact,

what he did with this statement was to make the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt) look ridiculous, because the statements which the

Minister of Agriculture made seem to indicate that he did not share the

feeling that it was the concept of marketing boards which was a pretty

rotten system.

Once again we find that the Premier, as chief of the executive

council, sat in silence and allowed that undisciplined minister to

interfere in the organizations and in the happenings of another

minister. As a result, the Minister of Agriculture looked ridiculous in

the public eye. He was held up to ridicule in the public eye because,

obviously, he couldn't handle his department and the Minister of Human

Resources had to move in and take over the running of that department

for him.

Then, Mr. Chairman, as a result of the Premier's failure, we find

that Minister of Human Resources moving in to take over the civil

service.

Mr. Chairman, this is all being debated under the Premier's general

vote, because what I'm trying to establish is that the Premier is

incapable of disciplining an undisciplined member of his cabinet, of

the executive council, and as such is not worth the 28 cents which each

person in this province has to pay for the running of his department.

I'm trying to establish a case here. I hope you will listen, because

the Premier is listening and, obviously, he is beginning to understand.

Mr. Chairman, that minister, the member for Surrey, then moved to

take over the civil service. Okay. That I can sympathize with, because

once you understand, Mr. Chairman, that the Provincial Secretary (Hon.

Mrs. McCarthy) tried to take over his department by moving into the

Belmont Building an executive assistant to be responsible for all

services to children in Human Resources, it was just a matter of time

before the Human Resources minister felt that he should move into the

Provincial Secretary's department and take over the running of the

civil service.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, may I just interrupt your train of

thought for just a moment, please. The matters being discussed by the

hon. member presently ought, in the view of the Chair, to be discussed

under the votes of the Minister of Human Resources.

MS. BROWN: No, no, no.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The authorities which we can

cite here, particularly the authorities on relevance, say that

Committee of Supply does not afford a wide-open range of debate. As a

matter of fact, the very essence of Committee of Supply is strict

relevance to the matter under discussion. The matter under discussion

is vote 18, and we can, under this vote, discuss the official conduct

of the minister...

MS. BROWN: Of the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...and, in this case, the Premier. We cannot

discuss the actions of high public servants; we cannot discuss those

actions of ministers for which the Premier is not directly responsible.

So I must say that the Chair can allow certain references, but to make

an entire debate out of it is out of order.

MS. BROWN: That is not my intention. I've only used five minutes on the Minister of Human Resources.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, madam. That time ought better to be used under the vote of the Minister of Human Resources, and I so order.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, with respect,

when it comes to the First Minister of any British parliamentary

system, that minister must be responsible for the statements of policy

made by ministers.

MS. BROWN: That's right.

MR. LAUK: He is open to question during Committee of Supply

on the statements made by those ministers insofar as he is presiding

member of the executive council, which is the vote that we are

discussing presently.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point is well taken. This Chair is upheld

by the standing orders of this House and the authorities cited.

Although it may be the opinion of the member just stated, it

nonetheless does injury to the standing orders of this House.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, further on that point of order, the Premier, under our

[ Page 1147 ]

constitutional system of government, is responsible

for cabinet solidarity. So I would think the member is entirely in

order. If one of the Premier's super-novas explodes, surely that is a

matter than can be brought up under the Premier's vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point is well taken. I might cite further

from p. 725 on general restrictions on supply: "It is not even in order

to discuss whether or not a member should be in the cabinet or which

member should be selected in cabinet." On a passing reference, the

Chair has allowed even this kind of a reference to go by, but I wanted

the House to be aware that we do not have a full range of debate.

MR. LAUK: Over the page it says dealing with Premier Bennett is an exception!

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm not having a full range of

debate, I'm merely discussing the Premier's incompetence. That's all

I'm discussing — his total lack of ability to discipline an

undisciplined member of his cabinet. That's not a free-ranging debate.

I'm merely using some examples of instances when the Premier should

have moved in and discharged his duties as the chief executive officer

and he failed to do so.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MS. BROWN: That's all I'm doing. As an aside, I mentioned

that the Provincial Secretary had tried to take over the Department of

Human Resources and the Minister of Human Resources struck back and

decided to take over the civil service. But that is an aside which can

be deleted from the record because, in fact, all it shows again is that

the First Minister, the head of the executive council, the Premier of

this province, who costs us 28 cents each for the upkeep of his office

under vote 18, which we are debating, has no control.

They're fighting among themselves and there's absolutely nothing

that that minister, who is costing us 28 cents each, is able to do

about it. That is the point of what I'm saying. He really should be

costing us five cents or even a dime, but certainly no more than that.

I'm not even going to include, Mr. Chairman, the fact that that

minister even tried to take over the running of the city of Victoria,

because that is really out of the purview of this debate, and I'm not

going to discuss that.

On Friday, the Premier, in response to a question on the guaranteed annual

income, stood up in this House and spoke for 10 or 15 minutes in support of

the guaranteed annual income. He made some very moving statements about his

support for the concept of the guaranteed income. In case he's forgotten,

I can quote it:

Yes, I do advocate it as a method by which we could strengthen

that part of the federal system.... What is needed is a national income redistribution

policy...A distribution system on income level, then, for individuals in this

country is a far better means of guaranteeing equity than the system we have

today.

And he went on and on and on with that.

However, what do we find from the Minister of Human Resources? "The

introduction of a guaranteed annual income for Canadians would produce

endless limitations and complications." It is not enough that he takes

over the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) ; it is not enough

that he takes over the civil service; it is not enough that he tries to

run the city of Victoria. Now he's contradicting the chief minister

himself. And still, Mr. Chairman, the chief minister makes absolutely

not one single move to carry out his responsibilities to the people of

this province by disciplining that minister and by reprimanding him.

AN HON. MEMBER: It may be going on now.

MS. BROWN: Oh, maybe he's disciplining him now. The real

damage, however, is not the damage.... Oh, see, Mr. Chairman, it's

working. (Laughter.) Yes, yes. And I really appreciate your permitting

me to bring to the First Minister that he hasn't been doing his job so

that he can now begin to do his job.

The real damage that has been permitted because of the silence of

the First Minister is not what he's done inside the cabinet. That's not

where the real damage is. The real damage, because of the silence of

the First Minister, is what that minister has done to the children of

this province, what that minister has done to the seniors, to the

handicapped, to the people in this province who really need services.

And on and on that minister goes. He says the current trend of

troubled children automatically being cared for by the state is going

to be reversed — an outright threat to the children of this province.

He cuts off his services under the GAIN programme. The First Minister

sits there while the Minister of Human Resources cuts the services to

the handicapped by $19.8 million, cuts the day-care subsidies by 54.8

million, cuts the community grants by $7.8 million. Not a word from the

First Minister, not a word from the Premier of this province about what

that Minister of Human Resources is doing to people in this province

who are in need.

I am sticking to vote 18, Mr. Chairman. I am discussing the failure

of the Premier to do anything about that Minister of Human Resources,

to say anything to reprimand him. Mr. Chairman, a minister who goes

around and brags that he's going to cut the spending in his ministry by

$28 million in terms of services to people....

[ Page 1148 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order, please! You have again

embarked on a line of debate which I have ruled out of order. I must

ask you to change your subject material to something that is relevant

to vote 18.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Pre.... I'm sorry; that was a Freudian slip.

AN HON. MEMBER: She's talking about Premier Vander Zalm.

MS. BROWN: The inability of that Premier to discipline and

control the Minister of Human Resources is of vital importance to this

province, not just to this Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MS. BROWN: Now it has to be debated under vote 18. I'm not

interested in debating it under that minister's estimates. It's the

Premier who is responsible for that minister, and it's under the

Premier's vote that it has to be dealt with.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, there is no dispute about whether

or not the material that the hon. member is using is correct. What is

in question is whether or not it is relevant at this time. Therefore I

must ask you to curtail your debate and make it relevant to vote 18,

the administrative responsibility of the Premier.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, what I hear you saying is that you

are unable to see the relevance, so I'm going to take some time out of

my 30 minutes....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! That is an attack on the Chair which cannot be condoned. I therefore ask you to withdraw that remark.

MS. BROWN: Okay, I withdraw the remark that the Chairman is

unable to comprehend. There are people in this chamber who do not

understand the relevance of what I am saying, so I'd like to repeat

myself.

The estimates of the Premier of this province, the First Minister of

this province, the chief of the executive council, are up for debate. I

am trying to demonstrate that he has failed in his responsibilities to

this province by not disciplining an unruly and undisciplined member of

his cabinet who is wreaking havoc on the people of this province. Now

it has to be debated under his estimates, not under the estimates of

the Minister of Human Resources or under the estimates of the Minister

of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), or anyone else. It has to be under

the estimates of the Premier, the person who put him in the cabinet,

who keeps him there, and who is making absolutely no effort to

discipline him. Mr. Chairman, the Premier has not said a word. He has

not made one single move to curtail the reign of terror which that

Minister of Human Resources has unleashed against the poor, the old and

the handicapped in this province. In fact, he has condoned it by his

silence and by his failure to discipline him or, indeed, to remove him

from this very sensitive portfolio.

Mr. Chairman, through you, to the Premier, unemployment is up in

this province. There are 112,000 people unemployed and yet the Minister

of Human Resources tells us that his welfare rolls are down. Doesn't

the Premier ever question? Doesn't he even wonder where those

unemployed people are and how they are living? How can the welfare

rolls be down at a time when the unemployment rolls are up? What is

happening to those people who have no income? How are they living?

I'll tell you how they're living, Mr. Chairman. There was an

instance on the weekend when a teacher reported to me about a family in

the Vancouver South school district. She noticed that this child was

coming into school every day covered in sores and was very unhappy and

unable to do his work. She asked the public health nurse to visit and

when she visited she found that it was a family that was unemployed,

who should be — and who was, in fact — eligible for welfare, but who

had failed to apply for welfare because they were so afraid of the

reign of terror and intimidation which the Premier has permitted that

minister to unleash on the people of this province. That family which

was eligible, and is still eligible, for welfare had failed to apply

for welfare and the children were going without food. The family was

living on almost nothing. When the Premier remains silent, when the

Premier does absolutely nothing to prevent that minister's destructive

policies, the Premier condones it. This is the reason, Mr. Chairman,

why I am discussing this under the estimates of the Premier.

Mr. Chairman, everybody is afraid. Senior citizens are afraid for

their Mincome, the handicapped are afraid for their pension, civil

servants are afraid about losing their jobs. There is a stench hanging

over the Minister of Human Resources and it is seeping through to the

Premier himself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I would have to ask you to withdraw the remark "stench over the Minister."

AN HON. MEMBER: Try to act like a gentleman.

[ Page 1149 ]

MS. BROWN: I withdraw, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I must further remind you, and this is the

third warning, hon. member, that the material you are covering would be

more relevant under the discussion of the Minister of Human Resources.

I must ask you this third time to please change the tack of your debate.

MS. BROWN: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I am asking the Premier under

his estimates: is he really incapable of disciplining the Minister of

Human Resources, or is he in some way using him to punish the poor and

intimidate the civil servants, the senior citizens and the handicapped

in this province? Is this what we are paying for when each of us in

this province pays him his 28 cents?

Mr. Chairman, what I am saying to the Premier is that he must move

and he must act on behalf of the people of this province now. He must

remove the Minister of Human Resources from his portfolio. The damage

that that minister is doing in the cabinet is no concern of ours. That

is his problem. The damage that that minister is doing to him

personally is no concern of ours. That is his problem. But the damage

that that minister is doing to the people of this province is of

concern to all of us. So, Mr. Chairman, that is why, under the

Premier's estimates, we are asking him, first of all, to remove that

minister from his portfolio immediately.

What I would like to recommend, Mr. Chairman, is that he give that

minister Dan Campbell's job. Since he seems to enjoy meddling in other

people's departments, the least he could do is legitimize his meddling.

So that's my second recommendation.

The third recommendation, Mr. Chairman, through you, is that I

realize that the most difficult task that the Premier would have would

be to find someone to put in charge of that department after he has

removed the minister. I thought at first that it might be a good idea

to give that portfolio to the Attorney-General because it wouldn't be

as hot a kitchen as the Attorney-General is in at this time.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I've got enough to do.

MS. BROWN: But I have discarded that idea because I accept that the Attorney-General has no real understanding of need.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, may I interrupt you just one more

time? It is out of order in Committee of Supply to discuss whether a

minister should be chosen, whether he should be in the cabinet, or

which minister should represent the government in respective estimates

under consideration. The debate in which the member has been involved

is out of order on two fronts. And the member has on three occasions

disregarded the ruling of the Chair to bring her debate into order.

Therefore I will now read

section 19 of the standing orders while the

member is seated, and will have to remind the member that the Chair is

duty-bound to carry out these proceedings unless the member is willing

to change the order of her debate.

"Whenever any member shall have been named by Mr. Speaker

or by the chairman of a committee of the whole House, immediately after the

commission of the offence of disregarding the authority of the Chair, or of

abusing the rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the

business of the House or otherwise, then, if the offence has been committed

by such member in the House, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the question on

a motion being made, no amendment, adjournment or debate being allowed, that

such member be suspended from the service'of the House. And if the offence has

been committed in a committee of the whole House, the the chairman shall forthwith

suspend L proceedings of the committee, and report the circumstances to the

House. And Mr. Speaker shall, on a motion being made thereupon, put the same

question, without amendment, adjournment or debate as if the offence had been

committed in the House itself."

I would like to remind the member that to disregard the authority of

the Chair is a serious offence in this House, and I have given the

final warning. Please proceed.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask you for some

guidance. Under the Premier's estimates, I have an opportunity to

discuss — I hope — the fact that I do not believe that the Premier is

discharging his responsibilities to the people of this province. Am I

correct? Am I correct, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it is not the duty of the Chair to

teach the rules to the members. Every member has the responsibility to

learn the rules for themselves. It is the Chair's responsibility to

enforce them.

MS. BROWN: Okay. Then, Mr. Chairman, I accept that under vote

18 I have the responsibility to discuss the Premier's estimates and

whether he is discharging his responsibilities to this province.

This is all that I have attempted to do. I have attempted to show

that the Premier has not been discharging his responsibility to the

province. I have attempted to show that the Premier, through his

silence and through his lack of action, has failed us as a people. I

have not been discussing any other minister's estimates, except in

terms of supporting

[ Page 1150 ]

the argument that the minister — the First

Minister, the chief of the executive council, the Premier — has not

been carrying out his duties. That is what I have been trying to do. In

addition to that, Mr. Chairman, I have tried to make some constructive

recommendations to the Premier.

For this I am being censured. I really am at a loss to understand

why I have drawn the wrath of the Chairman and of this House. I have

merely tried to discharge my responsibilities as a member of the

opposition, to point out to the Premier under this vote that he is

failing the people of this province, that he is not discharging his

responsibilities, and that through his silence he is condoning

behaviour which is destructive — not just inside of his own purview,

but outside of it. That is all that I have tried to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: with the

greatest of respect I would draw your attention to standing order 43:

"The Chairman, after having called the attention of the House or the

committee to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance and

tedious repetition...."

This, Mr. Chairman, is the third time that the Chair has cautioned

this member and has explained to this member the rules of this House.

We have seen a continual and a repetitious performance of her quest for

guidance and her objection to your ruling.

As one member of this House, Mr. Chairman, I call your attention to

this rule with the view that I personally do not like to see this abuse

of the House privileges, and would urge, through you, that that member

continue with a responsible line of debate. We are here to debate the

Premier's estimates, and we would like to do this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Your point is well

taken. I think that we have drawn the matter to the attention of the

person who has the floor, and I sincerely believe that she will now be

discussing vote 18.

MS. BROWN: Under vote 18 I would like to suggest that the

Premier of this province begin to take full responsibility for the

promises made during the election campaign. The Premier of this

province promised that senior citizens' benefits would be raised to the

highest level in Canada; the Premier of this province promised to

establish a denticare programme; the Premier of this province promised

to extend Pharmacare to chronically ill children; the Premier of this

province promised to end property taxes for low-income seniors and the

handicapped; the Premier of this province promised to extend the food

price freeze beyond January 1; the Premier of this province promised to

subsidize mortgage rates to those groups in need. I have just chosen

some of the promises made by the Premier of this province.

The Premier of this province has not carried through on those

promises, probably because he has not been in a position to do so. My

recommendation is that the Premier would be in a position to honour

those promises if he had full responsibility for the ministry dealing

with those promises. If the Premier took under his personal care and

under his personal attention the department that deals with Pharmacare

and services to children, the department that deals with senior

citizens, the department that deals with subsidizing people in need,

then the Premier of this province would be in position to honour the

promises which he made in December, 1975, when he tried to convince the

people of this province, and succeeded in convincing the people of this

province, to vote for him.

That, Mr. Chairman, is what I have been trying to say to the Premier

of this province since I got to my feet. The Premier of this province,

if he is really serious about his compassion for people, if he is

really serious about his commitment to a guaranteed annual income, on

which he spoke so eloquently on Friday last, if he is really serious

about his commitment to senior citizens and children in this province

who are emotionally disturbed and to the handicapped and the poor,

would take over the department which is responsible for those services

and deal with those promises himself. He would not continue to remain

silent; he would not continue to condone by his silence the

mismanagement of the department that is responsible for the services to

people.

Mr. Chairman, if the Premier of this province, whose vote we are now

debating, is serious about ending the savaging of the people of this

province, he would take over the responsibility of the Department of

Human Resources himself. This is a direct appeal to the Premier. This

is a direct appeal to the Premier on behalf of everyone in this

province for him to start taking some kind of responsibility to start

putting into action some of the compassionate statements that he has

made, for him to stop sitting in silence and condoning the

irresponsible behaviour of anyone in his cabinet and, in particular,

that minister, who unleashed such a reign of terror against the poor,

the handicapped and the senior citizens of this province.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I had my hand up.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's the first door to the right.

MR. MACDONALD: I want to ask the Premier a question. He

hasn't answered the little question I left with him on Friday — perhaps

he didn't hear it — about whether or not he intended to reprimand Dnn

[ Page 1151 ]

Campbell. I presume it will be answered in the

estimates. Also, I think a second part of that, Mr. Premier, was

whether the addition of the political labels on the organizational

chart was done in your office before it was sent on, and what you're

doing about it. I am sure the Premier intends to answer that question

so I don't want to labour it and take a lot of time about it now. It

certainly will be answered before the end of his estimates. It's a

simple question.

The other question I want to ask the Premier relates to what I

thought was his very good action yesterday in terms of his attitude

toward commitments of the government of the province of B.C. Quoting

from this morning's Province

about the Vietnam situation, the Premier said yesterday.... It states

here, and this sums it up: "Mr. Bennett's comments were in direct

contradiction to a weekend statement by the Provincial Secretary, Mrs.

McCarthy, who said one government could not leave any obligations to a

future government unless they were enshrined in legislation and she did

not see any obligation in this case."

Now obviously the Premier has repudiated, and quite rightly, that

very strange doctrine which would amount to breach of contract as

enunciated by the Provincial Secretary. I think that's correct. But I

want to know what his attitude is toward sanctity of contract.

Let me give another example, which is of vital importance to the

city of Vancouver and involves the Provincial Secretary. It's the

Premier's attitude I want on this. The City of Vancouver sat down with

the PNE board and the government of the province of British Columbia in

1975 and in the B.C. Hydro building and made an agreement whereby the

province would pay $250,000 rental for the PNE premises. The PNE would

pay to the City of Vancouver $250,000. There was $500,000 in all in

constant dollars. The money over a 10-year period was to be spent on

social and recreational advances in the east end of Vancouver.

In terms of sanctity of contract, that agreement that was made in

the B.C. Hydro building was then formally approved by resolution of

Vancouver city council. It was then formally approved by a resolution

of the PNE board of directors. Finally it was approved by the

provincial government, and the first cheque for the pro-rated year of

$178,000 was sent to the PNE.

So if it's important for the children of Vietnam that we honour our

commitments, does the Premier think in that kind of intergovernmental

commitment situation that there is not a moral and legal commitment on

the government? What's his attitude toward the sanctity of these

things? I suggest, Mr. Chairman — and surely the First Minister of the

Crown has to answer this — that there was a clear legal and moral

obligation for the provincial government to proceed with the agreement

made which would be of vast benefit to the east side of Vancouver and

to the PNE and to the city of Vancouver generally. What was good for

the children of Vietnam in terms of the honouring of a commitment made

is just as good.

The doctrine enunciated by the Premier yesterday, which quoted the

Provincial Secretary, is of course nonsense. A contractual and binding

commitment does not have to be enshrined in legislation. They're made

every day between governments: the government of British Columbia and

the government in Ottawa by the exchange of letters, or by the passage

of concurrent resolutions, or by orders-in-council. Those things have

to be upheld if we believe in sanctity of contract. Here we see taking

place again, through the office of the Provincial Secretary, a breach

of legal and moral commitments.

I wish that I had the voice of the mayor of Vancouver along to ask

the Premier this question. But he's kind of backwatering on this thing.

He's backing off. He's saying, "Oh, we'll negotiate it." But I say no,

Mr. Chairman. I want the Premier to answer whether or not he thinks

that kind of a commitment made between three levels of government, all

duly in office and legally authorized, should not be honoured by his

government. I don't want the Premier to get up and say: "Because it was

made by the wicked NDP government, the virtuous Social Credit

government won't honour it." If that's the doctrine — and it seems to

be — that is being espoused on that side of the House, I want the

Premier in his estimates to repudiate it and say he's going to see that

the Provincial Secretary lives up to the legal and moral commitment

that was made in respect to the PNE.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Some of the members who were up

today asked some questions that should be answered or dealt with. The

question of Crown-owned companies was brought up by the member for

Nanaimo. I would point out that some of the difficulty in our

opposition to Crown-owned companies — especially where they dealt in

areas where the minister would have an obvious conflict of interest in

running those companies and then administering the rules and

regulations by which those companies would do business in the province

— was one of the greatest concerns we had as opposition, and one of the

changes we've made as government. The most obvious area is in the area

of the forest companies that were acquired by the last government. This

gets into a point of ethics and responsibility and whether you can

allow this type of conflict of interest to take place.

In regard to the operating companies of KFP and Plateau Mills, Ocean

Falls and to a large extent Can-Cel, although there was some attempt to

show that it operated independently by leaving the

[ Page 1152 ]

directors, you had the Minister of Forests in the

last government also being the minister responsible for those

corporations. As such, he operated the companies, but he also became

not only the referee who adjudicated how they would do business in the

province compared to other companies in the forest sector but he in

fact had the ability to change the rules and the regulations that could

guarantee either the success or failure of those corporations.

One of the most obvious areas of having the ability to change the

rules was the area of granting timber or promising forest supply, an

area in which you would have to be very, very careful. It was an area

of conflict of interest we brought up many times. When we became

government, I said we would make changes, and that is why the Minister

of Forests no longer has the responsibility for reporting or dealing

with these companies. For the benefit of the public, they report

directly to the Premier.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

I do say that my concern was also heightened when we became

government and found out that the former Minister of Forests, who was

re-elected in the general election of 1975 but was somehow persuaded to

resign his seat in favour of the leader of his party, did, when he was

Minister of Forests, allocate timber or promise special consideration

in correspondence that was tabled in the Legislature last year so it

would be available to all members. That was in the allocation of timber

to Plateau Mills for the construction of their new plant. Not only did

he have a letter written in his own handwriting and tabled in this

Legislature in which special consideration for timber supply was

suggested after he directed them to build a new mill and the directors

of that company said they wouldn't build a mill until they were assured

of timber supply, but he finally sent them a letter....

But when I was opening the Plateau Mills, in discussion with the

directors, some of whom are still there, they said it was obvious that

that company couldn't have built the facilities unless they had

received special consideration from the minister and the government.

This is the type of conflict of interest that often develops when you

have the government entering into business that must involve it in the

private sector, particularly in an area as sensitive as the forest

industry.

I don't want to rehash this. I only bring it up to advise the

committee, Mr. Chairman, why these corporations are now reporting to

the House through the Premier rather than through the Minister of

Forests. It is because of what did take place and what, I feel, was a

very bad situation in this province. I want to go further because I

think the public can judge the conduct of that former minister — he is

no longer a member of the House. But when we have an area as sensitive

as the forest industry where the minister has such extreme powers to

allocate or write timber sales, then, of course, you must have this

sensitivity. We couldn't stand this conflict of interest in this

province.

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) mentioned all of the Crown

corporations or Crown-owned companies that they acquired. He talked

about our criticism, and I want to remind him again, Mr. Chairman, why

much of that criticism was levelled and of the justification for that

criticism that was made known to us and later to the House last year

when we became government.

AN HON. MEMBER: You forgot the Land Commission.

HON. MR. BENNETT: There will be legislation dealing with the

Land Commission, or amendments possibly. We indicated in the throne

speech they may be forthcoming in the House.

I think the Land Commission still exists, Mr. Chairman. It has a

board of directors; it is functioning in British Columbia. I think the

public will have an opportunity to judge the Land Commission by the way

it continues to function in the province of British Columbia. What I

wanted to mention was the statement by the member for Vancouver East.

It may be the last, from what I hear from your new party president.

He's out to get you, and he's got $80,000 to spend to get the

nomination.

Mr. Chairman, he made a statement with which I wish to disagree. He said the

Provincial Secretary and the Premier were not in accord yesterday concerning

the aid to Vietnam. Let me make one thing perfectly clear to the House: one

of the reasons we have elections is to change governments and to change policies.

It's an avenue the public has to get rid of governments that are unresponsive

to the will of the public.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Whether it's on the municipal level, the

provincial level or the federal level, people elect new governments and

throw out old ones so they can have a change in policies. It is a

well-known fact that in these elections governments can't commit future

governments, because future governments are elected to make changes.

However, yesterday we were dealing in a very sensitive area that was

not a commitment of a government but was a commitment of this

Legislature. There is a strong distinction. It was a commitment that

went beyond politics; it was a commitment made unanimously by a

legislature on a basis of human need. That commitment as legislation

will be kept.

[ Page 1153 ]

The Provincial Secretary was 100 per cent correct when she said

governments cannot commit future governments, because new governments

are elected to make changes and to pass not only new legislation, but

to negotiate new contracts. Where they find a willingness to negotiate,

then such negotiation may be carried out.

The former Attorney-General and first member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald) did attempt to bring up a current negotiation that may be

more properly brought up, Mr. Chairman, under the estimates of the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy).

One of the members who spoke previously was talking about using the

Premier's estimates as an opportunity to express lack of confidence in

various of the ministers. I must advise this committee, Mr. Chairman,

that all the ministers of this government have the complete confidence

of the Premier, but the members of the opposition have every

opportunity, during estimates, to express their lack of confidence in

the ministers. They can do it during their estimates, and it's an

opportunity which we availed ourselves of when we were opposition. Then

there's the further opportunity when an election comes to make your

case to the public, as we did, and had many of those ministers not come

back as ministers and many of them didn't come back to this chamber at

all. That's the highest court of Political action with the public, the

people of British Columbia. The ministers in this government — that's

what estimates are about — will be accountable to this Legislature and

you may have your chance — to the member for Vancouver-Burrard — to

make your questions known when estimates are up and give the minister

concerned an opportunity to respond. It's very easy to attack them when

they don't have the opportunity to rise to respond. But during their

estimates you have the opportunity to also have them respond to your

statements and your suggestions or allegations.

When it comes to the guaranteed annual income or negative income

tax, Mr. Chairman, quite clearly my statements are on record, not only

during this committee but in representation made formally at

Ministers. As such, it's the position of British Columbia that, as

Canadians, there is a much better use to which our money could be put

in meeting income support to individuals in this country, and I've said

that we need to rationalize the various income support programmes that

are presently available on a federal and provincial basis. I said we

should add to that, on a gradual basis, the pool of money that now is

called equalization payments, that is paid to governments to support

areas. I say that that money should be phased into that pool of money

to bring the support directly to people. You couldn't bring it in

abruptly, Mr. Chairman — through you to the member — because

governments have predicated a whole structure on the amounts of that

money. But it could be phased in and it would be a more worthy way of

dealing with the taxpayers' dollars in meeting our commitments to

people.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I wish the Premier would perhaps

talk to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) on this subject, because

I listened to his words very carefully. He says a new government may

change the policies of the old. Very true. He says a new government may

negotiate new contractual agreements. True. But can a new government

break the contracts of an old government?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. MACDONALD: The Premier is taking a very cavalier attitude

towards the sanctity of contracts. This was an agreement among three

levels of government.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: No, I don't think you said that, but I don't

think you appreciate.... I'm not suggesting it's the same thing exactly

as the Vietnam situation. That happened to be all the members of the

Legislature. But there was a contract here whereby the three levels

would support the PNE and pay rent at the rate of $500,000 per year to

the city of Vancouver. A contract! Now does the Premier say that a

contract can be broken, and that you can force the mayor of Vancouver

to go back on his statements and then have to get into some new

negotiations and come out with a much smaller sum? I say that's breach

of contract, and if the Premier doesn't clarify it I'll have to go up

to Vernon and explain there that, notwithstanding that these are the

businessmen, they do not respect sanctity of contract, and do not

respect the sanctity of commitments made by the previous government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Kelowna.

MR. MACDONALD: Perhaps the Premier wants to clarify that

point. As I read it, you agree that you can break a contract because

you're a new government.

HON. MR. BENNETT: If the member for Vancouver East is

alluding to Vernon as being my home town it's just about as far away

from where I live as your residence is from where your constituency is.

Interjections.

[ Page 1154 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. Premier has the floor.

MR. BARRETT: She used to be friendly with you, or vice versa.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What I said is that this government has the

ability to change policy, introduce new legislation, and negotiate new

contracts, and renegotiate old contracts.

MR. MACDONALD: No.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You can renegotiate old contracts, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MACDONALD: That's breaking contracts.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Now as far as the specific instance that

the member for Vancouver East brought up, I said I wouldn't refer to

that specific contract which more properly could be dealt with under

the appropriate minister's estimates. So I'm not referring to the

contract that he mentioned in his statement here, but I do say as a

matter of policy that he well knows that governments are elected to

make change. Governments are thrown out when they've made changes that

aren't acceptable to the public.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. BARRETT: No, no, no, no!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. On a supplementary? No, there's no such thing in committee, hon. member. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've recognized the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, come off it!

AN HON. MEMBER: Hey! That's Digger!

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, will you kindly take your seat?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. LOEWEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, shame! Boy, oh boy!

MR. LOEWEN: Mr. Chairman, I come before the House this

afternoon with a heavy heart. I spent two and a half hours this morning

with one of my constituents...

MR. MACDONALD: One of your clients.

MR.LOEWEN: ...who has spent the last five or six years of his

life working very hard to build up a business that at the present time

is creating 50 jobs. This gentleman has built up a business worth

approximately $800,000 to $900,000 with total liabilities of $500,000

to $600,000. He has just recently been put into receivership. I asked

many questions and called his banker and his accountant and looked into

his situation fairly deeply. I have, on several occasions, mentioned in

this House I've been given the assurance from the Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and other members of the government

that there is a real concern in this area, and I appreciate this.

However, this particular situation points out to me the tremendous need

for us to move much further into the field of merchant banking and

venture capital.

Here we have a true example, a real example, where there is a need

for us to move into the merchant-banking field and, in fact, look for

the proper legislation that would enable secondary industry to do its

job.

MR. BARRETT: We passed it. It's on the books.

MR. LOEWEN: If you would have passed the necessary legislation, my constituents wouldn't be in trouble today.

MR. BARRETT: It's on the books!

MR. LOEWEN: My constituent wouldn't be in trouble today. I am

suggesting, dear member, that we have a need for making the facilities

available so that we can combine the dollars, the management and the

youthful enthusiasm to create jobs and develop this economy. In this

particular case, we have an industry that's well on its feet. It has

the enthusiasm, it has the ongoing management, it also has the dollars.

But it does not have the stability, the mature management, the lasting

management that is necessary to give the financial institutions the

confidence to carry it through the difficult periods. As a result, some

50 people will likely have their jobs taken away from them, and this

company will likely go through a

[ Page 1155 ]

distress sale.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I hope you are going to relate your remarks to the vote at hand, vote 18.

MR. LOEWEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again I might say that all this corporation needs is a true equity

partner to help it through these difficult periods and we would save

these jobs. I appeal to the government to move in this area and help my

constituency and help the economy of British Columbia. Save this

gentleman's dream, save his life savings and make it possible, again,

for this company to stay in existence and serve beautiful British

Columbia.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, what incredible lack of

information. On the Premier's desk and on the Minister of Finance's

(Hon. Mr. Wolfe'

s) desk is a report that has been hidden from the

people of British Columbia on this very subject. You're appealing here

to this Legislature when in actual fact, in the spring of 1975,

legislation was passed in this House to do exactly what you are asking

and it was attacked as being socialist.

Don't give him a hand signal to sit down. He's the first guy who has

shown some desire to question what this government is doing.

MS. BROWN: You'll discipline him but you won't discipline him.

MR. BARRETT: You see that? Mr. Chairman, we see the old hand

signal: "Sit down, Digger." In your case, it may even be more: "Go

down, Digger — all the way."

Mr. Chairman, on the Premier's desk and on the Minister of Finance's

desk is a hidden report that deals with this very subject — a hidden

report prepared on financial institutions, delivered to the Premier in

February, 1976, and suppressed for one whole year, allowing equity

position in financial institutions that would compete with the private

banks that don't give a fig for indigenous business in this province.

When we raised that, where were you in Burnaby, my friend? Where was

the Premier? He was the Leader of the Opposition, and he attacked that

socialist idea that there should be a financial institution to share in

equity to allow beautiful British Columbia business to survive.

Mr. Chairman, that member and the Premier can only plead ignorance

of their responsibility on existing legislation, which they fought. The

Premier went around this province, through you, Mr. Chairman, saying

that it was an NDP plot to take over the credit union movement.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: That's right, Mr. Chairman, and while the

Premier said it was an NDP plot to take over the credit union movement,

while they use these words and attacks, businesses that belong in this

province, that hire British Columbians, that keep the economy going,

are going down the drain because the big-business government got

elected — not a small-business but a big-business government got

elected.

Mr. Chairman, we find a pathetic appeal by the member who now runs out of the House. Where is he running to?

MS. BROWN: He'd better run!

MR. BARRETT: Where's he running to? He got the signal: "Take

it out." He got the signal to bury it, that's what he got. He got a

message, and that hand went across like this. We saw what you were

doing — silencing your own poor little backbencher.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame on you!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you kindly relate your remarks to vote 18?

MR. BARRETT: Look at that. Mr. Chairman, he got the hook.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: He got the hook, and now he's going to find a shovel. You know what he's going to be told: "Bury it, brother."

On that Premier's desk, through you, Mr. Chairman, is a report that

has been suppressed that would allow an equity position or private

borrowings to take place over a short capital period to allow small

businesses to survive.

We hear this pathetic appeal from the member turned on deaf ears.

Legislation was already passed in this House to do that very thing that

member fought against. "Socialism!" they screamed. In every corner of

this province they screamed it. Now when there is trouble, now when

they ask for help, they come into the House and they say: "Can we have

a bit of socialism, please?" What hypocrisy! What hypocrisy, and on the

desk of the Premier of this province sits that report that has never

been made public, never will be made public. Why?

What are the interests in the Bank of B.C. — the private bank?

Allegedly some help to the people of this province? None whatsoever!

The board of directors of the Bank of B.C., instead of delivering a

bank oriented to British Columbia's needs on private

[ Page 1156 ]

investors' basis, has delivered no other bank than

a competitor. We need a public bank in this province. We need a say in

the banking field. One of the most stifling things to private

investment in this country is the private banking system, and do you

know where I learned that from, Mr. Chairman? Guess where I learned

that? I used to read William O. Douglas, was it? No, it was Major

Douglas — it was the different Douglas — and Aberhart and Manning when

they used to talk about social credit.

Do you remember social credit? That used to be a philosophy about

reforming the bank system. Now it's just a cover name for the gang in

power. Social Credit used to believe in an alternate banking system,

and yet hidden on that Premier's desk is a report that would give an

alternative financial institution to help the small businessmen of this

province, and we hear this pathetic plea: "Help this man in Burnaby."

It could be done. The legislation could be proclaimed. This

government could help the small businessman. Instead of that, we find

this poor member abused in this House by hand signals to sit down. I am

glad it wasn't an indecent gesture you got, but in effect it had the

same result, Mr. Chairman. That report is on the Premier's desk, and

that is what I'm talking about. On his desk! A secret, hidden report

submitted to you in February by the credit unions of British Columbia —

that special committee that was set up.

MS. BROWN: Leak it!

MR. BARRETT: You know where that report is. Trebell? What do you want to say about Frank Trebell? Say what you want to say. Stand up!

MR. KING: Don't whisper.

MR. BARRETT: Don't whisper. Don't talk to that guy — he's had

his own Trebells. (Laughter.) He's had his own troubles. Who am I to

question it, Mr. Chairman?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you could relate your remarks to the vote at hand, hon. member....

MR.BARRETT: Mr.Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. the hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

MR. BARRETT: That's right, and they're picking on me, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Stop them from picking on me, Mr. Chairman. What

a pathetic situation we have in this province with over 112,000

unemployed, small businessmen going down the drain, and then to have a

discussion under the Premier's estimates — an appeal for financial

assistance — when the very legislation has already been debated and

passed in this House, and a hidden report has been suppressed for over

a year that was submitted by that committee, including George May of

the B.C. Central Credit Union. That report has been on the Premier's

desk, on the Minister of Finance's (Hon. Mr. Wolfe'

s) desk, for a whole

year. I am going to have to go into Burnaby and look up this person who

came to the MLA, and tell him: "That poor MLA dug his political grave

today by getting up and questioning the Premier about a hidden report."

AN HON. MEMBER: Digger's in trouble today!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I certainly feel that if the Premier

would like to stand up now and indicate he is going to make the report

public, and also go on to say that he is going to give support to the

small businessman instead of to the major corporations, I would be

pleased to waive my place. Otherwise, I would like to talk about

something that is going on in the province at this very moment.

Mr. Chairman, there's a question right now about a major subdivision

around the White Lake Observatory, very close to the Premier's riding.

The White Lake Observatory is just outside of Penticton. It's a major

radio observatory. If those government members don't know about it, it

was built in 1959. Surely the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

knows about it.

In 1959, Mr. Chairman, when that observatory was built, it was

surrounded by a ranch, or ranching country. No other interference in

that area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I believe this could be more readily allocated to the minister in charge of environment.

MR. COCKE: The minister in charge is the Premier. This is

intergovernmental affairs, Mr. Chairman, and I believe that that's in

his office. You know, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You will kindly relate it to that, will you?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say something while

I'm standing here, having been rebuked by the Chair. I have stood here

for the last two or three days and I'm sensing that the Chair in

[ Page 1157 ]

this House is trying to silence the opposition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order! That will not be accepted.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, that's a....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I will ask you to withdraw that remark.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, how can I, when I've sat here....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. I ask you to withdraw that

remark. The Chair is not running interference for anyone and this is

casting disrepute upon the Chair.

MR. COCKE: If the Chair is not running interference, then

I'll be pleased to withdraw the remark, but I sure hope I don't see any

further evidence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you will withdraw that remark unconditionally.

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you withdraw that remark?

MR. COCKE: I'll withdraw the remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Unconditionally, thank you. Proceed, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the Premier has

not gone on record in this matter. The Prime Minister of Canada has,

however. Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister of Canada has really dug a

hole for himself. Years ago, and as only he could understand, in 1959,

great scientists of the world and put in a very, very isolated area one

of the most important radio observatories in the whole western world.

When they did that, Mr. Chairman, they had no worries. Cows wandering

around don't provide any radio interference. Back a few years, B.C.

Hydro even moved a line to see to it that there would be no radio

interference. But now, Mr. Chairman, something different is happening

in that area and I believe that our government has to go on record and

has to oppose the position that seems to be being taken by the federal

government in the whole question of this radio observatory.

Let me just show you what's happening at the present time. Yesterday, in The Vancouver Sun ,

there was a discussion on the whole question. A group makes a

last-ditch try to protect the radio observatory — a group of private

citizens. "Volunteers," they're referred to as over there oftentimes. A

group of private citizens is appealing, not only to the regional

district — this is part of Intergovernmental Affairs — but also to the

federal government, to change their position. Now the Premier's been

very vague. He knows about it and he's made a vague statement or two in

the valley and those statements, I think, have rather been in support

of the people who are in opposition to this new incursion into the area

— an incursion, Mr. Chairman, that I suspect will ruin the radio

observatory and the work it does.

Mr. Chairman, let me give you a few of the facts on this question.

Right now there's a condominium resort development that, I suggest, is

a threat to the area. This resort development — I'll go into that in a

moment or two. But I'd like to tell you some of the people that opposed

this condominium resort development. A wire was received from Sir

Martin Ryle, Nobel Prize winner, Cambridge University. What did he say

about this development? He said: I'm horrified to learn of a proposal

for a large housing development near a radio observatory which has

pioneered vital advances in galactic research." He went on to say:

"This work is only possible with a carefully chosen site and a

long-term protection."

You know, Mr. Chairman, going back to this story, one of the members

from the regional district board, district administrator Jim Rheaume,

said:

"But the federal government never put up a plug

nickel." — he's right. "The scientists didn't get much support from

Ottawa. We're doing everything possible to protect the observatory with

the land-use contract, but short of robbing the man" — now listen to

this carefully — "of his right to use his land, what else can we do?"

Mr. Chairman, when this outfit, which incidentally is the second

outfit to buy this land since that radio observatory was built, bought

that land, the observatory was there and apparent. Now we're supposed

to turn around and protect his sacred right to develop this property

just because he owns it now. But he didn't own this property when that

radio observatory was built.

I've known that radio observatory since the time it was built. I was

up there. I was a friend of one of the engineers who used to work on

it. I think it's a sensitive area and I think if we're trying to

provide some kind of backup for the scientific world then we should

protect it. Even if the federal government won't, we should insist as a

government, because we can. We can see to it that there's no land-use

contract in that area; we can do that. So I appeal to the Premier to

look up the facts on this question and support those individuals up

there who are in

[ Page 1158 ]

opposition to this development.

Sir Bernard Lovell is at the Jodrell Bank. What did he say? He said:

"The Penticton radio-astronomy site is unique." Get that — unique! You

know, Mr. Chairman, I'm not too fussy about the fact that the Premier

seems to be ignoring this question, which is an extremely sensitive

question and an important one.

"The Penticton radio-astronomy site is unique in its isolation

— and that's important — and freedom from electrical interference. For the

sake of international science, I urge you to protect the site from the threatened

development."

He went on to say, Mr. Chairman:

"The radio-astronomy establishments in England at Jodrell

Bank and Cambridge are protected by a restricted zone for developments by planning

authorities. These precedents should be invoked in consideration about the Penticton

So this is important. Scientists around the world are the ones who

are supporting the people who do not wish this development to occur.

There's a long telegram from the National Research Council and from

D.W.R. McKinley, but they're all the same. They all say exactly the

same thing: "Protect the land."

Mr. Chairman, there has been an investment of millions and millions

of dollars of taxpayers' funds into that observatory. Right now I can

suggest to you that as of February 16, 1976, the budget — this is just

the operating budget — was $400,000 a year. There is a staff of 15.

Seven have degrees in science or engineering; five have PhDs. This

isn't an industry, particularly; this is a scientific necessity. If

we're really interested in science, then I think we should be

interested in seeing to it that this piece of science is protected.

This letter goes on to say: "Each of these projects is sensitive to

man-made interference. In the case of A and B, A is synthesis mapping

of individual sources of 1,420 megahertz with two telescopic

instruments on rail lines." This is their study of the galactic

patterns.

You know, Mr. Chairman, the Premier is quizzical. Maybe all of us

don't understand this, but it is important that man know something

about his universe, very important. I suggest to you that if we've

spent these millions of dollars to understand our universe better, then

it strikes me we had better spend a few moments of our time in

protecting that investment.

I suggest that there has been little or no support from the federal

government. They want to sort of turn their backs on this whole

question in the Okanagan. I say the federal government could very

easily have shown some protection immediately. How could they have done

it? They could have purchased the whole area. As it was they let it go

from a ranch to a developer when they could have done this before. I

now suggest they must do it.

They must make it into a wildlife sanctuary, a wildlife sanctuary

that is no threat to the area and no threat to the observatory.

Remember, Mr. Chairman, we spent $2.25 million on the Reifel Bird

Sanctuary in Richmond. Mr. Porter, one of the owners of this property,

offered the property for sale at one time for $500,000, but no action

was taken and he sold it to other developers. So now the federal

government have spent their millions. Incidentally, they spent $0.5

million on opening Mirabel airport, as I recall. Yet nobody seems to be

willing to protect a very important piece of scientific equipment.

I think it's time that our provincial government and this Premier

indicate that he's going to take a real interest in this. Particularly

I note that it's very close to his own constituency. He can drive there

within less than an hour. If he ever wants a guided tour up there

sometime, I'll see to it that he gets one.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier has indicated that I have a summer home. I

don't have a summer home up there; I have some property on which I live

during the summer in my motor home, but it has no influence. Whether or

not there's a subdivision way back in the mountains is of no

significance to me. What is significant to me is that there is

protection for a scientific piece of equipment that's noted to be one

of the best in the world. If the Premier has something to say about it,

I'll sit down right now.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member is bringing up items which are

primarily federal. I am aware of the site, although it is in the

Minister of Agriculture's (Hon. Mr. Hewitt'

s) constituency. I have met

with the various concerned citizens' groups and I have involved myself

sent out for my files but I'm not sure whether this information is

contained in my constituency files or here in Victoria. These are the

types of meetings that I do arrange with the residents when I get the

opportunity to go back to my constituency, not only of my own

constituency but of the valley, so that they aren't left unrepresented.

I've got a clear lesson before me from the former member for Coquitlam

(Mr. Barrett) of what happens when you neglect your constituents when

you're in the Premier's office. I am involved in this situation with

them.

I can't quote from my files because I'm not sure they're here. I've

sent to see if they're in my office, but I do believe they're in my

constituency office. I have had more than one meeting with the group

and I have exchanged a fair amount of correspondence with them and some

to the federal government.

[ Page

1159 ]

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased that the First

Minister is in contact with the people in the area. I'm sure that his

contact likely by now would be giving some kind of direction. The

Premier stood up and indicated that he's been in contact, that he has

an interest, but he didn't say which way he's going on this question. I

want to know if the Premier is sufficiently interested to intercede. I

believe sincerely — as a matter of fact, I know — that we could stop it

immediately as a government. This government can stop it just like

that. A land-use contract has to come to this government. The Premier,

just by the signing of his name on a sheet of paper, on an

order-in-council, can stop this development in this very sensitive area.

Mr. Chairman, let me just go on for a second or two, just to give

the Premier a little bit of the background that I think might jog his

memory. In this whole question there are three regional district

hearings. After these three hearings in which the people in the

regional districts stood out firmly against the development scheme, Mr.

Porter — that's the original developer, as the Premier will remember —

went to Ottawa accompanied by his lawyer and architect. The visit

resulted in the withdrawal by the National Research Council of their

previous objection to Porter's plans. On returning to British Columbia

he asked for still another hearing. This time the regional district,

being informed of the National Research Council's surprising

capitulation to Porter's demand, decided there was little use in

standing firm when Ottawa proved too weak, and therefore granted the

contract he required. The people — and I'm talking about the people who

are in opposition to it — refuse to accept such a solution.

Mr. Chairman, I am in total agreement with those people. The fact is

that they are taking more seriously scientific progress and the need to

itself, and up to now the government of British Columbia.

Don't indicate to me that this is a question that cannot be resolved

by the government in power in British Columbia. I see no reason for

this government being the least bit reticent about making a decision to

send a note to Pierre and to say: "We're not prepared to capitulate as

you have over your own investment. We're not prepared to see a good

piece of scientific property go down the tube."

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) has been in his place a very

short time as House Leader. He's been away resting. Now suddenly he

becomes impatient.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I know you are. I really appreciate your help.

There are problems with the land-use contract, Mr. Chairman. There

are significant numbers of people who are in opposition. I would just

like to suggest to you that Dr. Carmen Costain, acting for Dr. John

Galt, who was in Europe, hurriedly drew up an advisory contract to be

submitted for perusal to the regional district. You know what they did?

They said: "Bury the lines." And the Minister of Agriculture knows

perfectly well what I'm going to say now. Burying the lines isn't going

to take away the electrical disturbance there, not a bit of it. Even

the cars coming into the area create electrical disturbance.

Remember, astrophysical observatories have problems with a street

lamp three, four or five miles away. I'll tell you, a sensitive radio

observatory has real problems with any kind of electrical interference.

What did they say they'll do? Well, they're going to police it. Do you

know who's going to have to police it? The poor old staff up there who

are supposed to be studying the stars. They're going to have to police

the electrical interference. They're going to have to trace it down,

find whence it emanates, and go and try to fix it up. What a bunch of

rubbish! The Science Council of Canada should hold their heads down in

shame on this question. They copped out completely.

Because they know if they take the experts' opinion — and normally

scientists do, and the Science Council should.... Shouldn't they take

the evidence of Sir Martin Ryle, Nobel prize winner? Shouldn't they

take the evidence of Sir Bernard Lovell, who is very definitely the

world's most eminent scientist in this particular area? No, Mr.

Chairman, it's not good enough. They say they can look after it but

they can't look after it. There's no way they can. I suggest to you

that the way to look after it is to see that there are little animals

running around there, and that's all if we really want to protect a

very important piece of scientific work. I don't think, Mr. Chairman,

that if I named all the groups that are supporting this situation, it

would do a lot of good, other than to say this: that virtually every

important group in the Okanagan Valley with any kind of sense of a

protective nature toward scientific work or, for that matter, those

that are interested in the environment, are all, without exception, in

favour of stopping this condominium site from developing.

Mr. Chairman, I do hope that the Premier will be able to give us a

specific answer. I just want to say that this observatory was

established in 1959 in an area where housing development seemed

absolutely impossible — if not impossible, certainly unlikely. Mr.

Porter must have been aware of that when he purchased the property in

1963. It's 1963, Mr. Premier, when you're looking through your files.

So it strikes me that there's a contradiction that the federal

government is saying that it is concerned. I read Trudeau's letter. I

couldn't find it today, I wish I

[ Page 1160 ]

could have.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You mean you have troubles with your files, too?

MR. COCKE: I've got one. You've got one too. You remember in

that letter — I'm just paraphrasing what he had to say — he was

concerned about the property rights. He was concerned about the

property rights of those developers. Those developers knew perfectly

well in 1963 when they bought that property that that property was

sensitive property. They bought a ranch. There was no protection for

that kind of land in those days. Thank heaven for the NDP later. So,

Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that the Premier immediately rush down

to his office, send off a wire to Prime Minister Trudeau and tell him

to.... He'll get it when he gets back from his visit where he's

accompanying Mr. Gibson to Washington.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The member for North Vancouver. I apologize abjectly for that.

MR. WALLACE: You'll notice he didn't invite me!

MR. COCKE: Scotty, don't you worry. You hang around long enough

and he's going to invite you, too.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't even invite the Premier.

MR. COCKE: He didn't even invite George.

Sorry, Mr. Chairman. This is a serious matter. I believe that the

First Minister, through his other ministers and on his own behalf, can

immediately stop this abuse of development — and I'm talking about

scientific development — immediately. I hope that he'll stand up in

this House and tell us just how he's going to go about it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I've already advised the

member that there is some correspondence from the Premier to the

federal authorities. I would point out that the provincial government

in 1960 set up a reserve of 919 acres of Crown land by order-in-council

— that was September 9, 1960 — and provincial Crown lands encompassing

the site were reserved for this purpose. The problem, as the member

suggests, is with privately owned land. You can attack those who own

private land in this province, but the right of private ownership and

land ownership is one of the rights that was partly discussed in the

last election, and whether the government would have the ability to use

its power to attack those rights. I think one of the things we talked

about was confiscation by taxation or bending the rules, but we did

make a submission.

One of the submissions that has been discussed by governments...and

this problem didn't start during our government. The first discussion

of this problem arose in 1971, and the member for New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke) was a cabinet minister in the last government that, for three

and a half years, allowed this problem to fester. One of the

suggestions has been that the federal government, in respecting private

property rights to protect its observatory, and they're able to make

the scientific judgments, would purchase private lands from individuals

who are Canadian citizens — they're not just B.C. citizens — for what

is a federal government scientific facility. This province, in 1960,

did set aside a reserve — the size of reserve, I guess, that was

requested by them for this site — which was 919 acres.

I've supported the committee's applications to the Government of

Canada. Those files are apparently in my constituency office in South

Okanagan where most of the correspondence and meetings have taken place

with the group who are concerned about this in trying to get the

federal government to realize their responsibility in this area. It

involves more than the provincial government. It also involves powers

and opportunities of local governments, and local governments have been

given authority to deal with problems in their own areas and provide

planning, but in this area our representation has been to the

Apparently the request was not made, and I don't have any further

information other than that the request they made to the provincial

government in 1959 or 1960 did result in the 919 acres being set up as

a Crown reserve for them. The land was provided from the Crown. The

problem now is, and has been since 1971, with private ownership of

private owners — that is, British Columbia and Canadian citizens — and

their applications before their local governments. I think a suggestion

that has been made, and that hasn't been dealt with during all of this

period of 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976, is in resolving this and

getting the federal government to purchase their lands to protect their

rights as well, because citizens do have some rights.

It's dangerous to suggest that governments look for loopholes to

come down on citizens in some other related sphere of government to

take the pressure off a level of government that isn't reacting i