1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 28, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2123 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial Statement

Alert Bay medical services.

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 2123

Mr. Cocke –– 2123

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Natural gas exports. Mr. Macdonald –– 2124

Housing initiative program. Hon. Mr. Chabot replies –– 2124

Air pollution. Mr. Skelly –– 2125

Renovation of Queen of Prince Rupert . Hon. Mr. Heinrich replies –– 2125

Foreign ownership of land. Ms. Sanford –– 2125

Macdonald inquiry into RCMP behaviour. Mr. Leggatt –– 2125

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office estimates.

On vote 9.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2126

Mr. Leggatt –– 2126

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2127

Mr. Macdonald –– 2128

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2128

Mr. Lauk –– 2128

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2129

Mr. Barrett –– 2129

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2129

Division on the motion that the committee rise –– 2135

Mr. Howard –– 2135

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2135

Mr. Leggatt –– 2138

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2139

Mr. King –– 2139

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2139

Mr. Cocke –– 2142

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2143

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 2145

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2145

Mrs. Dailly –– 2145

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2145

Mr. Lea –– 2146

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2148

MONDAY, APRIL 28, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon is a Mr. John Mitchell.

John is the director of industrial relations for the Ocean Falls

Corporation. He is a long-time friend of mine and in my estimation a

fellow who is doing a very good job of relocating the employees at

Ocean Falls. I would ask the House to make him very welcome.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, among the many visitors to our capital city today and

among the many American visitors is Elizabeth Read, who is visiting our

city from Los Angeles by way of direct invitation of the people of

British Columbia. I would like the House to welcome her.

MRS. WALLACE:

In the gallery at the moment are a group of students from Lake Cowichan

Secondary School together with their teachers and three exchange

students, two from Ontario and one from Newfoundland. I would ask the

House to join me in welcoming them.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome Alderman Jerry Paul and

his wife Sybil from the city of Trail. They are visiting with us today.

MR. SEGARTY:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon are Mike and Adeline Wasnock

from Fernie, British Columbia. Mike is chairman of School District No.

1 in Fernie. I would like the House to welcome them.

MR. PASSARELL:

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is Mr. Oskar Daum, who has travelled

down from the constituency of Atlin, and I wish the House to bid him

adieu for today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members,

visiting with us from the Legislative Assembly of the Yukon is the

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Patrick L. Michael, and I would

ask the House to give him a warm welcome.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Mr. Speaker, visiting here in the gallery today is a former resident of

British Columbia, Mr. Ronald Jones, who works in Tokyo and whose father

was a well-known educator in Kamloops and probably known by some

members of this House. He is a long-time family friend of mine. I would

like the House to make him welcome.

ALERT BAY

MEDICAL SERVICES

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, there being no introduction of bills, I would like to make a ministerial statement.

Mr. Speaker, concerning the recent federal study on Alert Bay, I'd like

to inform the House this afternoon that the study commissioned by the federal

government and undertaken by Dr. Goldthorpe on Indian health and health-care

services in Alert Bay has been completed and released by the federal Health

minister on a limited basis. I don't know what "a limited basis"

means, but it means at least to the Vancouver Sun .

view of the great public concern about the implications of Dr.

Goldthorpe's report, I would like to take this opportunity to report to

the House on my visit to Ottawa last Monday to meet with the Hon.

Monique Bégin, and to comment on the action I have taken on Dr.

Goldthorpe's report. I might say that when I met with MoniqueBégin I had not the opportunity of seeing that report, nor had it been released. My deputy minister and I met with Mme. Bégin

and her senior staff and made what I feel is significant progress in

resolving the problems caused by the split responsibility for Indian

health care in this province.

I am pleased to table for the

information of hon. members the document that was presented to the

federal Minister of Health. In so doing, I would like to point out that

this meeting took place, as I said a moment ago, before the publication

of Dr. Goldthorpe's report.

1. I wish to inform the members that Mme. Bégin

has agreed to the formation of a liaison committee of the federal and

provincial governments with the active input and representation of the

native people at Alert Bay. This committee will oversee the joint

resolution of the current problems in Alert Bay and will work towards

the establishment of one system for the community as a whole. I would

like to impress upon hon. members the significance of this committee

and the fact that this is a first for British Columbia. This will, I

hope, serve as a model for the resolution of native health-care

problems in the province as a whole.

2. Work is going on to establish an alcohol treatment centre in Alert Bay.

3. There will be further planning and discussions in regard to the need for acute-care facilities in this community.

Action will be taken to review the constitution and bylaws of the

health facilities in Alert Bay to ensure adequate representation by

population from the community.

5. Investigations will be

made immediately into the possible limitation of surgical procedures at

St. George's Hospital in Alert Bay.

6. The Ministry of

Health is endeavouring to obtain the services of a second physician in

Alert Bay as soon as possible. A subsidy will be available to this

physician under the provisions of our service to isolated communities

program. There are currently two physicians practising in Port McNeill

who are being subsidized through this provincial program.

Mr.

Speaker, as for that specific report, I have today sent a telegram to

Dr. Goldthorpe asking for the specific evidence on which he based his

criticisms of Dr. Jack Pickup. Dr. Goldthorpe made some very serious

allegations. While I am not directly concerned with the actions that

may have to be taken by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, I

intend to bring Dr. Goldthorpe's evidence to the attention of the

college and of the St. George's Hospital board in Alert Bay with the

strongest possible recommendation that they consider this evidence and

take the appropriate action.

I would like at this time to table the document which I presented to the Hon. Monique Bégin last Monday, along with copies of the two Telexes I sent today, one to Dr. Goldthorpe and one to the Hon. Monique Bégin.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the opposition I thank the minister for his

statement. I note that he is particularly concerned about the native

health care in not only Alert

[ Page 2124 ]

Bay,

I'm sure, but in the rest of the province, and I have read some of the

proposals by the provincial government. I'd like to alert the minister

about the concern of the natives in terms of the provincial direction

of native health care. I've heard directly from the Union of B.C.

Indian Chiefs and they are most concerned — to say the least.

I'm

particularly pleased that the Dr. Goldthorpe report has come down. I

really think it reinforces a feeling that I've had for some years, and

that is that it's time we looked at not only lay people sitting on

grievance committees of the different professional organizations —

particularly one as sensitive as health care, and particularly one as

sensitive as the leaders in health care, the doctors.... As a matter of

fact, I feel that there should be lay representation in the college.

hope to see the remainder of the report. I'd like to know how the

Minister of Health for Canada responded to the minister's statement,

and I'm sure that that will be given to us in due course. But Alert

Bay, I think, has been particularly focused upon. It's not the only

area in the province that has trouble, but I do hope that this

limitation of surgical procedures is very limited and that we're able

to bring doctors into the area in order to give emergency care, because

deaths can result when a place is as isolated as that from the

mainland. I would sure hope that we can get doctors into the area in

order to provide the level of care that those people, just the same as

any other groups, require.

Oral Questions

NATURAL GAS EXPORTS

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources. On April 15 the federal government announced a

six-month moratorium on increases in the export price of natural gas. I

want to know whether or not the minister and this government were

consulted prior to that announcement of policy by the federal

government.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD:

Would the minister then, as a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, advise the

House when the government was consulted, what representations were

made, and how were they made to the federal government?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I would have to look in my diary to see exactly when I had

conversations with the federal government on this matter, but I can say

that during the first meeting that I had the opportunity to have with

the new Minister of Energy, Marc Lalonde, we talked about this matter.

British Columbia put forward its concerns, and the day after our

meeting, I believe, the Minister of Energy for Canada was in

conversation with the national energy secretary. As a result there were

some changes made to the formula for achieving increases in the export

price of natural gas, some of them as a result of the concerns that

British Columbia had expressed. From that time until now I've had a

number of conversations with the Minister of Energy for Canada, and I

expect we'll continue to have these conversations, as the minister has

promised that there will be full consultation before any changes of

this nature are made.

MR. MACDONALD: The minister

seems to be saying that notwithstanding this six-month freeze, which

affects the economy of British Columbia very substantially and puts our

gas below the world export price for that six-month period, this was a

case of John McMillian of Northwest Alaskan Pipeline Co. of Delaware

putting a thumb on the federal government to get that freeze, and that

this government made no written representations, but has just had

casual conversation with the federal minister. I am asking whether

there was any brief or any position presented in writing to the federal

government. If there was, will he table it with this House and not just

tell us about casual conversations with the minister? Was there any

written submission made to the federal government on this important

matter? That's my question, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I will take that question as notice.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary question, am I being told that the minister doesn't know?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. There is no supplementary to a question taken as notice; the member is aware of that.

HOUSING INITIATIVE PROGRAM

HON. MR. CHABOT:

On April 16 the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) asked questions

regarding the Housing Initiative Program, specifically circumstances

surrounding the allocation of funds by the Saanich Peninsula Savings

Credit Union for a rental project in Port Hardy.

The member

asked whether the program was designed to apply to new construction

begun after January 15, 1980. I advised the member that, yes, that is a

matter of public knowledge. He further asked whether I condone the

demolition of construction work started prior to the commencement of

this program in order that new construction can appear to begin

following the initiation of the program and developers can qualify for

the 9 1/4 percent program.

I've made inquiries through the

British Columbia Central Credit Union on the question asked by the

member for North Island, and I've been advised that Hartshorne

Construction Company approached the Saanich Peninsula Savings Credit

Union for a mortgage loan in January, following our announcement of the

Housing Initiative Program. The construction of the proposed building

required that the footings be poured in a monolithic pour in order to

satisfy construction standards. For this reason alone the partial

footings placed upon the site in Port Hardy could not be used for the

construction of the proposed building.

In addition, it was

also the intent of the government that no existing construction qualify

for the Housing Initiative Program, which implies that any building

which qualifies for the MURB benefits, which were discontinued December

31, would not qualify under the terms of the program. In order to

verify enforcement of both these conditions the award of a rental loan

to Hartshorne Construction was made conditional upon an engineer's

verification that the site was cleared of the old footings before

construction was commenced. Hartshorne Construction complied with this

condition. In carrying out their initial placement of footings upon the

site Hartshorne Construction was merely protecting a right to receive

MURB benefits on the project and did not have

[ Page 2125 ]

financing

secured for its construction. Thus the footings would have sat on the

site unused for a lengthy period of time. Only one application for

rental loan in Port Hardy was received and it has led to the immediate

construction of a 52-unit building in Port Hardy. The building will

contain 36 three-bedroom suites, 16 two-bedroom suites, and as the

demand for accommodation from Utah Mines will only use 40 percent of

the total units, there has been an addition of units for the use of the

people of Port Hardy.

In

summary, the conditions of the

program have been complied with and a building is now being built in

Port Hardy when it would not otherwise have been. This new building

does provide a net addition of rental units available to Port Hardy for

the public use. The question of cancellation of anticipated MURB

benefits is being dealt with by CMHC. The ultimate decision as to

whether this project qualifies for participation in the Housing

Initiative Program was the sole determination of the Saanich Peninsula

Savings Credit Union. They have found that the project qualifies and

have allocated funding accordingly.

MR. GABELMANN: I

have just one question, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the reply by the

minister. Most of the information contained there is consistent with

the information that I have.

The $200 million program the

government has in its terms of reference implies that construction

initiated — I believe the word used is "initiated" — following January

15, 1980, is eligible for benefit. At what point does initiation of a

project begin? Does it begin with the clearing of the land? Does it

begin with the pouring of the foundations.? Does it begin with the

actual on-site carpentry work? Where is the point of initiation? This

project in question was in fact initiated last fall in several respects.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Speaker, I'd have to suggest that pouring of the footings means

initiation of a project. But if the footings that have been poured, for

instance, are not poured in a fashion in which they could adapt the

building for which an application for funding has been signed, then

they have to be removed, because there wasn't a continuous pour and

they didn't meet the guidelines. That determination, based on the

guidelines we established, was made by the credit union movement. The

Saanich Peninsula Savings Credit Union made the determination that this

particular project met the criteria which was outlined to them, and

based on that they advanced the funds.

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Speaker, are the criteria for building construction that the credit

union movement uses different from local building standards? In this

case the footings were approved by the building inspector for the area.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Those footings might have been adequate for a different building but they weren't adequate for this building.

AIR POLLUTION

MR. SKELLY:

I have a question for the Minister of Environment. As a result of a

1977 report on air quality in the Elkford-Sparwood-Fernie area, the

pollution control branch ordered Kaiser Resources at Sparwood to reduce

sulphur dioxide emissions by January 1, 1979, or face closure.

According to a document recently filed by Kaiser with the Ontario

Securities Commission, Kaiser has yet to comply with this order. Will

the minister advise the House what action his ministry has taken to

enforce the 1977 order?

HON. MR. ROGERS: The answer

goes into about 42 pages. I just happened to suspect that perhaps this

question would be directed at me today. Perhaps it would be more

appropriate if I tabled a response because it involves starting off 60

years ago. I could start off, if you'd like, and go through the whole

story, but I'll get it in a tabling form and table it. It's too

complicated to read it all out.

RENOVATION OF

QUEEN OF PRINCE RUPERT

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

The hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) had asked the

question I believe last week concerning asbestos in the renovations of

the Queen of Prince Rupert . I took the question as notice. The answer which I now have is two pages and I would just as soon file it, if acceptable.

FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF LAND

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Attorney-General. In

response to my repeated requests to initiate a review of foreign land

ownership in British Columbia, particularly of farmland, the

Attorney-General communicated to me in January of this year that he is

awaiting further information on the matter and would be in touch with

me again once he'd received that information. Can the Attorney-General

now tell the House what the status of this review of foreign land

ownership is?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: At this moment I cannot, Mr. Speaker. I'll take the question as notice.

MS. SANFORD:

I have a new question to the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General

indicated to me in January that he was undertaking a review and would

be in touch once he had received information. This morning I checked

with the land titles office, where the information concerning the

citizenship of foreign land buyers in this province is contained on a

form known as Form 16. I contacted the land titles office and they

informed me that form 16 is being kept in the land titles office. It is

simply being stored there, and no one has looked at those forms for the

past four years.

In view of the fact that the agrologists

from the Peace River region appealed to the government over a year ago

to take action on foreign ownership of farmland, I am wondering when

the government is going to do something about this. They haven't done a

thing yet.

MACDONALD INQUIRY

INTO RCMP BEHAVIOUR

MR. LEGGATT: I take it the

minister isn't intending to answer that particular question. Mr.

Speaker, my question is directed to the Attorney- General. It concerns

a report last week that the federal Solicitor General, Mr. Kaplan, has

indicated that if requested by provincial Attorneys-General he would

provide or consider providing the particulars of

[ Page 2126 ]

offences

that took place within their province by members of the RCMP under

present study by the Macdonald inquiry. Would the Attorney-General

advise the House whether he has made any specific requests for

particulars of offences and names of those who may have committed those

offences within the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, the information to which the member refers, I assume, came

from the press reports. I would urge him to obtain, if he can, a copy

of the Solicitor General's response to questions on the subject in the

House of Commons, which are somewhat different than the press reports.

The

specific answer to the question is yes, I spoke with Mr. Kaplan last

week and I have confirmed my conversation by letter. I have asked him

if he would provide me with all the information which he is able to

provide with respect to the matters under consideration.

so saying, Mr. Speaker, the member should be aware that in responding

to a question in the House of Commons the Solicitor General said he

would make available such information as he legally could. There seems

to be some problem with respect to what information is available to him

from the Macdonald commission inquiry.

MR. LEGGATT:

Would the Attorney-General now provide the House with his assurance

that when he is in receipt of this information he will proceed in the

usual way against any persons who have violated the laws of the

province of British Columbia — that there will be the normal processing

of this information as with regard to any other person in British

Columbia?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I don't

think I should need to give such assurance. But I am prepared to say to

the member that that is precisely what will occur when the information,

such as it is, reaches here; it will be turned over to officials of the

ministry and then to the appropriate police authorities. I might say on

the subject that when I spoke to the Solicitor General and again when I

wrote to him I reminded him that it is the responsibility of every

citizen in our country, and particularly the Solicitor General, to make

known to the appropriate authorities information that he may have with

respect to the commission of crimes in this country.

MR. MITCHELL:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to correct a statement

appearing in the Blues on Thursday, April 24. On the question of the

proposed takeover of B.C.'s largest cablevision operator, Premier

Cablevision, by the Toronto conglomerate, Canadian Cablesystems, the

hon. second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) is recorded in the

Blues as follows: "I rise, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, to correct

a statement made in question period. I own shares in neither Canadian

Cablesystems, Ltd. nor Premier Cablevision Ltd." The charge made by me

was that the member was a director of Canadian Cablesystems and owned

shares in Premier Cablevision. That is what was recorded in the Blues,

and I just wanted to correct the correction.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

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

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, I have a point of advice. Mr. Lawrie Wallace, deputy

minister to the Premier, who would normally be sitting beside me as he

has the last while, providing advice on the administration of the

Premier's office, is unavailable today as he, along with other

government officials, is attending meetings with the members of the

Bureau of International Expositions. This is the pre-inquiry team that

is meeting in Vancouver to look at British Columbia's bid to present

Transpo '86. Mr. Wallace is there not only because of his expertise in

the development of expositions or fairs of this nature, but also

because of his particular knowledge, having been agent-general in

London with the members of the team, and having sat in on the

preliminary discussions held in Paris. So that is why Mr. Wallace isn't

here today.

However, the expertise and experience is not

lost. While she will not be in the Legislature, a senior administrator

in my office, Mrs. Patricia Paulsen, who has served three Premiers in

succession and perhaps knows more about all of us than we would care to

have known, is standing by with any information not readily available

to me which I may need to provide for members of the opposition.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to follow some of the questions that the Premier

was asked on Thursday by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr.

Levi). The question of Mr. Goldfarb was raised across this floor to the

Premier and the Premier's response was....

HON. MR. BENNETT: When? Nobody asked him a question.

MR. LEGGATT:

Well, in any event, as I read the Blues the response was that the

Premier felt that it would be appropriately dealt with in public

accounts. I am simply going to provide the committee chairman with some

reasons why it's a matter that has to be dealt with in the Premier's

estimates.

I'm particularly interested in the Goldfarb

question because of an invoice that I have in my possession directed to

the Premier's office from Goldfarb Consultants. The number of that

invoice, by the way, for the assistance of the Premier and his

assistant today, is 594499. It is a bill directed by Goldfarb

Consultants to Mr. David P. Brown, Communications Planning Adviser,

Office of the Premier, Parliament Buildings. The date of this bill is

December 28, 1978, and it concerns a two-month period — August and

September 1978. There are a number of things about this, Mr. Premier,

that are interesting and I want you to direct your mind, if you will,

to certain aspects of this particular account, particularly with

reference to any conversations you may have had with Mr. Brown which

surround this particular account.

As I say, the account was

dated December 28 and it contained some interesting notations. The

persons who have made notes have been good enough to sign the

particular note. The account was for $2,500 and initially would have

come under the Premier's vote number 005. That number has been struck

out and the number 213 has been put over it.

[ Page 2127 ]

Obviously

the reason was to change it from the Premier's estimates to those of

the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), if I understand this

numbering business correctly. One of the reasons I'm asking the Premier

to direct his attention to this particular invoice is because of the

nature of the notations that we find around this account.

I'll

read the notation to the Premier. It says this: "Mr. Brown has advised

that the consulting work was of a confidential nature in connection

with communications problems and that further information, if required,

is available to the comptroller-general from Mr. Brown. He also has

advised that the terms of the contract do not exceed two months." This

was signed by a Mr. Ian Fraser, who I understand is the comptroller for

the Provincial Secretary's ministry. This account was received in the

Premier's office on January 3, 1979. Initially I'd like to have the

Premier test his memory or perhaps consult his notes. The question of

Goldfarb was raised last week so I presume there has been some

opportunity for the Premier to refresh his memory. Initially I'd like

the Premier to confirm, if he can, that in fact the Premier's office

hired Goldfarb Consultants for that two-month period back in 1978 and

in fact he consulted with Mr. Brown surrounding the appropriateness of

this account.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I can't provide all

the information to the member but I would say that if it involved

information for a number of government ministries the information

collected would be paid for under the Provincial Secretary. The vote at

that time for the director of government communications, Mr. Brown, was

paid under the Premier's office. That too has been transferred to go

along with other information services to the Provincial Secretary. As

the member has suggested, this would probably then come under the

accounts of the Provincial Secretary, having provided the normal

funding for information that may touch a number of ministries. The

reason for the communication director, I'm perhaps trying to reach back

now — would be to coordinate a number of ministerial requests.

MR. LEGGATT:

Is the Premier able now to table with the House or provide the House

with any specific in respect of the nature of the service that was

provided by Goldfarb Consultants for this particular bill?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Such service may have been for a number of ministries where the information would have been provided directly to each minister.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Chairman, this particular account was directed to Mr. David P.

Brown in the office of the Premier. I'm making the assumption that in

the normal course of events when one hires a consultant the bill goes

to the person who hired him.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No,

the member would understand that that is not always so and in fact most

likely not so in government if you're coordinating for a number of

ministries. The moneys available would be under the Provincial

Secretary. However, somebody's always called upon to coordinate

ministerial work and requests and presumably the director himself

collected such requests. The appropriate bill was sent to the

appropriate ministry for payment.

MR. LEGGATT: Can

the Premier advise the House whether or not this particular instance

was a case of Mr. Brown coordinating for several ministries, and was

there a specific request for Goldfarb Consultants to provide that

two-month service?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would presume

so. If the answer is any different I'll bring it back, but I presume

so. If it is different than I think at this time — trying to recall

back, trying to recall at all — I will bring an amended answer to the

House, but that's what I presume would be the case at that time.

MR. LEGGATT: I indicated this particular note on the bill and I'll read it again so that the Premier has a chance to digest it.

"Mr.

Brown has advised that the consulting work was of a confidential nature

in connection with communications problems and that further

information, if required, is available at the comptroller-general from

Mr. Brown."

I'm wondering, Mr. Premier, if you are in a

position to recall whether yourself and Mr. Brown discussed this

particular bill. What should be done with this particular invoice?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, obviously something has been done. It's been sent to the

Provincial Secretary, and, I assume, been paid. So it's not a matter of

something to be done with it. It has been dealt with, I presume. Unless

the member rises to question why payment hasn't been made or is acting

as a collector for Goldfarb Consultants.... But I would understand that

under the normal procedure it would be paid by the appropriate

ministry, and obviously the member suggests it has. In regard to

confidentiality, all government business is confidential, as the member

would know. That is why public servants take an oath of confidentiality.

MR. LEGGATT:

I appreciate that the Premier is going to bring us back some specific

information concerning this particular notation. There is also a

memorandum attached to this particular bill dated January 31, 1979. It

is directed to someone called Mike. The Mike is a Mr. Mike Mitchell. It

is signed by a fellow called Dick. His name is Dick Fetherstonhaugh,

and he's from the office of the comptroller-general. I would like to

read this memorandum to the Premier so that it will assist him in

recalling this particular incident. The memo reads: "Mike: We lack

sufficient detail to properly audit this account. I refer this for

information since this area is politically sensitive. Dick."

have the Premier's answer around the question of coordinating several

ministries. I'm just wondering now if the Premier can direct his

attention to this particular relationship with Goldfarb Consultants,

and his recollection of any conversations he mav have had with Mr.

Brown in his office. Is he able to tell us why this was politically

sensitive and not merely confidential?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, I don't know Dick or Mike, and I certainly don't know who

wrote the notation or anything about it. If the member would send me a

copy of the bill I would certainly take a look at it. I haven't seen it

or had anything to do with it, but I'll take a look at it and find out

who Dick and Mike are.

[ Page 2128 ]

MR. LEGGATT:

I'd like, first of all, Mr. Chairman, for the Premier to try to recall

whether in fact he ever saw this particular memorandum. It seems

obvious from the memorandum, Mr. Chairman, that the nature of the

account was discussed by Mr. Brown and Mr. Bonnell, I would expect.

The

next memorandum attached to this particular account is directed to Dick

from the desk of Mr. M.F. Churchill, executive director of operations,

who says this: "This discussed with Mr. Brown and the

comptroller-general. Mr. Bonnell has approved this voucher as okay."

What I'm asking now, Mr. Premier, is whether in fact you participated

in any way in okaying the payment of this particular voucher.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The appropriate officers have the ability to deal with government

accounts, and the one thing the Premier doesn't do is act as the

bookkeeper for the government. I understand you to have stated that

officers in authority, Mr. Bonnell and others, have felt the account to

be suitable for government payment. They're our greatest safeguard that

accounts are submitted and paid correctly.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Chairman, I take it it's a little unusual for the

comptroller-general to discuss an account which is not that large an

account — $2,500 — an account which contains a notation on it that the

work was of a confidential nature in connection with communications

problems. I think the Premier will have to forgive me if I find the

account somewhat suspicious when I look at that and worry that we are

running the risk of seeing public money used for an inappropriate

purpose, a political purpose, a purpose which has nothing whatsoever to

do with the operation of that particular ministry. That's why it's

important that the Premier refer back in his records to this particular

account and try to recall any conversations that he had with Mr. Brown

around the account, because I'm sure there is no question that any use

of public funds for the purpose of assisting in polling, for example,

to determine political rather than governmental questions.... I'm sure

the Premier would agree with me that that would be an abuse of public

funds.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, I agree with the last part. As for the

front part, I don't keep files for all the different ministries. I

can't look back and find anything that would appropriately be handled

on the administrative side of government. Now to suggest that I could

look back in files.... Obviously if it's been approved by responsible

government officers, it would be an appropriate government expense.

Because it is a bill incurred in the past, the public accounts

committee has first and full opportunity to deal with it, and that's

where it can be dealt with. I understand the member is interested, but

that would be the appropriate spot. That's why we have a public

accounts committee.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, is the Premier willing to come before the public accounts committee with regard to this particular account?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

There would be no necessity, Mr. Chairman, for the Premier to go. I'm

sure the ministry that is expending the funds could deal with it quite

adequately.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I would point

out that even though the amount of this consulting fee and travel costs

is $2,500, the account from Goldfarb Consultants is over ten times that

amount.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: A hundred times that amount. Thank you. I think it's $290,000.

I'm

concerned, and I'm sure the Premier is too, that the taxpayers of the

province of British Columbia have not paid a $2,500 attendance fee to

obtain a contract for $290,000.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I don't think so, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MACDONALD:

Well, Mr. Chairman, in listening to the exchange and the answers I find

it very odd that a respected public servant would mark a document as

being "politically sensitive," and that of all Premiers in Canada, this

Premier knows nothing about it. Mind you, the Premier hasn't said he

doesn't know what this account was for and what the poll was about, so

I'm asking him directly: do you know, Mr. Premier, through the Chair,

what this poll was? What was the question asked? What were the results?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Obviously the account referred to is much larger and may have dealt

with a number of ministerial services, and that would have to be asked

of the different ministries that received the service.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, my question was fairly simple. I'm asking the Premier whether he knows what this poll is about.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Government business.

MR. MACDONALD:

Well, that makes it in order for this Premier.... I don't think all

government business is confidential, as I think the Premier said at one

point. So if this was government business, it is appropriate now that

the Premier tell the House what the poll was about. What were the

results? Why would somebody consider it politically sensitive? Tell the

House about it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the

member presumes from his own thinking that the word "political" relates

to partisan politics. If you look at the definition, it's the art of

public business; it's public business that's being done.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to detain the committee — is that the right

way of putting it? The committee has been detained for quite a while

for non-answers already. The Premier has told the Legislature of

British Columbia that this poll had to do with government business. Now

I'm asking the Premier what government business. What were the

questions that were asked and what were the results? What was it about?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, I never mentioned the word "poll"; that has come from the

member for Vancouver East. We are talking about a service to

government. He's presuming on a certain service.

MR. LAUK: To the Premier on the same subject, everybody in Canada, and I assume elsewhere, knows what Gold-

[ Page 2129 ]

farb

does. I mean, that's no secret; the public knows what Goldfarb does.

They don't provide stationery. They don't provide technical advice to

government. They poll to provide information, usually to partisan

groups, or official organizations asking specific questions. They poll

the public, Mr. Chairman; that's no secret.

The hon. member

for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) has provided a sufficient amount of

information to the Premier for him to answer the very simple question

put by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald). It was a

sensitive political topic. It concerned confidential government

communications. Now what are the public to believe that means? If it

had to do with some engineering firm, or some other firm, we'd perhaps

understand that some of the technical information would be

confidential; but this is a poll-gathering group, and they've submitted

a bill to the government for payment by the provincial taxpayers.

Surely the Premier can answer the question. What was the nature of the

questions asked by this polling group?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Again, I've tried to help the member. I said it might be services to a

number of ministries over a period of time — if you're talking about

more than the single bill — and those can be dealt with in Public

Accounts; they could be dealt with under the various ministries in

Public Accounts.

MR. LAUK: It's astounding, Mr.

Chairman. Do you mean to say that the Premier is even now saying we

can't ask him any questions about his office's expenditures, or about

how his office directed the expenditure of certain funds involving one

of his close personal aides, Mr. David Brown? This is incredible!

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm not saying that; I'm saying the member can get the information from the ministry that paid the expense.

MR. LAUK:

We could get the information from Mr. Goldfarb. All right, if we ask

Mr. Goldfarb, he isn't by the convention and tradition of the British

parliamentary system required to answer, as the Premier is. Mr.

Goldfarb isn't the Premier. Mr. Goldfarb wasn't elected to be an

elected official in this chamber, or the first minister of the

province, responsible to the public who have a right to know.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Well, Mr. Chairman, all of the services to government — that may or may

not be coordinated — obviously fall under one of the votes of one of

the ministries. If there are a number of ministerial requests that may

require coordination, that's fine — and under the appropriate

authorities to spend money and acquire services, they are. That would

be a ministerial request that's developed in the ministry. It comes up

through the system and, of course, would be advanced as a ministry

expenditure and would be dealt with. That's all. That's a very simple

procedure and one that's traditionally been there. Health service, or

any other service of government that may need coordination, still goes

back to its ministry, and is accountable there, both as a request for

funds and a provision of government service. So that's where this

question can be dealt with. I'm trying to help the member as much as I

can.

MR. BARRETT: Nothing the Premier has said deals with this particular instance.

AN HON. MEMBER: it does.

MR. BARRETT:

It does not! There is a note here to Mike Churchill from Dick

Fetherstonhaugh saying: ''We lack sufficient detail to properly audit

this account. I refer this for info since this area is politically

sensitive." Now this is not a routine Health inquiry. This is not a

routine coordination. This is a statement by civil servants saying that

this is politically sensitive — "I don't have any information on this,

and I want to know why I should pay it." Then the answer comes back

from the staff in the Premier's office, saying this: "Dick, this has

been discussed with the comptroller-general, Mr. Bonnell, and is

approved. The voucher is okay." We want to know what the discussion

was. We want to know what made it okay, and we want to know what came

out of your office on this issue.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to say again that obviously responsible

government officials have been adequately presented with information so

they could pay the account. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest

that they have done something improper. Public Accounts would be a good

place to take that up. Obviously I'm pleased to see that those who work

in the public service are careful about accounts that are presented to

them. I've no doubts that with the tight controls this government has

imposed.... While the member for Coquitlam-Moody said he didn't think

$2,500 was much, I know that we think it's a lot of money, and the

controls that are in obviously dealt with it in that respect. The

advertising or information or part of those things done for government

that may be coordinated would still come under the public information

and government document votes. Then if they involved a direct expense

to a different ministry it would involve that ministry's vote and

expenses for information or service sought by that ministry, and that's

where it could be dealt with.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Brown

works in the Premier's office. This is a bill from Goldfarb

Consultants. It is for two months of a consultation fee and travel

costs ordered and requested out of the Premier's office. I'm asking the

Premier this question. I read a quote here saying: "Mr. Brown has

advised that the consulting work was of a confidential nature in

connection with communications problems." I ask the Premier to tell

this House what specifically Mr. Goldfarb was asked to do out of your

office that was of a confidential nature.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The Leader of the Opposition presumes something which may not be

correct, and that is that requests come out of the Premier's office.

Public information services were coordinated when requests came from

the various ministries, and votes for public information and government

documents come under the Provincial Secretary. Obviously coordination

probably saves money where you get a number of requests relating to a

similar service. You can relate that to the Provincial Secretary, and

if they're concerned they can deal with it in public accounts for the

year in which the service was incurred and the payment made. I would

suggest that the coordination is not the seeking from the Premier's

office.

I've told the member that if there's anything other than

[ Page 2130 ]

what

I've already told him I'll bring it back, but I've provided as much

information as I can. I know the Leader of the Opposition was out of

the House for that period we were discussing this, and perhaps he

didn't hear that or the answers that were given before he came into the

House today.

MR. BARRETT: There is nothing in here

that states any of this has got anything to do with any kind of

coordination. I don't know where that came from. Are you telling us

that this was a project of coordination? Is that what you're saying

this voucher's about?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm saying it's a voucher that's paid by the Provincial Secretary, who could probably give him that information.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, the Premier said that this is something to do with

coordination. Now he's saying it isn't something to do with

coordination and might be an answer that the Provincial Secretary can

give. Does Mr. Brown work in your office?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Brown works in the Provincial Secretary's office, where the

coordination of government services is now consolidated. Obviously, Mr.

Chairman, if the Leader of the Opposition had taken the time to be in

the House when the member for Coquitlam-Moody was sincerely asking some

questions, he would have known that I covered this and said if there's

any additional information I could find out that would appropriately be

answered here I would bring that information. I have no other

information. That's all I have today, and if there's other information

I'll bring it back later.

MR. BARRETT: At the time this bill was submitted, Mr. Brown was in your office. Is that right?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I've said that if there's any other information I'll bring it back.

MR. BARRETT:

Let's deal with the information that is obvious, so that we can get to

the information we want coming back. Did Mr. Brown work for you, out of

your office, under your control, in December 1978?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, I know the Leader of the Opposition loves to play Perry

Mason, but I've said I'll bring such information as has been requested

by the member for Coquitlam-Moody. If there's any information that

should appropriately be answered here it will be provided.

MR. BARRETT:

I'm asking the Premier a simple question so that we can go through this

step by step and deal with the information that he may not have and he

may bring back. Let's deal with the information that he does have. Was

Mr. Brown working for you on December 28, 1978?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Perhaps we could clearly identify where accounts paid by the Provincial

Secretary's office should be dealt with. I would say it's a matter of

public record that Mr. Brown was working for the people of British

Columbia at that date and that his vote was paid through the Premier's

office. The vote for public information is paid through the Provincial

Secretary's office, where this bill is incurred.

MR. BARRETT:

The bill was incurred by Mr. David Brown, Communications Planning

Adviser, Office of the Premier, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, B.C. If

you'll just sit still for a minute we'll deal with it and we'll deal

with it properly rather than you trying to jump up and avoid answering

questions on this issue.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Are you threatening?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Let's address the Chair and avoid direct confrontation across the floor. It's most appropriate that way.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Tell him not to threaten me, Mr. Chairman. He's being a bully, a big bully.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I'm being nice to the Premier; I'm trying to help him

through these difficult times. I'm not saying things about him behind

his back or on television like his colleagues are. I say them right to

your face. Let's start with question one. Is your name Bill? Okay. Now

that we've established that, though you, Mr. Chairman....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Do you want me to answer it?

MR. BARRETT: I have the floor. You make note of the questions and we'll deal with them.

Mr.

Chairman, this is a bill — to Bill — and it says "from Goldfarb

Consultants, 3077 Bathurst Street, Toronto, Ontario, submitted December

28, 1978, to Mr. David P. Brown, Communications Planning Adviser,

Office of the Premier, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, British

Columbia; received in the Premier's office January 3, 1979." Now that

makes it pretty clear to me that Mr. Brown authorized this work and was

billed out of the Premier's office. If there is any dispute about this

document, then we've got a real case, but I don't think we have any

dispute over that.

Now that we've identified that it's the

Premier's office that ordered this consultation, this is the

appropriate time to deal with it, during the Premier's estimates. There

is a note here. When the civil servants asked what this $2,500 was

spent on, the note comes back to Mike Churchill who is responsible to

see that the public's money is well spent, spent openly and honestly on

government business. He must find out what government business

transpired. So he writes this note: "Mike, we lack sufficient detail to

properly audit this account. I refer this for info, since this area is

politically sensitive. Signed, Dick."

Somebody in the

Premier's office, i.e. Brown, made a decision to hire Goldfarb to do

some politically sensitive work, and Goldfarb billed for it. The civil

servants in protection of the taxpayers' money said: "What was the work

that was done, before we pay this bill out of the Premier's office?"

Then what happened, Mr. Chairman? Mike went and talked to Mr. Bonnell

and Mr. Brown. Then we have a conversation — according to Mike

Mitchell, back to Dick: "Dear Dick, this was discussed with Mr. Brown,

who worked for the Premier at that time; this was discussed with Mr.

Brown and the comptroller-general, Mr. Bonnell, has approved this

voucher as okay."

[ Page 2131 ]

We're asking the Premier to tell us: did he have knowledge of this particular project before today? Did he have knowledge of it?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I've never seen this particular bill before today.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, the Premier has difficulty in listing the questions,

because he gets his answers confused. I didn't ask the Premier if he'd

ever seen this bill before. I asked the Premier: does the Premier have

knowledge of this particular project? Did he have knowledge of it

before today?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, first

of all, to discuss this in my vote, you're presuming that a bill sent

to the information coordinating officer presupposes that the sender of

the bill would know who in government would pay for the service. Now

obviously it was to be paid for by the Provincial Secretary, and was,

and that's where it should be dealt with.

Now the Leader of

the Opposition knows that. If all of the public that contract services

felt they should send their invoices to the Premier's office — I'm sure

from time to time some people in frustration in the past have — they

still would be appropriated to the proper ministry and the proper vote,

and that's where they would be dealt with. Now I have said if there is

any information I can provide on this, I will bring it to the House.

With the best of intentions I can do nothing more than to bring that

information back, and I will. If there is any information I can

provide, Mr. Chairman, I will bring that information back over the

amount the Provincial Secretary's office paid, incurred in the amount —

I understand from the member for Coquitlam-Moody who introduced this

subject — of $2,500, which he says is a small amount, and on that we

disagree. I think it's quite extensive, and I should try to find out

something about it.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I

specifically asked the Premier this question: did you know anything

about this special consultation fee or request? Did you, at the time,

and do you now, know anything as to what Mr. Brown asked from Mr.

Goldfarb?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I'll have

to bring any information back. The fact that some government ministries

were utilizing services from that area was known to me, but not the

specifics. That particular question can only be answered after I have a

chance to ask for the information of what it's all about and whether it

was appropriately paid or not and whether it should be answered under

my vote. I will bring that information back, if I can.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, we're getting places now, bit by bit. The Premier said,

as I just heard him say it, that he was aware that Goldfarb was being

hired by government ministries. That's what you just said. You were

aware that Goldfarb was being hired by government ministries. Is that

correct? Did I hear that correctly?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, I have said that I was aware that some government

ministries would be utilizing the services — or had, or may, because I

have heard the name, and I do know that they were utilizing, or going

to utilize, or some may have. These precise bills or the precise areas

would be up to those ministries if they dealt with public business, and

such information could be got by them. The particular question of a

bill that was sent to the communications planning adviser to send to

the appropriate spot, which apparently appeared to be the Provincial

Secretary's office, and was okayed by those in authority, and paid for

by them, indicates that some service was being contracted for.

MR. BARRETT:

I'm getting closer now to some answers. We've learned that the premier

was aware that maybe ministries may have used Goldfarb, or someone

else, to do surveys. Are we agreed on that, Mr. Chairman? I think we

are. Are we agreed to that?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I'm not agreed to what you just said.

MR. BARRETT: Oh! You're not agreed to that? Okay.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Leader of the Opposition put a word on the end. I said Goldfarb services; he used the word "surveys."

MR. BARRETT: Services.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I said services.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. Now I....

HON. MR. BENNETT: I know you wouldn't.... It's just an accident that you might change the word.

MR. BARRETT: No, no. Lord, help me. Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, just to get an answer out of you, I wouldn't change it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Do I still have the floor, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. One member at a time, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Does the Leader of the Opposition not want me to have the floor?

MR. BARRETT: It's all yours! Oh, yes!

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't want the Leader of the Opposition, either

inadvertently or for any other reason, to start changing words. I said

I've provided as much information as I can. I'll bring such information

as I can back.

However. Mr. Chairman, I think you should

consider, in dealing with the Premier's estimates, whether accounts

paid under the Provincial Secretary's vote or the Attorney-General's

vote or the Agriculture minister's vote should be dealt with by public

accounts.

Next, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have you help

me in the type of information I should prepare for my estimates —

whether I should deal with any services any other ministry may have

contracted or will contract in the future. If you

[ Page 2132 ]

could

give me some guidance, this will help me in the way I wish to try and

cooperate with the opposition by offering to bring information back. It

may be that in doing so, in being generous with the type of information

I may wish to bring back, I would be broadening the scope of the debate

that more properly belonged in other areas.

Mr. Chairman, I

would ask you to rule whether bills incurred by other ministries, or

any ministry of this government, should be dealt with — paid for by any

ministry of this government — or whether government should be dealt

with in my estimates. If it was broadened that way, it would require a

great amount of preparation for the estimates here, because we would

then, in fact, be taking on the job of the public accounts committee....

MR. KING: Boy, can you ever squirm!

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's not a matter of squirming. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke....

Interjections.

MR. KING: Have you ever answered a question straight in your life?

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's very difficult to talk when....

MR. KING: Disgraceful!

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

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke is carrying on this

characteristic behaviour — a model of decorum and certainly an example

to the students who are visiting the Legislature to see how he and his

friends operate on their behalf at great public expense.

would like some direction as to the appropriateness of it, because if

you want to broaden the discussion, it will change the character of

estimates and the type of information you want me to provide during

this forum, when access to the information is available in Public

Accounts. It may be the member's asking...or it may be the New

Democratic Party does not have the type of representation on Public

Accounts that they feel can sufficiently get the information on behalf

of their members. If that's their problem, they should deal with

changing the members they have on Public Accounts.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The point brought by the Premier to the attention of the Chair is a

most difficult one for the Chair to resolve. The Premier has asked for

a ruling from the Chair. During committee any matter revolving around

relevance, particularly of the Premier's estimates, is always difficult

for the Chair to make a specific ruling on when the only information

that the Chair has is the information that is presently before it.

Again, I would ask all members to bear in mind the relevancy

section

when we are dealing in estimates, and again, with the estimates of the

Premier's office particularly, the fact that the scope traditionally

over the years has been a very broad one. Nevertheless, it is the

responsibility of the Chair to see that in some way the relevance

factor is maintained during the process of debate. You have asked the

Chair a very difficult question: to rule on the particular relevance

regarding the particular subject now before us, with the limited

information that the Chair has on this particular matter. The Leader of

the Opposition on the point of order.

MR. BARRETT: On

the point of order, I wish to bring your attention to.... I am

referring to a document which was a bill to Mr. Brown at the time he

was in the Premier's office. It's addressed to the Premier's office,

stamped and received in the Premier's office. I ask when the decision

was made to take it out of the Premier's office and send it to the

Provincial Secretary. I haven't come to that yet; I haven't got the

answers yet out of the Premier's office. So I want to stay in order,

Mr. Chairman, by dealing with the Premier's office.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Thank you, hon. member. Again, that is the only specific information

that the Chair has at this time. The only reference the hon. Premier

made to date is the reference as indicated, and it is indicated that it

was addressed to the office of the Premier. That is the only

information that the Chair has to go on at this time.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, the information that you have from the member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) also is that the bill was accepted as a

bill belonging to the Provincial Secretary and as such was given

authorization and paid in that area. It is now a matter of public

record open to public accounts. The member, I believe, presented that

information earlier when the Leader of the Opposition wasn't in the

House. He now has that information along with the member from

Coquitlam-Moody and the rest of us who were here. I am saying that if

you make a decision that bills accepted by different ministries and

paid — because of the rules of this House — belong to public

accounts.... No matter how urgent the member may feel about it, if you

do it for one, you would open up the whole area of public accounts into

discussion under the estimates of the Premier's office. Mr. Chairman,

I'm saying that you could rule....

In a sincere attempt to

deal with the questions from the member from Coquitlam-Moody, who I

believe was sincere, I said I would attempt to bring such information

if it was appropriate and had to do with the expenditure of $2,500 that

was made. Obviously I've already given that undertaking. The Provincial

Secretary's office obviously felt the bill was appropriate as it was

approved and paid. So you have that information. If you make your

ruling now you can prevent me.... If the ruling is that I will not deal

with those matters which belong to public accounts, you'll save me a

lot of work of going to try and find it. If you don't, Mr. Chairman, I

would hope that I could get an early answer so that the staff work that

would be involved in going to other ministries for accounts paid by

them could be received.

MR. LAUK: On a point of

order, the point of order raised by the hon. Premier either reveals a

certain mischief in committee or a remarkable lack of knowledge of the

way accounts are paid through government service. The point of order is

— if you will hear me out — that if the point of order of the Premier

is to have any credence whatsoever, it would mean that the way the bill

was handled in the first place was unusual. No accounts are paid by any

ministry except through voucher by the Ministry of Finance and through

[ Page 2133 ]

approval

of the various financial officers of the various departments. The

Premier knows that, we know that and everybody knows that. Does that

mean we cannot ask any minister on his estimates about any expenditures

of funds in estimates because of the fact that vouchers are sent

through their financial officers to the Minister of Finance? It makes

no sense whatsoever, and the Premier's point of order is without merit.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Thank you, hon. member. One point of order cannot be used to interfere

with another point of order. I recognize the Premier on a point of

order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I would ask

you to ask the member for Vancouver Centre to withdraw the word

"mischief" as he attributed it to the Premier.

Although it might not be in Hansard ,

the Leader of the Opposition called across that we were hiding

something and that's incorrect. I'd ask you that if that was more than

just an aside he withdraw that as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I would ask the first member for Vancouver Centre to withdraw the word

"mischief," which has been found offensive to another member. Would the

member withdraw any imputation of mischief.

MR. LAUK:

I cannot withdraw it, Mr. Chairman, on the grounds that I suggested it

was either mischief or the Premier's remarkable lack of knowledge of

the finances of government. It can either be one or the other.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: If he denies mischief then I withdraw it. Let ignorance stand.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The Leader of the Opposition, rising on a....

MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Chairman, on vote 9 and in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, the Chair will determine what is in order. This is

becoming a bit of a habit that the Chair is finding rather offensive:

when members determine what is in order, not the Chair.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I was just reminding the House that I haven't been called

out of order in referring to the Premier's estimates in vote 9, dealing

with a bill that went to his office. There's a bill to Mr. David P.

Brown, who ordered something from the Premier's office. He ordered some

consulting services from Goldfarb. When he ordered those services, did

the Premier know what he was ordering? That's simple. Did he know what

he was ordering? I'll give you some time to think.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll give you the same opportunity.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I asked the Premier, when Mr. Brown ordered these

services, whether or not he knew at the time the services were ordered

what was being ordered — that's (1).

(2) After the services were

ordered and there was some question about the payment of these bills,

did the Premier discuss with Mr. Brown that this bill was incorrectly

directed to his office and that it should go to the Provincial

Secretary? It's stamped "received" by the Premier's office. Those are

the two questions. Did you know what was being asked for in those

consulting services? Did you discuss with Mr. Brown that the bill

should go elsewhere?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman,

any letter sent to the Premier's offices to anyone who comes under the

Premier's vote, even though they may be in various offices on various

floors in various parts of the building, is stamped "received" by the

Premier's office. That's a matter of record. If the Leader of the

Opposition writes me a letter unsolicited, it's stamped "received'' by

the Premier's office; that would be it. I said I would try and bring

the other information relating to this to the Legislature.

The

member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) yelled across to me that it was

a political poll. I'll tell you, you're absolutely wrong. This

government has not run political polls in the government.

MR. COCKE: The $259,630 went to Goldfarb, and they're a famous polling company.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, the member for New Westminster has mentioned a total

account paid, probably, a number of ways to Goldfarb Consultants, and

I'm sure we can deal with that. I've said that I will bring the

information back. But I wouldn't want that member to make an incorrect

statement as an aside and leave the impression that the government did

that, because that is not correct. I will bring the information back.

I've asked, you, Mr. Chairman, for a ruling.

Earlier when

the member for Coquitlam-Moody asked me questions relating to a bill

that was sent to Mr. Brown in the Premier's office. It was obviously

appropriately found to belong to another ministry and was accepted and

paid by that ministry. I said I would check into it, that's all. I will

do that and I will bring that information up. I can't offer to do more

than provide the information which has been sought. Along with your

ruling and along with our willingness to end the type of speculation

that a statement that the member for New Westminster might invite. I

would hope that we could get that information quickly.

MR. BARRETT:

I'm not talking about a normal stamp of being received. I'm talking

about a stamp called the coding block stamp that is put on any voucher

and then has to be initialled by the responsible person in that special

stamp, with the number of where the bill is to be paid. The coding

block stamp originally has the Premier's office on it and was

acknowledged by David Brown's signature. I have the document here in

front of me. So now we're agreed that it was in the Premier's office,

received there not as a normal piece of mail but by a normal method of

dealing with a bill incurred by the Premier's office. Here's the coding

block; here's Brown's signature. Okay, we're agreed.

At the

time Mr. Brown signed it he was working in the Premier's office. The

Premier says that he's willing to go and get information that he hasn't

got right now; I accept that. By

[ Page 2134 ]

that,

is the Premier saying that he has absolutely no knowledge at this

moment of what this particular consulting job was for Mr. Brown? Is

that what he's saying — that you have no knowledge whatsoever at this

moment of what Mr. Goldfarb was hired as a consultant for at this time

by Mr. Brown, and that you'll go and get the information? Is that what

you're saying?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I've said to you,

Mr. Chairman, I have no knowledge of what the $2,500 expenditure paid

by the Provincial Secretary's office related to specifically.

MR. BARRETT:

Is the Premier saying that he had no knowledge of what Mr. Goldfarb's

terms of reference for this project were? What was this project about?

Did the Premier have any knowledge at this moment of what this

particular project was about?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I said I would bring such information as I can back to the House.

MR. BARRETT:

When he says, "I'll bring back information," is the Premier saying that

he has no knowledge? I'm asking you now: do you know anything about it

now, or do you need to go out for the information? There's no need to

be slippery.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: I will withdraw the word "slippery." There is a need to be clear-cut.

ask the Premier this question. When he says he will go out and get the

information, is he saying by that answer that at this moment he knows

absolutely nothing about this particular project — what Mr. Brown hired

Mr. Goldfarb for in terms of consulting? Is that what you are saying?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, I've said that as to any request that might involve more

than a single piece of work, I would go out and get the information. In

the interests of accuracy I will collect such other information as may

be appropriate.

Mr. Chairman, there is a question before you

and a ruling to be made. I would hope that the government, perhaps not

through my estimates, but perhaps other ministers concerned about this

question may be able to deal with it quickly....

I wouldn't

want the suggestion that the member for New Westminster called across

the floor of the House to become a basis for unfounded allegations.

Obviously

it is in the interests of the government to prevent any delay in the

type of questioning.... It may not be appropriate for the Premier's

estimates; I wouldn't want to set a precedent in broadening that to

accounts that are paid elsewhere. I have given assurance to the member

for Coquitlam-Moody about checking into certain information. I'm sure

information is what they want and it will be provided when I have been

able to ascertain where to get it, how to get it, and how it can

appropriately be made available to members of the House — such will be

done.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I am dealing in vote

9 with the bill sent to the Premier's office stamped by the coding

block "Received in the Premier's office," signed by Dave Brown. This is

the only place where this bill, in terms of these questions, can be

dealt with. It is dealing with the Premier's office — an order placed

by David P. Brown, acknowledged in the coding block "Received in the

Premier's office." It is in order, as I understand the rules, and I

would be glad to give you a copy.

What we can't get an

answer from the Premier on is whether or not he knew what this project

was about. When the Premier says, "I will send out for information," he

hasn't told any of us that he knows a little bit about it, although he

did let a slip go to the member for New Westminster. I wrote down what

he said: "It wasn't a political poll." If he doesn't know what it's

about, how does he know it wasn't a political poll?

The

Premier said it wasn't a political poll. We have to accept his word for

it. If you know what it wasn't, how much do you know of what it was?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm going to find out.

MR. BARRETT:

How did you find out sitting there that it wasn't a political poll? You

get that information by osmosis, but you have to send out for the other

information? Mr. Premier, sometimes your actions betray the results of

what you say. Sometimes you don't connect your words. I want to give

you some more time to think.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I can give a quick answer.

MR. BARRETT: You never give a quick answer.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You don't want it? I can give you a quick answer.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, would you call that anxious member to order while I have the floor?

HON. MR. BENNETT: He doesn't want the answer, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, the Premier has told us that it is not a political poll.

I assume the answer is that the Premier has a policy that there be no

government money spent on political polls. Do you have that policy?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Very good.

MR. BARRETT: Ah, very good! We are now getting somewhere. He knows exactly what it is.

Can

you assure this House that this wasn't a consulting fee to set up a

political poll? I know that's a little bit more difficult. It is

complex for you. We accept your word that it wasn't a political poll.

As a matter of fact, it wasn't a poll at all. It has nothing to do with

a poll; it's a consulting service that we're after. The Premier knows

that it wasn't a political poll. I want to know whether he knows

whether it was a consulting service to establish questions for a

political poll, perhaps for the Social Credit Party. Was it that?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, obviously the government has very clear guidelines about

what is government responsibility and what would not be paid for by

government. No public servant would pay for a political poll. As I say,

it is a matter of government policy. That's how I would know and I know

that no public servant....

[ Page 2135 ]

The

Leader of the Opposition seems to find it strange that public servants

under this administration wouldn't pay for something which he would

term "political" in the partisan sense. I presume we are all agreed

that the definition of public business is the word "political." All

things then having to do with public life are considered capital "P"

political but not partisan. I am sure the members understand the

distinction.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate

the Premier's definition of capital "P" politics and small "p"

politics. This is the first time in my years in the House I've seen

public accounts vouchers where the following notation was made: "Mike,

we lack sufficient detail to properly audit this account. I refer this

for info, since the area is politically sensitive...." — small "p". Now

I ask the Premier, since he's made a difference between a small "p" and

a large "P" relating to politics.... This is the first time that I have

ever seen, on a public voucher, any mention of big "P" or small "p"

politics of any kind. What is meant on this voucher by "political

sensitivity"? They are brand-new words to me in public accounts. I have

never, ever seen a civil servant mark on an account: "This is

politically sensitive."

Now we've got some explanation. The

Premier tells us it's not capital "P" sensitive, it's small "p"

sensitive. All right, we accept your word. Now we want to know this: if

you didn't know anything about this and you're going to find out

information, tell us you don't know anything about it now, and you're

going to find out the information. You see, that's the definition I

want to know. I want to know whether or not you know something already

and you're not telling us. I'll take your word for it. Just tell us;

just stand up and say: "No, I don't know anything at all about this

project and I'll find out the information for you."

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition, in Perry Mason style, is

suggesting that the $2,500 bill is a single project or, as called

across the floor by the member for New Westminster, the $259,000 total

accumulative — I'm not sure if that's in one year, two years, three

years or four years...

MR. COCKE: One year.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

...which the member talks about, would be a number of requests from

ministries or a single or double or triple. "Project" is the word of

the Leader of the Opposition. It may involve a number of separate

services required by ministries. That's the information I've set out to

bring and make available to the House, Mr. Chairman. Now as I said,

rather than make your job difficult by broadening my estimates on a

matter before you for a ruling, I've said it's of much concern that we

don't let the member for New Westminster leave an allegation that it

may be something other than what it is. So I would hope that if it

can't be dealt with here, that early information can be developed by

the appropriate spokesman for government and made available to members

of the chamber and everyone. If they're not prepared to pursue it in

Public Accounts, perhaps the government can deal with it some other way.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I come back to a bill sent to Mr. Brown, the

communications planning adviser of the office of the Premier, stamped

with a coding number in the Premier's office, received by Mr. Brown,

dealing with expenditures under vote 5, as it was, the Premier's office.

The Premier won't answer one simple question. Do you know anything about this bill at all at the present time?

Mr.

Chairman, I think it's important enough that, as the Premier announced

today that Mr. Wallace wasn't here, he'd have someone else from his

office available to break this impasse. Why not take a five-minute

recess and get us the information? A five-minute recess would be more

than ample to provide the Premier with enough time to pick up the phone

down to his office and ask some questions. Send a note down, and we'll

take a five-minute recess, have a cup of coffee, cool out and get back

on track here.

We've made absolutely no progress in 17 days

of debate with the Premier of this province, who refuses to answer

specific questions related to information out of his office with the

expenditure of taxpayers' dollars. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be

appropriate for the Premier to expedite his estimates if he would get

some information. I move the committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again, to give me Premier some time to come and put his

head together and get some answers to this House.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS 23

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS 28

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallern

Hyndman

Mr. Howard requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. HOWARD:

I wonder whether the Premier could enlighten me, for one, and the House

generally, as to whether Mr. David Brown is still working in the

Premier's office.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the

answer is no. I know the member has his copy of the government

restructuring and cabinet reorganization of last fall, and is also

acquainted with the estimates. That position is contained in the

Provincial Secretary's estimates for this fiscal year.

Perhaps to assist you, Mr. Chairman, in your decision on the question before you, and to help the hon. members

[ Page 2136 ]

particularly

the member for Coquitlam-Moody, who is concerned — it might be useful

to just underline the mandate for the coordinating position that Mr.

Brown had concerning the executive council, and then the Provincial

Secretary. I would point to the report published when the position was

set up, which recommended "that there be established within the office

of the executive council the position of communications planning

adviser, said adviser to be responsible for provision of necessary

planning advice and expertise to members of the executive council, to

ensure that department communications plans submitted for review are

assessed for expense identification, adequate cost-benefit analysis,

and consideration of alternative strategy." That clearly identifies the

role, and presumably the role may have been carried out in this

particular case. However, I have suggested to the member for

Coquitlam-Moody that I will certainly attempt to answer his requests

and provide that informnation, should it fall under our vote, and to

assist you, Mr. Chairman, so we do not broaden the vote and set a

precedent. I will await your ruling for guidance. However, I have said

that I'm concerned that suggestions by the member for New Westminster

imply improper use of government information, and I would hope that way

the information will be provided in the proper way by the proper

minister.

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if I could ask the Premier, with respect to this David Brown — because part of the thing that we do....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. Clearly discussion of that individual at

this point is out of order. The answer has been given that the ministry

currently under discussions no longer responsible for that individual.

Therefore any reference to him is clearly out of order.

MR. HOWARD:

I know your anxiety, Mr. Chairman, but perhaps, if I had been able to

conclude the sentence that I was putting together, it would have become

clear that I might be in order, because what I was saying with respect

to Mr. David Brown was that one of the things necessary in examination

of expenditure of public funds by ministers of the Crown, and in

particular by the Premier, is examination of what happened before in

that office, and coming to some conclusions about what may happen in

the future. It's not a matter, I submit, of whether or not Mr. Brown is

currently at this specific moment working in the Premier's office or

working somewhere else. The key thing that we're examining is what Mr.

David Brown did when he was working in the Premier's office in the

past. That's what we're looking at in order to give us some guidance as

to what we do in the future. Mr. Brown's name appears on a memo about

consulting fees and about identifying something as politically

sensitive and this sort of thing. I want to know if that was the same

Mr. David Brown who worked in the Premier's office before and who

received the bills from the Social Credit Party in Vancouver submitted

to Mr. Brown and to the Premier's office in the past in order that Mr.

Brown could expedite the processing and the paying of those bills from

the Social Credit Party. Is that the same Mr. Brown?

HON. MR. BENNETT: What was the question? I didn't hear you, sorry.

MR. HOWARD: I'll just repeat the question then for the Premier. He was busy talking with somebody else.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I was listening to somebody else.

MR. HOWARD:

Is the David Brown whom we are speaking about when he was working in

the Premier's office — that is, the David Brown whose name has been

mentioned in connection with this particular consultant-fee project and

who signed that coding block stamp on the letter — the same David Brown

who received the bills from the Social Credit Party in Vancouver when

Mr. Brown was working in the Premier's office, and the same Mr. Brown

who expedited the payment of those bills? Is that the same person we're

talking about?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. David Brown is

the member who did the Brown report on government information and

services to government, who latterly in 1976 was hired to fill the post

of information officer through the executive council, a vote that also

came under the Premier's ambit as well as intergovernmental at that

time. A number of votes were taken in the Premier's block — Premier's

office, executive council, Intergovernmental. Now that position has

been moved to the Provincial Secretary's office which has the

information budget of government and the same Mr. Brown occupies the

position.

MR. HOWARD: This is what I said the other

day, Mr. Chairman. We get responses from the Premier, but in the

response he circumvents the question, and that's tantamount to refusing

to answer the question, in my opinion. I didn't ask him what this chap

did. Is this the same David Brown we are talking about now who was also

the David Brown who worked in the Premier's office and who had

submitted to him from Social Credit Party headquarters in Vancouver

Social Credit Party bills and that Mr. Brown in the Premier's office

who expedited the payment of those bills through this special fund that

was operated out of the Premier's office? That's the question. Is it

the same person?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 9 pass?

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I think Hansard

should show that the Premier refused even to respond to the question or

pay any attention to it. It's noteworthy, I think, all so to put on the

record that the Premier has established a practice — for those who read

Hansard and may understand what's happening here — of refusing to deal with questions that he doesn't want to answer.

Well, if he wants to reply, I gladly yield the floor to the Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I want to thank the member for extending the same courtesy to me as I extended to him a moment ago in yielding the floor.

Obviously

the member in the

preamble to some of the questions implies a number of

things which make them unanswerable. Not all the questions which

members from that side of the House have made — which are quite often

political in nature and unanswerable because of the number of things

contained in the question — can be answered. I would hate to accuse the

member for Skeena of being political, but darn it, I suspect, Mr.

Chairman, he might be just a little bit political.

[ Page 2137 ]

MR. HOWARD:

You may smile, Mr. Chairman, and the Premier may smile when he says

that — or was it a smirk? — but that is the prime example of what I'm

talking about: the dissembling approach that the Premier takes to

specific things put to him. He evades the question, talks beside the

point, attempts to obscure the fact. If the word "coverup" was not out

of order that word could very easily describe what the Premier is

doing, not covering up anything wrong but just refusing to answer the

question by answering in a roundabout kind of way. There was a David

Brown who worked in the Premier's office in 1978. Is that right? Did

one David Brown work in the Premier's office in 1978?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Aye.

MR. HOWARD: The Premier says: "Aye." Does that mean yes, Mr. Brown did work in the office, or are you just trying to....

HON. MR. BENNETT: I thought they called my vote.

MR. HOWARD:

You're going to call for your vote to be answered. Okay, I've had no

choice, Mr. Chairman, but to put it directly, what I can put together

of it, in the absence of any comment from the Premier to the contrary:

that David Brown did work in the Premier's office. David Brown was paid

for by the taxpayers of this province. David Brown was a political

person, partisanly political on behalf of Social Credit. David Brown

received the bills from Social Credit headquarters in Vancouver,

expedited the payment of those bills through this secret fund operated

out of the Premier's office. Put those as positive things. David Brown

was the person who authorized some kind of examination or study to be

made by Goldfarb Consultants, and he did all these things with the

Premier's knowledge. There's no other conclusion that one can draw.

The

Premier's having knowledge of all of these activities by Mr. Brown

indicates to me that the Premier was deliberately and consciously

involved in using his office to advance the interests of the Social

Credit Party, and using public funds to do it. No other conclusion can

be drawn from a person who refuses to answer specific and direct

questions about what went on in his office with respect to one David

Brown and the question of these particular accounts and this — how much

was it? — $2,500 for consultant fees to Goldfarb Consultants and so on.

The absolute refusal of the Premier to answer those questions leaves us

in no other position but to draw the conclusions that I've just drawn.

know there's an anxiety on the part of the Premier to get this vote out

of the way so he doesn't have to face up to the general public by

answering specific questions. These aren't the only ones. That anxiety

on the part of the Premier shows up with his continual reference to

calling "aye," meaning he wants the vote to take place.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That was the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot).

MR. HOWARD:

Well, you're being goaded on by your colleague from Columbia River.

Both of you may laugh about it, but it's a very serious matter. It's a

very serious matter when there's an impression abroad in this province

that the Premier's office and public funds were used to advance the

cause of a particular party called Social Credit, and that the Premier

refuses to answer specific questions about the use or misuse of public

funds. That's a very serious question.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Look who's talking!

MR. HOWARD:

The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing can chatter and laugh and act

in a jovial way if he so desires, but it is not a laughing matter. It's

a very serious matter that we're engaged in this afternoon.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, again the member for Skeena is incorrect if he's saying

that the government spent public funds to advance the cause of the

Social Credit Party. Yes, government performance has advanced the cause

of the party because of the good things we've done, but that comes from

good legislation. Now the member for Skeena knows the difference it's

made in the constituency he now represents. It was a depressed area —

the Terrace area and others. He wasn't there then. I understand he was

living in another part of the country while things were tough there

during the New Democratic Party years. But he knows that the policies

we've brought in to do with mines and forests, repealing the Mineral

Royalties Act, and a number of things have created prosperity in the

area. Even the member for Skeena will say that it even brought him back

— well, just that didn't bring him back to B.C.; I understand he had a

appointment from the former government, which I'm sure wasn't

patronage, which paid him a salary. But I'm not sure it brought him

back; I understand they may have had to mail the cheques.

But

he knows very well that the way governments advance their political

cause is to provide good government. He knows that when the New

Democratic Party were government they did not provide that government

and were thrown out. He knows that this government, in two successive

elections, has achieved the highest vote percentage of any party in the

last 25 years in this province; that is, a 49 percent vote attainment,

which with a number of parties running is a great endorsement of our

policies and legislative program. That's how governments use the office

of government to either advance their cause or expose themselves.

It's

easy in opposition, in being negative, to appear to be all things to

all people. It's when you're accountable, as this government is, that

the warts start to show and the blemishes appear. That's how a party

can come to office with great expectations after years in the

wilderness, as they say, having been all things to all people, and

destroy themselves in a three-year period. Then you see other parties

with a record of sound achievement and accomplishment — not perfection

— achieve electoral success year after year. The people start to assess

the things that they have acquired over the years, the opportunities

they have been allowed. It's not just a balance sheet relationship to

government, because although there are many good things in the way the

government provides income benefits, its concern about those in need,

the way that government responds to the transportation needs of areas

in providing roads that were lacking and fixing roads that were falling

apart, the way that government works in providing opportunity for the

economy, and encouragement in the forest, mining, processing and the

small business sectors to create jobs for the people.... That's the

sort of thing

[ Page 2138 ]

which makes the people respond and that's the only way a government can get a successive number of electoral victories.

isn't just an election victory that shows up; it's the results that

they leave for a long time — the benefits to the province. We believe

the record of accomplishment of this government has earned us a

continuing mandate from the people.

Mr. Chairman, the member

says that's the way governments get re-elected, but I want to say that

he's totally incorrect in making that allegation, even though it was a

round about allegation framed under the guise of a question that

somehow public money was going into partisan politics to pay for

re-election of government. All government accounts and bills are

substantiated in Public Accounts. Mr. Chairman, the opposition should

know about that committee, because one of their members is the chairman

of that committee and can call that committee. So they can't say the

government's restricted their opportunity to question any public bills

that have been submitted to government or paid. It's improper for them

to talk in areas where they have the opportunity to deal with bills and

services of government, to deal with public servants and public

accounts and to deal with these matters and then bring them up and

expect to fool the public by trying in this manner — where they do not

have to have the responsibility that they have outside this chamber —

by allegation through a question to make some suggestion.

The

only question dealing with improper use of public money by a political

party was asked in this Legislature by the member for Kamloops (Hon.

Mr. Mair), who wanted to know whether I thought it was proper for an

MLA to use what are publicly funded constituency offices in an

electoral way during a federal election campaign. I said I didn't think

any MLA would use those facilities, as they were there to provide

assistance for people responsible to the provincial government. I had

no knowledge of such a thing and I don't think any MLA would abuse the

public purse, because that would be a serious abuse indeed. So, of

course, to those sorts of questions, in that case and in this case, I

am quick to say there has been no abuse. Certainly in this case I can

say there is no abuse. The government bills are all subject to

scrutiny, not only through public accounts, but through the

auditor-general, the comptroller and the system of checks which we have

put up that provide accountability to the public. So, in here,

political gamesmanship certainly will not reflect upon the ability of

trusted financial officers responsible to the public to protect their

interest, because the public trusts them and they trust the

auditor-general. Of course, I was just as quick to say that there was

nothing wrong as far as I knew in provincial constituency offices,

funded not for partisanship but local MLAs' duties to their

constituency, being used in federal election campaigns.

Mr.

Chairman, you know that I can't speak for all parties in the House but

I can speak for our side, because we have no federal counterpart. We're

strictly a provincial party and as such would not be involved in the

federal election campaign. I would just assume that nobody would do

that, and I think I'd be safe in saying it hasn't been done. When I

gave that answer to the member for Kamloops I would be positive that no

member in this House would have done that.

MR. HOWARD:

Why don't you answer the question, Mr. Premier, instead of this

circumvention of the whole thing? I think it's interesting to point out

that the question I posed to the Premier was distorted and twisted by

him in his response to indicate that there was something there in the

question which was not said or implicit in the first place. It's that

kind of distortion of things in order to place a foundation for putting

some kind of answer on the record that leaves the general public with

the feeling that the Premier has got something to hide. It's just a

style and a manner that appears almost to be habit, and the more it's

engaged in the more it leaves the impression that there's something

there other than what there might be. Let me give an example.

no time did I say that government was using public funds to advance the

interests of political parties, and for the Premier to have said that I

did is a distortion of fact. What I wanted to know was this: did David

Brown, who worked in the Premier's office, receive bills transferred or

channelled to him when he was in the Premier's office, a public servant

paid by the taxpayers of this province? Did he receive bills sent over

from Social Credit headquarters in Vancouver in order to have the

payment of those bills expedited through the special fund that David

Brown somehow had a connection with? That's what I said. That's not

government using funds; that's somebody working in the Premier's

office, if that's what happened. Every indication is that it did.

Then

I said that in the absence of answers from the Premier about that, one

is entitled to conclude that the Premier knew what was happening, knew

that that was taking place. The longer the Premier tries to use this

distortion approach in dealing with legitimate and serious questions,

and attempts to laugh them off, and attempts to go in some other

direction, whether of the nature of a personal attack, which is what

the innuendo was in his first response, and which I wouldn't dignify in

any other way except by ignoring it.... When the Premier does that, all

he does is underline and tend to convince the general public that, yes,

the Premier knew all these things were happening. He knew that they

were partisan. He knew that they were on behalf of Social Credit. And

he knew Dave Brown was up to his ears in advancing that while being

paid as a public servant. The Premier's leaving that impression. What

other impression can be left?

It can be dispelled very

easily just by a simple statement by the Premier that says: "No, I did

not know that David Brown was doing that." Or: "Once I discovered that

David Brown was acting on behalf of a political party while he was

working in the Premier's office, I cancelled it. Then I said to David

Brown, 'You shall not do that any more.'" Some response of that nature

is all that is required.

MR. LEGGATT: In the course

of the Premier's remarks, he indicated that since the bill was paid,

since it was authorized to be paid, it must have been all right.

Certainly that was the impression I received.

The scenario

of the time factor on this thing is very important. If you look at the

date, the bill was received on January 3. It was obviously sent out

immediately to be paid. A memo came back immediately — that's January,

31, 1979 — from those same responsible civil servants who do such a

good job for all of us in terms of making sure that these accounts are

appropriate. It said: "We lack sufficient detail to properly audit the

account. I refer this for information since the area is politically

sensitive."

Mr. Chairman, we on this committee have to be

concerned that a civil servant was not pressured, was not approached,

was not talked to with the suggestion that the bill

[ Page 2139 ]

had

better be paid. I don't know whether that happened, but it's important

that it not happen, that our civil servants always feel completely free

and independent in terms of their recommendations about any accounts

that may be received. If a civil servant says this should not be paid,

that should be an end of it. I am concerned that civil servants are

asked to come in and consult with the Premier's special adviser on

communications planning — if not the Premier — to have discussions

around this kind of account. Because that's not an equal situation.

When a person who holds the political clout — the most important

political figure in the province, the Premier — and the Premier's

special adviser start talking about whether a bill should or should not

be paid, I wouldn't want to be that civil servant, because he's clearly

in an inferior position in that situation.

If the Premier wants to make an immediate response, go right ahead.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Yes, I would like to clear up any suggestion which the member might

leave by the line of questioning that I talked to any public servant

about paying a bill. I haven't. So I'd like to clear that up for the

members, so you wouldn't have to pursue that line of questioning,

therefore compounding the suggestion that perhaps I did.

MR. LEGGATT:

Thank you. The only suggestion, of course, from these documents, which

is the only information we have, is that if there was any discussion,

it was certainly with Mr. David P. Brown. I'm pleased to receive from

the Premier a specific denial, for the record, at this point, that he

had any specific discussion about whether or not this particular

account was appropriate or was to be paid.

But it's still

interesting and important that one look at the date that the account

was submitted, the speed with which it was rejected and finally, after

more correspondence and who knows what other discussion, the account

becomes paid. Mr. Chairman, this is the place that we have to deal with

this account for another reason. The Premier has already indicated

today in answers to questions that he won't be available for the public

accounts committee. I would think it ill behooves the Premier to stand

up and say: "Well, this is really something that you fellows should be

doing in Public Accounts. Maybe you fellows should change your

representation on Public Accounts, because they're not doing a good

enough job." They should be dealing with this at Public Accounts, but

the Premier has already indicated that he wouldn't be available to

Public Accounts. It's certainly appropriate for us to deal with an

account directed to his ministry which was not paid by his ministry but

was referred to another after some discussion about the appropriateness

of the account.

The other question I wanted to ask the

Premier is whether in August or September of 1978.... I appreciate

that's some time ago, but I'm sure Mr. Goldfarb is not only nationally

famous but, I guess, world famous. I just wonder whether the Premier

had any discussions with Mr. Goldfarb in 1978 during those two months

when he was out. You see, the account doesn't talk about any material

that was prepared for the government. The account simply says,"

consulting fee and travel cost." Now somebody from Goldfarb Consultants

must have travelled in order to justify that account. I wonder whether

it was Mr. Goldfarb himself and whether the Premier had any discussions

with Mr. Goldfarb in the summer of 1978. He may remember that

historically the summer of 1978 was a period when everybody seemed to

be doing a great deal of polling, and they were wondering whether an

election would be called. Perhaps the Premier can comment on whether he

had a chance to talk to Mr. Goldfarb that year.

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, I was hoping the Premier might change his mind and get up

and give some specific answers that my colleagues have been looking for

ail afternoon. I'm rather curious about the Premier's attempt to

dismiss the responsibility for Mr. Brown's conduct. Mr. Brown certainly

was an employee of the Premier's office in December 1978, and I think

any minister of the Crown knows that they must accept the

responsibility for policy or for projects undertaken by senior staff of

their ministry, and certainly those that work directly in their

offices. The difficulty I have is understanding what authority Mr.

Brown would have to commission some kind of project utilizing the

services of Goldfarb Consultants, a major internationally known firm

that has their head office in Toronto.

I want to ask the

Premier who initiated this project. Did Mr. Brown have the authority?

Did the Premier, in his terms of reference in employing Mr. Brown, give

him the authority to initiate this kind of project and retain an

out-of-province consulting firm to undertake work for the government?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, as I've answered before, the creation of the position of

communications planning adviser to the executive council was of a

coordinating role.

MR. LEA: It was a recommendation by Mr. Brown, wasn't it?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, from the great Brown report. That was to coordinate what may have been.... As

you remember from the report, a large part of it had to do with

cost-cutting, saving money, procedures and ministries going off on

their own in a number of adjacent ways. That's why the position was set

up. Because it was new, it was originally set up under the executive

council. The executive council vote, Intergovernmental and all became

part of the Premier's vote. The Premier's office was one, executive

another and Intergovernmental another. We now have information work

consolidated in the Provincial Secretary, including our positions.

Intergovernmental has become a separate ministry. But I read out the

role of the communications adviser and it says, "provision of necessary

planning advice and expertise to members of the executive council,"

which should cover all ministries. That is, where submissions and

programs were alike and where they go in the same direction, they could

be coordinated, probably to effect a cost-saving if they are doing

studies, reports, coordination of program development, those sorts of

things. That's what was done.

On page 66 and 67 of the

mandate those things are spelled out. And it is not, as the member

suggests, an initiative; it was a coordinating role, of which.... But

it has also been a role where they've brought in many innovative things

to cut costs where they're found.... Really these should be dealt with

under the Provincial Secretary's vote. I don't want to stray too far

and broaden the discussion. They can discuss the types of things — the

upgrading of the Queen's Printer, those things which I know the member

for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) is very aware of. It is a matter of

[ Page 2140 ]

public record that the mandate for the position envisaged some coordinating mechanism.

also involved for the first time putting out to tender — and I know the

member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is interested in this — those public

programs that involve the hiring of an advertising agency. That is a

first in Canada and has been recommended as a model for all other

governments to follow, as a way of fairly distributing government

business in advertising accounts. As the member for Skeena knows, there

was always the suggestion that there was a political reason that the

Dunsky firm got most of the business — over $2 million worth of

billings, I understand, when the New Democratic Party was government.

It was a firm brought in from Toronto, if I'm not mistaken. There was

always that suggestion. I think you'll find now, since the Brown

report, at any single time there are over a dozen advertising agencies

or public information agencies from the private sector able to bid and

then go through the competition in awarding contracts.

the member will know that part of the mandate was coordinating, and

coordinating with the ability to try and effect savings where there's a

demand for similar government services. So that would be one thing that

the communications adviser has done, among other things. The member who

asked the question has been having a prolonged discussion, but I know

you're interested, Mr. Chairman. This could be canvassed quite

extensively during the Provincial Secretary's vote.

There

are some very interesting figures, comparing the allocation of

advertising agency business for the years 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976,

1977, 1978 and 1979, to show the type of change that was effected. What

was happening? What was their single agency dominance? Then came the

multiple agency bid process for government work. I know the member for

Skeena would be interested, because he would like to see what British

Columbia did — that led the rest of Canada in accountability and what's

called fair practice — being endorsed by the Advertising Council and

other governments — public information bodies who want to see this type

of fair allocation and bid procedure.

MR. KING: The

Premier is really difficult to understand in this matter. Nevertheless,

Mr. Brown worked in the Premier's office. And I have to assume, as with

any other executive, that Mr. Brown was under the control and direction

of the Premier. Apparently Mr. Brown retained Goldfarb Consultants Ltd.

of Toronto to do some work for the government of the province of

British Columbia. It doesn't say what department. It doesn't say what

the work was. But Goldfarb Consultants Ltd. submitted a bill to Mr.

Brown in December 1978, indicating that their bill was for consulting

fees and travel costs. Mr. Brown apparently submitted it to the

comptroller-general for payment, and it was turned back. It was turned

back by someone named Dick, who said: "We lack sufficient detail to

properly audit this account. I refer this for information since this

area is politically sensitive."

Then later on, on February

5, 1979, a note was written back to Dick, who had dictated the previous

note I referred to, and it said this: "Dick, this was discussed with

Mr. Brown and the comptroller-general. Mr. Bonnell has approved this

voucher as okay."

Certainly Mr. Brown must have been the

responsible person for ordering the services of Goldfarb. Mr. Brown

worked in the Premier's office. When he submitted the bill to be paid,

I presume the office of the comptroller-general found that there wasn't

enough information for the audit to be made and noted it was

politically sensitive. On that basis alone I think members of the

Legislature have a right to know precisely what the service was which

Goldfarb Consultants were billing the government for — what was

ordered. Mr. Brown was under the Premier's direction. If the Premier

doesn't know what Mr. Brown requested Goldfarb Consultants to do, I say

he's either remiss in his duty or he has a questionable memory, because

certainly I would not think that Mr. Brown would have the right to go

toddling off by himself and retain a firm of consultants from Toronto

without having the authority of his minister to undertake this project.

Then, after receiving the billing, the comptroller-general of all of

the provincial government found that there was not sufficient detail to

properly audit the account.

No new information is revealed;

it says it's politically sensitive. Well, what was the job that

Goldfarb is being paid $2,500 of the taxpayers' money for? We have a

right to know. This information was elicited through the public

accounts committee, I believe. The Premier is sitting here asking the

House to pass his estimates. He retained Mr. Brown in his office; he

must have approved Mr. Brown's initiation of the program for which

Goldfarb is claiming payment. If he lets obscure people in his office

run around retaining firms from out of the province — or indeed from in

the province — for projects which he knows nothing about, I would have

to conclude that he's not a very efficient business person. Certainly

he is responsible in a ministerial way for the conduct of everybody in

his office.

What we'd like to find out.... Maybe this money

was justified, but there is absolutely nothing in the documents

revealed at Public Accounts to show that the public received value for

that money that was approved in payment to Goldfarb, nor is there any

information to indicate the nature of the service Goldfarb performed

for the province of British Columbia. That, Mr. Chairman, through you

to the Premier, is the taxpayers' business, and he has an obligation,

in my view, to stand up in a very candid way and say: "Yes, I

authorized Dave Brown, either in his job description or with respect to

the specific program, to retain Goldfarb to do this, this and this for

the province of British Columbia." We ask what the service was. If the

Premier of the province allows this kind of obscure payment of vouchers

to corporations out of this province without any justification of value

received to the people of British Columbia, then I say he has major

problems.

So that's my main question to the Premier. What was the job that Goldfarb did for the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The member helps me make the very point that I made about

de-emphasizing the way in which consultants to government are picked on

a political basis — or advertising directors. No, I don't pick the

advertising firms or those firms that deal with public information for

government. That was exactly the main recommendation of the Brown

report in taking out the ability of a Dunsky to get $2 million worth of

billings, or whatever it was, of government agency business on almost —

not entirely, but almost — a monopoly basis. That's why you have

multiple firm selection, not by myself, not by the ministers — even the

ministers take the advice of the board that makes the selection. So

when they seek consultation or recommendation, or they ask for a

particular service that's done.... Or

[ Page 2141 ]

may be that it's recommended by the ministries in soliciting it, but

I'm not going to politically select the consultants of government in

there.

No, you can't say.... There is no political

connection, if that's what you'd like to make — whether we're rewarding

a political friend in Goldfarb Consultants with a contract. Not at all,

not at all. That goes back to the type of information that's available

in the mandate of information services and that situation they set out

to correct where you had that type of single agency.

The

member talks about a firm from out of the province — I guess a Canadian

firm. Some Canadian firms provide certain types of services, I suppose,

that aren't unique across the country. One of the things that is

available from many sources in B.C. is advertising agencies. Of course,

there wouldn't be any need to go outside, as was done in the years

1972-75. There are 20 advertising agencies in B.C. and there was no

need to go to a single, large Toronto agency that had a political

connection inferred because of the selection. Certain types of services

could require that type of thing. That's the sort of thing that's done

on a judgment basis on expertise being proven. I think one of the

members said — the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) or the member

for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) — "someone of international

representation who also happens to be Canadian...."

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, the Premier either has a hearing problem or just refuses

to address himself to the questions that are asked. I never questioned

Goldfarb's credentials. I never implied anything improper in retaining

Goldfarb. I simply asked what the job was. What was the work that

Goldfarb was retained to do? Whether he was retained by bid or

preference is not the issue. The issue is the work they were required

to do for the government for which they billed the Premier's office

underling $2,500.

The Premier gets up and talks about

everything but what we asked of him. I could have imagined him in

elementary school being asked by the teacher: "What's 4+4?" He would

get up and give a long dissertation on the animal kingdom or something.

He simply refuses to address himself to simple questions that are put

to him.

No wonder his own colleagues are starting to

criticize him. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

says there is no question that the Premier has a credibility problem.

He said: "I wish he would be more open. That's my style, to be open and

answer questions. I would be happy if the Premier conducted himself in

the same way." He said words to that effect. That was the intent of the

minister's comments and I agree with him.

The Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) is a little embarrassed about the Premier too.

He says: "Sometimes I pound my desk too hard to overcompensate for the

Premier's lack of credibility."

The Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) says: "The

Premier doesn't sparkle in debate. He is too stiff." Gee whiz, Mr.

Chairman, we in the opposition don't criticize the Premier that way. We

simply try to explain to him the information we would like to have,

which we believe is our function and our obligation as Her Majesty's

Loyal Opposition — to obtain answers relating to the spending of public

money.

It is very clear what the issue is here. In the

Premier's estimates his employee gets billed $2,500 by Goldfarb

Consultants. What we want to know is what the bill was for.

What

work was done? The Premier gets up and glides around right field and

underneath his desk — anything but address himself to the simple

question of what work was done. Was it a political poll? Was it some

kind of poll to determine which cabinet minister had the lowest

credibility in the province of British Columbia?

What was

the work that the public of British Columbia was required to pay $2,500

for, and which the comptroller-general expressed concern about when the

voucher was sent for payment? Let me read it once again. The

comptroller-general said: "We lack sufficient detail to properly audit

this account. I refer this for information, since the area is

politically sensitive." That's what the comptroller-general said. Then

sometime later the comptroller-general discussed the matter with Mr.

Brown, who worked in the Premier's office, and agreed to pay it. But no

information is provided in the voucher.

The dilemma is

clear. The opposition wants to know what was politically sensitive

about it. What was the precise work that Goldfarb was retained to do?

If the Premier would only be as forthcoming after he gets on his feet

as he is when he is in his seat trying to gain the floor, we'd be very

happy and the business of the House could be conducted in a more

expeditious manner. The problem starts after the Premier gets on his

feet; he won't then address himself to the specific questions.