1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2151 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

College and Institute Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 15). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 2151

Oral questions

Renovation of Queen of Prince Rupert. Mr. Mitchell –– 2151

Unemployment. Mr. Stupich –– 2152

Government cash and investments. Mr. Stupich –– 2152

B.C. Systems Corporation tenders. Mr. Levi –– 2152

British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board. Mrs. Wallace –– 2153

Committee of Supply: Premier's Office estimates

On vote 9

Mr. Chairman (ruling) –– 2153

Mr. Leggatt –– 2154

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2154

Mr. Hall –– 2155

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2156

Mr. Macdonald –– 2156

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2156

Mr. Leggatt –– 2158

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2159

Mr. Levi –– 2160

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2160

Mr. Hall –– 2161

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2162

Mr. Leggatt –– 2163

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2163

Mr. King –– 2163

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2165

Mr. Nicolson –– 2166

Division on motion that the committee rise –– 2168

Mrs. Wallace –– 2168

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2169

Mr. Lea –– 2169

Mr. Howard –– 2171

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2171

Protection of Privacy Act reports. Hon. Mr. Williams –– 2177

Appendix –– 2177

TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. MAIR:

In the members' gallery today is one of my favourite constituents, my

daughter Cindy, who is sitting with my wife Patty. I would like the

House to make them very welcome.

MR. KEMPF: With us

in the gallery this afternoon are Mr. and Mrs. Russell Tiljoe, their

daughters Marian and Kathy, and their son Dean. Mr. and Mrs. Tiljoe

reside in that marvellous little community of Houston, in the great

constituency of Omineca. I would ask the House to make them all welcome.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

We have in the galleries today a group of students from the David

Thompson Secondary School in Invermere, accompanied by Mr. and Mrs.

Chris Elford. I'd like the House to join in welcoming them.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are two friends from Prince Rupert,

Ole Chittaro and his wife Venus. With them and with us, I'd ask you to

make a special welcome to Ole's brother, visiting from northern Italy,

Oliviero Chittaro, and his wife Mary. Please make them welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, just arriving in the gallery is a long-time friend, Mr.

Lloyd Burgart and his wife Joanna from the great constituency of

Boundary Similkameen. I'd like the House to bid them welcome.

MR. SEGARTY:

In the gallery this afternoon are Mrs. Moira Clancy, Ailleen Devine,

John Brian and, visiting from Ireland, Mr. Anthony Nolan. I'd like the

House to welcome them.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr.

Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon are students from Eric Hamber

Secondary School, accompanied on this occasion by their teachers and

their vice-principal. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming

them.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, visiting with us today from Delta is a friend of mine, Mr. Paul Masse, I would ask you to bid him a warm welcome.

Introduction of Bills

COLLEGE AND INSTITUTE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

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

a bill intituled College and Institute Amendment Act, 1980.

Bill

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

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

Oral Questions

RENOVATION OF

QUEEN OF PRINCE RUPERT

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Labour. On April 17 I asked a question on asbestos contamination of the Queen of Prince Rupert .

Yesterday the minister filed a report from the Workers' Compensation

Board dated April 21. This report was only dated up until the time of

April 18, which is approximately three days after the incident. I would

like to ask the minister what steps he is taking to ensure that the

workers working today on the Queen of Prince Rupert are working in safe conditions.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, my inquiries within the last week have indicated that most

of the problems have been handled. Whether or not they are being

handled adequately, I cannot really inform the House. If you recall,

the answer which I filed yesterday indicated — and I don't have a copy

of the response I filed — that there were notices of violations filed

on more than one occasion. The information which was passed on to me

was the most recent information in recorded form, and I filed it with

the House. I have not since had any more problems brought to my

attention other than what the member may be implying by virtue of his

question.

MR. MITCHELL: Could I make a slight

comment? You know the report indicates that two orders for improvement

had to be re-issued by the Workers' Compensation Board, which indicates

that the vessel is still unsafe.

Mr. Speaker, I have a

second question I'd like to ask the minister. Asbestosis is a lung

disease. It's caused by breathing air that is saturated with or has

asbestos fibres in it. I want to know if any air samples have been

taken. This is nowhere in the report.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised that point with me yesterday and I

have tried to secure an answer. I received some information that didn't

satisfy the inquiry I had made. I will give him my undertaking to

attempt to secure an answer which will be satisfactory.

MR. MITCHELL:

I have received information that air samples were taken one week after

the incident causing the contamination of the vessel. I wish it would

be followed up as to why it wasn't taken immediately the incident was

brought to attention.

I would like to ask a supplementary.

Reports have been received that the internal air-conditioning unit of

the vessel is contaminated. Has the minister any intention of checking

the internal part of the air-conditioning unit?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, I presume the hon. member, is making reference to the fact

that there was, I believe, an attempt to try to clean the air by

utilization of air-conditioning or some similar system. The concern

that he is expressing, as I understand his question, is whether or not

the asbestos fibre is now circulating within the system and whether or

not any efforts will be make to cleanse it. I will attempt to secure an

answer for the member as soon as possible.

[ Page 2152 ]

MR. MITCHELL:

I have a new question, to the Minister of Health. It is reported again

that the carpets, furniture and internal ventilation system are

thoroughly contaminated with asbestos dust. Will the minister assure

this House that crew working on that ship and the passengers riding on

it will be protected? Will proper tests be made before the ship is put

into operation?

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, Mr. Speaker, nobody could give that assurance — not even God — but I certainly will undertake to follow up....

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR:

Oh, yes. Sorry. With one exception, Mr. Speaker. But I certainly will

undertake to work with my colleague the Minister of Labour to make sure

that this very serious problem is looked into and that insofar as we're

able safe conditions will prevail on that vessel.

MR. MITCHELL:

I have one follow-up question, Mr. Speaker. It has been three weeks

now, and we have not had one report on the air samples of that ship. I

think it's about time something was released by the department.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Statements are not permitted in question period, hon. member.

MR. LAUK:

A supplementary to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. It is

clear that because of the contamination of the internal ventilation

system of the Prince Rupert that it has to be dismantled to be cleaned. Is the minister's target date for the middle of May for the Rupert to be in service still applicable?

HON. MR. FRASER:

I don't know whether I agree with the first part, but on the target,

yes. We intend to use the vessel in approximately the middle of May.

UNEMPLOYMENT

MR. STUPICH:

I have a question to the Minister of Finance. Having regard for the

increasingly serious level of unemployment in the woodworking industry

and the construction industry, and since the federal government

spokesman said yesterday that the shortage of residential accommodation

was a problem for B.C. and therefore not a federal problem, I wonder

whether the Minister of Finance is planning any action on the part of

the provincial government.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The

government is very keenly aware of the problem with respect to the

matters which the hon. member has mentioned. Indeed these questions are

dealt with on a continuing basis.

GOVERNMENT CASH

AND INVESTMENTS

MR. STUPICH: I wonder if the minister

could tell us how much the government had on hand in cash and

investments in the general fund as of March 31, 1980.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I look to you for a ruling. I would think that the

tradition of this House suggests that that is more properly a question

for the order paper.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is quite proper to make that observation, hon. minister.

B.C. SYSTEMS CORPORATION TENDERS

MR. LEVI:

I have a question for the Minister of Finance regarding the Systems

Corporation. Will the minister inform the House whether it is still the

practice of the B.C. Systems Corporation to hold an open tender for all

new equipment?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Insofar as I know,

they do. If there is a specific problem which he wishes to bring to my

attention, here or in writing, I would be happy to look after it. To

reiterate, as far as I am informed the practice is that tendering is

utilized wherever practicable.

MR. LEVI: Can the

minister advise the House whether he was informed by the Systems

Corporation of a recent lease of a second IBM 333 computer at a cost of

approximately $4 million? Is he aware of that?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The British Columbia Systems Corporation is expanding its equipment on

a continuing basis. I would not want to give a straight yes or no at

this moment. I'm trying to learn the language that is associated with

the business of that corporation. I could take the question as notice.

MR. LEVI:

I'd like to translate it for you, Mr. Minister. Have they got a second

IBM 333? In respect to the second IBM 333 which they have, can the

minister tell the House why no tenders were called?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

In order to assist the member I would have to research that carefully

and report to the House at the earliest opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEVI:

In view of the comments by the minister's predecessor that the future

expansion of BCSC would go to the private sector, can the minister

indicate what BCSC intends to do with an increase of 75 percent in its

computer capacity?

HON. MR. CURTIS: In answering the

question, Mr. Speaker, I would not want to imply acceptance of the

percentage increase of capacity which the member has offered. But

certainly the activities of British Columbia Systems Corporation are

increasing, and I think that that is completely in line with the

mandate for the corporation, which was established by this government

and initiated by my predecessor as the Minister of Finance, responsible

for the corporation until the change of portfolios in November 1979.

am satisfied that the increase that does take place with respect to

capacity of British Columbia Systems Corporation equipment — if I may

use a layman's word for the installations which are occurring there —

is fully in line with the requirements which have been identified by

various ministries and other client agencies of government.

[ Page 2153 ]

MR. LEVI:

The minister should be aware that on the introduction of the original

bill there was an undertaking that after two years of operation the

British Columbia Systems Corporation would, in fact, go to the private

sector. I would like to ask the minister this question: has the

minister decided that the British Columbia Systems Corporation will

compete with the private sector for contract computer services?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

No, Mr. Speaker. The British Columbia Systems Corporation board of

directors, chosen from individuals around the province, is, in my view,

an extremely competent board not only following the mandate provided in

the legislation to which the member has referred but also with a very

keen interest in the progress of the British Columbia Systems

Corporation and in ensuring that it is functioning in a manner

acceptable not only to the government of British Columbia but, more

importantly, to the people who pay the bill.

MR. LEVI:

A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the policy

direction enunciated by the minister's predecessor was that after two

years of operation they would then look to the private sector to do

some of the work. I would now ask the minister, who I understand is a

member of the board, if this has now changed.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, at this moment I think that I would want to check very

carefully, not the point made by the member but rather the complete

veracity of the position which he has drawn for the purpose of the

question. I would be happy to do that and to report again at another

opportunity in the near future, or in the course of this summer when my

estimates are dealt with.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Oh, I'm now informed that it will be fall.

Mr.

Speaker, the questions are obviously very important to the member, who

has taken a very real interest in the B.C. Systems Corporation since it

was established. I share his concern. Yes, I am on the board of

directors of BCSC. I would like to carefully review Hansard when the Blues are available, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps assist the member further at that time.

BRITISH COLUMBIA

BROILER MARKETING BOARD

MRS. WALLACE: My question is

to the Minister of Agriculture, and it relates to the B.C. Marketing

Board, often referred to as the "superboard," and the B.C. Broiler

Marketing Board. I understand the B.C. Marketing Board has made certain

recommendations to the minister re the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board. My

question is: has the minister discussed these recommendations with

members of the B.C. Marketing Board, and if so, which of the

recommendations has the minister decided to accept?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

With regard to part of the question, Mr. Speaker, yes, I've had

discussions with the B.C. Marketing Board concerning a proposal. With

regard to which proposal I intend to accept — or the government does —

that's future policy.

MRS. WALLACE: Has the minister

decided whether or not he is going to accept any of these? Has he made

a decision regarding those recommendations?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I would just comment that making a decision regarding the proposals

would come in due course after proper review. I would like to comment,

though, if I may, for the benefit of the member, that the B.C.

Marketing Board's role is supervisory. It was concerned with and dealt

with some complaints with regard to the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board.

There have been some recent news items which have caused considerable

concern in the agricultural community, because the press reports,

however they obtained the information — because the discussion of the

proposals was on a confidential basis — have caused concern. I can tell

the member that my staff and I have been in discussions with various

sectors of the agricultural community. Hopefully we can put to rest the

concern that's being aroused by, first of all, the leakage, I guess, of

a confidential proposal, which was there only for discussion purposes

with the associations and the broiler board. Secondly, we'll have the

opportunity to discuss it further with the various associations in the

future.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

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

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, prior to recognizing the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr.

Leggatt), yesterday in committee the guidance of the Chair was sought

to the extent, if any, that items of expenditure presently referred to

the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs

might be discussed in Committee of Supply. In order to reach some

conclusion, it is desirable that the basic functions and powers of

these two committees be examined.

The committee on public

accounts is appointed for the examination of the accounts showing the

appropriation of the sums granted by the Legislature to meet the public

expenditure and to consider the report of the auditor-general. The main

function of this committee is to make sure that the parliamentary

grants for each financial year have been applied to the object which

the Legislature prescribed, and to consider the matters brought to the

notice of the Legislature in the reports made by the auditor-general

and the comptroller-general. "The calling of witnesses, researches made

by the committee and the presenting of the committee's report to the

House ensure. on behalf of the House, an effectual examination of the

public accounts." May, sixteenth edition, pages 682 and 683.

"The committee on public accounts is in effect a committee of inquiry.

On the other hand, the ordinary function of the Committee of Supply, being a

Committee of the Whole House, is one of deliberation." Beauchesne, fourth

edition, page 196.

The fourth edition of Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedures and Practice describes the principal purpose of the Committee of Supply to be "the consideration and criticism

[ Page 2154 ]

approval of the estimates before the committee." When the estimates are

under consideration in the committee, it is the duty of the minister

whose estimates are under consideration to explain each item that

appertains to his ministry. In this way the House is able to come to a

conclusion as to its necessity. The whole management of a ministry may

be discussed in a general way when the committee is considering the

first item of the estimates for that ministry. The administrative

action of a ministry is open to debate, and in the case of a minister

his performance of executive duties, as distinguished from

policy-making, is open to debate.

Notwithstanding that

standing order 61(2) states that speeches in Committee of the Whole

House must be strictly relevant to the item under consideration, some

latitude by our practice is traditionally conceded when a minister's

salary vote is under consideration. Arising from this practice, the

constant problem confronting the Chairman of the committee is to

determine how far that latitude may be extended. It is only natural

that the exigencies of the moment will cause hon. members to urge upon

the Chairman a greater or lesser degree of our traditional latitude.

any event, having regard to the proper functions of the respective

committees of supply and public accounts, it is the conclusion of the

Chair that insofar as the activities of any official of a ministry may

be relevant to a discussion of the executive duties of a minister, such

debate would be in order. It would not be order in Committee of Supply

to debate the specifics of any expenditure presently referred to the

committee on public accounts, because consideration of whether or not a

particular expenditure has been made for the purpose for which the

funds were appropriated is a question for consideration and report by

that committee. In so concluding, the Chair has also considered the

general rule that debate on a subject matter referred to a committee

may be allowed, but reference to evidence presented to that committee

is not allowed prior to its report.

MR. LEGGATT: Of

course, I am not arguing with your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I did want

some clarification of the ruling. One of the points in your ruling was

that where an account has been dealt with by the public accounts

committee.... This particular account that we have been dealing with

has not been referred in any way for deliberation by that committee. It

would, perhaps, in the routine course of that committee's business, get

there, but at this point it is simply an account in the public domain

that has been filed with the Chairman of that particular committee. In

fact, the account itself hasn't been filed, but a reference to it has

been filed; I have been able to obtain a copy of it.

Therefore

the first question surrounding your ruling which I would like

clarification upon is: when an account has not been referred to that

committee, where the committee has an opportunity to deal with it, is

that also a part of your ruling that it cannot be dealt with

specifically in this House during the estimates of any particular

minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes is the answer to your question, hon. member.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Chairman, yesterday, in exchanges back and forth across the House

concerning this particular account.... I am now reading from the Blues.

I'd like to quote the Premier, who said this: "In a sincere attempt to

deal with the questions from the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr.

Leggatt), 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" — which refers to that specific account. I took

that, Mr. Chairman, as an undertaking to the Legislature and to the

House. I am wondering if the Premier is now prepared to complete his

undertaking today and provide us with the specifics surrounding that

particular account.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I believe the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has made that information available.

MR. LEGGATT:

I had the opportunity of being in the House most of yesterday

afternoon, and of reviewing the Blues, and I still haven't had a

specific explanation as to what service was performed for that $2,500

invoice. Unless I've missed it, I haven't seen an explanation of what

specifically the Provincial Secretary paid $2,500 for.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

It was my understanding from the Provincial Secretary's remarks that he

would provide such information at the rising of the committee and table

it in the House.

MR. LEGGATT: When dealing with this

particular subject generally.... One of the reasons that this subject

arose was of a survey done in 1978 by the Deputy Attorney-General, Mr.

Vogel, in his ministry. For the sum of $116,000, Goldfarb Consultants

provided a survey for that particular ministry surrounding attitudes in

the corrections field. I want to read you the question that was asked

on that particular survey paid for by public funds. The question asked

in that particular survey was this: "If a provincial election were to

be held today would you likely vote for

(1) Social Credit Party,

(2) New Democratic Party,

(3) Liberal Party,

(4) Conservative Party,

(5) other — please specify?" What that had to do with figuring out people's

attitudes to the subject of corrections I've never been able to fathom.

The

reason that we raised the question of this particular account and this

particular invoice is that the public have a right to know what the

questions are that are being asked by Goldfarb Consultants. We want to

know whether those are the same kinds of questions that went out

following this meeting or this consultation in August and September of

1978. Were the surveys made? Was that consulting fee of $2,500 the

initial step in an account that came to $259,000 — as we see in Public

Accounts — paid to Goldfarb for doing government business — not party

business but government business? That line was crossed once already in

the Attorney-General's ministry, when that questionnaire went out for

$116,000. This government was able to get a survey dealing with public

attitudes towards their particular political philosophy and their

particular political party.

What this House now needs is

assurance that that $2,500 invoice that went to the Premier's office —

not to the Provincial Secretary, but to the Premier's office; and it

was the Premier's office that hired Goldfarb Consultants, not anybody

else; I don't know anybody in the business of providing professional

service who bills somebody other than who ever hired them, because

that's where the contract lies — was not the first step in a survey, on

the public purse, to find out what the people of British Columbia

thought about the government's performance.

[ Page 2155 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Again, hon. member, before proceeding I would advise you of the

information that I just finished bringing forward to the House

regarding this committee, and that of public accounts, and the clear

responsibility of each to deal with separate matters.

MR. LEGGATT:

I appreciate that. I want to make it clear that what I'm dealing with

at this point is not your ruling. What I'm dealing with is the

undertaking given by the Premier yesterday to this House — and I'll

repeat it: "In a sincere attempt to deal with the question for the

member, who I believe was sincere, I said I would attempt to bring such

information if it was appropriate and had to do with that expenditure

of $2,500." That wasn't to a committee; it wasn't to the public

accounts committee. It was the Premier's personal undertaking. I

understood that he would come to this House and give us a full

explanation of the account. Now he's telling us: "I'm not going to give

you an explanation of the account. I'm going to leave it to the

Provincial Secretary to some day down the road come in front of the

public accounts committee."

HON. MR. BENNETT: It was

my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that I said I would bring it if it was

appropriate during these estimates; if not the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Wolfe).... Later the Provincial Secretary stood and said he'd

make the information available. It was my understanding that he'd make

the information available to the House. I can seek the statement the

Provincial Secretary was to give and perhaps make it available to the

member, if he hasn't done that. It was my understanding when he stood

in the House that that's what he said.

At that time, as you

remember, Mr. Chairman, I used the words "whether it should be

discussed in these estimates" and "we're awaiting your ruling on what

was appropriate during estimates." That information should be readily

available. I'll find out if the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

is in the building and if he has it; I know he's been at meetings with

the group from the International Bureau of Expositions, but I know very

well that I've heard the Provincial Secretary during the estimates.

There again, rather than broaden what might be an unclear area, I've

readily said that the information would be available.

MR. LEGGATT:

Well, Mr. Chairman, the business of this province should be done in

this House, not with private little meetings between me and the

Provincial Secretary around this matter. This account has been raised

in the public domain, and I expect the answer should be given in the

public domain.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that he was going to make the information available to the House.

MR. LEGGATT:

Well, I just want to clarify this now, Mr. Chairman. Neither I nor any

member on this side has received any explanation whatsoever surrounding

that particular account. Our request was quite simple: we want an

explanation for the account. We've had the Provincial Secretary stand

up and say: "Oh, I've got something here, folks, and we'll let you know

later. I might be coming in front of Public Accounts." We have the

Premier, who must know what the account was about after all this time.

He surely consulted with the Provincial Secretary; he's even had a

chance to pick up the phone and talk to Goldfarb about it, I'm sure, if

he wished to. The information is all there; why not simply tell us

today what the bill is all about?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, as soon as the Provincial Secretary gets back, I'll get the information and make it available.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Chairman, I was interested in your ruling. As you well know, I'm

the Chairman of the public accounts committee, and I think I can speak

for the members of my committee that at the various meetings they will

indeed be investigating the kind of thing which you indicate is a

correct and proper course of action for them to take. However, I don't

think your ruling should at all impede the rightful duty and

responsibility of the members of this House to determine from the first

minister of this province what his attitude is; what his policy is;

what his instructions are to those treasury benches regarding the use

of public moneys and the inquiry into public attitudes and public

awareness. That's what we're trying to ascertain.

What my

colleagues sought to do yesterday was to suggest to the minister that

failing an explanation of why a consultative fee to Martin Goldfarb in

the amount of $2,500, it is surely left to the imagination to see how

that develops into a total expenditure to that company on behalf of the

government — our tax money — of over a quarter of a million dollars. A

$2,500 submission for consultation, Mr. Chairman, has suddenly

ballooned, blossomed into a quarter of a million dollars worth of

expenses to that company.

I think the House is entitled to

receive from the Premier an explanation of how he views the use of that

kind of service, that kind of technique, that kind of modern sampling

methods. Indeed, the Goldfarb company is well known. It's not the only

company that's been used by the government. I think that the public has

got to be served by the opposition and by other members of the House in

finding out what that money has gone for. We want to rest easy and feel

assured in dealing with, for instance, the expenditure of some $68,000

in another ministry under the general catch-all expression of a "view

from the marketplace," that indeed political questions aren't asked in

those questionnaires.

Mr. Chairman, if I read to you the

titles of some of those studies, I think you'd agree with me that we're

entitled to ask the Premier: what is his policy? What has he laid down?

He's talked about ethics, conflict of interest, blind trusts, and all

sorts of things. What's his policy about polling? What's his policy

about spending taxpayers' money on behalf of the Social Credit Party,

in effect, not the real aspirations of the ministry, of the policies

and programs of the government? What, indeed, are ''drinking driver

counterattack surveys" for? What are "views from the marketplace" for?

What are all these other consulting fees for? What's "consumer

awareness and attitude" — $45,000 — for? How do we know there aren't

piggyback polls on who do you vote for, what am I looking like, what's

my image, do you trust me, and all of those things asked in those

questionnaires? I think we're entitled to ask those questions,

regardless of the fact that a public accounts committee is going to

deal with the authenticity of those bills. That's the kind of question.

Now already in another province the first minister has got

[ Page 2156 ]

himself

into hot water. I don't think you should do the same thing, Mr.

Premier; with respect to you, don't do the same thing. Why don't you

tell us what these things are for? Why are they all scattered through?

Why isn't there a clean and forward common-sense statement regarding

the use of Canadian Facts, Gallup poll, Goldfarb and all the rest of

them? That's what we're asking for, and I think I wanted to say that

and get it on the record as the Chairman of the public accounts

committee. I in no way view the examination of that policy aspect as an

interference with the work of my committee dealing with the

authenticity and the correctness of the expenditure of the money.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Again the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) brings up that he's

interested in specific areas, I think he said in the Attorney-General's

ministry — that would be quite interesting, but in the information

services of government there's nothing to say they can't use modern

research techniques to ensure that public information programs are

meeting the test of providing information to the public, and that the

programs are clearly understood. Such modern tools would be useful to

and be used by government and business and perhaps even associations.

I've said that if a ministry develops a concern in an area or a number

of areas over their information programs, I'm sure they would want to

make sure, through information services, that they are in fact reaching

the people or meeting public expectation with the programs. So,

obviously, all tools are now available to ministries if they have a

ministerially inspired program of research, and that would be the

responsibility of the ministry.

The second member for Surrey

has identified his concern about a specific ministry or a research

title. He read out a number of them. I'm sure he has the opportunity

during estimates to deal with it.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr.

Chairman, I don't know whether the Premier has missed the point here or

we're just playing a game. The services provided by Goldfarb were

ordered by the Premier through Dave Brown, who was then his employee.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, don't make statements that are not true.

MR. MACDONALD:

Am I not right in that? Well, tell us: did your office ask for the

provision of these services by Goldfarb which cost $2,500? It seems

obvious, Mr. Chairman, that we're not debating the authenticity of the

account or the payment; that's a separate matter. It seems obvious from

the bill that the Premier ordered these services out of public funds.

The bill comes back on December 28, 1978, from Goldfarb Consultants of

Bathurst Street in Toronto, and it doesn't provide any details as to

what the services ordered were. It simply says: consulting fee and

travel costs, $2,500.

Now these were ordered by the Premier.

I don't think there's anybody in this House who, after we've asked

these questions now for a day, does not agree with me when I say that

the Premier knows exactly what we're talking about. You know what those

services were. Will you tell us? If you nod your head to that, I yield

the floor, gladly. Then we'll pass on to other business. Would you tell

us what services were ordered from Goldfarb?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, the second member for Vancouver East has attributed some

sort of orders to the Premier of the province. Again he is incorrect.

The information coordination in the government would collect

information being sought by a number of ministries on their own

budgetary account to help coordinate the type of research that may do

that. I don't get into the day-to-day business of government programs.

I am in on the policy of government programs. The ways in which the

ministries operate is within their own budget or research and

development of programs, and the expression of information on those

programs would, of course, be their own development tool. But we do

have the opportunity for coordination, which we described yesterday, in

the mandate of the ministry of the adviser who came under the executive

council vote. If the member is concerned about any of the research done

by any firm for a specific ministry, it's quite clear that they can

deal with that either in the minister's estimates or in Public

Accounts, depending on your wishes, your direction or your advice, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. MACDONALD: I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier is being cute about this question. He knows perfectly well what this was for.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD:

Yes, I think you knew all along, and I'm sure that you know today. I

think you knew back in December 1978. I think that Dave Brown came to

you and said: "Let's consult Goldfarb." About what? Now supposing he

did it on his own; nevertheless he is your — what does he call himself?

— communications planning adviser. You are responsible for the actions

of your own employees in your own office. So you ordered these

services, and the public of British Columbia is going to pay for them.

This initial order isn't very much; it's only $2,500. But we're talking

here about accountability.

Just to put it once again on the

record, when the question of the account comes up there is a question

as to whether it was politically audited. The message came back from

Dick Fetherstonhaugh on January 31, 1979 — that's a month after the

bill came in. He said: "We lack sufficient detail to properly audit

this account." So does the House. So do the people of British Columbia,

Mr. Premier. They have a right to know and they lack sufficient detail

about this account.

"I refer this for info since the area is

politically sensitive." Now would all hon. members in this chamber put

up their hands if they can say, in all good conscience, that the

Premier doesn't know what it was that was ordered in December 1978? How

many hands would go up?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not a one.

MR. MACDONALD:

I can't refer to the galleries, but I.... You mean this was politically

sensitive and you don't know anything about it? Ah, come on, Mr.

Premier! For heaven's sakes, square level with the people of the

province of B.C. That's what your estimates have been all about. It

isn't the particular questions of whether there is misconduct here,

misconduct there, good conduct here or good conduct there so much. The

thing is that you're not levelling with the Legislature and, in effect,

not levelling with the people of the province of British Columbia. I

don't

[ Page 2157 ]

know of any other Premier who has done that in the history of B.C. or in the history of Canada.

Oh, I'm going to just....

HON. MR. BENNETT: You don't want me to talk?

MR. MACDONALD: I've never hit that 30-minute bell yet, and I don't intend to.

want to be very specific and very clear about what I'm saying. The

issue isn't even credibility; it's refusal to account. Oh, there's a

credibility issue that's come up in your estimates too, and there's no

accounting, you know, on the business about the uranium sales to....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MACDONALD:

Yes, that was a credibility issue, and there should be an explanation.

It remains a credibility issue when there is no explanation. It must be

so. But this isn't. This is straight refusal to account for what your

office did to the people of British Columbia. I don't see how any

responsible opposition can back away and say: "Well, the Premier won't

account; let's go home." I don't see how we can say that.

just want to put a simple question, having persuaded the Premier to be

a Premier. To be a Premier means to account, show ministerial

responsibility and to answer the question which everyone knows he has

the answer to. I simply ask him what the services were that were

ordered by his office in the sum of $2,500, for which the invoice was

received in December 1978. The Premier's going to answer.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Again, Mr. Chairman, the second member for Vancouver East makes a

statement that is not correct. He says "services ordered." As he knows,

the executive director of planning and information services works for

the executive council to coordinate information activities for the

executive council. They came in along with the intergovernmental vote,

the Premier's vote and executive council. But the second member for

Vancouver East has had some experience, I believe, in the executive

council of this province, recognizing that there are a number of

ministries that make up the executive council.

He also knows

what coordination means. Coordinating activities that have been

initiated among different ministries would be one of the things. I'm

sure by now you've taken the time to refresh yourself with the mandates

of that position, and what it was called upon to do and carry out to

bring some efficiency and to provide better information and government

services so the people could take advantage of government services and

utilize government services.

One of the things, as the

member knows when he works each weekend in his constituency office in

Vancouver East, as I do in Okanagan South, is the number of requests

There's help there; they don't know how to get it. One of the things is

to try and provide a better information system. Obviously, then, the

research that would go into providing better public information through

the ministries.... Each ministry is responsible for developing their

programs and their program information. The fact that it does come

under some coordination in a number of ways.... I pointed out one of

them yesterday.

One of the coordinations is in government

advertising programs. This coordination program on information is to

allow for public bid rather than allocating the largest portion, or an

undue amount to, say, a firm like Dunsky's, which was not a British

Columbia firm. The Canadian Advertising Council has supported that type

of coordination. They've supported that type of bidding in public

advertising. It's all part of the coordination of information.

Now

such a coordinator has a responsibility to the executive council. The

total executive council, and that includes the staff that sat on

cabinet committees and took minutes and things, obviously had to come

under some vote. It came under a vote related to my estimates. I think

we can deal with that, Mr. Chairman, so I've provided that the research

tools of coordination and proper public information are available —

that's what it was all about. Obviously each ministry, should they have

developed a program that called for a particular type of research or

particular type of information campaign, can make available for the

public, during either their estimates or through Public Accounts if

it's a matter of some time ago, that information which the member talks

about.

MR. MACDONALD: The Premier referred to the

fact that I'd had ministerial office. It seemed to me that I was glad

to — certainly people like the hon. minister over there made sure I did

— answer any questions as to matters on my salary vote where I'd been

involved.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, you did. You insisted we answer, and we were glad to. All right, we'll leave that alone.

The

second point I have to make is that a Premier who is a leader is glad,

if he has half a chance, to answer questions as to what's been done on

behalf of his government. Now this bill was submitted not to the

executive council, Mr. Chairman, but to David P. Brown, Communications

Planning Adviser, Office of the Premier. But before it was paid it was

discussed with Mr. Brown by the comptroller-general. The Premier has

implied that I've suggested that his office ordered this. Is he saying

flatly to this Legislature that the Premier's office and/or Mr. Brown

did not order these services? Is he saying that?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, I'm saying that the communications planning adviser to

the executive council would both respond to and initiate techniques of

research and program development and information. It was a coordinating

effect.

MR. BARRETT: Who ordered it?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Both members for Vancouver East now are here. One has taken the floor,

the other speaks from his seat, both are concerned about the techniques

of government. I suggest you have ample opportunity under the

Provincial Secretary's estimates to do with information....

MR. BARRETT: Who ordered it?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, would you ask that member, who is only brave when there's great distance and yourself to protect him....

[ Page 2158 ]

MR. BARRETT: What do you want to do? Step out in the hall and tell me? Come on, let's go. I'll go anywhere to get the answers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, you've had the answer. Your reputation out there has preceded you.

MR. BARRETT: Just answer the question.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, the question has been answered. Obviously the second

member for Vancouver East and his friend on the left are not happy.

MR. BARRETT: I'm not happy.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You've got nothing to be happy about. If I were you I wouldn't be happy either.

MR. BARRETT: Watch your back, Bill.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The Leader of the Opposition says to watch my back. Mr. Chairman, I'm

not worried about watching my back or watching my front, either. It's

being diverted to the left that worries me, in the development of

public policy.

Anyhow, the members have the answer. I'll be

getting from the Provincial Secretary the information that I understood

he committed to bring to the House, and that information will be made

available. Again, the accountability of public accounts in each

minister's office, in the latitude of their ministry, will be available

to the members of this House. I noticed the groans....

MR. LAUK: Tell the truth.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, I always tell the truth. I wonder about the member for

Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk) when they use the word. But we presented the information.

I've

been in this House, both on the government side and on the opposition

side, and I had a chuckle when the second member for Vancouver East

(Mr. Macdonald) talked about the great accountability and answers he

gave when he was in government. He brought the Minister of Lands, Parks

and Housing to his feet. I remember days of no answers to real

questions of public importance — not political questions or silly

questions or questions that could appropriately be asked elsewhere, not

the time of delaying actions so they could go out and make their forays

and say, "Boy, oh, boy, are we tough. We kept the Premier in the House

for so many hours," which they're doing.

Obviously the

government is proceeding. Work is proceeding, and the government

policies are being carried out with great effect in this province and

will continue to be. How they budget their time in the opposition and

what their priorities are as to public business they'll have to be

accountable for. All information is readily available, and I'm sure the

members will be happy. The only thing is, they're disappointed because

they can't find anything wrong. That's the problem. You know that, Mr.

Chairman, and so do most of the members in this House, and, I think,

even secretly, deep down, so do they. I have a feeling that they come

to this House to play politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, they might come to this House to play politics. That's what they say.

AN HON. MEMBER: Political politics.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The worst kind.

It's

like the mating dance of something. They have to go through these

gyrations every session until they settle down and their research gets

organized and they get on with the issues of the day. The most

important issues may differ with the policies being carried out by the

government right at the moment. Our policies are designed to meet some

of the concerns we have both in a provincial and a national way at this

time in Canada. They may think that by dealing with areas outside the

Premier's office and areas that could be dealt with elsewhere or in

dealing in no areas at all, they are fulfilling their mandate. What

they are fulfilling is the expectations we had for them all along, and

that's nothing.

MR. LEGGATT: I still find it passing strange....

AN HON. MEMBER: Passing strange?

MR. LEGGATT: Yes, passing strange. Do you like that? It's a new one and I hope it catches on.

Mr.

Chairman, regarding your ruling this afternoon, which dealt with the

specific specific appropriates, I want to deal with the question of the

Premier's estimates and his capacity to administer the Premier's

office. That's a different function and a different question, but it's

one that you have to deal with when you look at this particular

account. I want you to imagine the first minister of the province

getting a bill from somebody called Goldfarb Consultants. Everybody

else in Canada knows who Goldfarb Consultants are and I'm sure the

Premier does.

The Premier gets a bill which says only this:

"Consulting fees and travel costs, $2,500." Now either the Premier or

Mr. Brown didn't have the wit to pick that telephone and phone Goldfarb

and say: "What in God's name are you doing sending us this bill without

a single specification on it and without any reference to the

government's business?" Knowing that political parties all across this

country use Goldfarb services for political purposes, I say, Mr.

Chairman, this is a piece of very sloppy work at the very least.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I think I'd like to draw to your

attention standing order 43. We've listened to this line of questioning

most of yesterday afternoon and it appears that we're embarking upon

additional tedious and repetitious argument by the members opposite. I

would hope that you would remind the members, who consistently repeat

the same arguments that we've heard hour after hour and ask the same

questions which have been answered, that they are becoming very tedious

and repetitious. I hope you will bring this to the attention of the

members.

MR. HOWARD: With respect to that last point

of order, I think probably the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing is

only half right, as is characteristic of him. Yes, there has been

tediousness and repetition in this House. The tedious-

[ Page 2159 ]

ness

and repetition has come from the refusal on the part of the Premier,

not only yesterday afternoon but consistently day after day, to answer

legitimate questions. That's what should be drawn to the attention of

the Premier, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEGGATT: I just wanted

to complete this point, which is a slightly different aspect from the

ones that have been raised around this particular account. I again ask

reasonable people to put themselves in the position of managing and

running such an important office as the Premier's office and imagine

they receive an account from Goldfarb Consultants. It is an account

which says nothing as to what the service is. It just says: "Consulting

fee and travel costs, $2,500. " I would think any reasonable person,

whether politician, Premier or otherwise, would have picked up the

telephone or had someone in their office pick up their telephone and

say: "Put down what that's for. I want to make sure there's no

cross-over in regard to these kinds of billings."

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, again the member for Coquitlam-Moody is talking about an

invoice submitted to government that was sent to the communications and

planning adviser for the government and not to me. I don't run the

accounts or verify all the invoices for government. It is foolish for

any member, particularly that member, who was supposed to bring a

breath of fresh air to that party.... We know the tactic they used when

Bob Strachan retired as leader and they chose a new leader. We remember

the style of personal attacks that was developed in the House from that

change of leadership, but that member doesn't.

This is an

invoice sent to the communications and planning adviser of government

responsible to the executive council, coordinating information programs

of the executive council from the various ministries. Who else would

know where to allocate any program?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Prince Rupert on a point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've never had a point of order in your life.

MR. LEA:

It's a real of point of order. The Premier has stated that this bill

was involved with the executive council — working for the executive

council. I'd just like the Premier to know — and he can check this on

an order-in-council if he wants — that he's the president of the

executive council, and therefore he's responsible.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Again, with due respect to all members, it is most unfair for a member

to rise on a point of order that is not a point of order, particularly

during an address by another member. It's one thing to rise on a

questionable point of order at the conclusion of any member's speech,

but to do so while a member is speaking is certainly not behaviour

conducive to the furthering of this assembly.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, thank you for your words of wisdom in guiding the House and particularly the member for Prince Rupert.

Again,

that would be a logical place. The allocation of spending belongs in

the estimates of the ministries. Any ministry that required service or

was responsible for various expenditures or responsibilities, whether

total information programs, programs, say, of forestry belonging to

Forests or of the Attorney-General belonging to the Attorney-General —

there again that's where a bill incorrectly sent would end up. Who

would better know the appropriate spot than the communications and

planning adviser?

In the coordination of government, the

Premier is the president of the executive council, but the executive

council is the ministers, who are going to be dealing with their

estimates. The executive council is the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Curtis), the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon.

Mr. Phillips), the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and so on. That is the

executive council, and traditionally in estimates.... I wonder, Mr.

Member, if you would recognize that the tradition in estimates is to

deal with each member of the executive council. Yes, it's a group; each

opportunity is there.

The communications and planning

adviser was a coordinator trying to bring some sense to the type of

information, trying to make it more efficient for information of

government programs. It's obvious to all people that the millions of

dollars or whatever spent with Dunsky weren't appropriate for providing

the public with information. All of us in our constituency offices have

found constituents coming to us for help who are asking for help

provided under existing government programs; they just don't know about

them. Obviously then the Dunsky approach that was taken by the NDP of a

single advertising agency getting the largest amount of government

business was neither equitable nor fair. Some might put some other

descriptions on what that account meant or the way it was delivered, or

how it was handled, or what special relationship there was.

Changing

to a new method of allowing a number of information or advertising

agencies to bid on government programs was an innovation of this

government, from the report to government that talked about a better

way to correct the deficiencies, the lack of knowledge that the people

had about available programs of government; the type of research that's

a modern tool, today's technology. Obviously any modern government is

going to use them. We're not going to do the ads with a quill pen in

the basement. Obviously the upgrading of the Queen's Printer machinery

was an important part of that report.

So the member's

question can be dealt with with an executive council member in a bill

that was paid by the Provincial Secretary's ministry. Yesterday the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) said he would provide that

information to the House. I’ve sought him out to provide the

information for you, to make the information available. I'm not going

to broaden my estimates and make it difficult not only for the Chairman

today but for Chairmen in the future, because you may want to set a

precedent of broadening the scope of discussion under the Premier's

estimates. You may ask questions which are inappropriate during this

period, and it is not a refusal to answer but a reason to stay by the

rules which I saw imposed both when I was in opposition and when I was

out of government, watching the Legislature perform. I'm breaking no

new ground, really. I think if that member really takes a look he'd

find you've been allowed more latitude this year, obviously. But that

information will be

[ Page 2160 ]

forthcoming.

There is nothing secret. It will be forthcoming. The Provincial

Secretary has responded to the request. I'd hoped he would have made

the information available to the House by now.

MR. LEVI:

Now I'll just speak to the Premier in quiet, calm tones, because he

just gave us a very interesting lecture on how not to be responsible

for your ministry. He says he's not breaking new ground. He is breaking

new ground. He keeps insisting that he doesn't have to answer questions

for the actions of a man who was in his ministry. Now as we understand

it — and I'm sure the Premier does — Mr. Brown was receiving a salary

under the Premier's vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that true or not?

MR. LEVI:

Well, that's the first question, yes. If we can get the Premier's

attention, because the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon.

Mr. Gardom)....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Momentito, por favor.

MR. LEVI: Momentito, right.

Now let's ask the Premier the first question: was Mr. Brown paid under the Premier's vote when he worked there?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes or no.

MR. LEVI:

Yes or no. That's a fair enough question. Because — let me put it to

you this way, Mr. Chairman — if he wasn't paid under that vote, then

we're entirely on the wrong line of questioning. If he was on that

vote, then that's when we can ask questions. That's very simple. That's

been the practice in this House since 1871 and even before then.

The

other question I want to ask him is this. We simply want to know what

Mr. Brown had done that cost $2,500. Now that's not a very serious

question. What did he have done? I understand that somebody flew out

from Toronto; they discussed something and they went back. That's

$2,500; that's a very expensive consultation. Presumably what might

have been left behind was some kind of report, some piece of paper

which made reference to this particular expenditure.

Now the

Premier said at the beginning of the afternoon that we really should

deal with this in Public Accounts. Well, he's dead wrong, because we're

not just asking him about the $2,500; we would like to know what the

$2,500 was for. I spoke to the comptroller-general of this province

last week and I said to him: "You make available to us the vouchers for

expenditures in the government; your office facilitates that for the

members of the public accounts committee, as to the people we're

interested in." Now I'd like the Premier to listen to this, because he

keeps complaining about a new line of questioning. I'd like him to

listen to this. I said to the comptroller-general last week: "Your

function is to provide the public accounts committee with vouchers" —

and he does that — and then I asked him: "Can you provide us with the

reports or any other documents that relate to the expenditures?" His

answer to me was: "I cannot do that; you'll have to ask the minister."

Those were the words of the comptroller-general. As a matter of fact, I

think you, Mr. Chairman, were present when I asked him. Are you not on

the public accounts committee? Oh, you are not, okay.

Well,

that was his reply, that in respect to anything that was done in terms

of the money — reports, and that's what I was asking about.... "Can you

give us a copy of the report?" He said: "No, you've got to ask the

minister." Now we're asking the minister.

Yesterday the

Premier was asked: "Will you go before the public accounts committee?"

He said: "Surely I don't have to do that." Okay, he doesn't want to go

before the public accounts committee. Is he prepared to give this House

a copy of the documents relevant to the expenditure of $2,500? Because

we cannot get them from the comptroller-general.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. LEVI:

The comptroller-general said very specifically in Public Accounts:

"I'll give you the vouchers, but if you want the reports and documents,

you must get them from the minister." Here we are in the minister's

estimates, and I'm asking the minister: "Will you provide this

committee with the documents related to the $2,500?" Our line of

questioning with respect to going to the Public Accounts is completely

spurious. We're asking for some documentary explanation of what this

expenditure was, and you cannot get it in Public Accounts, because we

have it from the word of the comptroller-general. Will the Premier

table the documents?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, I have no documents to table, if the member is talking

about anything that may be related to an expenditure paid by the

Provincial Secretary. I wonder if he would ask the Provincial Secretary

in his estimates if he has anything further besides the voucher.

MR. LEVI:

I can't call him "slippery." That's not parliamentary. I don't know

what we're going to call him. I mean I just asked you a question.

Either your IQ slipped dramatically and you didn't understand what I

was saying or your sense of perception is all wrong. I'm not talking

about the Provincial Secretary, because we've had a long dissertation

from the Premier about the role of the coordinator. Last week and the

week before it was "window on the Pacific." This week it's

"coordination." He's going to tell us about coordination. All right, we

accept that coordination is a good thing, and that coordination is done

by Mr. Brown, and Mr Brown is in the Premier's office and gets paid

under his vote.

Now the Premier has yet to tell us — and

maybe he'll answer this — whether Mr. Brown got paid under his vote

when he worked for him? Is that a valid question? Was Mr. Brown paid

under this vote when he worked for you?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

If there are any additional files relating to the communications and

planning adviser, if they were continuing, they would be in the

Ministry of the Provincial Secretary, which pays his salary this year —

especially if they dealt with an invoice that was paid two years ago by

the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI:

Yep, we're making real progress. Let me go back and say this very

clearly.... You know, I have real trouble with this. I spent 17 years

as a social worker, advising

[ Page 2161 ]

people

about little bits of communication; now I think we've got to talk to

the Premier. First of all, you've got to get his attention. He's got to

look over in their direction, or at least listen to what people are

saying. My question simply was: was Mr. Brown paid, when he worked for

you, under the particular vote that we're dealing with now — that is,

your vote? We are not dealing with the present situation. I'm not

interested in what Mr. Brown does now. We are discussing the fiscal

year 1978-79. Was he working for you?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The question was: would he be dealing with the vote we have now? No, he

dealt with the executive council, which is now being paid for under the

Intergovernmental Relations ministry. Don't you read?

MR. LEVI:

Yes, I do read. I don't care whether it's under the executive council;

tradition in this House has been that the Premier answers questions

about the executive council.

HON. MR. BENNETT: This is so bad.

MR. LEVI:

Yes, well, it is so bad. Not only is it so bad, Mr. Chairman, but for

the people in the gallery it's going to look darned stupid that the

leader of this province is behaving that way.

Last week he

complained about the fact that he couldn't get enough money in his

office. I said at that time that we would be quite prepared to give him

all the money he wanted if he was prepared to hire people to help him,

because he obviously needs help. But, no, he hasn't done that. It seems

to me that if he can call Ron Grieg on the phone, interview him, and do

what he said he did last week, it should have been possible for him, in

the last 24 hours, to pick up the phone and say to Mr. Brown: "I'm

having trouble in the House. What was that $2,500 for? Oh, is that what

it was? Good. I'll tell him, and that's finished."

Now

that's a simple, responsible, reasonable way of handling this problem.

That's the way to do it — simply tell the truth, get the facts, and

let's get on to something else. But, no, he wants to play games. Well,

if that's the kind of game he wants to play, we are simply going to

have to continue to insist. The very avenue through which he suggests

we can get this information is closed to us. The comptroller-general

has no jurisdiction to produce any kind of documents related to that

expenditure; only the minister of the department can do that. And

you're the minister. You say that there aren't any documents in

relation to this.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I don't have them.

MR. LEVI: You don't know. The important thing for you to say is that you don't know, not that there aren't any.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's what I said.

MR. LEVI: He said he doesn't know. Fine. So in 24 hours you haven't found out a thing. Okay, you're consistent. You don't know.

Yesterday

at the beginning of the day you said that Mrs. Pat Paulsen was in the

hallway, available for any kind of information that we asked for. Did

you ask Mrs. Paulsen to go down and find out about this? Did you send

her a little note? No, you didn't send her a little note. You figured

to yourself: "They're not going to find out anything from me."

And

all he's been doing is just sitting there, playing a big stonewall

game. You can't use Public Accounts as an avenue for you not to tell us

about this $2,500. There's no jurisdiction in any way, unless we can

get you before Public Accounts and ask you to bring the documents.

That's all. Or send Mr. Brown. But don't tell us that this should

properly be dealt with in Public Accounts, because it can't be dealt

with.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member keeps putting

words in my mouth, or saying things that aren't correct — the

Mrs.-Paulsen-was-in-the-hallway sort of thing, waiting upon the Premier

and being able to provide information. He adds those little words that

always add a little bit of colour, with his usual ability to distort.

What

we have is that the information is being sought. Now I've been trying

to help the opposition. Obviously the expensive researchers the

government provided you don't help you. Yesterday I said it was a

question appropriately asked under the Provincial Secretary, in an

attempt to help you get the information. I can't help it if you ask the

question in the wrong spot. I'll help you get the information. I sent

out for the Provincial Secretary; he came back and said he would

provide it. I don't know what more you want. He's going to give you the

information, and I'm sure he'll provide it. He said he would provide it

for you. That's fairly simple. But apparently the opposition needs a

lot of time to ask the same question after the assurance of information

has been made to them.

Quite frankly, I can stay with this,

I guess, and keep giving you the same answer, and the Provincial

Secretary can provide the information to the public, as he said he

would do. Then you'll look just a little bit sillier than usual, but

that's your choice, not mine.

MR. HALL: It is my

opinion that the statement of policy that I asked the Premier for

earlier today has not been forthcoming; he has not, in my view, cleared

up the policy of his government surrounding the use of polling — the

use of public moneys by companies such as Goldfarb, Canadian Facts,

Gallup, etc. It was a simple request by the second member for Surrey

for such clarification. We haven't had that. What we've had is an

invitation to proceed to ask the Provincial Secretary and other

ministers the questions about the individual studies that they may or

may not have done during the past 12 months. I don't think that's good

enough. That was a sort of qualitative question on my behalf: what is

the policy?

Not only do those companies appear in Public

Accounts; not only have we heard yesterday of the worries of senior

public servants regarding the correctness of passing some of those

bills for payment, which will be dealt with in the public accounts

committee but I have a second reason now for asking that kind of

question, which is a quantitative reason. Those of us who study the

accounts of the government will be more than passing curious over the

fact that.... Take the company Canadian Facts. There was no billing by

that company to this government in its first year of office, there was

no billing in the second year of office, but there was a billing in the

third year of office, coinciding with the election. Canadian Facts

didn't get a dollar out of this government in 1976-77; not a dollar in

1977-78; they got $27,000, which as you know, Mr. Chairman, was a

considerable amount of polling, in 1978-79. What about Gallup? Nothing

in the first year of office, $10,000 in the second year of office, and a

[ Page 2162 ]

similar amount in the third year of office, an election year.

What

about Goldfarb, the one we're asking about? Not a penny-piece was spent

in the first year of office for all of these things that the Premier is

worried about; not a penny-piece for all of those things the ministers

have put down as titles to those investigations of $50,000, $60,000,

$45,000 and $30,000, liberally sprinkled throughout the Public Accounts

of this province. Not a penny-piece went to Goldfarb, you'll be

interested to know, Mr. Chairman, in the second year of their office.

But when they were getting ready for an election, when you were out

there in Prince George fighting the good fight, what did they spend

with Goldfarb, this government on the other side of the House polling,

analyzing, asking questions, leading up to an election? They spent over

a quarter of a million dollars. That's the quantitative reason why the

Premier must stand up and tell us what the government's policy is on

the use of these companies, on the use of this technique and the kinds

of questions they're asking.

The Premier talks to us about

Mr. Brown. I know Mr. Brown. He talked to us about Mr. Dunsky. I know

Mr. Dunsky. Let me ask the Premier: where did Mr. Brown come from? Mr.

Brown came from Lovick. Who was Lovick? Lovick got almost every single

nickel of advertising money in this province from the Socred government

from 1952 to 1972. Mr. Brown was retained as an adviser to the Leader

of the Opposition then. Mr. Brown did a study in his first year in

1976, and became, in effect, the result of his own study. I

congratulate him for it. It doesn't always fall to us to plot our own

destinies to that meticulous a degree.

At the same time, the

Premier always said that the policy of information services was not

good; that they had to do something. The first thing they did, Mr.

Chairman, in 1976, was completely disband an information service that

was in operation: Ask B.C. They disbanded it; wrecked it; sacked them.

That's what you did in 1976. Gone! They were a picked group of people

representing language skills, employing handicapped people, all sorts

of people in a proud and efficient team of information dispensers, all

of them dedicated to the service of this province, and you dumped them.

Don't tell me about information services.

All the Premier

has done in his defence of this is to say: "Ask somebody else. Give me

vote 9 and let me get out of here. I won't be back. Ask these other

jokers what they've been doing." Well, that's not good enough.

think that we should insist on knowing whether or not any of these

studies, consultations, visits, or anything at all to do with Gallup,

Canadian Facts and Goldfarb have anything of a political nature about

them. Until we get that assurance, and we see the evidence, we see the

questions that were being asked, this side won't be satisfied.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, the second member for Surrey made quite an interesting

point, saying that this government didn't spend some money in 1976 or

1977 in particular ways. We couldn't. You had spent it all when you

were government. Not only had you spent it all, you had left the

province in debt. You know that. It's not surprising that money wasn't

spent on a number of things and the economy was affected in a number of

ways. It would be the wrong time to talk about better information, new

programs and new ways, when you had spent all the money.

The

member has selective recall about what the condition was in 1976. He

forgets not only about an empty treasury but a big IOU left by that

government — the former Premier and the former Minister of Finance.

When we got there the cupboard was bare. That has been well documented.

They still argue with chartered accountant firms. They still argue with

Public Accounts. They still argue with all that. They would think that

by their protestations they could change history. I don't blame them

for wanting to change it. Their mark on the history of this province

wasn't very good.

The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) says:

"If you tell a big enough lie it will work." I guess that is what you'd

have to do if you were trying to counteract the public accounts of the

province, the comptroller-general of the province, the dedicated,

loyal, reliable public servants who deal with the public accounts of

the province, and, over and above them, the authenticity of outside

chartered accountant firms. I've got to tell you, Mr. Chairman, you

would have to employ a very unusual technique, such as suggested by the

member for Skeena, to counteract that evidence. Maybe he has tipped us

off as to what his plan is.

I have to say that so far we

have been very willing to try and get information from various

ministries, put them on the alert and get their assurances that those

things can be made available to the members at the appropriate time.

The members can insist on asking the wrong question in the wrong place

— and even silly questions in this chamber. Obviously it is a tactic of

theirs.

The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has made a

statement to the committee. Obviously they are disregarding his

statement, the information that he would provide. It shows that they

are not serious. It shows the negative type of attack with no

constructive criticism that they have developed, not just this year.

But now, in their concerted bid for attention, it is becoming a

trademark of that party. It is sort of sad.

I sat here as a

youngster in the days of the Winches; they never hoped the province

would go down the drain so they could attain power. Ernie Winch would

never have gone to eastern Canada and said things were bad in British

Columbia and he was glad, hoping it would give him power, not

suspecting that newspapers would report it. Ernie Winch and Harold

Winch, a father-and-son team, made a very strong contribution. But that

was a different day, a different time. Now we have a different

standard. Public business isn't being thwarted by this tactic.

Obviously it is the only thing the members of the opposition know.

Information

is available, as the Provincial Secretary told the committee when the

member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) was here, so he knows the

information is coming. I'm sure you'll wait; I'm sure you'll give the

Provincial Secretary an opportunity. He said he would give it. I had

anticipated it as well. The member for Coquitlam-Moody does not talk

just for the sake of talking, as his colleagues do. He knows that the

Provincial Secretary is, I guess, tied up with the Bureau of

International Expositions but will be here.

That is an

important pre-investigation team for Transpo '86, which will be taking

place in this province. I would suppose it may not be supported by

members of the opposition — they may not support the provincial and

Vancouver bid to host Transpo '86 — and it may be that part of their

tactic is to frustrate our ability to deal with the pre-inquiry team.

It's been my experience that after assurances are given on information,

word is taken. However, it may be that the opposition can't develop a

new tactic and they have to stay with the old one.

[ Page 2163 ]

All

I can say is that the information has been given in a number of ways on

a number of subjects in this area. The Provincial Secretary got up and

made a statement. I think that pretty clearly puts in perspective the

opportunities for accountability and information.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Chairman, again, I appreciate what the Premier said — that this

information may be forthcoming from the Provincial Secretary. What the

Provincial Secretary cannot, and only the Premier can, give us is the

recollection of how this particular invoice was handled by his office,

because this invoice was directed to the Premier's office, not to the

Provincial Secretary. Someone in the Premier's office obviously said:

"This shouldn't be paid by us; this should be paid by someone else." I

tried previously to make the point that the Premier of the province —

or Mr. Brown, on his behalf — could have made a long distance phone

call to ask for clarification of this account. The Premier has had this

information for a considerable time now. Surely we could have an

explanation of the Premier's role in relationship to the bill. It has

been a very important part of this questioning whether there was any

conversation between the Premier and Mr. David Brown about the

appropriateness of the account, whether there was some specific service

that was provided for this consulting fee, and what that particular

service was.

Perhaps the second part of this, to which the

Premier rose earlier, when I suggested it was sloppy practice, having

just received an account like this, to simply have someone in the

office.... I'll agree, of course, it's a matter that might not be

specifically on the Premier's desk; but certainly someone who is

responsible to the Premier clearly had this account. When it comes back

a second time and people in the comptroller-general's office

specifically say it's a politically sensitive bill, I would have

thought it might have come to the Premier's attention. What I want to

know is whether in fact this bill came to the Premier's attention when

the comptroller-general said it was politically sensitive and a

conversation was held with Mr. Brown. All I want to know is whether Mr.

Brown then at last went to the Premier and said: "Look, we've got a hot

one on our hands. Let's make sure this is properly handled. "

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Well, Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding from the invoice that they

talked about it being sent to the communications and planning adviser.

That's what I understood you to say.

MR. LEGGATT: Why don't you answer the question?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Well, that's his mail. If somebody sends a letter to your secretary,

saying "Office of Stu Leggatt," do you want to read her mail? Do you

read her mail?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

No. Just a second. It's a ridiculous statement. I just think we should

put it into perspective. He's asking about invoices that wouldn't be

handled by the Premier and which are sent to someone else whose

residence is in that wing of the Legislature, which encompasses three

floors. It's not like numbers of people in a small room; each branch is

in different rooms, dealing with its own business. In this case,

obviously, it was executive council business. I see nothing unusual

about it or wrong with it. What bothers the members is they can find

nothing wrong with it. The Provincial Secretary said they can have the

information. And there you are.

I get a kick out of the

second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) saying that this government cut out

a great information group which he'd set up. Well, I'll tell you what

was disbanded when we became government. That was the Ask B.C. group,

which cost $250,000 plus the cost of space and phone bills. He was

essentially duplicating the efforts of the ministries. They'd receive a

phone inquiry, get the answer from the ministry, and then phone the

inquirer back — rather than the people phoning the ministry directly.

That's why that was removed; that was one of the biggest expenses. It

did not meet the requests, and it not only cost money, but it also

created extra work for the public service. That's what the second

member for Surrey set up when he was the Provincial Secretary. Sure it

was cut out. Part of the Brown report to government was to try to

rationalize government information services.

The very

ridiculousness of that last request as to whether I check bills sent to

various offices in the government, no matter where they reside! No, I

don't do that, and it's foolish to suggest it. It just pinpoints the

obvious attempt and the frivolousness of this type of debate.

Now

obviously the much-vaunted research group that the New Democratic Party

has coming into this session, paid for by the public, has not performed

and they're unable to compensate for it. When the Provincial Secretary

said he would provide the information, they don't know how to develop a

new line of questioning.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

On a point of order, the member for Skeena, if I heard him correctly,

called across and said: "At least we don't write phony letters like you

do." I'd like to ask him to withdraw that or tell me that I heard him

incorrectly.

MR. HOWARD: We know there's something

wrong with the Premier's hearing now. He can't hear the questions as

posed to him. What I said with respect to the research staffs which the

Premier was talking about was: "At least ours doesn't write phony

letters like yours did."

HON. MR. BENNETT: Again, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the member for Skeena to withdraw, because....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Never!

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. It is offensive to the rules of this House for a member

to offend another member. However, the Chair has not heard a member

being offended in the last statement.

MR. KING: The

Premier commented on Ernie Winch and his contribution to the province

of British Columbia. I would like to identify with the Premier's

remarks and confirm that we have great respect for the people who went

before us in our party and set a great example in terms of integrity

and morality in government. Our party pursues that great tradition. We

have never been accused, nor has any of

[ Page 2164 ]

our

staff been accused, of writing phony letters, falsifying signatures,

forgeries. We have never been accused of being a party, either directly

or through our staff, to attempts to manipulate the media or pull any

other sharp tricks that may in any way impinge upon the electoral laws

of this province. I'm glad the Premier recognizes that tradition in our

party. We also have an obligation while we serve in opposition to

require that the government answer to the public and be accountable.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) keeps interfering with me.

HON. MR. MAIR: I want you to tell us about the nomination papers you signed for the Conservative Party.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING:

I consulted with a carpenter in the riding of the Minister of Health

last week and asked him about the minister's health. The carpenter

observed that he thought the Minister of Health was about half a bubble

off plumb. Perhaps that's the reason he has trouble entering into

debate but continually intervenes and intrudes when intelligent remarks

are being made in this House.

The Premier skirts around the

questions; he refuses to address himself directly to the questions

asked of him. I want to say to him that we don't need a great deal of

research from our staff or anybody else to establish the issue that is

in controversy here before the House today. Here are the estimates for

the years 1977-78: executive council, Premier's office. We find a

position listed — communications planning adviser — and for the year

1977-78 the estimate to be paid for that position, through the

Premier's office, was $36,432.

We have on December 28, 1978,

a communication directed to Mr. David P. Brown, Communications Planning

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

V8V 4R3. It's the identical address to the person listed under the

Premier's vote who was paid $36,432 from public funds in the year

1977-78. This bill directed to the Premier's planning adviser,

functioning out of the Premier's office, has this brief comment on it:

"Re August and September 1978. Consulting fee and travel costs,

$2,500." It it wasn't paid, but was sent back with this notation: "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 has also advised that the term of the contract was not to

exceed two months." And back came another little note from Dick, the

comptroller-general, directed to Mike. He says: "We lack sufficient

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

since this area is politically sensitive."

Now here is a guy

who works in the Premier's office and is paid under the Premier's vote.

He receives a bill from Goldfarb Consultants, a famous, nationally

known poll-taking firm who conduct political polls in the province and

in the nation as one of their main functions. The Premier says, despite

the fact that this bill was directed to his employee in his office,

that he doesn't know anything about it.

At this point we're

not arguing whether or not it was appropriate for the government to use

Goldfarb. It may well have been; maybe it was a legitimate function. We

are simply arguing that the Legislature of British Columbia should not

write blank cheques to someone on the basis of a bill submitted for

"consulting fee and travel costs." In connection with what? What was

the function? For the Premier to now say, "Oh, go to the Provincial

Secretary's ministry and ask him," is surely, openly and patently

evading his responsibility as the minister out of whose office Mr.

Brown functioned. Mr. Brown apparently was the one who retained

Goldfarb; certainly he was the one to whom the bill was directed.

Mr.

Chairman, to try and make the Premier understand the dilemma a little

bit more clearly, let's imagine that a bill such as this was directed

to the Bennett hardware store in the Okanagan Valley. Let's assume that

Mr. Russell Bennett was the manager of that hardware store which had

various different departments. Some departments sell barbed wire, some

sell tools and some sell garbage cans. For the purpose of public

relations and advertising a PR firm has been retained by the Bennett

hardware store. They do work for the various component branches and

departments of the store, and in comes a bill to the assistant manager

of the store. It says: "Travel expenses and consulting — $2,500." Do

you think the approving officer at Bennett hardware store would approve

that account? I don't think so. I think he'd want to ensure that value

was received for that statement of account, and I'm sure that Russell

Bennett, as the manager of that store, would demand more information

than simply consulting fees and travel expenses. He would say: "Well,

what was the program? Did it bring a fair return? Did it bring a fair

value to this store for the money that they're asking us to pay out?"

I'm sure that Russell Bennett would be prepared to account to his board

of directors' meeting when a question arose about a vague account like

this that was approved without explanation after being described as

inadequate in terms of being audited, and then after that being

described as confidential and politically sensitive.

Don't

you think that great private entrepreneur over there would demand, at a

board of directors meeting in a private firm such as the Bennett

hardware store, an accounting that this money was spent for a service

that returned value for that expenditure? I don't think that's too hard

to understand; I don't think that's too difficult to understand. I

believe, Mr. Chairman, that members of the Legislature and the public

of British Columbia have a right to expect the same standard of

accounting from Russell Bennett's brother, who happens to be the

Premier of the province and to deal with public funds.

It's

not good enough for the Premier to get up and say: "Well, we have PR.

We have government coordination that does work for other government

departments." Fair enough. And there's probably some valuable work to

be done there. The fact of the matter is this bill was directed to the

Premier's office, to his employee. He's identified in the Premier's

estimates. He was paid $36,432 for the fiscal year in which this

invoice was received. The Premier says that the man was his own

employee. He cannot deny that the voucher was directed to his office.

He can't deny that the comptroller-general found the bill insufficient

to pay the first time it was submitted to him, and he sent it back for

further explanation. Mysteriously, it was paid — on whose instructions?

Mr. Brown submitted it the first time, and it was not accepted. Did the

Premier get involved and say: "Look, pay this account"? Well, the civil

service of the province of British Columbia was not prepared to accept

it on the flimsy evidence that we find in the voucher. That's the only

informa-

[ Page 2165 ]

tion and the only evidence that the members of this Legislature have before them today.

would be absolutely remiss in our duty if we failed to take the same

course of action that the comptroller-general's office took. He said:

"I'm not paying it until you provide more supporting evidence that

Goldfarb, in billing the Premier's office for $2,500, performed a

service that was worth that amount of money — performed a service that

was legitimate in terms of a public expenditure." We don't know that.

It's up to the Premier to answer for his office and his staff.

can only conclude, very reluctantly, that when the Premier stonewalls —

shades of Gordon Liddy, Colson and a variety of other people of recent

political fame — he has something to hide and he doesn't want to lay

before the Legislature the purpose for which Goldfarb Consultants

billed the Premier's office for the sum of $2,500. I have to, very

reluctantly, conclude that the Premier wants to keep secret from the

Legislature the purpose for that billing to his office. He got up and

talked about the NDP term of office. He's gone back into history about

various other things. He talked about the Provincial Secretary's

ministry. He'll talk about everything but the specific question that he

has a duty and an obligation to answer in this Legislature.

The

Premier's twitching around and he's jumping to his feet. I'd be very

much inclined to yield the floor to him if I felt that the Premier was

forthcoming and candid with the House, but I'm afraid that his

performance up to this point does not give me any great confidence in a

forthright answer from the Premier. I suspect, Mr. Premier, again with

some chagrin, that we're going to be treated to a diversion, to a

round-about series of excuses to avoid addressing the central issue

here. What was the work that Goldfarb did for the province of British

Columbia, ordered and paid for through the Premier's office, that cost

the taxpayers of this province $2,500?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I'm telling you again, Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, that

there's nothing very secret, and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Wolfe) says he'll deal with it. It has to do, probably, with technique.

got a kick out of the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke's (Mr. King'

s) interesting analogy about bills. He talked about an invoice being sent.

Well, let's say, in another instance, an invoice is sent to Bill King,

care of the CPR in Revelstoke. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the invoice

couldn't possibly be handled by Mr. King, who could probably deal with

his immediate supervisor...whether it would have to be sent to Mr.

Sinclair or.... Say he'd lost his gloves or something, and they became

a condition of employment, and they billed them to Bill King, care of

the CPR. I'm sure they would deal with the appropriate way in which it

would be paid. Obviously an invoice sent to the communications planning

adviser, which is coordinating for the whole executive council....

Anything sent to him would be dealt by him if it belonged in any of the

appropriate ministries he dealt with. But what I want to say again is

that there is nothing mysterious about the bill. The Provincial

Secretary says he will provide that information, and I think the

information he's going to provide is fairly straightforward.

what we have is a lot of supposition while they wait, hoping that

something's wrong with the information. I'm hopeful that the Provincial

Secretary gets here pretty quick and can end their pins and needles,

because it will prick their balloon. I would guess they're going to be

sorely disappointed in what he has to tell them, from the type of

attack and all sorts of imaginings that they seem to have built up in

the Legislature today. So they can't wait for the information: they

want to try to guess what they think it might be. I only hope that he

gets here soon and ends their anticipation. It will probably disappoint

them. They've built up such great imaginings. But they can do nothing

more than that.

Obviously the information will be provided.

There is nothing secretive about a government that brings in all sorts

of accountability for the public, such as an auditor-general, which the

previous government refused to do. They didn't believe in it. They had

three and a half years as government. They refused to bring in an

ombudsman. They wouldn't do it. They refused. They were against it.

The

information has been promised by the Provincial Secretary. Any other

group of members would take the Provincial Secretary's word he's

bringing the information, except them. They want to know what it was

for; he says he'll tell them.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman,

I want to respond to the Premier by saying, look, if I received a bill

to my name, and that bill was a legitimate one, I would pay it. But if

I received a bill from any corporation, any company or any individual

saying "consulting fee and travel costs," I think I would ask what this

is in connection with. I would demand a more full accounting than that

before I would accept the bill and pay it. If the Premier implies that

that bill was on behalf of my employer, certainly I would refer it to

the appropriate authority with my employer, who in turn, I know, would

demand a full explanation of the bill that they were being asked to

accept responsibility for. That's pretty fundamental. I would think the

Premier would understand that. He's fond of telling us what a great

businesslike government he runs.

There's a report in the Vancouver Sun ; apparently Mr. Fetherstonhaugh was contacted. I believe he's in the comptroller's office. It says here:

"Fetherstonhaugh,

contacted at home, said his memo to Churchill might have been a poor

choice of words. 'I'd rather not elaborate on that, okay? I didn't balk

at paying it. I merely brought it to the attention of my superiors

because it was not clear what the payment was for.' He said he never

did find out. 'As long as my superior okays it, I pay it.' Asked why he

thought the fee might be politically sensitive, he replied: 'Anything

to do with the Premier's office could be politically sensitive.'"

would suggest that with this particular Premier, Mr. Chairman, that's a

very accurate appraisal. But here we have evidence that the man who

finally authorized payment still doesn't know what the services were

that Goldfarb Consultants were contracted for. It was ordered to be

paid. By whom? Who has got enough political clout in the government of

the province of British Columbia to order payment despite questions

raised by the comptroller-general's office as to whether or not this

voucher is an appropriate one to pay? I would think that the Premier is

certainly one of those people.

Who gave that final approval?

Mr. Fetherstonhaugh still doesn't know what the services were. The

Legislature of the province doesn't know what the services were. Why is

the Premier so reluctant to spell out precisely the services that

Goldfarb was contracted to undertake for the government, and paid

$2,500 for?

[ Page 2166 ]

have to conclude that the Premier is trying to hide the substance of

that contract from the people of British Columbia. We have to make that

conclusion. The bill was not directed to the Provincial Secretary's

ministry. It was directed to Mr. David P. Brown, Communications

Planning Adviser, Office of the Premier.

We don't ask the

Provincial Secretary to assume responsibility during discussion of the

Premier's estimates for expenditures which were made by his staff. That

would be out of order, Mr. Chairman. It would be out of order to ask

any other minister to account for expenditures made through the office

we have before us for consideration and debate at this moment. I don't

know why the Premier won't answer. Maybe it was a political poll that

Goldfarb was doing for the Social Credit Party. Maybe that's why it was

politically sensitive.

Goodness knows, the Premier's

colleagues have said that his credibility is slipping. The Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) said: "Yes,

the Premier has a credibility problem. He doesn't sparkle in debate;

he's too stiff." The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm) said: "I wish the Premier were more open. I'd like to be more

responsive and answer more directly. It's a matter of style." He also

observed that the Premier's credibility was impaired.

Maybe

that's what Goldfarb was doing, taking a political poll to see whether

the Premier had any credibility left whatsoever. If the Premier wants

to commission such a poll, that's okay; but he shouldn't ask the people

of British Columbia to pay for his partisan political polls. Let him

pay for that out of the slush funds that Austin Taylor Jr. provides to

the Social Credit Party, which are apparently also administered out of

the Premier's office.

That's another question I believe we

have the right to know the answer to. It was revealed that Austin

Taylor Jr. collects money for the Social Credit Party and those funds

were administered from the Premier's office. Another employee of the

Premier, Mr. Dan Campbell, was running around paying for things during

the election with thousand dollar bills. Who was the other signing

authority for the slush funds generated by Austin Taylor Jr.? Was it

the Premier? Was it David Brown? Or is he going to suggest that we ask

the Provincial Secretary about that too?

We have here a

Premier who stubbornly refuses to be accountable to the people of

British Columbia. He persists in showing contempt for the legitimate

process of the Legislature. That's what a discussion of estimates is

all about. That is the one time in each year that the opposition has

the opportunity and the obligation to have government ministers justify

their expenditures. Here we are still on the first minister's

estimates, and he sets the example and the benchmark for all of his

colleagues on the executive council. He just digs in and won't answer

the question. He'll get up and double-talk; he'll evade the issues and

evade the questions.

I'm glad Russell is running the

hardware store. I think it's probably in better hands. But I'm not too

happy with the lack of performance with respect to the people's

business in the province of British Columbia. Just a little candour,

just a little forthright attitude in answering questions would suffice,

and we could get onto other business.

I ask the Premier once again: what was the precise work that Goldfarb was commissioned

to do that cost the taxpayers $2,500?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Thank goodness, I finally got an answer from the Provincial Secretary.

This is the answer provided to the Hon. Evan Wolfe, Provincial

Secretary. It says:

"The invoice from Goldfarb

Consultants in the amount of $2,500 that has been the subject of

discussion in the House relates to a professional consultation between

Mr. Brown, communications planning adviser to the executive council,

and Mr. Goldfarb on the use of research to evaluate government

communication programs, and the ways in which research could be

employed to ensure that government advertising expenditures are

effective to the greatest possible degree.

"There

was no political aspect to this discussion, and any inference drawn by

an employee of the comptroller-general that the work involved was

'politically sensitive' was purely a statement of personal opinion,

probably resulting from a layman's confusion about the role of research

as a management tool, which leads some to think of polling when the

words 'research' and 'government' are linked together.

"The

use of research to test major campaign themes is now standard practice

in the preparation of government advertising programs, a device with no

more sinister purpose than to ensure that the public receives and

understands information regarding government."

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, I hope the Premier will table that statement. I'm not

sure who it came from. If it came just as a statement from the

Provincial Secretary, that's hardly adequate. We want some evidence in

terms of what this firm was retained to do. A statement from the

Provincial Secretary, which may be designed to politically support a

colleague in trouble, is hardly evidence that the opposition would

attach great weight to.

I would like the Premier to table

the statement. I think we have a right to call for something specific

in terms of the contract that Goldfarb entered into. Surely there must

have been a signed agreement for the work that Goldfarb entered into.

Surely there must have been a signed agreement for the work that

Goldfarb was going to do, or some terms of reference. Were they just

given a wink and a nod, and told: "Go out and improve our

communications"? It's hardly good enough. I would like very much to see

the document that the Premier referred to before I comment too much

further on it. I want to say that if it's just a statement from the

Provincial Secretary that's a pretty anemic response and a pretty

anemic excuse, as far as I'm concerned.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Chairman, I think we've had a rather lame performance by the

Premier in response to this. To labour so mightily and come forth with

such a statement, and I didn't quite get the name....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Lorne, the deputy will take some notes. I just have to make what would be a normal....

MR. NICOLSON: Okay.

Throughout this it appears that the Premier has been

[ Page 2167 ]

trying

to dissociate himself from the work of Mr. David Brown. Yet in the

press clipping which the member just quoted, obviously the person in

the comptroller's office felt that this was something in the Premier's

office. That was part of his excuse in assuming that the nature of the

work was political and in explaining his statement that "we lack

sufficient detail to properly audit the account; refer to this, since

the area is politically sensitive; signed, Dave." Further explanation

which came in today's paper indicates that he felt that because he felt

many items emanating from the Premier's office are politically

sensitive. It does indicate that it comes from the Premier's office.

For

the Premier to try to put some distance between himself and Mr. Brown

is really quite incredible, because I have several pieces of

correspondence. I have a letter from Mr. Brown to me. I believe it was

dated June 22, 1978, on the letterhead of the office of the Premier. I

have letters from the Premier, who would lead us to believe that he

doesn't get involved in little financial details in his office. Yet an

incident occurred in the Premier's office earlier than this particular

item which we are referring to, in which Mr. Brown, on November 29,

1976, signed several travel vouchers claiming per diem expenses for

every working day of September plus Labour Day, 22 days at $25 a day,

$550; and then every working day of October, except October 21 and 22,

but including Thanksgiving Day, which amounted to 19 days, or $475; and

every working day of November, 22 days at $25 for $550. In addition to

that he submitted bills for payment for 91 days' accommodation at

very....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Again we are

getting into rather a specific detailed discussion which could more

appropriately, and better be discussed, for example, in the public

accounts committee, as opposed to....

MR. NICOLSON:

No, they can't. With respect, Mr. Chairman, I'm referring to public

information dating back to 1976 which is not presently before Public

Accounts. It has been ruled and, I think, even voted against — I think

there was an amendment proposed earlier this session that we open

public accounts for a previous year. We'd have to be examining public

accounts for the past three years. But to be helpful to the Chair, I

will relate it to the Premier's estimates.

The Premier has

made a statement that he does not get involved in fine financial

details in his office and talking with comptrollers when things are

questioned. But when this was presented for payment the department of

the comptroller-general quite naturally questioned these claims and

deferred payment on them until more information was forthcoming.

just sort of sum it up, in 1976, for the months of September, October

and November, almost every working day other expenses were claimed, and

it indicated that the person was claiming to be stationed in Vancouver

but working in Victoria all of those days and therefore claiming travel

expenses. So this was questioned. It was rather unusual. On December 17

the Premier directed the department comptroller, Mr. Price, to

compensate Mr. Brown for the hotel expenses for the months of September

and October, but then consider him as being based in Victoria effective

November 1, 1976. I have a copy of that letter to Mr. Price from the

Premier here. I guess, to confirm a conversation which was held, he

said that it's been agreed that Mr. Brown will be compensated for his

hotel expenses for the months of September and October, and obviously

not for the month of November. Also he said that his per diem expenses

would be paid up to the end of October but not for November, as was

previously claimed. However, for purposes of record he should be

regarded as being based here in Victoria effective November 1, 1976.

the Premier made that quite clear, and as a result the second set of

vouchers were submitted and payments were made on behalf of this same

person, Mr. Brown, who entered the service of the Premier's office by

virtue of first being a consultant, recommending that a position be

created, then filling that position. He was involved in some

expenditures and vouchers which really have never been answered to my

satisfaction, but it appears that some compromise has been made as a

result of a letter to the comptroller from the Premier of the province.

When

a minister puts down in writing to a comptroller the way things are to

be, then that does shift the responsibility from the servant of the

Crown to the minister who has made the directive. In this case the

Premier did not just say: "Well, that's a matter to be worked out, and

if they refuse to pay it I guess they refuse to pay it." No, he went in

and got very involved in the fine detail. So it leaves us to wonder

why, in this instance, when we are informed that the final decisions

were made by Mr. Bonnell and, I guess, Mr. Brown, the Premier was not

ever consulted. I would like to ask the Premier....

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he?

MR. NICOLSON:

Well, he did warn me that he was leaving and that his deputy is taking

notes, so I'm not going to be too perturbed about that. The Premier is

within the precincts somewhere.

Mr. Chairman, we have seen

the Premier come into this House after he had a full day to inquire and

come up with what I think could have been a very forthright statement.

We've now had a statement that really tells us nothing. It just says:

"Trust us." I think we have reached the stage in this where the only

way in which this matter can be clarified is for the full matter of

polling and the work being done by Goldfarb to be laid before this

House in an open way and particularly for the forms of questionnaires

to be tabled with this House. I suppose one could argue one way or

another about the results, but what is the actual work that has been

done? There is obviously the connection between this. The one thing

that links everything together is the action taken by Mr. Brown, who is

and certainly was back during this period of time an employee in the

Premier's office. The Premier was the person who directed Mr. Price in

how Mr. Brown's expense voucher should be paid. When Mr. Brown was here

working in Victoria just about every day but claimed he was based in

Vancouver, so that in addition to his salary he could also collect an

extra $25 per diem and have his hotel bill paid, adding up to some

thousands of dollars in a three-month period — if the Premier was

responsible for him then, when did he cease to be responsible for Mr.

Brown? What orders-in-council have been passed? It appears that Mr.

Brown not only has been in charge of policy advising, but apparently

has also been active politically. He is connected with various actions

emanating from the Premier's office, bills for political purposes being

sent to the Premier's office, and the whole thing really does start to

fit together.

I think the only way in which we can come to some kind of a resolution of this matter is to have a full disclosure of the

[ Page 2168 ]

total

activities of Mr. Goldfarb on behalf of the government and the

executive council, of which the Premier is the president. We can see if

those questionnaires and the directions to the people who conduct those

quizzes and who ask those questions were indeed political or simply

relating to various attitude inventories concerning such things as

travel, housing and various other things. Or were there rider questions

in there that were of a political nature, as appears to have been the

case in Ontario? We simply don't want some statement which says "trust

us." We now want to see — or I certainly want to see — something that

indicates just what Mr. Goldfarb has been doing for the government. And

if there's nothing to hide, I don't see why the Premier should try to

hide behind a very transparent wall of some kind of differentiation

between the executive council and his office, which has never existed

in this House. The Premier has always been responsible for the

executive council; he is the president of it.

It is rather

difficult to ask these questions when the Premier himself is invisible.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know what has called the first minister away.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 26

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS 28

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Brummet

Ree

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Ritchie

Hyndman

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MRS. WALLACE:

I have had a lot of concerns during the course of this debate, but

during yesterday and today my concerns have certainly increased.

have a series of occurrences, all revolving around the Premier's

office, and we have no satisfactory answers. We have now an invoice

from.... Well, we don't have an invoice, but we have a letter

concerning an invoice. Nobody seems to know where the invoice is, but

we have a letter concerning an invoice sent to a very trusted appointee

in the Premier's office, one Mr. Dave Brown.

Assumedly that was sent there by the supplier because Mr. Brown or someone

else in the Premier's office had ordered a service of some kind from Goldfarb

Consultants. Goldfarb Consultants are in the basic business of polling, and

particularly political polls, though they do other polling certainly, as well,

and they do a great deal of other polling for the government, which is perfectly

legitimate. But when you realize that it is very possible to tag onto any other

poll looking for any other information a few very simple questions relative

to any other topic for a fairly limited sum of money, and when, in fact, there

has been some evidence that that has been done in the past, where partisan politically

oriented questions have been tagged onto other polls that have been conducted,

certainly there is room for a great deal of concern.

Another

apparently unrelated item, but one that has been raised many times

during the discussion on these particular estimates, is the fact that

in the Premier's office there was also operated a fund that was not the

taxpayers' money, a fund that was Social Credit campaign funds, if you

will. Certainly there must have been such a fund there or the Social

Credit Party would not have sent invoices for political purposes to the

Premier's office. We know that has happened. We know that one of the

Premier's employees has been.... I don't want to use the word

"accused," but it has been indicated by persons within this province

that that particular employee had been handing out thousand-dollar

bills and saying there were no receipts required. In fact, the....

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE:

Does the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) wish

the floor? Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister of Lands, Parks

and Housing, I would suggest that if he just sits in his place for a

few moments, he can have the floor when I'm finished.

HON. MR. CHABOT: How long will you be?

MRS. WALLACE: Oh, not more than three quarters of an hour.

have a series of events here. We have election expenses for the Social

Credit Party being paid out of the Premier's office; we have an invoice

for something or other being referred to the Premier's office; we have

comments that this is a politically sensitive item; and we have no

assurance from the Premier or the Provincial Secretary as to what this

invoice was all about. If it were simply a completely non-partisan sort

of thing that was perfectly legitimate, the Premier would be rushing to

tell us what that was and why it was there. The fact that he doesn't

rush in and tell us what it's all about concerns me, because it would

seem that there's something to hide. If there is nothing to hide, why

isn't he out front telling us what it is? Why hasn't the Provincial

Secretary tabled the information concerning it in this House? If there

were no payments made out of the Premier's office, why hasn't he told

us that there were no invoices coming into his office for the Social

Credit Party? If that was a mistake, why hasn't he told us? He hasn't

told us, Mr. Chairman.

The thing that has concerned me so

much during this past day or two of debate has certainly been the

possibility that perhaps an error occurred here. Perhaps this invoice

from Goldfarb directed to Dave Brown was indeed an invoice that covered

a partisan survey which was ordered by the Social

[ Page 2169 ]

Credit

Party and forwarded on to the Premier's office for payment, as was done

with other invoices. Just perhaps that was the case. And because that

appointed official in the Premier's office was the person responsible

for approving partisan political invoices and also had authority to

approve legitimate expenses in the Premier's office, just possibly

there was a mistake. Just possibly this particular bill was intended to

be paid by the Social Credit Party but somehow got routed instead to

the officials of the Ministry of Finance. Once that happened, it would

be very difficult to withdraw that invoice and it would be very

difficult to change so they decided to go ahead and pay it. Just

possibly that's what has happened, and just possibly if that happened

with that invoice it happened with other invoices. Those are the kind

of questions which are in the minds of the opposition in this

Legislature and in the minds of the voters and the taxpayers of British

Columbia.

There is such a gap here in the credibility. You

know, there's an old saying, "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when

first we practise to deceive," and this government seems to be caught

up in that web. They are not presenting a credible picture in this

Legislature or to the taxpayers, because they are refusing to level. If

the scenario that I have outlined happened.... If this was a legitimate

mistake, if that bill was from the Social Credit Party and was intended

to be paid from the Social Credit funds which were operated out of the

Premier's office, then, for goodness' sake, say so.

Anybody

can make a mistake. Pay back the $2,500 or whatever it is and tell us:

"We made a mistake; we've now corrected it. We've taken that fund out

of the Premier's office. It's all going through the Social Credit Party

elsewhere and it's not going to happen again." But as long as you dodge

and dive and refuse to stand up and tell us exactly what happened, why

it happened and how it happened, as long as you refuse to give us those

kinds of answers about the thousand-dollar bills, about the invoices

that came over to your office and who was the signing authority for

those invoices, about this particular invoice and how it wound up being

approved in a private kind of conversation between a couple of

officials — with no explanations as to what it was for — until we know

that, we just cannot accept the fact that the Premier of this province

deserves the money to operate his ministry. Because he's not doing a

job if he's not able to give us the answers to those kinds of

questions. He's not doing a job as Premier of this province.

have a right to know. The Prem