1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 14, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1951 ]

CONTENTS

Presenting Petitions

Supplemental ferry to the Powell River Queen.

Mr. Lockstead –– 1951

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Purchase of Maplewood Poultry. Mrs. Wallace –– 1951

Uranium mining. Mr. Passarell –– 1952

Purchase of Maplewood Poultry. Hon. Mr. Phillips replies –– 1952

Feasibility of nuclear fision reactor. Mr. Hanson –– 1952

Chemical spill in North Vancouver. Mr. Skelly –– 1952

Water pollution. Hon. Mr. Rogers replies –– 1952

Use of chartered planes by Highways ministry staff. Mr. Passarell –– 1952

Report on Native cooperative. Mr. Lea –– 1953

Transportation from Ocean Falls. Mr. Lockstead –– 1953

Ferry fares. Mr. Lockstead –– 1953

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office estimates.

On vote 9.

Mr. Macdonald –– 1953

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1954

Mr. Barber –– 1957

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1961

Mr. Barrett –– 1961

Division that the Chairman leave the chair –– 1963

Mr. Barrett –– 1963

Mr. Levi –– 1966

Mr. King –– 1969

Mr. Barrett –– 1970

Division on the Chairman's ruling –– 1971

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1971

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, with us in the House today is Mr. Bruce Beetham, MP, a

member of the New Zealand House of Representatives and the leader of

the New Zealand Social Credit Political League. Mr. Beetham is making a

visit to our province and to our country to broaden the ties and learn

from the experience of governments in our country. I would ask the

House to warmly welcome Mr. Beetham, and also to show him how our

Legislature practises democracy in this part of the Commonwealth.

MRS. WALLACE:

In the gallery today are a group of students from the Cowichan Senior

Secondary School. They are accompanied by two of their teachers and

also by four exchange students: one from Manitoba, two from Quebec and

one from Newfoundland. I would like the House to join me in welcoming

them.

MR. BRUMMET: In the precincts today, from Fort

St. John and representing School District 60 — Peace River North — are

the chairman of the board, Mr. Abe Unruh, a school trustee, Mr. Short

Tompkins, and also the district superintendent of schools, Dr. Brian

Frankcomb. With them is the mayor of Fort St. John, Mayor Pat Walsh,

and also Yvonne Dixon, chairman of the board of Northern Lights

College. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today, visiting this province, is the pride

and joy of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), her son Gary,

and his friend Chris Johnson. I'd like the House to welcome them.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Speaker, to everyone everywhere there are important days, and to

some there are some days more important than others. But today is an

important day for British Columbia, because it is the birthday of the

leader of our party and our Premier. I'd ask the House to congratulate

him.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, I have a strong

delegation of our members from Burnaby-Willingdon –– I would like the

House to join with me in welcoming them.

Presenting Petitions

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I ask leave of the House to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I have in my possession for the House over 4,500 signatures from Powell River relating to the following question.

"Whereas we feel that the ferry service between Saltery

Bay and Earls Cove is already inadequate during the summer months, with passengers

being left behind on many sailings because of the influx of tourists; and

whereas

our economy in Powell River depends on tourist dollars, and we do not want to

discourage tourists from coming to Powell River; and

whereas the people of Powell

River depend on the ferry service to get in and out of Powell River and find

it a great inconvenience to have to stay on the peninsula overnight because

of not being able to get on a ferry, we the undersigned do hereby strongly protest

against a recent decision of the B.C. Ferry Corporation that no extra ferry

will be placed on the run between Saltery Bay and Earls Cove this summer to

supplement the Powell River Queen."

Oral Questions

PURCHASE OF MAPLEWOOD POULTRY

MRS. WALLACE:

My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Mr. Albert Bartel is

the president of the Broiler Growers' Association, and he told a

meeting held in Langley on Tuesday evening last: "The Minister of

Agriculture wants the broiler growers to change their stand on

Cargill's purchase of Maplewood. The Minister of Agriculture wants the

broiler growers to withdraw their objection to the Foreign Investment

Review Agency regarding the takeover. The Minister of Agriculture is in

an embarrassing position." My question is: was Mr. Bartel telling the

truth or has he misrepresented the minister's comments?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I can't comment on what Mr. Bartel may or may not have said. I don't

think it would be proper of me to express an opinion as to whether he

was telling the truth or not.

MR. LAUK: As outlined by the member for Cowichan-Malahat, did the minister make those remarks to Mr. Bartel?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

The policy of the government has been stated twice now: first of all,

two or three weeks ago in this House I stood up and made a statement

advising this House that this government was not in favour of the

Cargill purchase of Maplewood, and secondly, as recently as a few days

ago — early last week — I made the same statement. I think, though, I

would like to have this opportunity to respond somewhat to what the

member from Cowichan-Malahat alludes to.

A week tomorrow I

was in Vancouver and met with the turkey board, the broiler board

representatives, the turkey producers and the broiler producers'

representatives to discuss with them the reasons for the reversal of

their original stance. They originally had advised this government that

they were not in favour of Cargitll's acquisition of Maplewood Poultry.

Then within several days of so advising us, we received communication

from them that they were now in support of it. The communication was by

third party in many instances, by phone call and by message. I met with

them to understand and to discuss the rationale in making a 180 degree

turnaround in their position. Madam Member, that was the purpose of

that meeting. It was not to try to pressure anybody to change his mind,

but for the information of a minister who has to deal with the industry.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to ask the minister to clarify what he has said. Is he telling the Legislature that the

[ Page 1952 ]

change of position made by the broiler and turkey growers came before he met with them rather than afterward?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is yes. They made their

turnaround prior to that meeting. The reason I called that meeting was

to clarify why they made that 180-degree turnaround.

URANIUM MINING

MR. PASSARELL:

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

Petroleum Resources. Placer Development in Atlin will be mining 616

pounds of uranium a day from their proposed molybdenum mine within the

next year. The uranium will be ponds lined with Glad plastic in a major

earthquake zone. Are Placer Development plans consistent with the

uranium moratorium?

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

MR. PASSARELL:

Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary to clarify that "yes," the Deputy

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has stated publicly

that the seven year moratorium does not apply in this case. Is that the

minister's position also?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the mine in question is a molybdenum mine, not a uranium mine.

MR. PASSARELL:

Mr. Speaker, has Placer Development received or applied for a permit

from the Atomic Energy Control Board for the mine in the Glow-Surprise

Lake region?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the

last time I checked, the Atomic Energy Control Board was not under the

jurisdiction of my ministry. Perhaps the member would like to ask the

minister who is responsible for the Atomic Energy Control Board.

PURCHASE OF MAPLEWOOD POULTRY

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, I have an answer to a question posed to me last week by

the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace). She asked me if I was

prepared to table my response to FIRA on behalf of the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt). First of all, I did not reply on behalf

of the Minister of Agriculture; it is the duty of my particular

ministry to respond on FIRA applications. And the answer is, no, I will

not file the correspondence, because we have other correspondence on

FIRA applications, which is confidential information between the two

governments. But I want to reassure the member for Cowichan-Malahat

that we did indeed oppose Cargill's application. We don't want any

great multinational company controlling all the turkeys in this

province, because it might possibly control them.

FEASIBILITY OF NUCLEAR FISSION REACTOR

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications. Consistent with earlier statements by the

minister of his desire to locate an experimental nuclear fusion-type

reactor in British Columbia, can the minister confirm that the Science

Council of British Columbia has engaged engineers to undertake a

feasibility study for the placement of a medium sized nuclear fusion

reactor in B.C.?

HON. MR. McGEER: That is incorrect, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HANSON:

Is the minister aware of an engineering firm by the name of the Dalcor

Group that has been engaged by the Science Council of B.C., presently

involved in a feasibility study for the placement or the siting of a

nuclear fusion reactor in B.C.?

HON. MR. McGEER: That is incorrect, Mr. Speaker.

CHEMICAL SPILL IN NORTH VANCOUVER

MR. SKELLY:

My question is to the Minister of Environment. Some weeks ago residents

of North Vancouver's Maplewood area demanded an investigation into

safety standards at the Hooker chemical plant in North Vancouver, as

well as a provincial inquiry into the handling of hazardous chemicals.

In view of the incident over the weekend in which five sawmill workers

were hospitalized as a result of a release of hydrochloric acid fumes

from a plant in North Vancouver, has the minister decided to accede to

the request of the Maplewood residents?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Staff of the Ministry of Environment are in North Vancouver today

making inquiries into the spill that occurred. When they report back I

will have further to say on the subject.

WATER POLLUTION

HON. MR. ROGERS:

I was asked a question last week about Finnerty Cove sewage outfall. In

reviewing the files it would appear that the first letter was sent by

Dr. Loffmark to Ray Williston, so that gives you an idea of the

currency of the situation. It has been around for some time. It is true

that permit number 231, which the Capital Regional District holds, has

not been renewed. To that extent the Capital Regional District is

discharging effluent without a permit. But they have retained the

services of Dr. Hoff of the Institute of Ocean Sciences to carry out a

study of the monitoring programs of their outfalls and to make

recommendations within two to three months.

USE OF CHARTERED PLANES BY HIGHWAYS

MINISTRY STAFF

MR. PASSARELL: My question is to the

Minister of Transportation and Highways. It appears that Highway 37 is

in such poor shape that the Highways superintendent in Dease Lake must

charter planes, at great expense, to investigate who is still working

for the Highways ministry and to deliver paycheques personally. Why

can't the superintendent of highways drive?

HON. MR. FRASER: To the member for Atlin, I'll check that out, but I doubt that the information you have is correct.

MR. PASSARELL: I have a supplementary question.

[ Page 1953 ]

How much does the supervisor's wife charge for flying the superintendent to Atlin?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take that question as notice, as well.

REPORT ON NATIVE COOPERATIVE

MR. LEA:

My question is to the Attorney-General. The inspector of credit unions

and co-ops has prepared a report on the Pacific North Coast Native

Co-op, stating that the co-op doesn't conform to the law, and he makes

several recommendations. Has the government taken any action whatsoever

on this report?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I haven't seen the report.

MR. LEA:

Would the minister endeavour...? Let me assure him that there is a

report. Just go to the superintendent and he'll give it to you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA:

I would ask the minister to go to the superintendent of co-ops and ask

for the report and table it in the House. Would he do that?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mackenzie.

TRANSPORTATION FROM OCEAN FALLS

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I thought the minister would answer the question.

have a question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

Yesterday 114 people were laid off in Ocean Falls. Because of lack of

water transportation they will be unable to leave Ocean Falls with

their families and belongings. Can the minister assure the House that

transportation will be provided for those people?

HON. MR. FRASER:

The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no, I can't assure that transportation will

be made available. It is my information that it is available — either

freight by boat or they can get out by plane.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Just for the minister's information, there is no way for these people to get out at the present time.

FERRY FARES

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I have a new question. Has the government decided to abolish

residential commuter cards for the Sunshine Coast and Gulf Islands?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, you're talking about future government policy. It hasn't even been looked at.

I'm

amazed at this member. I watched him on "Capital Comment, " and he said

we didn't answer it all; then he said we filibustered the answers.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: This is very often true. Today it's not true, Mr. Speaker; he's doing a good job today.

However,

back to my question. To the same minister: is the government presently

considering the abolition of resident commuter cards for theSunshine Coast and Gulf Islands? Is it under consideration?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I really think that question is out of order. You're dealing with future government policy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If it indicates future policy it is out of order. If it indicates present action it is in order.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Speaker, I believe that question is in order. I wish he would take

this as notice and just check it out. Anyway, another question to the

same minister. Has the government decided precisely what the fare

increases will be by the B.C. Ferry Corporation this coming June?

HON. MR. FRASER: Would the member please repeat the question?

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Has the minister or the government decided precisely what the fare

increases will be this coming June for the B.C. Ferry Corporation?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is a matter of future policy, hon. member.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

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

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Chairman, I thought that with a new week beginning and everybody in

a good humour and the Premier having a birthday, he would stand up

today and answer the questions of the opposition, which have been

raised for.... I'm not sure whether it is nine or ten days. I do want

the Premier's attention, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, to the

Premier, through you, a review of all of the constitutional authorities

of democratic government — and I referred to some of them on Friday

last, such as Ivor Jennings' book on cabinet government and that of R.

system, originating in the British constitution, of ministerial

responsibility. Yet we've been in the very difficult position now for

nine days of asking particular questions of the Premier that have been

ruled in order by the Chair, that have been related to public business

and the conduct of the Premier in carrying out the duties of his high

office, yet the Premier has refused to answer them. I hope that this

will be a new week.

In reply the Premier said: "We are

accountable. " He has said: "We've put in an Auditor-General; that

shows we're accountable." To that extent, that's true. He said: "My

other ministers will answer the questions that are being asked by the

opposition when their estimates come up; they can be asked about their

conduct of public business on their salary vote." But now this is the

Premier's salary vote. While we may appear to be tedious and

repetitious, and all of this could

[ Page 1954 ]

have

been settled days ago with simple answers to perfectly-in-order

questions, we have no choice but to do our constitutional duty. This

opposition might be good, bad or indifferent....

HON. MR. MAIR: Bad.

MR. MACDONALD:

All right, the Minister of Health says "bad." But that isn't the point.

The point is that we are asking, as elected members, questions about

the public business, and particularly the conduct of public business by

the Premier, on behalf of all of the people of British Columbia. If the

Premier chooses to treat us with what you could almost think was

discourtesy or disdain, then he is not treating the opposition as such,

he is exhibiting discourtesy and disdain to the people of the province.

Mr.

Chairman, as I reminded you last Friday, there was a young lady sitting

up in the gallery there — a young woman, I have to say; I've got to be

careful about that these days — and when the Premier was being asked

perfectly legitimate questions relating to public business on the

matter of the jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle and he

refused to respond, that young lady said: "We have a right to know."

HON. MR. CHABOT: Did you engineer that outburst?

MR. MACDONALD: The answer is no. As far as I know, I've never seen the young lady before in my life.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Did anyone in your caucus?

MR. MACDONALD:

Well, I'd be glad to answer questions, but it's not my estimates that

are up. If only we could get answers from the Premier of the province

of British Columbia. If only he would set an example. He says the other

ministers will answer. Mr. Premier, set an example and answer the

questions relating to the conduct of your office, because people all

through British Columbia........

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, I'm not going to.... We'll have a chat in the corridor later, Mr. Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot).

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD:

I know we're on vote 9, and I hope that you will not follow the sad

example that we've had for the last nine days from the Premier when

your vote comes up. But let's leave it at that.

This is

public business. There is a constitutional obligation on a Prime

Minister, along with other cabinet ministers, to be accountable for

their actions. If you're not accountable and not answerable to the

people of this province, it is not something either they or we can walk

away from, Mr. Premier. When I went out and spoke to various people

throughout the greater Vancouver area, they repeated what that young

woman was saying, that we have a right to know about public business.

I ask the Premier to simply give us the explanation requested by the

Leader of the Opposition. Was there a public commitment of funds made

for the jetfoil service to Seattle? Who convened that meeting? Who made

the arrangements for BCDC to provide financing and how much was that

financing? These are legitimate questions. The answers may settle the

issue; the answers may lead to debate; the answers may show that the

Premier conducted himself perfectly properly in the convening of that

meeting — if he did it. Or the answers may show that he did not conduct

his office as he is expected to do by the people of the province of

British Columbia.

But the point is none of those things. The

point today is that the people have a right to know and have a right to

have answers to questions on estimates. If we walk away from that

proposition of ministerial responsibility, then we would have sold out

on behalf of those people, and we have no intention of doing that, Mr.

Chairman. So I ask the Premier as courteously as I can — through you,

Mr. Chairman — to please give an account of what he did in relation to

that jetfoil service, and what commitments he made on behalf of the

people of the province of British Columbia, leading, as I understand it

— it's an important public issue — to the service being financed in

some way by British Columbia, and employing a foreign crew and flying

under a foreign flag. That is important public business and we have a

right to the answers, not for ourselves but on behalf of the people who

are waiting for just those answers, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

The last speaker in the House started out by saying that it was a new

week in British Columbia, a new day, and yet he continued to pursue the

same line of reasoning, the same line of questioning that he pursued

last week. I'm not sure what they're up to over there on that side of

the House, Mr. Chairman, because it's the same type of negative,

harping, self-serving questioning that we have heard in this

Legislature for the last two weeks during the Premier's estimates. I've

listened with a great deal of interest to the line of questioning, and

there have been no questions on policy and no sincere questions about

the economy. Heaven knows that this country, this province, this

nation, the free world, is concerned about the future and the economy

for the people who are going to follow us. That is our responsibility

as legislators, but I've not heard one solitary positive suggestion

emanating from that side of the House regarding the economy of this

province. That is also the responsibility of the chief policy-maker of

this province, our Premier. He is the one who is going to be

responsible for the decisions that we make on the economy and on social

measures well into the future. Yet not one question have we heard

emanating from that side of the House regarding our Premier's

responsibility for the economy and the future of this province.

brought in a large budget with a huge surplus. What have we heard about

it? We've heard negative, harping criticism: "You're not spending

enough money here," or "You're spending too much there." But I think we

must realize that we were able to have a surplus and to bring in that

budget because we have the leadership of the man whose estimates we are

in today. I've listened intently and I think it is the responsibility

of the Leader of the Opposition to bring forth his views on the

policies of this government and not just to carp and ask self-serving

questions as he has been doing during the last two weeks.

know that our leader would appreciate getting into some policy

deliberations, because he has stood in this Legislature and said many

times: "We're not perfect; we've made a few mistakes. We're human." But

we're sure not being helped in

[ Page 1955 ]

our

policy deliberations by the Leader of the Opposition or any of the

members on the opposition benches. What we should be deliberating in

this Legislature is the policies of the chief policy-maker, our

Premier. We are in his estimates. I hate to lecture the opposition, but

I think it's time we told them a few facts. I think they should be in a

position to talk about policies. Some of the negative, carping

criticism we heard last year during the Premier's estimates about his

leadership and the policies developed by his government........

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, we are in committee dealing with

vote 9, the Premier's estimates, not policy of the government. The

questions asked by the opposition are all in order. Let us stay with

vote 9 and deal with it. If the Premier refuses to answer, let the

minister say: "The Premier refuses to answer. " But we are not here in

my estimates, as much as I'd like to be, nor in the opposition's

estimates, as much as I'd like to be. We're on vote 9 of the Premier's

estimates. Would you please call the minister to order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for the observation, hon. Leader of the Opposition.

While some latitude is always allowed in the Premier's estimates, which

I'm sure all members of the House should bear in mind, I would ask the minister

to proceed, narrowing in on vote 9 specifically.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate your guidance in this. Far be it

from me to ever stand in this Legislature and argue with you. So I will

talk about the man whose estimates we are in, the Premier. If you

disagree with me that the Premier of our province, to whom we are

trying to vote some money so he can run his office, doesn't deal with

the overall policies of this government, and doesn't make the decisions

— a lot of them in concert, mind you, with his colleagues — on the

policies and the economy of this Legislature, maybe I'd better take a

new lesson. But I think what is really bothering the Leader of the

Opposition is that he's been in this negative, negative stance for so

long and he's so used to asking repetitive, negative questions that he

can't come to grips and deal in this Legislature with the policies of

this government nor with the economy during the Premier's estimates. It

is his responsibility as Leader of the Opposition to deal with the

Premier and to talk about policies, but he has nothing to talk about.

He has no positive suggestions.

I can remember one time when

I was in opposition, We used to talk a little negatively once in a

while, as well as giving many, many positive suggestions to the

government of the day. He used to say: "The sky is falling. The

gloom-and-doom boys over there...." Unfortunately we were the

gloom-and-doom boys over there, because they did bring the sky down on

the province of British Columbia and on the economy. Now they are

trying to be the same gloom-and-doom boys; they are trying to emulate

us, but the sky is not falling. As a matter of fact, the heavens are

opening up on the economy due to the leadership of the man whose

estimates we are now debating.

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk

a little about the economy in British Columbia, an economy that has

been led by our policy-maker in fitting together decisions to....

MR. BARRETT: Order!

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. members. I will caution the Leader of the

Opposition once that the Chair will not tolerate incessant comments

from the side, reflecting on the Chair and intimidating the Chair.

The Leader of the Opposition rises on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT:

It is the duty of members of this House to call the Chair's attention

to order. The member is out of order and I expect the Chairman to apply

the rules of the House, please.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon.

members, I will once again reiterate that during the Premier's

estimates there has always been considerable latitude allowed in

discussing the responsibilities of the Premier's office. Again I will

read for all members

section 61(2) of the standing orders under

relevancy: "Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly

relevant to the item or clause under consideration."

When

the Chair allows a certain amount of latitude on one side of the House,

it is only reasonable to expect that that same latitude be exercised

wito the other side of the House. If members wish to strictly observe

the rules, then so be it, but if we continue to wander and the same

latitude is expected on each side, then that too must be anticipated

and expected.

In any case, notwithstanding what has been

previously mentioned, it is most disconcerting to the Chair to have any

member of the House incessantly shouting "order," to the left or right

of the Chair. If points of order are to be raised, then members are to

take their place, rise and make such an observation. If not, then the

regular rules of the House apply in committee as at anv other time.

The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development has the floor on vote 9.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Yes, Mr. Chairman, vote 9 money for the Premier's office, the Premier

being the leader of the Social Credit Part, of British Columbia and of

the government of British Columbia. And my, what a great leader he is.

I want to say something about the reason we should vote our Premier his

money so that he can continue to lead the government of the province of

British Columbia. In other words, Mr. Chairman, I am talking about why

we should vote the Premier his estimates, and I believe that is in

order.

Now when we formed the government in late 1975 and

early 1976, we were faced with a major problem. British Columbia did

not have the best image, shall I say, in the world with our trading

partners. Some of our trading partners who had dealt with British

Columbia for some previous 20 years were taking and had taken a second

look during the three years that British Columbia was governed by the

socialist party. I don't wish to repeat in this Legislature some of the

statements told to me privately by some of our trading partners about

why they didn't want to do business with British Columbia, but I do

want to reiterate that British Columbia is.... If we are to

continue to support the social programs that we have in place in

British Columbia — many of them intituled by the great Social Credit

government in the first 20 years of their government in this province

and many more instituted by this government in the last four years — we

must have a growing economy and we must continue to improve our export

sales.

That is something that....

[ Page 1956 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The second member for Vancouver East on a point of order.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Chairman, the point of order is — I regret that I have to make it

in the absence of the Premier, whose estimates are up before the people

of British Columbia right now — that the minister makes general

statements which we can't reply to on this vote and still be in order.

Therefore he should be restricted to the vote. You know, I really think

that we're seeing legislative democracy in British Columbia turned into

a farce by the government benches.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. MACDONALD:

Never have we seen such a thing where the minister whose estimates it

is, and who has been asked questions, takes off, and we have a speech

to which we can't reply........

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD:

Will the Chair please restrict the questions and answers to the

relevancy of vote 9, because we're restricted. Why shouldn't the

minister be?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, it is not the

responsibility of the Chair alone to restrict any debate in this House.

While we have a set of rules and regulations that we're all bound to

adhere to and follow, individual members must take responsibility for

their actions in this House. The Chair will offer whatever guidance it

can, whenever it can, when members tend to stray from those general

rules. The point of the member is, however, well made and should be

considered by all hon. members.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Chairman, just by way of editorial comment, it appears to me that

the opposition is very touchy today about what is being said in this

House. I've listened to this debate for two weeks. We have talked about

the economy, the policies of this government and the leadership ability

of our Premier, and I don't remember the opposition ever standing up

and saying that we shouldn't talk about this and we shouldn't talk

about that. The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) even talked

the other day about bringing wage controls back into British Columbia,

and I don't remember anybody standing up on this side of the House and

trying to restrict debate.

But I know that they are touchy.

They were touched up on the weekend; they had a little caucus meeting

and they had a little analysis meeting. They said to each other: "Just

how are we doing in this Legislature this far?" I know they came to the

conclusion that they were doing very, very badly. So they had a little

meeting, and they're going to try to clean up their act, Mr. Chairman.

Let me tell you that I would like to see them debating the issues that

face this government and our national government instead of the

pessimism and negative, carping, self-serving questions that they've

been asking thus far in the Premier's estimates.

I want to

talk about the policies of this government under the Premier's

leadership, Mr. Chairman. So far as I'm concerned, one of the reasons

we should vote him his money is the tremendous ability he has and the

guidance he has given me as one of his ministers and others in order

that we could go out and improve British Columbia's image in the

trading world. If that is not the responsibility of our leader, if that

is not one of the reasons we should vote him money to run his office,

then I better take a new lesson in debate in this House. I think that

if I sat down and did a little research, I could find lots of precedent

for that.

Mr. Chairman, under the leadership of the Leader

of the Opposition when he was in government, we suffered some damage to

our image in the trading world. Under our new Premier we set forth to

change that image. The results are very, very positive indeed, because

now British Columbia, I would say, is leading all provinces in the

stance we have taken on international trade. We are looked at by many,

many embassies in the world as being the province, a leader in Canada,

in the stance we have taken in improving international trade. We are

looked on with envy by other provinces in Canada because of the high

profile and the very good work we have done under the leadership of our

Premier in improving the image of this province in international

circles, and by the progressive, innovative methods that we have taken

to assist industry in British Columbia in improving its trade abroad.

As I said, this is very important.

As you know, during the

three years that the Leader of the Opposition was government, we could

have improved our trade. The opportunities were there, particularly in

the sale of metallurgical coal, of which British Columbia has over ten

billion tonnes, enough to run the steel industries of the world for the

next 200 years.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, on a

point of order. When I asked the Premier to give some leadership on

another issue, you ruled that I was out of order because I was not

dealing with his estimates. The previous speaker is talking on his

ministry, not the Premier's estimates. He is talking on his ministry,

and he will have opportunity to make this point when he comes up. I

think you should bring him back to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Thank you, hon. member. Again, if rules of this House were to be

enforced strictly, then the Chair would be in a very difficult position

of even allowing the questions of the Leader of the Opposition

regarding the questions of relevancy regarding the Premier's office, as

against those of the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order. At no

time, Mr. Chairman, have I been called to order in the last five days —

that any one of my questions related to actions of the Premier's office

has been out of order. I cannot accept an

interpretation today on

questions I've yet to ask and on questions that I asked last week which

never were called out of order, and I even asked the Chairman to

clarify them. My questions are strictly in order; they relate to the

Premier's office and his actions as Premier in his office. The people

of this province have a right to know, and we will continue to ask,

despite the filibustering of that member.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, points of order raised in the House are to be made

briefly and in relation to actual points of order. In commenting on the

member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), who asked on

relevancy regarding the comments being made by the Minister

[ Page 1957 ]

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), I was not

referring to the Leader of the Opposition. I was using it as a

comparative example.

Again to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development: I must ask you to return to the relevancy factor of vote 9.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I don't want to comment on the points of order, but it appears to me

that it was the leader of this government who led the first economic

mission to Europe in the fall of 1977, and that's exactly what I am

talking about. It's certainly my ministry, but our Premier led that

mission. We tried to repair British Columbia's image abroad, under the

leadership of this Premier. That's why we're paying him. Are his

travelling expenses not under this vote? Is that not under the

Premier's office?

You guys are touchy over there. At that

meeting you had on the weekend you tried to self-analyze a little bit,

and you found out that your image wasn't very good, and you're trying

to clean up your act, but you're still negative and you're still

harping. And the very fact that you're so touchy today.... You're

jumpy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, I would ask once again that we return to vote 9, the Premier's estimates.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now they've even got you jumpy over there. We've talked in this debate this far....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is rising on a point of order.

MR. MITCHELL: I think the speaker should stay on the Premier's estimates, not on meetings that we may attend on the weekend.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I would like to continue my exploration of increasing our exports and

improving our image, which is under the leadership of our Premier. As I

said, our Premier led the first economic mission to Europe. We touched

on many countries. We talked to Geneva about the GATT negotiations. We

said that that would be one of the most important decisions made

concerning world trade for Canada. Mr. Chairman, that comes under the

Premier's estimates. The Premier was there; we made a policy decision.

We didn't get everything we wanted in GATT, and we'll still fight for

it. We'll fight for it under his leadership. We've asked Ottawa to put

a new deal together where we could continue the ongoing negotiation. It

will be dealt with at the next Western Premiers' Conference. If that

doesn't come under the estimates of the Premier, I don't know what

does. But as I say....

No, I'm not making any

announcement, Mr. Premier. I'm trying to say that under the leadership

of our Premier this government has led the way in providing a good

image for British Columbia. We have helped our industries to expand,

export more goods and services, and provide more jobs. The results are

there, and that's why they do not want to talk about it. More people

are being employed. Small manufacturing firms are coming into this

great province of ours, and those who are manufacturing are exporting

more abroad and providing more jobs for the economy of this province.

That's under the leadership of our Premier.

That's why they

don't want to question the policies; that's why they don't want to go

back to last year's negative, harping criticism of the economy. They

want to continue to be pessimistic; they want to continue to be

negative; they want to continue to tell us that the sky is falling.

They can't give any questions to our Premier on his leadership ability

or the policies of this government, because they are so sound and so

solid that they don't dare question them. That's why they're being

pessimistic, negative, harping. They're trying to ruin the image even

now when they're in opposition.

What is the biggest threat

to the province of British Columbia and to its economy? The fact that

those birds might get back in. That's why people are shaking in their

boots. If there is any investment’s leaving or if there isn't any

coming in, that's the answer. Even now that they're in opposition

they're still negative. and they're still trying to harm the economy of

this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the

first member for Victoria, I would caution all members about the use of

temperate language, particularly when referring to other Members of the

Legislative Assembly.

MR. BARBER: I ask the people in the gallery: would you want to be represented abroad by someone who behaved like that?

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

MR. BARBER:

In 1976 a jetfoil left Victoria harbour in order to commence yet

another experimental run between here and Seattle. Unfortunately the

jetfoil got stuck in a fishnet and had to be towed back to Victoria

harbour. Having been stuck in a fishnet, the jetfoil then went on to

complete another experimental run.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Are you against fishermen?

MR. BARBER: Fishermen? No. But I do wonder why jetfoils get stuck in fishnets.

And

the jetfoil again, in 1976, failed to persuade the people of greater

Victoria, as an economic opportunity, that it could compete with other

services available for the same clientele in the same market.

This

year, however, the jetfoil looks competitive. Why is that? Well.

fishnets and all, it's largely because of the Premier. Since — if I

recall correctly — 1974, Boeing Co. has made strenuous efforts to

market the jetfoil in its own back yard. This is perfectly

understandable. The marine engineering division of Boeing is a very

able and very highly skilled body of people who have put together a

very interesting piece of technology. They have, however, historically

been embarrassed by the fact that they haven't been able to find a

market for their own equipment in the Pacific Northwest, where it is,

after all, built. They tried with our administration and failed to

persuade us that the jetfoil was economically sound. It is, I suspect,

technically sound — technologically advanced. But then, as now, the

fundamental problem with the jetfoil has been its economics. Its

economic feasibility, its economic advisability in a market like

Victoria to Seattle.

This year, however, the difference is,

Mr. Chairman, that the Premier has become involved. This year, we're

aware that a meeting took place in the Oak Room at 4:30 p.m. on March

13. We are aware that the Premier, this year, in a

[ Page 1958 ]

deliberate way and in an artificial way has rearranged the economics of a jetfoil service.

I have a few more questions today, Mr. Chairman, for the Premier. I

want to know why he meddled in the matter. I want to know what

advantage, if any, he sees in making a fundamentally uneconomic

service, apparently economic, by killing its only competition. I'm

referring, of course, to the Princess Marguerite . I'm referring, of

course, to the Queen of Prince Rupert . I want to draw to your attention

a pattern of political involvement and political meddling by the

Premier. I want to remind you that in the mid-seventies, Boeing, for

perfectly sensible reasons, decided to — in every strenuous way —

persuade some customer or another in its own back yard to adopt a

service which it has not so far been able to sell anywhere on the west

coast of North America. They began with our administration. We ran,

under Mr. Strachan, a trial service. We concluded that the vessel was

technologically worth some study, but was not economically competitive.

Boeing did not proceed and neither did we. On two subsequent occasions

during the first term of this government, Boeing once again made

vigorous representations to that government, to that Premier, and to

members of his cabinet. Once again, Boeing was unable to demonstrate

that a jetfoil was economically competitive in the Victoria to Seattle

market.

This year there is a difference. This year Boeing

has got what it has wanted for six years. This year, because of the

Premier, Boeing Co., the largest private aerospace corporation in the

world, has got what it wanted. What's the difference between all these

years past and this year? It is only this. As far as we can tell, the

Premier has deliberately downgraded the only competition in order to

now make the jetfoil artificially competitive.

How did this

happen? Well, the Premier has, since taking office on December 22,

1975, appointed five different ministers to be responsible for the

vessel Princess Marguerite . Five ministers later we no longer have the

vessel. That was the direct result of the intervention of a sixth — the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). How did that happen? Once again

the Premier found chaos in his own cabinet and had to step in. What the

Premier found was a fight between the Minister of Transportation (Hon.

Mr. Fraser), who wanted, on behalf of the board of directors of B.C.

Ferries, to use the vessel Queen of Surrey on the northern run, and the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips), who had promised, as early as September 26 of last year,

that the vessel Surrey would be made available, not for the northern

run, but for the Victoria to Seattle run. It's a matter of documented

record that because of the foolish and misguided promise of the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, B.C. Steamships

spent at least $54,000 to undertake refit drawings for the Queen of

Surrey . You see, they acted in good faith. They thought that the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development was telling the

truth. They thought that the Premier was, because that's what the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development told them. Mr.

Elworthy believed Mr. Phillips when he told him on September 26: "It's

okay, don't worry. Bill says you can have the Surrey."

Why

did they do that? Because they have been persuaded — wrongly — that the

vessel Marguerite could no longer serve. Some of them even went so far

— wrongly — as to claim the vessel was unsafe. The fact that the

Premier's own mother travelled on that vessel on October 5 of last year

surely suggests that it wasn't all that unsafe, or surely the Premier

wouldn't have let his own mother travel on it. Nonetheless, the Premier

would have his way and has attempted to persuade people that the vessel

Marguerite was "unsafe " for babies and tourists. You remember the

quote, Mr. Chairman.

The questions I am leading to — I read

the look on your face — are about the involvement over some time on the

part of this Premier in the administration of B.C. Steamships, in the

related administrative responsibilities of B.C. Ferries, and in a

meeting that took place in his office on March 13 of this year. I'm

trying to draw for you, Mr. Chairman — you may not accept it, but I

think it's there nonetheless — a pattern. The pattern is this: after

five ministers, the last three of whom were grossly incompetent in

their handling of the vessel Marguerite , it became clear that the

Premier would have his way and would get rid of one more piece of

concrete evidence of successful work by the New Democrat

administration. The Marguerite did succeed; it did make money; it did

work; it did bring tourists to Vancouver Island.

The Premier

appointed a sixth minister to mediate the dispute between the Minister

of Industry and Small Business Development and the Minister of

Transportation and Highways. As a result of that misguided mediation we

ended with the vessel Queen of Prince Rupert . On January 31 of this

year, the Minister of Finance took some pride in the announcement that

the Marguerite was — unhappily, he said — no longer serviceable. He

neglected to tell us that the Coast Guard of Canada did not agree. He

neglected to tell us that the Coast Guard of the United States did not

agree. He neglected to tell us that the Edwardson & Co. report and

the Lloyd's Insurance report also did not agree. Nonetheless, doing the

Premier's business, about which I am questioning the Premier now, Mr.

Chairman, the Minister of Finance announced that the vessel Marguerite

wouldno longer serve, and that the Queen of Prince Rupert was supposed

to be a replacement.

However, the Premier made a mistake. He

misjudged. He miscalculated, as he has done in this instance and in so

many others. He believed that the people of Victoria would believe him.

The Premier seemed to believe that the people of Victoria would

consider that a vessel which regularly carried 1,800 people — was

licensed at maximum for 2,000 — could somehow be replaced by a vessel

which carried 387 people. This was the Rupert replacing the Marguerite .

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. Again, we must get back to the point of

relevancy, and I must say that this matter could be fully canvassed

under another ministry. Hon. member, the Chair has undergone numerous

arguments today about both sides, regarding relevancy, and if it is the

wish of the House, as it appears to be, that we're going to get back to

standing order 61(2), whereby we say, "Speeches in Committee of the

Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under

consideration, " then, again, I must ask the member to get on to vote 9

and carry on, rather than discussing something that can be discussed

quite thoroughly and completely under a vote other than vote 9.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome your advice and I will try to follow it.

What

I'm trying to follow here in the House is the Premier's role in the

handling of one major public policy issue. I think that's fair. I'm

sure you'd agree. The policy

[ Page 1959 ]

issue is marine transport to Vancouver Island — specifically, marine transport from Seattle to Victoria.

the Premier had not called such a meeting, if he had not named one

cabinet minister to mediate a fight between two others, if he had not

himself made certain public statements about the alleged unsafe

condition of the Marguerite , then you're quite correct, Mr. Chairman,

in assuming that we would have nothing to discuss here. But the point

is that the Premier did make public statements about the vessel

Marguerite ....

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: He did!

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. Notwithstanding the fact that the public

statements have been made, I must advise you again that in May,

seventeenth edition, page 739, "General Restrictions on Debate in

Committee of Supply, " it states under

section (p), "cannot be

discussed....nor action for which a minister is not responsible."

Again, only by really stretching the Premier's estimates, which if

stretched sufficiently could encompass, in fact, all cabinet, can we

get any kind of relevancy on to vote 9. I would ask the member to bear

this in mind and to get back on to vote 9, the Premier's estimates.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Chairman, as you know, the jetfoil currently is not the

administrative responsibility of any minister. It has been made the

administrative responsibility of the Premier by the Premier, because he

called a meeting to arrange the service. So I think my remarks are

entirely in order. In any case, they're really quite brief and I'm

proceeding to questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please,

hon. member. When the Chair goes to some length to explain to a member,

it's most irregular for a member to stand up right after that and say

that he believes he is in order. The Chair is doing the best it

possibly can to advise members. If you wish to challenge the Chair in

any way, fine, but again, hon. member, I'm here only to serve the

members of this Legislature, both those on my left and those on my

right as equally as possible. I ask for cooperation and ask again for

vote 9 to proceed on the first minister's estimates.

MR. BARBER:

There is no need for me to challenge your ruling because I agree with

it. I am, in fact, restricting my remarks to the duties of the Premier,

as you told me to do.

One of those duties has been, over

some time, to make statements about decisions regarding a very, very

important aspect of policy as it affects my riding. I'm sure you agree.

The Premier has made the jetfoil an economic possibility

whereas before

it never was. How did the Premier do that? These are my questions, Mr.

Chairman. Did he deliberately scrap the only real competition the

jetfoil might have on the basis of poor advice, phony arguments or

false claims? Is that how the Premier made the jetfoil potentially

economically sound for Boeing?

Let me restate my point. The

jetfoil could never compete with the Marguerite by itself, but if

Boeing Co. had a compliant government that was willing to get rid of

the only competition, then maybe the jetfoil could compete. Is that

what the Premier did? These are among my questions. Did, in fact, the

Premier meet in his office with a representative of Boeing Co. to

discuss precisely how the jetfoil service might be introduced and how

the only economic competition to it might be eliminated? The Premier's

talking to his consultant. I'll wait a moment. It's a serious question.

It calls into serious question the execution of government policy in a

fair-minded way.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Now

the Premier's listening — almost. Did the Premier meet in his office

with a representative or representatives of the Boeing corporation to

discuss with them how it might be that the corporation could introduce

a jetfoil service from Victoria to Seattle, and how, as well, Boeing

could deal with the problem of having to compete with the vessel

Marguerite when it knew in fact it could not so compete? Did the

Premier, prior to March 13, meet with representatives of the Boeing

corporation to discuss that particular aspect of that corporation's

wish to enter the Victoria to Seattle market? This government has done

favours for Boeing. This government has removed under false pretences

the competitive vessel, Princess Marguerite . This government has

deliberately introduced a vessel that cannot possibly meet the ordinary

demands of that service. You look at 1,800 seats for the Marguerite and

387 for the Queen of Prince Rupert and you know full well the ships are

not comparable. The replacement vessel that the Premier has boasted of

from time to time is slower, smaller, has less capacity and cannot do

the job. The Premier bears significant personal responsibility for the

entire mess, which the public knows full well is the result of their

policies concerning the Marguerite , the Queen of Prince Rupert , the

Queen of Surrey and marine transportation generally.

The

Premier has deliberately interjected his own office and his own energy

— although he doesn't work nights these days, the energy seems to be

lapsing — into this dispute. We wonder why he's done such favours for

Boeing. They deliberately downgraded the only competition the jetfoil

has in order to make the jetfoil artificially competitive. So we wish

to ask the question for the fourth time now. Did the Premier — let me

broaden it a bit — or an agent specifically instructed by the Premier

to do so — one doesn’t want people getting off the hook too lightly —

meet with representatives of the Boeing corporation to discuss with

them how they could best introduce that service to Victoria-Seattle and

how they could overcome the problem of competing with a vessel, the

Marguerite , which previously had made it impossible for them to enter

the market because the market wasn't big enough to support both

services?

There is a pattern here, Mr. Chairman. You appoint

five ministers in a row, and you make sure there's no effective

political leadership for the B.C. Steamship Company. You then fall

victim to a phony argument about the alleged lack of safety of the

vessel, even though your own mother rides on it on October 5. You allow

people to believe the vessel isn't safe for babies and tourists, even

though the Canadian Coast Guard, the American Coast Guard, Lloyd's of

London, the Edwardson Company report and the president of the company

himself tell you that's not true, that the vessel is perfectly safe.

You try to conjure the image with the public that because we're so

concerned with public safety we'll scrap this 1,800 capacity vessel and

we'll give you the Queen of Prince Rupert, which carries fewer than 400.

[ Page 1960 ]

Now

they tell us that the vessel will run twice a day — or at least they

used to tell us that, but we don't hear that so much anymore. Why?

Because they've discovered that it's not entirely practical. Who's

going to be sailing at 3 o'clock in the morning? What American customs

office is prepared to open up at 4:30 in the morning? They've

discovered it's not practical. They've discovered they can't load buses

because of the problems with the front-loading and side-loading nature

of the pier and the vessel. Therefore, once more we see indisputable

proof that this government, as a favour to its friends and as a favour

to Boeing, got rid of a vessel under false pretences and replaced it

with a hopelessly inadequate little vessel that can never possibly

serve Victoria to Seattle.

And in the meantime, what else

have they done as part of this favour for Boeing? Well, sure enough,

they've put together a little company. This appears to be the result of

the meeting with the Premier on March 13 — although he won't answer

questions about it, as long as we've been asking and often as we've

asked. As a result of the Premier's involvement we now have a

non-profit company which proposes to run the service which never before

was feasible because it couldn't compete.

The government,

therefore, Mr. Chairman, has done three great favours for the Boeing

corporation. It's scrapped the Princess Marguerite under false

pretences; secondly, it put on the Queen of Prince Rupert, a totally

inadequate replacement vessel; and thirdly, having done the first two

things in order to get rid of any effective competition for the

jetfoil, the Premier then called a meeting on March 13. I'm told that

the meeting was attended by four other cabinet ministers: the Minister

of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), who is also the member for Oak Bay; the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who is also the member for

Saanich and the Islands; the Minister of Transportation and Highways

(Hon. Mr. Fraser); and the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). It appears, in fact, that the Premier

took in — at least by Socred standards a rather high-powered crew.

that meeting — I wonder if the Premier would care to confirm it — he

started out by giving a wonderful little speech about the glories of

free enterprise, and then another wonderful little speech about the

glories of the jetfoil, and then made further comments about how he

fully recognized the Rupert could not possibly replace the Marguerite —

contrary to what the Minister of Finance had said on January 31 — and

would therefore have to be supplemented by a jetfoil. Did the Premier

also tell the members of the chamber of commerce there that it was

politically necessary for them to support the government in this

venture, otherwise it might fail politically? How many more favours was

he prepared to do for Boeing in order to have this vessel serve where,

economically, it was never possible to serve before?

The

Premier is personally responsible for having appointed five ministers

in four years to be responsible for the Marguerite. No wonder the

leadership there was such a mess. The Premier is responsible for

appointing minister number six, the Minister of Finance, to mediate the

fight between his colleagues, the Minister of Transportation and the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development — the ministers

responsible for the laughably inappropriate decision to replace the

Marguerite with the Rupert — and the Premier is also responsible for

touting the jetfoil. Our questions to the Premier, in

summary, are

these:

1. Did he, or someone specifically seconded by him, meet with representatives

of the Boeing corporation in private, in secret, unannounced, to discuss with

that corporation the economics — or lack of them — of a jetfoil operation from

Victoria to Seattle?

During that meeting, did Boeing Co. raise the problem of competition

with the Marguerite , andraise the problem therefore posed of how they

would be able to enter themarket if they couldn't compete with the old

Marguerite itself?

3. Did the Premier subsequently name the

minister newly responsible for the vessel Marguerite , tell him to get

rid of it at all costs, and tell his colleague, the Minister of

Finance, to replace it with something that could not possibly serve in

order that the jetfoil could succeed?

4. Having got rid of

the Marguerite under false pretences, having put the vessel Rupert on,

knowing that it was totally inadequate — as they do know, as they would

never deny — did he then call a meeting of representatives of the

business community of Victoria on March 13 in his office and advise

them, as I recounted just a few moments ago, regarding their

obligations to save that government? This is what it really boils down

to, Mr. Chairman.

Let me restate it. As a piece of

technology the jetfoil is very impressive; I've been on it a couple of

times. I suppose it doesn't ordinarily get caught in fish-nets. It

probably works most of the time. But as a piece of economic strategy it

makes less sense in a market like Victoria to Seattle when there is

superior competition. Boeing badly wants to introduce this service

here. In order to do so, they appear to have agreed with the Premier to

reduce to the minimum possible level the costs and charges associated

with the start-up season, thereby artificially making the jetfoil

appear to be economic. They were delighted when the Premier removed the

only economic competition the jetfoil might have had. No doubt they're

delighted down in Seattle today to be aware of what great favours

Boeing Co. has had done for it by the government of British Columbia.

But

great favour or not, for Boeing, one wonders whether or not the

Premier's policy has been a great favour for the people of Victoria.

I'm not sure. I think, in fact, the great majority of the people of

Victoria do not believe the Premier's government when he tells them

that the ship Marguerite is unsafe; I think the great majority of the

people of Victoria do not believe the Premier when he tells them that

the Queen of Prince Rupert is an adequate replacement. I suspect, as

well, that the particular charming character and unique nostalgia

associated with the vessel Marguerite can never and will never find

adequate replacement in a jetfoil. Therefore, what could have been in a

significant way new and growing business on the old run will prove to

be difficult on the new. I doubt it will fail altogether. Our American

cousins will continue to come up from Washington state to Victoria;

because it is, after all, an extraordinarily beautiful place to visit.

No one will ever be able to keep people away from here; no matter how

often this government stumble-mindedly doubles the ferry rates, a few

will still make it through.

But that's not the point. The

point is whether the jetfoil would be economic unless the Premier made

it so by getting rid of the competition. What favours has the Premier

done for Boeing Co.? What arrangements...?

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: My colleague asks: what favours will Boeing do for him?

[ Page 1961 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Or have they done.

MR. BARBER:

Or have they done. Because, you see, Boeing, wanting the service, is

prepared to go to some lengths in order to provide it. And that's fair.

They're doing what a great American corporation has always done: enter

the Canadian market under the best possible circumstances, make the

best possible initial deal and, once they've cornered the market, go to

town. They've always done that, and here the Premier is agreeing with

them.

So we want to know again, Mr. Chairman, what

commitments the Premier made at that meeting of March 13. What prior

commitments, if any, did he make to Boeing Co., or did he have

expressed to them on his behalf? Precisely who from the business

community attended the meeting? We have a new question for today. Did

the Premier implicitly or explicitly advise the business community of

Victoria as follows: "Two years from now, if the non-profit society has

succeeded, we will be prepared to turn that run over to private

enterprise"? "Two years or more from now, if the market is sufficiently

developed — the government, after all, has taken all the risks — we

will let you take all the profits. '' That's the meaning of the

Premier's apparent policy. If he did not make such a commitment,

implicitly or explicitly, let him deny it today. I'll accept his denial

at face value.

But I've heard a lot of other reports about

that meeting. I've heard of a lot of other meetings taking place and a

lot of other commitments implicitly made. After all, it would not be

inconsistent with Social Credit philosophy, whatever that may be, to

tell guys in private enterprise that they want them to make a private

enterprise buck. Fair enough. If Social Credit has any philosophy it

appears to be that one: you’re welcome to make a buck at any cost.

However, this particular time there's a very special cost attached.

agree that private enterprise guys have got a right to make an honest

buck — I fully agree. My emphasis is on the word "honest" buck. But

when private enterprise is favoured this way by the taxpayer, I'm not

quite so sure I agree; because, you see, private enterprise isn't

taking any risk here. I suspect that's because they know the jetfoil is

not by itself economic. That's why they never introduced a jetfoil

service. That only makes sense. If it was independently economic, and

if they didn't have to rely on the favours of the Premier or Boeing,

then a jetfoil service would have been introduced long ago. Private

enterprise knows its business, and they would know whether or not they

could make a buck on Victoria to Seattle. So logic requires that we

conclude that because no private service was ever introduced until this

year, something must have changed, because we know they've been looking

at it for the previous six years. What's changed? Only this: the

Premier's meddling; the Premier's involvement; the meetings in the

Premier's office.

We want to know what took place on March

13. We want to know what commitments were made in the short and long

term. We want to know what tax dollars have been committed. We want to

know whether or not the Premier is prepared, once again, to see in this

instance a foreign crew flying a foreign flag, diminishing job

opportunities for British Columbians thereby. We want to know whether

or not those commitments have been made in the name of BCDC or perhaps

in one of the secret trust funds arranged by Austin Taylor and Ian

Adam. The money's got to come from somewhere. We want to know what

authority the Premier had to make a commitment for BCDC, because we

would remind the Premier that some time ago he told us Crown

corporations were independent and not subject to political

intervention, meddling or direction. Well, in this case, BCDC seems to

be totally subject to such meddling and totally subservient to the

Premier.

He can't have it both ways. But he can have it this

way today: stand up, answer these specific questions which we've been

raising for the last nine consecutive days in your estimates, and we'll

move on to other stuff just like many of your colleagues would have us

do.

But let me end with this, Mr. Chairman. The opposition

is always gratified to know that its questions are getting through. How

do we know that? We know it when the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development stands up and tells us to stop asking our

questions. We're delighted to have the advice.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, the first member for Victoria makes a number of incorrect

statements and assumptions relating to the issue of transportation

which should more properly be addressed under other estimates during

the opportunity for debating ministerial estimates during the

Legislature.

MR. BARBER: Oh, good heavens! Can't you answer any of those questions? What's the matter with you? Why don't you just answer them?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, first member for Victoria. The Leader of the Opposition

was the first one to rise. I will recognize the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, does the

Premier acknowledge that he was at a meeting on March 13 to discuss

proposals for a jetfoil service between Seattle and Victoria? This is

the only opportunity. It is vote 9. It is the Premier's estimates —

responsibility for his office. Does the Premier acknowledge that he

attended a meeting on March 13 to participate in discussions about a

jetfoil service between Seattle and Victoria?

We are dealing

with the Premier's estimates. The only time of the year that the House

can deal with the expenditures of the Premier is under vote 9. We must

address specific questions to the Premier, through the Chair. The

debate must be relevant to the Premier's actions. I ask through you,

Mr. Chairman, of the Premier, with no complications, just a simple

question. Will the Premier acknowledge that he attended a meeting on

March 13, in the precincts of this building, to discuss a proposal for

establishing a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle?

Mr.

Chairman, I have asked one question. I think the Premier understands

it. I think he heard me. Did the Premier, at that meeting, agree that

the British Columbia Development Corporation would be responsible for

the funding of a jetfoil service between Seattle and Victoria?

This

is vote 9. These are the Premier's estimates. It is the responsibility

of government to be accountable to the taxpayers and the citizens of

the province of British Columbia. Under the rules of this House the

accountability takes place during committee stage — which we are in now

— on a vote by vote debate. To be explicit, to be completely in order,

not to transgress the rules of this House, I specifically ask the

[ Page 1962 ]

Premier

of this province: did he agree, at the meeting he attended, that the

British Columbia Development Corporation would pick up the costs of

establishing a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle?

Now

we've gone through two questions, Mr. Chairman. We understand very

clearly what we're doing here. We understand very clearly what my

responsibility is, what your responsibility is, Mr. Chairman, and what

the Premier's responsibility is. My responsibility, as Leader of the

Opposition and as a member of this Legislature, is to ask explicit

questions under separate votes about public expenditures related to

each person's office. We are on vote 9, the Premier's office, and this

is the only time I can be in order and ask the questions I'm asking.

ask the Premier, again, if he attended such a meeting. No answer. None.

I've asked the Premier if he agreed to or initiated the commitment to

expend $3.6 million of taxpayers' money on a jetfoil service between

Seattle and Victoria. And that $3.6 million was to be in U.S. funds, so

it will be a cost to the taxpayers of well over $4 million in Canadian

funds.

The Premier has neither been struck deaf nor dumb,

but one cannot be blind to the obligations of citizens who run for

office. One cannot be blind to the obligations of the swearing of one's

oath in becoming a member of this House, and a further oath on becoming

a member of the cabinet or the Premier. In that oath is a

responsibility to Her Majesty and to the citizens of this province. It

is the citizens of this province who are now debating supply to Her

Majesty, and Her Majesty is represented by the person who is now

sitting in the Premier's chair, with delegated authority to account to

us and to Her Majesty what is going on with our money. We have had

silence from the Premier on specific questions about taxpayers' money,

under oath, that the Premier is to be accountable for.

colleague for Victoria asked some other specific questions that perhaps

the Premier did not hear. Is it the policy of this government to expend

over $4 million of taxpayers' money to employ American citizens, on an

American ship, under an American flag, without a penny of American

capital invested in this project? If it is indeed the policy, Mr.

Chairman, then I ask, through you: would the Premier enunciate...?

Mr. Chairman, I may not expect answers, but I do expect undivided

attention.

I ask the Premier to inform us and the taxpayers

of this province how other business persons can have access to his ear

and, at times, to his voice to determine how they, too, can receive his

intercession with the British Columbia Development Corporation to

receive public funds to back a private enterprise proposal. I'd like to

know from the Premier of this province how one goes about getting money

through the British Columbia Development Corporation to buy an American

service, through American funds, to employ American people and sail

under an American flag, and how one goes about getting this

accomplished.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Premier if any

of the questions and statements made by the member for Victoria are

incorrect — or, if my questions are incorrect, if he would correct my

questions. If there is any statement I've made in my questions that is

incorrect, I ask the Premier to inform me that I'm incorrect and that

I'm asking questions which are incorrect.

Did you go to such a meeting on March 13 to discuss a jetfoil service? Did you or didn't you?

Mr. Chairman, I think it should be marked that the Premier of this province

may be in contempt of the traditions of this House. If the Premier does not

wish to answer specific explicit questions about his decisions, then let him

get up and say: "I refuse to answer." That would be far more responsible

than sitting in what must be viewed as dumb insolence, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Perhaps at this point I will remind the Leader of the Opposition that

courtesy is debate in always encouraged in the House and, secondly,

that all members in this House do speak to the Chairman or the Speaker,

and that all members are responsible for any questions that may or may

not be put to them by other members.

MR. BARRETT: Mr.

Chairman, I speak to you with tremendous rapport. Mr. Chairman, I

address the questions through you. Mr. Chairman, we both note that the

questions are perfectly in order. They would be out of order under any

other vote or at any other time in this House, except, perhaps, daily

question period. Because I am in order, Mr. Chairman, because it is my

responsibility to ask questions such as these about any cabinet

minister during their estimates, would it be impolite — if that's

perhaps what you're casting about for, through you, Mr. Chairman — for

me to ask the Premier if he would be kind enough to inform me, through

you, Mr. Chairman, whether or not he intends to answer any of these

questions? I'd like your ruling, Mr. Chairman. Is it impolite for me to

ask the Premier of the province of British Columbia whether or not he

intends to answer any questions during his estimates? If, indeed, Mr.

Chairman, the Premier does not intend to answer any questions, say so

publicly, and we will end this bizarre series of debates that has been

going on for the last seven or eight days. If it is the Premier's

policy and conviction and determination not to answer questions, please

stand up and say so, and we can go on with other business.

While

there is hope in my human breast, Mr. Chairman, that somehow the

Premier does intend to answer questions, I will continue to ask. If,

however, I am being misguided by faith in the traditions of the

parliamentary system and faith that I have that the Premier, when

taking his oath to office, meant it, and that we would get answers,

then, of course, I'll go on. But we're witnessing the behaviour of a

man who has yet to explain to his fellow citizens why he did not vote

in a federal election — that's related to the Premier's office, Mr.

Chairman — why his responsibilities as a citizen were disregarded in

that area, and we do not have any answers as to why he does not intend

to answer questions in his estimates.

It is an incredible

performance, Mr. Chairman, by a Premier who might be out of touch. What

is the reality of the Premier's estimates? I'd like to ask the Premier

how he defines what his responsibility is to the most humble members of

all of the back benches of this House. Is it not the responsibility of

opposition members when they're in opposition to run around the

province and say, "not a dime without debate," if they can't get

answers to their questions? Mr. Chairman, I ask you to judge.

assume that it's proper to repeat the question. Through you, Mr.

Chairman, with all humility: does the Premier of the province of

British Columbia have any intention whatsoever to answer specific

questions chosen by the members of the opposition to be asked, in

order, in his estimates?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please continue, Mr. Member. You

[ Page 1963 ]

have the floor. You have the attention of the Chair, Mr. Member. Please carry on.

MR. BARRETT:

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have the attention of the Chair, and I do believe

for the first time I really have the attention of the Premier. I

repeat: does the Premier intend to answer any questions chosen by

members of the opposition, in order, during his estimates?

Mr. Chairman, I have never witnessed such absence of responsibility in this chamber in my brief time here.

Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman do now leave the chair.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 25

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 29

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

Mr. Barrett requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals

of the House.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. BARRETT: I ask

the Premier just one simple question. Is it the intention of the

Premier of this province to answer questions put to him during his

estimates — in terms of his actions specifically, and the questions

being in order?

Mr. Chairman, I put this question directly

to the Premier through you. I'll wait just a moment to get the

Premier's full attention, so he understands the import of the question

I'm putting to him.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I've almost got

the Premier's full attention. Through you, Mr. Chairman, is it the

intention of the Premier in handling his estimates to answer any

questions that are in order, which are put to him by the opposition, so

that we may know the parameters of how the Premier intends to handle

his estimates?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:

For the edification of the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot),

I recognize that the rules say very clearly that I cannot insist on

answers. I'm not insisting on answers; I'm asking a question. Does he

intend to answer questions? If he doesn't, let us know now. If the

Premier doesn't intend to answer questions during his estimates, let

him stand up and say: ''I do not intend to answer any questions from

the opposition." That would go a long way to clarifying where we are.

But silence is difficult to interpret. If the Premier does not intend

to answer any questions during his estimates, then would he please

inform the House that that indeed is his policy?

Mr.

Chairman, people take the oath of office based on the presumption that

they intend to perform their duties. You and I both know that I am

perfectly in order. and that I'm only in order during this particular

time of any session, here in committee stage of the Premier's

estimates, to ask the Premier specific questions. The Premier has been

struck dumb by arrogance and an entirely mistaken view that somehow he

is above any responsibility of accounting to this House for his

actions. There is nothing we can do to force the Premier to answer a

single question. But it should be recorded for every citizen in this

province that we have a man leading this province who refuses to

indicate whether or not he takes his duties seriously enough to sit in

his place, write down questions during his estimates and inform the

House that he will indeed answer questions that are in order which are

asked in his estimates.

Is it arrogance? Is it ignorance of

duty? Is it lack of responsibility? Or is it fear. Mr. Chairman, that

prompts this strange behaviour by the Premier of the province of

British Columbia, who has been treated gently, kindly, by the

opposition members of this House, in simply asking him questions?

asked the Premier to stand up and give us a rationale for his

behaviour, the reasons for his decision not to answer questions, the

reason why he sits there in dumb silence, and does not respond to

specific areas of accountability for his office that have been brought

to his attention by the opposition, who are entirely in order, entirely

in conformity with the rules of this House, the best traditions of

parliamentary practice and, above all, with our oath of office in

serving Her Majesty in any capacity that the people call upon us to

serve.

Mr. Chairman. I've never witnessed anything like this

before. I said that once before. I thought that perhaps after a short

pause the Premier would come to his senses and begin to understand that

you cannot hold office without being responsible for your actions in

that office. I put it to you, Mr. Chairman, once more, because other

colleagues of mine have other specific questions to ask the Premier. Is

it the Premier's intention to answer any questions at all today?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Mr. Member, I would remind you that standing order 36 says: "Even,

member desiring to speak is to rise in his place, uncovered, and

address himself to Mr. Speaker." Or Mr. Chairman, in this case. That

does imply that the member will be speaking.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I have risen in my place and I am uncovered for all

present to see. I am in order. I hold my place in this House on vote 9

in committee stage to ask a simple question of the Premier of the

province of British Columbia, whose salary we are being asked about

now, to decide whether or not he deserves it. It is the Premier's

[ Page 1964 ]

salary,

paid by the citizens of this province, and during the time of the

discussion of his salary it relates to questions on how he conducted

himself in his office while he held the post, before we say yea or nay

to his salary.

Before I say yea or nay to his salary, I

again put this question, through you, Mr. Chairman, with all the time

in the world necessary to get an answer, a yes or no, so that all of us

can judge our own standard of conduct in this House according to the

pattern set down by the Premier in this session: Does the Premier

intend to answer specific questions that are in order at this time in

his salary estimates? It is a simple question, clearly put, understood

by anyone within earshot. Would that every citizen of the province of

British Columbia could see this performance this afternoon, Mr.

Chairman. Would that every school child, every senior citizen, every

hard-working person who must pay taxes in the province of British

Columbia, could see this very sad day in the Legislature this

afternoon, Mr. Chairman.

My duty to Her Majesty is clear,

Mr. Chairman. I am Her Majesty's Leader of the Loyal Opposition, loyal

to my oath. I am doing my duty by asking the Premier of the province

specific questions under his salary estimates. Is it his intention to

answer any questions put to him in this chamber during his estimates?

Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to give the Premier a little time to think. Does he

appreciate what he is signalling to this House and to every citizen in

this province by sitting there in silence? Does he have an explanation

for why he chooses to sit in his place in silence and not answer

questions, as one is tradition-bound when one swears the oath of office

— to answer during one's estimates related to one's salary?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have the floor, Mr. Member.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The Leader of the Opposition is

standing in silence. I believe it has been historical in this House for

a member to ask questions during the estimates, not to stand in silence

and not ask any questions. So the pauses are uncalled for, and I think

that each and every time these, lengthy pauses are brought on by the

Leader of the Opposition in his little performance here, you should

call the vote and put the question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr.

Member, the Chair has reminded all hon. members of standing order 36,

which indicates that members are to rise and to speak, and to address

themselves to Mr. Speaker or Mr. Chairman. I thank you for your advice,

and I will ask the Leader of the Opposition, who is standing in his

place, to continue.

MR. BARRETT: I stand in my place,

uncovered, in order, and I'm asking one simple question now — one that

will resolve the whole matter of the impasse that has been brought to

this House by the Premier himself. Would the Premier inform this House

how he wishes to handle his estimates? Is it the Premier's intention to

refuse to answer questions put to him that are in order, at the proper

time and in the proper place for accounting for his office? Is it his

intention to answer any questions that are in order that are put to him

during his estimates? There is no other question of importance at this

point, and I think it's appropriate, Mr. Chairman, through you, that I

point out again that I am in order.

The whole debate has

boiled down to one simple question, simply put. For the advice and

edification and leadership of this House, is it the Premier's intention

to answer specific questions put to him regarding the conduct of his

office by him, during his estimates? You can see that the question goes

to the crux of the problem we have. There's not much point in our

convening as a Legislature if this democratic process is a burden to

the sensitivities of a government that seems to know better than anyone

else in the world whether or not a ship is safe. If the inconvenience

of this Legislature's meeting is too much burden for the government in

conducting business, and if the humble attempts of the opposition to

elicit information are impertinent to the Premier, then say so; we'll

understand,

If the Premier wishes consciously to absent

himself from participation in his estimates, why is he Premier? Is

someone else going to answer the Premier's estimates? We'd like to know

that. I ask again, very quietly and very openly, in order: is it the

intention of the Premier of this province, at this time of

accountability, to answer any specific questions put to him about his

responsibilities as Premier of the province of British Columbia? Just a

yes or no can determine the nature of the debate. I think it's

important that we take enough time to determine that. If we're not

going to have any questions answered, then put aside the Premier's vote

and go on with other business. But we're led to believe that we were

called here today to deal with the Premier's estimates.

It's

my understanding that our Whip was informed that the Premier was going

to deal with his estimates today. The committee has been called. The

vote is here before us. The arrangement between the Whips, which you

have no knowledge of, Mr. Chairman, and which I only have some rumour

about, seems to have come to fruition: lo and behold, we're in the

Premier's estimates.

Here we all are together in committee

on vote 9. Have we been called together on this vote on false

pretences? Are the taxpayers being told that the government has decided

to sit the day in dumb insolence after having called us to the chamber,

after having determined what the vote is, and after having told the

House that we will deal with the Premier's estimates? The House Leader

on the government side, the government Whip and the committee have all

been notified. Indeed, here we are in the Premier's estimates. Am I in

the right place at the right time, and in order? Yes, yes, yes to all

three questions. Here we are in vote 9. Here we are dealing with the

Premier's salary. Here we are asking the Premier of this province

specific questions. And here we are, in response to questions,

receiving dumb silence. Thank goodness we're not in the armed forces,

Mr. Chairman. Dumb insolence is a minor misdemeanour in the armed

services.

MR. LEVI: No, it's not minor.

MR. BARRETT:

As a former sergeant-major in the British army has informed me, it is

not a minor incident. My colleague is a former sergeant-major in the

British army who drove a tank. You can see why he drove a tank; look at

those glasses. Nonetheless, my colleague did serve in the British army

to defend the very freedoms that we have here today in coming to this

very point of accountability in the parliamentary system.

ask again, Mr. Chairman, for your guidance in the House and for the

guidance of the members of this House. It is the Premier who will

determine what will take place in his

[ Page 1965 ]

estimates.

I ask very humbly and very simply: do you intend, through you, Mr.

Chairman, to answer any specific questions related to your estimates

that are in order?

Is it stubbornness, is it a feeling of

showing a sign of weakness, is it ignorance of responsibility to this

chamber that causes this silence? Is it arrogance? Is it indifference?

When one takes the oath of office one is responsible for one's actions

in the parliamentary system. Nothing could be more clear, more obvious

or more blunt than recognizing exactly the point we're at. The

taxpayers have sent us here to carry out various duties and

responsibilities, none of them chaotically, all of them in order and

backed by some hundreds of years of traditions. Beauchesne, May and our

own Standing Orders give us the guideposts that clearly define how we

go about getting information on public accountability in the House.

Only once in a year can we ask the Premier of the province specific

questions about his office. This is the only time of the year: his

estimates, vote 9. I acknowledge your patience, Mr. Chairman, and

pointing out to me, through your patience, that I am indeed in order,

that I do hold my place in the chamber in order, that I am not

transgressing any rule whatsoever. I am standing here uncovered

addressing you, Mr. Chairman. I am trying to find out from the Premier

of this province whether or not....

Defending the

system, Mr. Chairman, that allows both you and I to share a smile, I

put a question again through you, without insisting on an answer but

ever hopeful, as my belief in the system has never wavered regardless

of how some people may fail the system, regardless of how some people

may fail to understand responsibility and accountability in the system.

The system is greater than any one of us who has passed through here

since this chamber was opened, as the carving says, in 1897. With cruel

frequency members pass through here. "Yea, their names are long

forgotten, those who served in this chamber." But the chamber survives

us all; the system survives us all. The system is the only thing the

people have in a free society that ensures them that there is

accountability. The accountability is today. Again I ask the Premier

the following questions. Is it your intention to be accountable, to

answer questions that are in order, chosen by the opposition or any

other member of this House? Is it your intention to answer any

questions during your estimates?

I think the Premier

understands the question. I didn't say I think he understands his job.

I said I think he understands the question. Any member of this chamber

is permitted, through you, Mr. Chairman, to speculate on why the

Premier doesn't wish to answer. Is he embarrassed about the meetings

that took place that my colleague referred to? Is he embarrassed about

the U.S. $3.6 million that's going to go to the Boeing Co. to employ

Americans, to run an American ship, run under an American flag, while

thousands of British Columbians are without jobs? Is he embarrassed

that the agreement that he initiated will mean that at over $4 million

of Canadian funds will go to a U.S. company to run a jetfoil system

that will not employ one Canadian? Is he embarrassed to explain to the

rest of the business people in the province of British Columbia how

they get into his office, how they make deals with the Premier, how

they sign contracts, how they get influence with the British Columbia

Development Corporation? If any of the things that I've said, Mr.

Chairman, are wrong or out of order, please call me to order. But these

are questions that have been put by my colleagues, and by me, and

treated with indifferent silence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I

would remind the member that during Committee of the Whole, the

administrative action of a department is open to debate, but one cannot

be discourteous nor impugn improper motive.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I'm not impugning improper motive to the actions of the

Premier; I'm asking questions, I may have some question about the

motive for not answering questions, but that's separate and distinct

from the questions I'm asking. There is an (

a) and a (

b) category: (

a) category is whether or not he intends to answer any questions; (

b) category is that I'm making references to specific, clear questions

that we have asked information about.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I want to thank the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) for his usual intelligent comments in the debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Better than usual.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, are these the Premier's estimates? Am I here on the right

day, at the right time, to ask the Premier questions? Let's even get

more fundamental. Is this vote 9, Mr. Chairman? On a point of order,

are we on vote 9, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we are.

MR. BARRETT:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, we have established something. Vote 9 is a

vote that has a sum of money that the taxpayers provide to run the

Premier's office. Now before we say yes or no to this sum of money, we

must ask questions about how it’s going to be spent and how it has been

spent in the past. Is that correct? Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is correct.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're talking to yourself.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, the member says I'm talking to myself. I can hardly find

better company, considering the response I'm getting. I'd love to have

a two-way conversation. Not that I'm bored with myself, Mr. Chairman. I

find as I listen to my questions that they seem in order; I am

uncovered; I was in order when I came in here and I'm still in order.

But I have no precedent for this kind of behaviour.

Mr.

Chairman, I've got an idea. I'll tell you what, Mr. Chairman: I'll let

a colleague of mine ask some questions. Mr. Chairman, would you like to

ask some questions? If the Premier doesn't wish to answer my questions,

would he answer someone else’s questions? Mr. Chairman, let's try him

out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Three minutes, Mr. Member.

MR. BARRETT:

Thank you. I’ll use my last three minutes to try him out. I put my

questions on the record. My good friend. the first member for Victoria

(Mr. Barber), put his questions on the record. Perhaps it's something

offensive that the Premier feels about myself or my colleague from

Victoria. Perhaps he would overcome that offensiveness in dealing with

the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr.

[ Page 1966 ]

Levi),

who is viewed by all members of this House as the most likeable, the

most agreeable and the most responsible member. Perhaps the Premier

would prefer to answer my colleague. I'll tell the world that you've

decided to answer someone else, rather than me. That's okay. I'm just a

humble private serving the people of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman.

Maybe the old sergeant will get some answers.

Mr. Chairman,

my questions are on record. The one question that is more important

than anything else stands. And I repeat it before I take my place. Is

it the intention of the Premier of British Columbia to answer questions

during his estimates? Yes or no — just as simple as that.

MR. LEVI:

Dumb insolence really is a very serious charge in the army. They get

very upset when it happens. You know, Mr. Chairman, some years ago in

this province there was a very famous criminal case in which the chief

Witness, who was going to provide all the information, decided at the

very last minute that he wasn't going to give any information at all.

He became known throughout the world and the criminal underworld as

"Silent Bill. " In fact, he went to his grave not having said anything.

Well, I hope the Premier isn't going to go quite that far. We do, after

all, want to get some answers from him.

Because of the

silence that the Premier has exhibited over the last ten days, we've

had an opportunity to give a lot of serious thought to what his views

might be of the functions of his office versus what is accepted by

other people on this side, and perhaps even people on that side, as to

what his functions are. He's the Premier of the province, the head of

the cabinet and the leader of the party. In this vote we have an

opportunity to ask him about the functions of his office.

Among

the many things that Winston Churchill did in his lifetime — which was

a long one — he took the trouble one day to sit down and enumerate,

based on a great deal of experience of his own as Prime Minister, what

the functions of a first minister were. I think some of the things he

said are very appropriate, and I want to quote from something Churchill

said:

"An accepted leader has only to be sure

of what it is best to do, or at least to have made up his mind about

it. The loyalties which centre upon number one are enormous." That's

number one over there.

"If he trips, he must

be sustained. If he makes mistakes, they must be covered. If he sleeps,

he must not be wantonly disturbed. If he is no good, he must be

pole-axed, but this last extreme process cannot be carried out every

day and certainly not in the days just after he's been chosen."

He makes a number of attributions to the question of the role of the first minister.

You

know, last week the Premier got up and started to tell us about his

very serious concern about interest rates. It was as though he'd just

discovered the problem. We could have told him over here that that

problem has existed for a number of years and that there was an

opportunity for him, as the first minister of this province, to

participate and to express his concerns about interest rates during the

federal general election held between the middle of December and the

middle of February. In those weeks he could have had some influence on

people's thoughts about the election, but he opted not to be here. He

didn't even bother to vote.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

What

he did on Friday which disappointed me was that he decided to attack a

public servant, the governor of the Bank of Canada. He is very upset

because Mr. Bouey will not attend the Western Premiers' Conference. The

Premier, in a fit of pique, is attacking him because he can't talk to

him about the interest rates. Well, the Premier should do what other

Premiers do; what Premiers Lougheed, Blakeney and Levesque do. Now

there are three stalwart Premiers in this country who make their views

known, and from time to time they take the trouble to go to the capital

and express their views. So if he's got anything to say about the

interest rates, why doesn't he go and see Mr. Bouey? I would like to

ask the Premier — this is a question he can answer, surely — has he

been in touch with Mr. Bouey and expressed his concerns about interest

rates? If he's that concerned, has he written to him? Has he made some

suggestions as to what Mr. Bouey should be doing instead of initiating

the program he did, in relation to setting the interest rate based on

the sale of treasury bonds every Thursday morning? Has he expressed

that interest? After all, Mr. Chairman, he spent a great deal of time

last Friday in his estimates talking about his concerns about Mr. Bouey

and the interest rates. Now that's leadership. If he wants to show some

leadership, I would strongly suggest that he follow the example of

Premiers Blakeney, Lougheed and Levesque and go public, travel and

express the thoughts that he has to the people that he appears to want

to be talking to.

Now we know that he has a problem. It's a

very serious problem to do with moving about the province, because he's

wondering whether, in fact, while he's away his government won't fall.

No, he can always travel. He's only one individual. The government

isn't going to fall if he's away from here. He says most of the things

that people say in his government before they say them anyway, so he

doesn't have to take anybody with him. He can go down and exercise some

expression that he wants to give to his feelings about the interest

rates. But he hasn't shown that kind of leadership.

I would

ask him a question: has he, as the head of the province of British

Columbia, been in touch with Mr. Bouey, the governor of the Bank of

Canada? We understand from the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations

(Hon. Mr. Gardom) that he has expressed some concern about it, but he

is only a minister; we've got to talk to the leader. Has the leader

been in touch? Has he expressed this concern by letter to or in

conversation with the Prime Minister? I haven't been too successful,

Mr. Chairman, in getting any answers from the Premier on whether or

not, in fact, he's been in touch with the Prime Minister. I'm talking

about the present Prime Minister, because in the previous question that

I asked, at the beginning of the Premier's estimates, way back on March

25, I asked him about the John Farris case — the former chief justice

of the court of appeal. The reason I asked was because we did agree

with the Chairman of the committee that if it was particularly along

this issue it was in order. I have pursued that question with the

Premier. At the end of that day he was making a comment about the

opposition, and he said: "There's good reason for opposition, because

we make a lot of mistakes in government, and we'll make some more."

Okay, he has given us his impression of what we're supposed to do.

There have been some mistakes made; we know that. We're trying to get some answers from the Premier, and he's

[ Page 1967 ]

not

prepared to give them. We've spent close to two hours trying to get him

to even say whether he's going to answer any questions at all, without

getting up and giving us the "window on the Pacific" speech, which

we've now heard for the thirty-fifth time, and we're really not

interested in hearing it again. I ask the Premier, and I've asked him

about seven or eight times — I think this is the eighth time: did he

have a discussion with the Prime Minister of Canada regarding the

resignation of the former chief justice of the court of appeal, and the

appointment of the new chief justice of the court of appeal? Now we

know from that great expert on parliamentary procedure and process, Mr.

MacGregor Dawson, who in his book, when he writes about the Prime

Minister's office — not the Premier's office — talks about the

appointment of judges, that they are federally appointed. They are

appointed by order-in-council. He states in his book: "Such

appointments are the direct concern of the Prime Minister of Canada and

the Minister of Justice. "

So, Mr. Chairman, we want to ask

the Premier: did he receive a call from the Prime Minister regarding

the circumstances surrounding the resignation of the chief justice of

the court of appeal? Did he receive a call from the Minister of

Justice, who is very much concerned about the appointments of judges?

We have not had a situation in Canada where there was a resignation of

the chief justice of the court of appeal in which there was absolutely

no explanation other than the letter of resignation by the man himself,

who said, and I paraphrase, that certain things have been said which

make it impossible for me to continue. That's a very serious situation

for the justice system of this province, when somebody says that and

resigns. Then we're told by the Minister of Justice that the inquiry

being conducted by the federal judicial council had come to an end,

because, to quote him, " the man is no longer a judge. " But that does

not solve the problem of the justice system in this province, which

that Premier stated some weeks ago he is concerned about, has an

interest in, supports and wants to see continue to be a strong system.

have spent many weeks in this House debating some of the serious

problems of that system, but it's only in the last six weeks of this

parliament that we've actually discussed perhaps the most serious

problem that exists in the justice system, one which the Premier as

head of the government must have heard from the Prime Minister of

Canada. Who else would he communicate with? Prime Ministers communicate

with Premiers. That's what happens; that is the system of protocol.

People don't just call up secretaries or leave messages about these

important issues. They talk Prime Minister to Premier or Minister of

Justice to Premier, and presumably say, if it is not the Prime

Minister: "I've been asked to call you by the Prime Minister to tell

you about this particular situation." That's what we've been asking;

we've been asking about that particular question.

Then I

asked other questions. Because under these estimates we're dealing with

his office, we ask questions about the function and the role played by

his former chief administrator, Mr. Dan Campbell, in the office where

he had Intergovernmental Affairs. At that time we asked what the

Premier did in respect to the much publicized actions of that

individual, which subsequently led to his resignation. We know that the

Premier had great trust in that individual. They had been together a

long time. He was assisted by that individual right from the time the

Premier became the Leader of the Opposition in 1973. He's a man of

great experience. He's a man who was a former cabinet minister. Because

of his parliamentary experience and his administrative experience,

presumably he was of a great deal of assistance to the Premier.

But

unfortunately that relationship came to a very sad end. That

relationship came to an end within the Premier's office. Mr. Campbell

was being paid by the taxpayers. This was the reward the Premier was

going to show to this man because of his good work: he was going to run

the office which the B.C. government was going to open in Ottawa. It's

a very desirable thing to have such an office in Ottawa; there’s no

question of that. It's an excellent idea. We should be close to what

goes on in Ottawa on a day-to-day basis.

So the Premier was

apparently going to appoint his good friend Dan Campbell. Then, lo and

behold, out of the public debate that grew out of what is now known in

this province — and will be known in the history, of this province — as

the dirty tricks affair, certain accusations were made in respect to

Mr. Campbell's behaviour regarding election funds. Then we found out

that there was some $250,000 of election funds that weren't accounted

for.

I can recall a couple of years ago in this House when

we debated the sale of three ferries. the sale of which was being

handled by McLeod, Weir. One of the principal officers of McLeod, Weir

was a man called Taylor. It turned out that he was a bagman for the

Social Credit Party. You might well ask of the Premier.... In the

sale of those ferries there was a commission of some $230,000 paid.

Perhaps the Premier would tell us: did any of this money find its way

into the coffers of the Social Credit Party? After all, the bagman of

the party was Mr. Taylor, and one of the principals in the company that

bought the ferries was Mr. Taylor, and there was a commission paid,

We've

had no explanation from the Premier about how those funds were

assembled. Why, he even once said that there were two accounts but he

doubted that there was very much money in them. Then we find out that

there was at least $250,000 not accounted for. It was characterized as

an oversight. They put in an amended form, and now we're waiting for

the results of an inquiry being conducted by the Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. Williams), and we haven't heard anything. We have the government

investigating the behaviour of the government party. If there's not a

conflict of interest in that situation, then.... That really gets

me.

Again, bear in mind that we're on the estimates of the

Premier. We're talking about his staff; we're talking about the

expenditure of money. We are dealing with the actions of one of his

chief employees. We don't know at the moment how many employees are in

the Premier's office.

god, the Premier's aged in the last

two minutes! There's no doubt that the thrust of this debate is having

a full impact on the Premier. It looks like a scene from "Lost

Horizon." The transmogrification of the member for Okanagan South into

what

looks like the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) is phenomenal. There

is not one science fiction writer in this province who would believe

that the Premier of this province could in fact look like the member

for Dewdney. If the member for Dewdney would assume the position the

Premier usually assumes — head down on the chest, arm around by the ear

— we would know that in fact you are the Premier.

Through

you, Mr. Chairman, to the surrogate Premier of British Columbia, the

member for Dewdney. Do you know if the Premier got a call from the

Prime Minister of Canada regarding...? My gosh, he's writing it all

down. Well, I

[ Page 1968 ]

suppose

at this stage of the game, at a quarter of five in the afternoon, any

kind of an answer would be welcome. However, I think that while we have

a great deal of levity here, the whole situation that we've been

encountering with respect to the Premier's estimates is much more

serious than that. I've tried over the last few days to understand why

the Premier doesn't want to answer. He wants to use what is really a

subterfuge in saying that that minister will answer this question and

this minister will answer that question. The only thing we can presume

from that is that those ministers completely understand the actions of

the Premier at all times, even though sometimes he doesn't even talk to

them.

We hear that there is great difficulty sometimes for

some ministers to communicate with the Premier. So we have to go to the

Premier for the answers to these questions. I know that the member for

Dewdney has the Premier's ear all I the time. He carries one of them

around with him in his pocket all the time. He takes it out and looks

at it.

We're not making very much progress now that the

Premier is not here. Well, the member is beginning...he's a little

more talkative than the Premier. If the member is making notes for the

Premier, then we must get him to look at some of the other problems.

Bear in mind that I've asked these questions. Has he been in touch with

Mr. Bouey, the governor of the Bank of Canada, about his concern with

the problem of interest rates? Has he been in touch with anybody from

or the Minister of Finance? Last week he expressed real concern about

what was going on. He could have gone the other route but he didn't. He

could have become something of a national spokesman for the west. Now,

of course, he's been completely upstaged by Premier Blakeney from

Saskatchewan and Premier Lougheed from Alberta. He is now in the same

league, in terms of credibility, as the Premier of Manitoba, Mr. Lyon,

and Premier Davis of Ontario. He's going to have to go some to get them

to listen to him. Nevertheless, did he do those things? Did he contact

the government? Did he speak to them about his concern about interest

rates?

It would be useful for us if the Premier, when he

answers, would also make some comments about what he sees as his

options or solutions in respect to interest rates. Is he simply going

to do what he always does and blame the federal government? "It's all

the federal government's fault. We have no control over that — all the

federal government's fault." If it's not the federal government's fault

— this problem with the economy — it's outside of the country. He bears

no responsibility for anything. After all, he won't take

responsibility, Mr. Chairman, for the fact that BCRIC is sitting there

with nearly $600 million and still casting around for somewhere to

invest it. It would seem to me that it would be in the best interests

of the people of this province if they took some of that money and did

something about the development of housing and interest rates so that

people could pay mortgages that they could afford, instead of sitting

there like a great big piggy bank accumulating interest at the rate of

14 percent or 15 percent. If that's the basis on which that's

operating, then that's another one of his ideas. Let's remember what

Mr. Churchill says: "If he stumbles, let's help him." Well, he's been

stumbling all over the place.

The other question in relation

to the chief justice of the justice system is important to answer. We

need to have some answers. We want some answers in respect to Mr.

Campbell's behaviour. That is important. It's important not only for

the government, but surely, Mr. Chairman, it's got to be important for

that Premier who is the head of his political party. Up in the roof of

this chamber, there are still the echoes of the great debates that used

to take place here and the screaming about "legislation by exhaustion."

All right, we got rid of that. Then there were the screams about

accountability. We did something about that. We brought in a Hansard so

we could understand what people were saying. People on this side think

it's about time we brought some television into this debate too. Nobody

would behave the way the Premier's been behaving over the last nine

days. He's sitting there in a kind of dumb insolent stance, refusing to

answer any kind of question at all.

How do I get an answer

to my question by going to another minister? Who am I going to ask

about Mr. Campbell's actions in spending money that was not accounted

for in the election? Am I going to ask the Provincial Secretary? He'll

tell me he didn't know anything about it. Am I going to ask the

Attorney-General? He'll tell me he didn't know anything about it. My

gosh, that's a very talkative Premier we've got in that chair right

now. So we have to come back to the Premier. He knew what was going on

in his office. We know that because he sees himself as being a

confident, efficient, all-knowing Premier.

I'd be very

surprised if he didn't know what was going on in respect to Mr.

Campbell and the problems of the money. So he has to tell us about it.

Or is that subject taboo because it's still being investigated? We want

to know that. Simply get up and make some comments about it. After all,

we're going to be asked to approve over half a million dollars for his

office. He does not have in his office at the moment the

intergovernmental affairs staff that he had last year, and yet his

staff has increased enormously. And we don't know who he's going to

appoint in there. We now know that one of the appointments in his

office was engaged in non-government work and being paid for by the

taxpayer — and I have in mind Mr. Campbell. He's the Premier, it's his

office, they're his estimates. What does he say about that? Is he able

to tell us that he can separate the time that Mr. Campbell spent as a

paid public servant from the amount of time and energy that he put into

working for the Social Credit Party? We can only find out those

answers, Mr. Chairman, by asking the Premier. We're not anxious to

receive a report from the Attorney-General's ministry on this, because

the record of reports coming down from that government, either through

the Attorney-General's department or by somebody else, is not very

good. They're written with great buckets of whitewash and we have no

confidence in that kind of thing. It's the Premier that can answer the

questions. Would he put our minds at rest as to what exactly has been

going on in his office?

So he has a range of questions that

he can be involved in answering. There have been a number of questions

asked in respect to the economy, to plans for the future, albeit ad hoc

plans. We've talked about the tunnel; he doesn't seem to have any

comments about the tunnel. He wants us to comment on the tunnel, and we

have even less information than he has — and he's got no information at

all. We've had the debate on the crossing. We're now going to leave

that until we get to the Minister of Transportation and Highways' (Hon.

Mr. Fraser'

s) estimates, because the Premier has made it very well

known that it's really the Minister of Transportation and Highways'

business, and it appears from some of the comments made by the Minister

of Transportation and High-

[ Page 1969 ]

ways

that he does know more about it than the Premier. So we'll leave that

particular one until we get to the estimates of the Minister of

Transportation and Highways.

We would like the Premier to

tell us his views on the monorail. After all, in this province we've

now got a monorail proposal and a tunnel proposal. We've got a new kind

of ferry proposal; we've got a stadium proposal; we've got a business

convention centre proposal both in Vancouver and here — all sorts of

proposals. Presumably all of this, the Premier will tell us, is tied

into some grand plan.

Well, the