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)

THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1909 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Holiday Shopping Act (Bill 8). Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 1909

Oral Questions.

Pacific North Coast Native Cooperative. Mr. Lea –– 1909

Kemano 11 project. Mr. Howard 1910

Cablevision merger. Mr. Mitchell –– 1910

Ferries. Mr. Lockstead –– 1911

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office estimates.

On vote 9.

Mr. Barrett –– 1912

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1912

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 1918

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1921

Mr. Barrett –– 1922

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1924

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, I was very happy today to have a visit from Mr. Arthur Ash

and his wife, Marie. Mr. Ash was the member for Saanich from 1948 to

1952. With him are Mr. Gordon Root and Mrs. Root. Mr. Root was a

reporter with the Vancouver Province from 1943 to 1951. As a

matter of fact, he was telling me that in 1943 the total budget for the

government was $47 million. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, we have two other ex-members in the House today. We have

Cyril Shelford and George Kerster visiting us. George, of course,

represented Coquitlam; Cyril represented Omineca and then Skeena. I

would like to ask the House to join with me in welcoming these two

ex-members to the House. Somehow or other they heard about Ed's money.

MR. KEMPF:

I too would like to add my congratulations to the member in the House

with us today who served Coquitlam very well for three and a half

years. With George is a gentleman who is a very, very good friend of

the Social Credit Party, Mr. Gordon Dale. I would like the House to

make both of them welcome.

MR. RITCHIE: I have the

distinct pleasure today of introducing a few fair ladies to our

gallery. We have Vicky Hyndman, Mrs. Beverley Strachan, my wife, Mrs.

Maud Ritchie, and her friend, Mrs. George Mirus. Would you please make

these ladies welcome.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker,

would the House welcome the mayor of the municipality of Mission, Mr.

John Agnew, and his chief industrial officer, Mr. Gary Stewart.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Today in the gallery we have Mr. Ted Semmons, who served our government

very well for some years and is now retired and has time to be in the

House today. He was with the ministry of the Provincial Secretary and

during that time when he served our government and the previous

government in a dedicated way, he was responsible for more than one

royal visit and had an opportunity to welcome many people who came to

visit the government. I would like to ask the House to welcome him

today.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like you to

join me and the rest of the House in welcoming 28 members of the

Katimavik. This group is from all over Canada. They are on a nine-month

course and their last three months will be in the Esquimalt Naden. They

are under the auspices of Master Wren Palumbo.

Introduction of Bills

HOLIDAY SHOPPING ACT

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

a bill intituled Holiday Shopping Act.

Bill

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

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

Oral Questions

PACIFIC NORTH COAST NATIVE COOPERATIVE

MR. LEA:

I have a question for the Attorney-General. In 1976 an agreement was

signed between the government and the Pacific North Coast Native

Cooperative at Port Simpson. The agreement established a management

committee for the cooperative's fishing and canning operations, and the

management committee's members were appointed by the government. Is the

management committee still in operation?

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

MR. LEA:

Is the Pacific North Coast Native Cooperative still under the auspices

of the Cooperative Associations Act, and under the superintendent of

credit unions, cooperatives and trust companies?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, the agreement entered into in 1976 did not affect the

status of the cooperative. It still is a cooperative, and it still is

responsible for all of its obligations as a cooperative.

MR. LEA:

Could the Attorney-General then tell me whether the members of the

cooperative have had yearly meetings, and submitted yearly reports as

required under that act?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr.

Speaker, that's a question that should be directed to the directors of

the cooperative. I don't have any knowledge as to whether or not

they've complied with their responsibilities in that regard.

MR. LEA:

It is my understanding that the act that governs that is under the

Attorney-General; and it is a requirement of law that has to be

followed by members of the cooperative. I would like to ascertain

whether it is a requirement of law, under the jurisdiction of the

Attorney-General, that such actions take place — that a meeting be held

yearly, and a report made yearly to the superintendent of credit

unions, cooperatives and trust companies.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the member seek a legal opinion?

MR. LEA: No, I don't.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, I don't think it's my position to give legal advice to the

member, but I would say to him that the legislation does not come under

my ministry. It falls under the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen).

MR. LEA: Can the minister

tell the House whether or not he instructed the superintendent of

co-ops to tell members of the co-op that they no longer fell under the

Cooperative Associations Act?

[ Page 1910 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No such instructions were given.

MR. LEA:

Would the Attorney-General take the question as notice and check to see

whether or not the superintendent of co-ops has told the members of

that co-op that that, indeed, is the case?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, if the member wants that kind of information I think he

should address it to the superintendent, who is not an official of my

ministry.

MR. LEA: Can I establish then whether the

Attorney-General is the minister responsible for the agreement between

the government and the Pacific North Coast Native Cooperative?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. LEA: Then we're right back where we started, aren't we?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I thought I made it clear to the member that the legislation he refers

to is not in my ministry. It falls under the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs. If he wishes information with respect to the

activities of any official of that ministry, he should either direct

his questions to those officials or to the appropriate minister.

MR. LEA:

It's my understanding, and maybe the minister could clarify this, that

part of that 1976 agreement was that there would be a yearly review of

the management and a report made back to the members of the co-op. Is

that true?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it's some time since I considered the details of the agreement. I'll take that question as notice.

KEMANO II PROJECT

MR. HOWARD:

I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Environment. The

question is with respect to the proposed Kemano completion project of

the Aluminum Company of Canada. I want to ask the minister whether he

or officials in his department have made any decisions with respect to

the procedures which Alcan should follow in pursuit of its ideas of

completing that project.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The answer

to that is no, Mr. Speaker. But while I'm on my feet, I might take the

opportunity to reply to a question that the member asked me earlier

about sturgeon.

If you recall, some time ago the member

asked about whether federal Fisheries had an agreement with Alcan on

sturgeon. It's an informal agreement at this time, that they won't dump

water on a mass basis but do it gradually so as not to upset the

sturgeon in the river. In cooperation with the universities they are

radio-tagging some of the sturgeon to try to get a better idea of their

migration patterns in that river.

MR. HOWARD: I thank

the minister for that answer, but I would advise, through you, Mr.

Speaker, that I was talking about salmon, not sturgeon. Perhaps the

minister could take that secondary supplementary question as notice and

come back with the proper answer sometime.

With respect to

the Kemano completion project of Alcan, has the minister or anyone in

his ministry given the Aluminum Company of Canada any commitment, tacit

or otherwise, in support of the project?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

On the sturgeon question, I'm referring to the Blues. That's where

we've got the reference from, and if it was salmon, it was a

misunderstanding by someone in Hansard . But I'll certainly get the answer for you.

haven't made any agreement with, or said anything to, Kemano, but I

can't answer for the 1,600 people who work in the ministry. I'll take

your question as notice and find out if there is any official

correspondence. I think that the answer is no, but I can't give you

that for sure.

MR. HOWARD: I'm not talking about

correspondence, Mr. Speaker, but verbal commitments as well, if they

exist, because sometimes commitments are made not in writing. Would the

minister examine verbal commitments that might have been made too?

wonder if I could ask the minister whether he or officials in his

ministry have engaged in or decided to participate with any other

ministries with respect to the procedures which Alcan might be required

to follow in pursuit of its project?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I think the appropriate minister is my colleague the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

McClelland). If we're asked to assist him and the ministry we'll

certainly be doing so, and we expect to participate; but we're not the

lead ministry in this particular instance.

MR. HOWARD:

A supplementary question. Am I in error then in assuming that the

minister is not the Minister of Environment and environmental matters

are not of concern in this particular project?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

CABLEVISION MERGER

MR. MITCHELL:

My question is to the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications. Canadian Cablesystems of Toronto, a massive cablevision

company, has applied to the CRTC to purchase shares of Premier

Cablevision, operating in B.C. This would create a virtual monopoly of

cablevision, with negative cultural and economic effects in B.C. Has

the minister intervened, declined or decided to intervene with the CRTC

to oppose this application?

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

MR. MITCHELL:

I have a supplementary question. Under the Combines Investigation Act,

has the government requested an investigation of this merger?

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

MR. MITCHELL: Has the government requested an investigation of this merger by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission?

[ Page 1911 ]

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

MR. MITCHELL:

Is the government investigating or reviewing this application to

determine the effect on B.C. of this proposed merger? If not, why not?

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

FERRIES

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. The

Boston Bar-North Bend aerial ferry provides the only link between these

two communities. Since November 1979 this ferry has been out of

commisssion more than 20 times. Yesterday it was out of service again.

There is no reason to assume that this poor record will not continue.

Today parents living in North Bend have pulled their children out of

kindergarten because of the possibility of another breakdown over the

middle of the river. Can the minister assure the House that the ferry

is safe and meets all transportation standards?

HON. MR. FRASER:

We've had lots of trouble with the North Bend ferry. Our engineers and

staff have been working on that problem all winter. The first problem

we ran into was when that ferry was installed. It was purchased

somewhere across the other side of the world, and we found out we

couldn't get any parts for it, so they've had to improvise electric

systems, belt systems, and so on. I'm not sure whether it was in the

last week or so, but we've had trouble with that ferry all winter. Our

senior engineers are trying to resolve the problems, but I'm not

surprised that they haven't gotten it completely resolved yet.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I have a new question to the same minister. I might point out to the

minister that there was a meeting at Boston Bar last night attended by

about 70 very angry residents. A senior official of your ministry,

although he was in the area at the time, refused to attend that meeting.

have a new question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister confirm that the

total cost for the refit of the Queen of Surrey, due to double-shifting

at Burrard drydock, will now be in the neighbourhood of $10.2 million?

HON. MR. FRASER:

I'd be glad to answer that question that you are throwing out. I think

it's time we got some facts, and I'll pick it up from where you threw

out other figures — this is a new one. I'll take this opportunity to

deal with the Queen of Surrey conversion.

You

informed the House a while ago that you had been reliably informed that

the vessel would not be ready for service until possibly later than

June 8, and that our mid- and north-coast citizens will be without

water transportation services for a nine-week period. Mr. Speaker, I

don't know where this member gets his information, but the information

I'm reporting here comes from the managers of the Burrard-Yarrows

Corporation and the B.C. Ferry Corporation. It has been reported that

the work required on the vessel to allow the Ferry Corporation to

provide mid- and north-coast citizens with double the service provided

for the last 12 years on the northern run is 75 percent complete as of

last week. Barring unforeseen difficulties beyond the corporation's

control, this route will experience an interruption of service for only

two weeks longer this year than during the last 12 years. The project

is right on

schedule and very soon our mid- and north-coast citizens

will have the capacity they have been requesting for some time, and

also deserve.

While we're on the subject of the mid-coast,

and statements this member has made that it would be without boat

service, I would point out to this House that B.C. Ferries does supply

a freight service to Ocean Falls and Bella Bella; they haven't in the

past, at any time they operated; but the private sector does. And that

should clear up that point.

Now, regarding costs, you made

statements in this House about a month ago that it was going to cost

$9.5 million. Today you said $10.2 million. I really don't know where

this information is coming from, but it amazes me. I would just like to

inform you, Mr. Speaker, and members of this House, that on the old

figure of $9.5 million he's exactly $2 million out. We awarded a

contract for the Queen of Surrey

at $7.4 million, and I was advised a few days ago that it is going to

come out of the shipyard at a cost of $7.5 million — completely ready

to go to work.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I was wondering if the

minister would be willing to stake his seat on these figures, because I

have up-to-date information as of yesterday that this vessel will not

be completed until at least June 1 — for starters.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is?

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I have a new question for the same minister, Mr. Speaker. I understand

that the minister did speak about private enterprise serving Ocean

Falls. I understand that Rivtow is pulling out and that in three days

time, as of next Sunday, 114 people are going to be laid off in Ocean

Falls. With the lack of water transportation at this time, how do you

expect those people to get out of Ocean Falls with all their families

and belongings? There is no water transportation at all at this time

into Ocean Falls. Can the minister assure us that water transportation

will be available to these 114 people who are being laid off after next

Sunday because of government inaction in Ocean Falls?

MR. LEA:

On a point of order, I know it was rather unusal for the Premier to

break his vow of silence, but when the Minister of Transportation and

Highways was musing about where the member for Mackenzie gets his

figures, the Premier said: "He makes them up." In my opinion that is

impugning the motives of a member, and I ask the Premier to apologize

to this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. Premier, if he impugned any motive in this case, to withdraw.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, apparently humour is only allowed on one side of the House. Certainly I withdraw.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask leave of the House to

introduce a school group which I missed earlier in the sitting.

Leave granted.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce a

[ Page 1912 ]

class

of young ladies and gentlemen from Garibaldi Secondary School, a large

number of which are in the gallery in shifts today. Their teacher is

Mr. Misurelli. I ask the House to welcome them.

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. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I have some questions to ask the Premier, who is

responsible for actions out of his office, decisions out of his office

and meetings out of his office. I wish to ask the Premier if there was

a meeting on March 13 at 4:30, either in his office or in the precincts

of the Legislature, to deal with the proposal of a jetfoil service

between Victoria and Seattle. I'd like to know who attended the

meeting. I'd like to know what specific deal was made during the

meeting as to the government role in the jetfoil service. I'd like to

know how many taxpayers' dollars, through the British Columbia

Development Corporation, were pledged to the project. After a deal was

made between the Premier and the business persons from Victoria, was

BCDC notified of its role by telephone or by letter? I'd like to know

the exact duration of the contract and what the financial obligations

of the taxpayers of British Columbia are, through BCDC, to finance this

project. I'd be most appreciative if the Premier answered these

questions.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, as I said

yesterday, the British Columbia Development Corporation has a

responsibility to the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). If questions are posed about whether

any society or any organization has been able to further its objectives

in British Columbia through the British Columbia Development

Corporation, I'm sure the minister would respond where he has that

information available. That is his responsibility and should be dealt

with in his estimates.

I've also said that transportation

services are under the responsibility of the Minister of Transportation

and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and, of course, appropriate questions

could be placed to the minister at the time. I think this government is

prepared — when we're involved in transportation actions that may

involve the government or a ministry — to deal with those, whether the

action was correct or not, defend it or have a philosophical argument

about whether the government should be doing things or whether people

are concerned about societies. That's where concern, if there is

genuine concern over this, should properly be expressed.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I asked the Premier about a meeting he himself had.

Perhaps he didn't hear me. I didn't ask about the minister responsible

for BCDC. I asked the Premier about a meeting he himself had. It is his

responsibility, as I understand it, to answer for meetings he has and

arrangements he makes. Would the Premier inform this House whom he met

with on March 13 at 4:30? I'd like the names of everybody he met with.

Doesn't he remember whom he met with? If the Premier doesn't recall

whom he met with, say so. But I'm talking about a meeting the Premier

had. I'd like to know who was at the meeting. I'd like to know what

commitment the Premier made at that meeting for the expenditure of

taxpayers' dollars from the Britist Columbia Development Corporation.

it was not the Premier at the meeting, then I would ask the minister

who was at the meeting, but I'm talking about the Premier meeting with

a group of business persons from Victoria. Again, I'd like to know whom

he met with. What was the deal he made at that meeting? What was the

commitment that the Premier made to those persons for funding from the

British Columbia Development Corporation for the jetfoil service? How

did he, the Premier, notify BCDC that such a deal had been made between

him and this group of citizens to initiate the jetfoil service? How

much is the total amount that the Premier committed BCDC and the

government to in supporting that project?

As I interpret it

— perhaps I'm wrong — the Premier is writing down the questions that

are related to him, and I would appreciate the answers about the

meetings he had over this project.

Mr. Chairman, we're back

to where we've been for quite a while. We're in the Premier's

estimates. We're dealing with actions of the Premier of the province of

British Columbia. We're asking specific questions about meetings he's

had — no other minister, no other department. I don't want to be out of

order, so I'm sticking to the Premier's vote and his actions. Maybe we

should go over them slowly so they're not confused. I'll just wait

until I can command his full attention.

Did the Premier meet

with a group of business persons from Victoria to set up a jetfoil

service between Victoria and Seattle? Is that too hard for the Premier

to understand? Did the Premier meet with a group of citizens from

Victoria to make a deal to set up a jetfoil service?

Perhaps

the Premier has forgotten the question. Did the Premier meet...? I'm

sorry, Mr. Chairman, someone else has now got his attention.

don't know what they find so amusing, but I would ask the Premier, now

that I have his undivided attention: did the Premier meet with a group

of businessmen from Victoria to establish a jetfoil service? Yes or no.

Mr.

Chairman, when a minister swears the oath of office.... I think we

could get a lot of work done if the Premier would understand that it is

the responsibility of the opposition to ask specific questions during

the estimates about the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars and the

actions of any minister, or the Premier, related to those dollars. If

the Premier feels offended by these questions.... I can't perceive why

he would, because, after all, if he's offended by his own actions,

that's something he has to deal with.

Did you meet — through

you, Mr. Chairman — with a group of citizens to set up a jetfoil

service between Victoria and Seattle? If so, who were they, what was

the deal that was made, how much money was committed, was there a

written agreement or was it verbal, and how did you notify BCDC that a

deal was made? Do you care for the floor?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, from time to time — in fact, every day — many people meet

with the Premier in meetings that may lead up to other ministries or

agencies — or anything else coming to a conclusion. I don't deal with

every meeting as a matter of discussion on who said

[ Page 1913 ]

what.

What this government does is deal with the record of accomplishment. We

don't have secret meetings, but we do have and respect confidentiality

— something that goes along with being government. Now, as I say, Mr.

Chairman, to you or any member, any member can ask if the government

has an agreement in any area. Or when the government makes a decision

as a government in any area, they can question the decision. The first

time I ever thought that the procedure or suggested procedure or

discussions would be the major focal point.... Communities, individuals

or anyone can make an appointment to have a discussion with the Premier

of the province. It's very easy. All they have to do is make an

appointment through my office. I don't think that when we hold those

discussions — and they go on all day, every day, with numbers of groups

— they feel in bringing a problem to government that the discussion of

the problem would be a matter for the Legislature. Certainly this

Legislature must have accountability to it for the decisions of

government when agreements are made; and we will deal with those in the

proper time — if agreements are made. The difficulty we have is in

dealing with conjecture from the opposition, and we don't propose to

deal with that.

The Leader of the Opposition may wish to

take the time of the Legislature on a particular line of questioning,

but I've suggested that any agreements this government may have

achieved — if they're in the area of transportation or in any other

area — can be questioned during the responsible minister's estimates.

That should be very clear. During any of those periods, I would be

pleased to stand up during their estimates and deal with the question

of whether or not this government is united in support of a particular

decision. And that's very clear.

I'd like to proceed with

some of the suggestions posed by the Leader of the Opposition

yesterday, because he appeared to be making the suggestion that somehow

secret deals are made in the Premier's office. I know of only one

Premier who ever advocated that — one who was Premier and would like to

be again. During the last election, the Leader of the Opposition, in

response to questioning on whether they'd bring back the mineral

royalty tax, said no, he didn't need it, he would deal with the mining

companies individually, one at a time in his office. He advocated

special deals, secret deals, and he advocated it publicly. He said that

was the style and the way he would conduct the government. Obviously

that is an acceptable form of government for him.

response is that where you have legislation dealing with mining

companies, it must be legislation that's on the books; it can't be who

you are and when you called and what you happened to say. It must be

legislation such as the fair mining taxes we have in this province now.

But let all mining companies know what opportunities they have, what

the rules and regulations are. We have rules and regulations for the

mining industry, for the B.C. Development Corporation, Crown

corporations and agencies, the forest industry and any business. That

has been the accepted practice and that's what we'll do. Legislation is

there and when legislation is there then anybody can conduct business

under the authorities given under that legislation. That's how

government, either directly or indirectly through its agencies, works.

Yesterday

I was amused because we had been frightened by the suggestion of the

Leader of the Opposition during the election campaign that he was

afraid to put into legislation, or didn't want to put into legislation,

anything to do with mining companies and that he wouldn't do that. What

he was going to do was deal with the mining companies one at a time in

his office. That's what he said. Secret meetings in his office. Now we

have confidential meetings; the confidentiality of government is well

known and we observe that confidentiality in conducting the public

business. But decisions, agreements that the government makes or policy

decisions are announced. When policy decisions are announced, the

government not only takes great pride in them, but if we're questioned

by the opposition, naturally, Mr. Speaker, we'll be willing to say:

"Yes, that's the decision and we agree with it; we made the decision."

That is my response to the Leader of the Opposition.

I know

that a good political tactic in the past has been to ask the same

question over and over in Committee of Supply, 86 times perhaps, and

then get thrown out of the House and get a great headline, but I hope

we're not involved in that tactic today. I have made my response and

there is ample opportunity during this legislative sitting to deal with

appropriate responsibilities of various ministers. I certainly don't

want to deal with all of their areas in advance of them taking some

pretty good credit for some positive programs that this government is

conducting, major programs that have come out of decisions the

government has made. Mr. Speaker, I will stand in my place at that time

and deal with those programs.

HON. MR. SMITH: They don't like the jetfoil idea.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

A number of questions have also been asked, and I dealt with some of

these yesterday. I think the Leader of the Opposition had left the

House. I'll just take my place and bring those up at a later

opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the Premier and

if I am violating the confidentiality of the meetings then I appreciate the

Premier telling me exactly where I'm violating the confidentiality. If he

does not wish to give the names of citizens he met with, that's fine. Did

you have the meeting? You also stated that if an agreement has been made we

will acknowledge it. Did you make an agreement? Did you have the meeting? If

there is an agreement, how much money is it going to cost the taxpayers? How

much taxpayers' money did you commit to the project of a jetfoil service

between Victoria and Seattle? There was an interjection from the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), who said, and I quote: "They don't like

the jetfoil." Is there a deal for the jetfoil?

How do I know whether I like it or not unless I know how much money it's going

to cost?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the camaraderie of the colleagues around the

Premier in trying to help him out, but the Minister of Education only

makes it worse. Is there a deal for a jetfoil service between Victoria

and Seattle? Is there? How do I know whether I like the deal or not

unless I know there is a deal? Is there a deal? If there is, how much

money is it going to cost?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must

point out to the hon. member that if that does exist, then it can be

covered under another estimate directly responsible for that type of

transportation

[ Page 1914 ]

facility,

but not within the confines of vote 9. I think the hon. member will

agree that great latitude has been allowed. I would now ask that we

tighten up our debate, to a degree, on vote 9 relative to the

administrative responsibilities of the Premier.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your advice, and I will tighten up the

question. Did the Premier meet with a group of Victoria businessmen to

discuss a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle? Yes or no. I

can't get any tighter than that.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:

I have no acquaintance with any other approach, which my good friend

the member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) is perhaps alluding to. I don't

have the responsibility of the Alcohol and Drug Commission.

Did

the Premier meet with a group of Victoria business persons to discuss

the establishment of a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle?

The question is strictly within the confines of the Premier's estimates.

next question is strictly within the confines of the Premier's

estimates. Did the Premier make a deal with a group of Victoria

business persons to finance a jetfoil service between Seattle and

Victoria with public funds from BCDC or any other government source?

The

Premier said: "There is accountability at the proper time." Would the

Chair advise me if this is the proper time for the accountability of

the Premier's office?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If it

weren't, then I would be out of order. Just a few moments ago the

Premier said: "There is accountability at the proper time." We are now

dealing with a once-a-year event: accountability of the Premier's

office. Under the rules of this House, this is the proper time to ask

the Premier to be accountable for decisions he has made or participated

in. Am I incorrect, Mr. Chairman?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I

ask the Premier these questions. If he wishes to give any other answer,

I will sit through it and listen again, but I will come back to the

same question: did you meet with a group of business persons in your

office to discuss a Victoria-Vancouver jetfoil service? Did you make a

deal in your office with those Victoria business persons to establish a

Victoria-Seattle jetfoil service? Did you commit public funds for such

a service? If you did....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon.

member, order, please. Again I must advise the hon. member that in

regard to the funding he is now referring to, it must be covered under

a subsequent vote dealing with the ministry.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I didn't ask the Premier if he's personally funding it.

At that meeting did he commit public funds to the project? Did he

himself commit public funds? He's anxious too answer. I gladly

relinquish the floor.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Just to

straighten out part of the argument from the Leader of the Opposition,

who suggests that in the Premier's estimates we should deal with every

decision the Premier participated in during the year....

MR. BARRETT: Just one.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

He wants to set a precedent; he yells "one." But his statement was:

"every decision the Premier participates in." That means any item which

is finally decided on by the cabinet, and covering every ministry. It

may have been the style of the Leader of the Opposition when he was

Premier — and he would like to be again — to make deals in his office

and not deal through his cabinet. But I have to say that this

government works as a team. These are the decisions of government, and

the appropriate place to question these decisions is in the estimates

of the minister responsible, either for the ministry or any agency if

such an agency is responsible.

I personally would like to

take credit for the great planning and for the things done by this

government. The Leader of the Opposition seems to suggest that I could

take the credit for a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle. I

wish I could. I think it's an excellent suggestion, and I think it

would be an excellent thing for government to respond to. I wish I

could take the credit. Fortunately only some people I know want to take

credit for everything. But, Mr. Chairman, I can't take the credit for

all the great things that happen out there that government gets

involved with...or may get involved with, or when people come to

government.

Quite often people come to government, as the

IWA did. They stated publicly why they were coming. They were concerned

about shutdowns in the forest industry. They had a confidential meeting

in my office. I said nothing about it until after they had decided to

make it public and after the government had come up with a program. But

I also say that that meeting involved a number of ministers and other

people. It takes a long time for decisions to be made, and many such

meetings are requested. Many meetings are held and we have many

appointments. Many people can resolve their own problems. Many times

it's just directing people to which ministry or agencies to go to...how

the government can deal as a government.

I wish I could take

the credit for all the great things that are happening. I wish I could

take the credit for what may be a great service, should it develop. I

wish the government could take some credit, if there is involvement by

government. If government makes an agreement to help, or if any of the

agencies of government make an agreement to help, I wish.... I'd stand

up and take part of the credit, sure, Mr. Speaker, but I don't have any

agency under my ministry. We do have a government in which I have very

capable ministers, and I'm sure they will stand up and, if they've got

something to take credit for, will take it. There are a lot of things

happening right now in British Columbia. There is a lot of vision being

shown. There are a lot of great programs and projects of government

taking place. B.C. is a bright spot. If they want the government to

take some credit, we'll take some credit for what's happening in B.C.

in the private sector as well as the public sector. I think government

can either stifle the private sector or it can allow it to grow and

expand.

Mr. Chairman, in that way we take great credit for

what's been happening in British Columbia. And it comes as

satisfaction, because I think the general policy goals of this

government need to be reiterated to show why British Columbia is now

considered a bright spot in this country. These are the decisions that

government makes as a government and that various ministries get

involved in.

Just yesterday there was great publicity over major gas finds in northeastern British Columbia. The member for

[ Page 1915 ]

North

Peace River (Mr. Brummet) pounds his desk, as well he should, because

as a resident he lived through the quiet period. There was a drought of

gas exploration in the great northeastern part of British Columbia

because of the policies of the then Premier, now Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Barrett) and his sidekick on energy at that time, the

then Attorney-General, now second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald). Of course, we didn't see the growth, not only in

exploration but in natural gas reserves and energy reserves, that

should have been taking place, because we had been put on notice as a

province and a country by the OPEC nations of the world. That energy

price and security of supply was no longer to be taken for granted. It

was incumbent on governments — provincial governments and Canadian

governments and other governments — then to try and ensure that they

had their own secure supply of energy. But instead of doing that, we

had an almost non-existent drilling program during that period.

HON. MR. CURTIS: A sense of hopelessness.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Yes, a sense of hopelessness, and I guess it doesn't hurt to look back

and reflect and think where we might be today if that government and

those policies had continued. The extension of the Elmworth basin and

the indications of great gas wouldn't be here. The opening up of new

areas wouldn't have happened. The tremendous increase in our proven and

indicated gas reserves would not be there. The industrial and energy

decisions we can now make today for our people could not be taken.

Mr.

Chairman, in those areas the decisions and the opportunities that

provided for the private sector were taken by the government. I'm

pleased to be the Premier, but the action was taken by a number of

ministers who knew the problem and understood it. They didn't just deal

with rhetoric about rip-offs and big companies, but got down to learn

what energy development was all about. They didn't get caught up in

living with their own rhetoric. They got down, Mr. Chairman, and they

made the type of decisions that were fair to the people of British

Columbia, fair to those who wanted to participate in the search. And

they created great reserves, not by government getting out and doing

it, but by having understandable, fair and encouraging legislation and

a government that people could have confidence in, so that if they did

undertake that development they would continue to be dealt with fairly.

It has paid great dividends to this province, in giving us tremendous

increases in our gas reserves.

Today with fast-changing

technology, fast-changing need, with an urgency about lessening and

ending dependency on imported oil, we now do more than burn natural

gas. It can now be useful in transportation. Heretofore we felt trapped

with gasoline from oil as the only answer for transportation. Of

course, everyone in this assembly would know, I hope, that the bulk of

our oil consumption, causing the tremendous need for imports, is

created by the transportation industry. We can convert industry and

homes to gas and other forms, but it is transportation where we must

have the opportunity to make the biggest inroad. I'm pleased to see

that this government is.... The Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), in his estimates, I'm sure, will want

to talk positively about taking the initiative and finding out what

other areas are doing, about getting demonstration vehicles operating

on liquefied natural gas, charging the Research Council with some

responsibility, showing some leadership, challenging those that

distribute fuel to transportation vehicles — trucks and cars — in this

province to see if they can respond by making available the fuel at

convenient spots for the motoring public. Thinking ahead — that's what

this government is doing.

Mr. Chairman, we've done a lot and

we've provided a lot of opportunity for the private sector to respond

to government. I know it's been said that there were great

philosophical debates in the past. I happen to know that they were not

as great from that side as some of those members like to remember. I

can remember the shambles of some of the debates. People are concerned

about the conduct and negativism of the opposition today, and I want to

assure them that it's not a new thing; it was prevalent in the sixties,

and their accomplishment at it comes from a lot of practice, but we

tend to forget that.

I want to say that these things augur

well for British Columbia — the general policies of government that I'm

prepared to deal with in my estimates. The specifics of administration,

I'm sure, can be dealt with in their areas of responsibility. I would

like during my estimates to be able to stand up day after day and take

credit for the great accomplishments that have been done, but it's the

team effort of a very, very dedicated and hard-working team.

was laughable the other day when we had the charade put on by the

Leader of the Opposition, who made the charge that the government only

worked four hours a day, the length of the debate. They were running

out and saying, "See, I worked forty minutes later in the Legislature

tonight holding up the government," when they knew they were holding up

the cabinet meeting that had been scheduled for 6 o'clock, immediately

upon the rising of the House, and trying to create the impression that

the government doesn't work. Mr. Chairman, we work hard in many ways

and we're willing to listen to constructive criticism. If there's a

transportation service, and if agreements are made with the government,

and they have positive suggestions.... I know the member for Mackenzie

(Mr. Lockstead) quite often — not when he's bringing in figures which

the Minister of Transportation and Highways finds to be incorrect — on

those days when he does make a constructive suggestion, certainly it's

of great assistance to the government.

I think that's what

the people would like to see. They'd like to see the type of results in

every area that we are achieving in energy, because natural gas, of

course, is a single area. There are other areas in which we're forging

ahead, as a part of government policy, which I'm sure the Minister of

Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland) will be dealing with fully when we get to

his estimates. You know, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Energy is

going to have a lot to talk about. And far be it from me to break the

rules that you so well and so generously administer in this House and

broaden my discussion into some other minister's area, because they've

got good things to talk about. I'm just bursting to talk about them,

because they're positive. So obviously we'll leave that for them,

because there is a lot of time left in this sitting to enable members

to deal with those subjects.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Health.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry; I apologize. I thought the Premier had sat down. The Leader of the Opposition rises on a point of order?

[ Page 1916 ]

MR. BARRETT: No, I didn't say it was a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You thought the Premier had taken his seat as well?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to continue as continuity obtains under the rules.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Would all members take their seats at this time. Yesterday the Leader

of the Opposition occupied a great deal of time in debate. Today I

recognized the Leader of the Opposition four times, I believe. The

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) had been trying to gain the floor

yesterday, as well as today. There are 57 members in this Legislature,

hon. member, and while I can appreciate the member's view regarding the

continuity aspect, nevertheless it is the Chair's responsibility — and

a very heavy responsibility — to share the debate of the House with

other members as well as just with one.

The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT:

On the point of order. I don't know of any rule that you are referring

to in terms of yesterday's debate. I don't think that is an appropriate

rule or mention of a rule. As I understand, under estimates the House

is in committee. Under the House rules any member may rise and the

Chair, of course, recognizes various members. The Chair recognizes

members not on the basis of how many times, it is my understanding, but

the first one to catch the Chair's eye. There has been difficulty in

the House of Commons and in every legislature in the Commonwealth to

catch the Chair's eye. If I miss the Chair's eye, then I appreciate

that the Chair wasn't aware that I wished to speak. If indeed I didn't

catch the Chair's eye and someone else did, I accept your ruling.

However, I would want it perfectly clear, Mr. Chairman, when the House

meets in committee....

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't lecture the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: No, we're talking about rules.

When

the House meets in committee, all members may seek the eye of the

Chair, as I have done. Thank you for noticing me for the point of

order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if I could have your attention for just one moment, I would....

HON. MR. BENNETT: I have a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Premier on a point of order.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I must say, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the clarification that you would

recognize the first member you see standing. I wanted to say that I

have it clear because that is why I sat down when I heard you, as we

all did, recognize the Minister of Health.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a point of order before us, hon. member....

MR. BARRETT: I just want to refer to the Premier's statement. Is the Premier saying that the minister was recognized before he sat down?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: That's what he said.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The first member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: Under standing orders, I move that the hon. second member for Vancouver East be now heard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question must be put without debate or amendment.

MR. LAUK: The hon. first member for Vancouver East, I'm sorry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The correction of the motion is that the first member be now heard.

HON. MR. MAIR: On a point of order, I thought that I had already been recognized.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) was not on a point of

order that can be accepted because the Chair had already recognized a

member and it would be improper, hon. member, to gain the floor on a

point of order for the purpose of making the motion that you in fact

did move, having already recognized the Minister of Health, and then

recognize your point of order. Your point of order would very well be

taken had I not recognized the Minister of Health.

Hon.

members, again, the Chair is always at the will of the House, and I

would ask members to try and understand that it is very difficult to

recognize all members at all times, but to share the available time

that we do have with members from both sides of the House. The Minister

of Health....

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, on a point

of order, I just want to remind you that traditionally in parliament,

the Chair recognizes first a member of the government and then a member

of the opposition alternately, and it goes back and forth. That is a

time-honoured tradition; breach of that tradition is a very dangerous

parliamentary departure, with due respect, because it would inhibit the

right of the opposition to ask legitimate questions about public

business.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

However, if that argument were extended to the fact that each time a

question would be asked to the minister, then no other member on the

government side would in fact have an opportunity to ask a question,

and I think in that case the point of order fails drastically.

MR. LAUK: Just so that the opposition's position is clear, Mr. Chairman, on procedure in supply and estimates, in Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice , eighteenth edition, page 700 et seq. it is clear that the purpose of Committee

[ Page 1917 ]

Supply is that the treasury benches answer the questions of ordinary

members, be they government or opposition. The purposes of Committee of

Supply are precisely for ordinary members, that is to say non-Treasury

Board members.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I'll wait until you've received advice.

is not in order, I would submit to the Chair, for a member of the

cabinet to rise in his place and take up the time of the Committee of

Supply. There are distinctions raised in Sir Erskine May which I

suggest the Chair should take under advisement.

Mr.

Chairman, trying to determine order in supply while that jabberwocky

over there continues to natter is very difficult. The point is in

Committee of....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Oh, for heaven's sake! If he talked half as much on his feet as he does on his seat, we wouldn't be taking so much time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order, please, hon. member.

MR. LAUK:

The point of order, Mr. Chairman, is simply this: the budget is

introduced to the House in the way of estimates and votes. Those votes

in Committee of Supply are examinable by ordinary members asking

questions of the minister in charge of the vote. It is totally not the

practice for cabinet members and treasury bench members to rise in

their place in Committee of Supply and ask questions of a minister,

because it is a long-standing practice that there are cabinet meetings;

the cabinet ministers have access to the Treasury Board, and they have

other opportunities to make statements to the committee or to the

House. It is most inappropriate for cabinet ministers to stand in their

place, unless by leave or practice of the committee to allow a

clarification of a point under the vote. The Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Mair) seeks to gain the floor in the Committee of Supply simply as

a delaying, distracting and diversionary tactic from the purpose of the

business of the Committee of Supply.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I would ask the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre to withdraw any

improper imputation on the motive of the Minister of Health for seeking

the floor.

MR. LAUK: I don't make any personal imputation. What I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that if....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, let us try to have some order in the House while we're

discussing a very long and varied series of points of order, many of

which are somewhat questionable.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr.

Chairman, the member opposite clearly imputed an improper motive to me

in seeking the floor. I wish to seek the floor to ask the Premier some

questions. I insist that that is my right, and that is the only reason

I seek the floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon.

member. Again, hon. first member for Vancouver Centre, if any improper

imputation was made will the member withdraw?

MR. LAUK:

Yes, I will withdraw it. But I must say, on the same point of order,

Mr. Chairman, that the hon. Minister of Health has just admitted that

he wants to ask the Premier questions on his estimates. He is not

entitled to in Committee of Supply; he is a member of the cabinet.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, I'll just for a few moments read from Sir Erskine May's eighteenth edition of Parliamentary Practice , page 406:

"In

the Commons not less than 40 members have often been known to rise at

once, and order can only be maintained by acquiescence in the call of

the Speaker" — or Chairman — "who, to elicit discussion in the most

convenient form, calls, as a general rule, upon back-bench members on

either side of the House — or of the question, as the case may be —

alternately, who answer one another. Members of both front benches are

normally given precedence over those on the back benches."

I will also quote from Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice , on precedents in debate, page 334:

"It

is usual, however, to allow priority to members of the administration

who wish to speak and to new members who have not before spoken. And in

all important debates it is customary for the speaker to endeavour to

give the preference alternately to the known supporters and opponents

of a measure in question. It is irregular to interfere with the

Speaker's call in favour of any other member."

The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT:

I agree completely. As I said earlier, it is improper to question the

Speaker's call. However, both references appear to strengthen the

argument on the point of order raised by my colleague, the first member

for Vancouver Centre. One, alternate recognition; government, then

opposition. The government member whose estimates we're dealing with

spoke; then, alternating, the opposition. Two, important debate is

separate and distinct from committee debate. I just raise those two

points on your references, and I respect your ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, on the point of order raised by the Leader of the

Opposition, I must again point out the tremendous difficulty that the

House would be in if we were to consider the minister to whom questions

are being addressed as being one of the speakers in debate. While the

member may be asked questions, it can only be fair that he be asked

questions on both sides of the House during debate, as members on both

sides of the House often have questions of a minister that they feel

are pertinent to their specific ridings. Again, I must ask....

[ Page 1918 ]

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, I'm afraid I must at this point cut off further debate on

this particular point of order, unless it is a new point of order that

the member is rising on.

MR. LAUK: You're referring

to an area of May which does not apply to this committee, and I wanted

to point out that in our own standing orders it doesn't apply. Standing

order 37 states clearly that in this House the practice is that "where

two or more members rise to speak, Mr. Speaker calls upon the member

who rose first in his place; but a motion may be made that any member

who has risen 'be now heard' or 'do now speak,' which motion shall be

forthwith put without debate."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, hon. member, and prior to that I had recognized the Minister of Health before recognizing your point of order.

MR. LAUK: That doesn't matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, could we leave this at this particular point, possibly to

review the matter, and at this time carry on with the Minister of

Health?

HON. MR. MAIR: Thank you very much, Mr.

Chairman. I knew that my old chum, my pal from Vancouver East, would

yield the floor graciously to me and let me ask a few questions.

MR. BARRETT: After all this, he's leaving.

HON. MR. MAIR:

I'm sure that if the Premier doesn't hear all the questions, Mr.

Chairman, he will read the Blues, and I'm sure that he will answer the

questions that I have to ask.

I must say that I'm flattered

to think that the opposition would do so much to prevent me from

speaking. I hadn't realized that either my delivery, my oratory, or the

content of my speeches so frightened the members opposite, but

evidently I do frighten them for that reason and I'm delighted and I'm

very flattered indeed. I couldn't help but think, when the first member

for Vancouver East, the Leader of the Opposition, was trying to stop me

from speaking, that not only does he come from the most expensive seat

in this House — it cost him $80,000 to buy his way in; that's nearly

seven times as much as I spent on my whole campaign last time, and he

had to spend that just to buy the seat....

Interjections.

MR. HANSON:

On a point of order, I found the remarks of the Minister of Health

regarding the leader of our party offensive, and I ask the minister to

withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the member to

whom the remarks referred is in the House, and I believe that only he

can make that request. Does he so do?

MR. BARRETT: I consider the source and pay no attention to the accusation.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. MAIR: It's good to have my old chum take such an attitude, Mr. Chairman.

I'd

like to talk on a couple of matters that have been raised in the

Premier's estimates. I'd like to speak a little bit about his

leadership and the work that the government does, because I think it's

important that he have the full opportunity to consider this and answer

some of the suggestions that have been made. I have listened with great

care to many of the questions from the opposition, and a lot of them

dealt with the matter of campaign funding. I'd like to deal a little

bit with that and ask the Premier some questions on that, because I

think that as the leader of the government he certainly should be

called to account as to how he feels campaigns should be funded and

what, if any, amendments to legislation or new legislation he thinks

there should be in order to ensure that we have fair play in our

elections in the years to come. So those, Mr. Chairman — just so that I

can help guide you in following my argument — are the two main areas

that I'd like to talk about.

I think that the opposition is

quite correct to raise with the Premier the question of how hard the

government works and what hours it's prepared to put in and when it's

prepared to do its business and those sorts of things. I was very happy

to hear those remarks raised, both in the Premier's estimates and in

other arguments the other day. It brought to mind 1977, which was a

particularly long session; I think most of us will remember it. Because

of the enormous amount of work that this chamber was called upon to do

and because of the searching questions being asked by the opposition —

well within their rights, within estimates — the government decided to

sit extra hours. We proposed, as members who were with me at that time

will remember, to sit in the morning from 10 o'clock to 1 o'clock, then

sit the usual hours in the afternoon, and sit every evening. Well, a

funny thing happened. First of all, the opposition didn't show up for

the morning ones; they just wouldn't come to those at all. Then when we

came to Monday and Wednesday evenings....

MR. BARRETT:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with vote 9, not

House business. I'd ask you to be as rigid in applying the rules as the

previous Chairman.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, in

response to the point of order, I am trying to deal with the duties of

the Premier of the province of British Columbia, which have been dealt

with extensively throughout this debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All members will be reminded that we are dealing with vote 9.

HON. MR. MAIR:

It may very well be that the Leader of the Opposition is uncomfortable

to be reminded of these things; I'm sure he is. As I was about to say,

when it came to the evening sessions that we had planned for Monday and

Wednesday, they did show up and they spun their wheels on points of

order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, on a point of

order, House business is not dealt with under vote 9. I'd love to

discuss House business, and if you wish to set aside a time for such a

debate, I'd be glad to participate if I could gain the floor. I would

ask that the minister stick to vote 9, please.

[ Page 1919 ]

HON. MR. MAIR:

May I speak to the point of order, Mr. Chairman? I am not dealing with

House business at all. I can't help but allude to it. What I am dealing

with is the discipline of the government under the leadership of this

Premier. It has to impact upon hours of work, but I'm talking about

leadership and I'm talking about discipline. That is all. If it happens

to also allude to the hours that we work and when we work, that is only

a logical extension, with the greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, of my

argument. I recognize that the Leader of the Opposition is going to get

more and more uncomfortable as I talk about these things, because I am

not going to be particularly flattering of his leadership — either as

Leader of the Opposition or as Premier, when he was Premier — but

that's not because I'm here to criticize him; I'm here to compare him

to the Premier that we have and the discipline the Premier brings to

this House.

As I said, when it came to the evening sessions

of Monday and Wednesday, the opposition, while showing up, would not do

any business. They simply rose, as the Leader of the Opposition has

today, on point of order after point of order, until we exhausted the

hours available. So the net effect of trying to do more work, trying to

show the leadership of bringing more hours to our business day, was

zero. We wound up getting no more done because they would not do any

more work. I make that observation to contrast the attitude of those

who would criticize the Premier of this province, and the Premier

himself and the leadership he gives.

Having dealt with that,

I'd like to speak a little bit about campaign funding. I presume that

because the Premier is the leader of the government and is the person

who leads us in the making of policy, and because it has been examined

extensively in this chamber for the last three or four sittings, I'm

certain it must be in order as well. I know, Mr. Chairman, that you

would certainly agree with me that the members of the opposition

wouldn't knowingly carry on any debate in this House that was out of

order, and since they spend hour after hour dealing with such matters

as William F. Buckley and Austin Taylor Jr. and American citizens and

that sort of thing in connection with campaign funds, it must have been

in order, or otherwise, of course, you or the other Chairman would have

ruled it out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will

have to advise the Minister of Health that we are discussing the

administrative actions of the office of the Premier, and the Minister

of Health must be reminded of that. Perhaps the debate could be

contained to the administrative actions of the Premier and specifically

vote 9.

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes, I certainly intend to,

Mr. Chairman. I intend to adhere very closely to the argument that I

made standing in this very debate about a week or so ago on this very

subject, because it was raised by the opposition, dealt with at great

length, and I felt at that time that it was my duty to participate in

that debate and assist the Premier in coming to some conclusions about

the questions of election expenses and how funds are raised for all

political parties, because that is surely within his administrative

duties.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr.

Chairman, the question raised by my colleague was campaign funds out of

the Premier's office, as acknowledged by the Premier's staff. If they

wish the debate to go into campaign funds in general, we are

establishing a precedent. I only ask your ruling. Certainly any

campaign funds regarding secret funds of the Premier's office are

definitely in order; I don't think other campaign funds are in order.

However, I abide by your ruling.

HON. MR. MAIR: May I

speak to that point of order, Mr. Chairman? What I would like to do, so

I can assist you in making your ruling, is tell you the argument that I

propose to develop.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will remind all

hon. members of our standing orders, and I will cite at this point the

standing order found on page 23, standing order 61(2), which says that

"speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to

the item or clause under consideration."

HON. MR. MAIR:

Just so you recognize that I am trying to do just that, I'd like to

tell you that the argument I am now developing is one that was started

by the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues, and I think it was

a fair one. It was the question of campaign funds, whether in the

Premier's office or outside it; it was a question of his leadership and

how campaign funds ought to be obtained and how they ought to be spent.

I think, in order to assist the Premier in answering those questions,

as I am sure he is going to want to do in due course, I should offer to

the Premier and to the House some examples of things that I think the

Premier, when he's making decisions about his administrative duties,

ought to consider.

I hope that the Leader of the Opposition

is not so nervous about what I'm going to say that he is going to

interrupt me constantly with points of order, because I'm not going to

talk about secret meetings and things like that which he's been

belabouring for the last four or five days. I'm going to talk about the

thing that I think is important to all of us here: how do we, as

parties, raise funds for elections and how do we spend them? What

leadership should the Premier show us? What administrative duties

should he perform to ensure that all of us do these things well? So,

Mr. Chairman, if the Leader of the Opposition will bear with me, I'd

like to carry on in that vein, and I have a number of questions that

I'd like to ask the Premier.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, if

I may be permitted, in leading up to the questions I'm going to ask —

and they are about six or seven in number — I should perhaps give a

little of the information that leads me to these questions. The first

bit of background, of course, is the suggestions and allegations made

by the members opposite, both by allegations of fact and through

suggestions in their questions. The second is some information which

has come to my attention over the last few weeks which has shocked me,

and I think that the Premier ought to have notice of this and ought to

pay heed to it and give me some answers as to what he intends to do

about it. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that that clearly falls within his

administrative duties, because I think that if what I have been told is

the case, the Premier as the chief administrative officer of this

province has got to be called to account for it.

I'm sorry, I sensed that you wanted to interrupt me, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair would like to hear what you're getting at.

[ Page 1920 ]

HON. MR. MAIR:

Well, as I say, I have listed approximately seven questions which I

will put to the Premier. But before doing so, I think it is only fair —

and I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition wishes to be fair with me —

that I have an opportunity to give some background as to what leads me

to these particular questions.

I have to go back to a

character I mentioned in this chamber a couple of weeks ago. Mr. X, you

may remember, was the lawyer in Kamloops who gave $400 to a political

party and had half of it go to the federal candidate. At that time, Mr.

Chairman, I raised it in committee under these estimates. It was very

much in order at that time, so it surely could be no less in order now.

I'm not sure whether you were the Chairman at the time or whether one

of your colleagues was, but in any event he listened to it with great

interest, and I think the members opposite listened with rapt

attention. As a matter of fact, I recall an explanation for this rather

interesting situation being offered at the time by the member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who is not in his seat today. Because of that,

because I raised it in committee on these estimates, because I did get

that answer from the member for New Westminster, and in order to keep

the record straight, I felt that I should continue the saga today. That

will lead me neatly into the seven questions I wish to pose to the

Premier.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the problem, as you may recall,

came when Mr. X made his donation of $400 and found out, much to his

dismay, that at least half of that money went to a federal campaign to

help the NDP candidate against his chosen Liberal candidate. He was

very, very upset. There was an explanation, of course, from the member

for New Westminster. He said: "Look, it's only a matter of income tax

deduction. It's just a matter of a receipt. All he has to do is bring

the receipt in, and we'll sort it all out." Since that time a Mr. David

Wright, a reporter for one of the Kamloops newspapers, looked into the

matter a little further, and he reported as follows. I won't read it

all, but I'll be delighted to table it in case anybody thinks I'm

quoting it out of context — even with my underlinings. This is with

reference to Mr. Lapa, who ran against me.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Mr. Minister, the Chair has great difficulty fathoming the relevance of

your speech to the administrative actions of the Premier's office, when

discussing items that would have been carried on outside the office of

the minister. In Committee of Supply, we have to stick to items that

are strictly relevant, that pertain to the estimates of the minister or

the portfolio and the administrative actions of that office.

HON. MR. MAIR:

Mr. Chairman, I intend to adhere every bit as strictly to your ruling

as I did when I last spoke on this subject. I hope you will accept the

assurance that the background I'm giving you now will lead very

carefully into the seven prepared questions I have, which all deal with

what I as an honourable member of this House consider to be well within

the administrative duties of the Premier; certainly well within his

responsibility as Leader of this province, and that's what we've been

talking about. The Leader of the Opposition has been saying we've been

talking about leadership for the last ten days, and that's precisely

what I intend to develop, if you'll bear with me, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Wright, the newspaper writer, says the following: "The provincial

wing of the party" — that is the NDP — "was fighting the May 10 B.C. election. Then NDP provincial

candidate Andy Lapa said recently: 'I don't know what happened'

" — he's referring to the $400 — "adding that 'The situation

is an embarrassment to me.' Lapa suggested that what happened was that the

cheque went to the federal rather than the provincial contribution desk at the

NDP constituency headquarters." Now that's what Mr. Lapa had to say about it.

However,

the report goes on: "An official with the chief electoral office at

Ottawa said: 'I don't know how this could happen.' " So the electoral

officer says he doesn't know how that can happen. But what did the

official agent of the NDP at the time say? He said as follows: "If a

contribution to the provincial party was to go to the federal wing, the

name would be listed with the provincial organization. The provincial

association would then donate it to the federal wing. There's nothing

wrong with that. It's up to the political party." So now the agent

says: "We can do whatever we damn well please with your money. We can

use it against your own chosen candidate, if we wish."

"The

organization has to make sure that the money goes to the bank," the

electoral officer said. Well, that's very good. "All election

contributions are audited by an accountant. That is a law," he said,

adding: "The auditing is usually accurate because the accountant's

reputation is at stake if it is not." Very good.

"The

official also said the NDP 'run their business both federally and

provincially as one.' This statement was confrmed by the provincial

opposition leader, Dave Barrett, when in Kamloops recently to assist

the NDP campaign during the February 18 federal election. He said: "

'We are one party, federally and provincially.' "

AN HON. MEMBER: Whose time was he working on when he was there?

HON. MR. MAIR: That's a very, very good question.

Now,

Mr. Chairman — and I know that I have your undivided attention — I

perhaps could have overlooked that and thought, well, perhaps there's

just some mass confusion, but, lo and behold, in a Kamloops newspaper

just a day or two ago, a former campaign manager for one of my

opponents in a recent provincial election, Mr. Chris Johnston, wrote a

letter to one of the Kamloops newspapers. He had a further observation

to make, and he particularly wrote this in criticism of what I had been

saying about this $400. Mr. Johnston said he "found it something

terrible when an NDP donation" — referring to me — "supposedly went to

the federal campaign fund, when both the federal and provincial

elections were going on and the same campaign office was used for both

campaigns." I will repeat that: "The same campaign office was used for

both campaigns." I will let him in on a secret, since he is a member of

what is only a provincial party: this provincial constituency of the

NDP has been substantially financing the federal NDP constituency for

as long as I can remember.

Well, that got me to thinking a

little bit, and I thought I'd better ask the Premier a couple of

questions. One of the questions I thought I'd better ask him....

Because I'm holding him to account as the leader of our government, and

I think he should tell us what he intends to do as the Premier of this

province about this situation. I think this is part — and probably the

most important part — of his administrative duties because, after all,

if we can't have fair and clean

[ Page 1921 ]

election campaigns in this province, where are the people at then? So let me ask the Premier these questions.

First

of all, Mr. Premier, I'd like your views on this: should campaign funds

donated for provincial campaigns be shanghaied into federal campaigns?

That's a question I'd like to have you answer, because I think that if

you, as leader of this government, are permitting that sort of shameful

exercise to take place, you really must be held to account and we must

do something about that.

Secondly, Mr. Premier.... These get

more serious, and I hope that you are making notes, because I don't

have a chance to give you any notes any more, you know. I've moved down

to the other end of the table, down with the non-smokers, and I don't

have any chance to talk with you very much anymore. My kids do, but I

don't. The second question I must ask you, Mr. Premier, is this. Should

a citizen of this province — and this comes within your administrative

duties because, after all, you're responsible for

section 92's

administration under the BNA Act; property and civil rights are under

there — be entitled as a right to support one party federally and

another provincially? Should that be one of our God-given property and

civil rights? I think that's pretty important.

Thirdly,

should a citizen be entitled to join and fully participate in the

affairs of more than one political party — let's say the Social Credit

Party provincially, and perhaps the Liberal Party federally, or even

the NDP federally? Now, if he can do that, surely you ought to come out

and make that very clear, Mr. Premier, because there's obviously some

doubt in people's minds. I want to observe that if he can vote any way

he wants — and I'm going to assume that your answer to the previous

question is yes, he can vote one way provincially and one way federally

— surely to goodness he can support any party he chooses and surely he

can belong to any party he chooses. I think, Mr. Premier, that you have

an obligation to this House to make your views very clear on this,

because evidently there are some people in this province who are very

much in doubt about these rights.

Question number 4. It's

getting a little heavier now, Mr. Premier, and I know you've had a long

day. I was a little late for cabinet this morning, but I know you

started at 8. I was there at 8:15 and missed my turn. I want you to

make very careful notes now. Should funds from the provincial

government for MLAs' constituency offices, secretaries or both be in

any way diverted to federal campaigns? I'd like to know that. That's a

pretty important one. Should I, for example, be allowed to turn over my

constituency office, for which this government pays, turn over the

services of my constituency secretary, for which this government pays,

to, say, a Liberal candidate in a federal election? Or should I be able

to do that for a Conservative candidate or an NDP candidate? If I can

do that, then it's perfectly proper for, let's say, the Liberal Party

to play both games. And it would certainly be proper for the NDP to use

provincial funds to help their federal candidates. I would like to

know, Mr. Premier, because there are some people who cast doubt on

that. I certainly think that it's well within your administrative

duties to let us know about that.

The next question, Mr.

Premier.... I hesitate to go on with these because I know, that your

load is very, very difficult indeed. I'd like to know something further

about the use of provincial funds. I'm led to believe that you think

it's okay if provincial funds are used for purposes for which they're

not intended. I know that's a terrible thing for one of your colleagues

to say; but surely, Mr. Premier, you must admit that if that practice

has been permitted, you must say something about that and say something

about it very clearly today.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, I

have two more questions of the Premier, but as I look at them now, I

realize I have given the Premier some pretty heavy ones in the first

five. Rather than go into the last two questions at this stage of the

game, and having captured the attention of everybody in the House,

including the opposition and the second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald), who, I understand, is going to be thrown out a little later

— I thought I would just let you know that, because the press gallery

should have their cameras ready — I think at this point in time I will

offer the floor to the Premier, so that he can tell us how he is going

to apply his dynamic leadership to solving these difficulties which

face the people of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BENNETT: By leave of the House, I would like to introduce city of Kelowna council members.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I'd like to introduce to the House Mayor Dale Hammill, alderperson

Elise Clark, and city officials accompanying them — the ones who really

do all the work. I ask you to bid them welcome.

The Minister

of Health has posed a number of questions, some of which, I guess,

should be responded to with logic and what is inherently fair — that

is, the right to support the political party of your choice. I'm sure

it goes against the right of free choice if political parties try to

bind people to support them federally when they belong to the

provincial party, or try to bind people to support them provincially if

they want to support the federal party. I'm sure that no political

party which is committed to fair play, justice and the right of choice

— which is afforded to individuals in this country — would put such

restrictions in the bylaws which make up their constitution.

follows, then, that you have the right to support one federal party and

a different provincial party. In my case, provincially I belong to a

party in which we do not have a federal associate. I would hate to be

bound to a party in which I felt I was a junior partner — it sometimes

happens. I would hate, by some agreement, to be forced to support some

federal party — say, the New Democratic Party — but found I couldn't

support it because the leader, Ed Broadbent, advocated uranium mining.

No, I couldn't support it. I can remember Mr. Broadbent being here

during the federal election, and I can remember statements which were

attributed to him in the paper.

To come to a more serious

area, one with which I'm not familiar, because we have no federal

counterpart — that is, whether money paid to constituency offices could

be diverted to federal election campaign expenses — I don't know how

this could be done. To me, that suggestion is not one of philosophy....

I guess it's serious. It would be a misappropriation of public funds. I

can tell you what my

interpretation is of the funding and staffing of

constituency offices. There's an allowance, and that allowance is for

payment of the secretary, rental of offices and provision of services

which that office needs, for which I sign a receipt

I submit telephone bills and sign the receipt.

Now that I rent — I used to get space free; obviously then the government wasn't charged — that rent is charged every

[ Page 1922 ]

month.

The receipt is signed by me to show the expenditure has been made. The

salary of my constituency secretary before was done when she was

employed and provided as a service from another firm. Even then her

salary, UIC and others had to be documented, and that's how the bill

was made and how it was paid. Now that she's directly an employee it is

the same practice. The salary hasn't changed, nor the benefits or

method of payment, but all are signed by the office.

Her job

is to work as constituency secretary, and that is a very major

function. I don't know how funds could be allocated or how they could

be misused. I would suppose if it has been done it's very serious. I

have no knowledge of any such infraction. I would expect that no member

of this Legislature would do such a thing, knowing the consequences. I

would hope that your question is hypothetical, Mr. Member, because,

quite frankly, taking any other course than that I have mentioned and

utilizing it in a manner other than intended would be very serious

indeed for the member involved. Let's hope that that provides a

clarification to your questions.

I believe I answered all

your questions, Mr. Minister of Health. Let me just respond a little

further on some of the areas that have been brought up to do with the

government, and that is in areas where there has been some

misunderstanding. And while I know we have a bill before the House,

there has been some question.... I understand we can talk about B.C.

Place under Bill 7, so I will keep my comments for this bill.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I should give my questions to the Minister of

Health to ask the Premier. Would the Minister of Health ask the Premier

— with much more success than I have been able to.... I'll wait. I

thank you for your assistance, Mr. Member.

I rose earlier today, Mr. Chairman.... I'm waiting for the attention of the Premier, because I'm definitely in order....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have the attention of the Chair, Mr. Member.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to repeat the questions if the Premier doesn't hear them.

HON. MR. MAIR: Is it okay if I leave?

MR. BARRETT: I didn't know you were here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will all hon. members remember that all statements are addressed to the Chair.

MR. BARRETT:

Now that I have the Premier's unglazed attention, I would like to know

whether he as Premier convened a meeting of Victoria business persons

to deal with a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle. Did he

request such a meeting take place on March 13 at 4:30 p.m.? Did he, the

Premier of this province, call a meeting of a group of business persons

to discuss a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle? Is that

question in order, Mr. Chairman? Let's establish that. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, the question is in order.

I ask the Premier this

simple question: did he, as Premier, convene a meeting on March 13 to

deal with a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle? Did he meet

with a group of Victoria business persons on behalf of his office, as

Premier? Did he discuss a jetfoil service proposal between Victoria and

Seattle? Did he have the government make commitments of taxpayers'

money to finance such a service? If so, how much money has been

committed? How long will the service run? Would the Premier give us the

names of the people in government who will be responsible for

administering his decisions at that meeting?

Mr. Chairman, I

think we've had an out-of-order discussion of campaign funds. I think

we've had wandering, and I'd like the House to get on with business

under vote 9, the Premier's office. I'd like the Premier to say whether

or not he wishes to answer these questions. Are you bothered by these

questions? Do you feel uncomfortable about these questions? Would you

prefer to write out a list of questions that we could ask you?

There

are hard-working people out there who pay taxes to a government. The

system of government we have demands accountability. As a matter of

fact, I quote the Premier's own words today: "accountability at the

proper time." This is vote 9, the Premier's estimates, in which he

intends to double the number of staff that he has in his office — a

huge increase in the expenditures in his office. This is the proper

time to ask what he does from his office. Vote 9 is that, as I

understand it, and I am asking him, according to his own definition

today, to be accountable for his actions.

These are simple

questions, all in order, all proper, all correct. Did the Premier

convene a meeting on March 14, calling together Victoria business

persons to discuss a proposal of a jetfoil service between Victoria and

Seattle?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Were

you there? Oh, well, I see — the 13th. Was it the 13th, Mr. Premier? My

information was that it was the 13th. Would the Premier tell us how he

decided that the British Columbia Development Corporation would be the

financing agency for this project? Is it the Premier's policy now to

directly involve himself in the role of Crown corporations such as the

BCDC? If it is, would the Premier tell us if other business persons can

meet with him and have their application or request for funds forwarded

to the BCDC with his support or his nod or tacit approval? Will there

be fair access for all business persons in the province of British

Columbia, on an equal basis, to meet with the Premier to discuss

proposals put forward to BCDC? Will that be a new method of BCDC

decision-making? Did the meeting take place?

Mr. Chairman,

do you hear me? Am I in order? I receive an acknowledgement of both. I

am heard. I am in order. Is this not an accountability session with the

Premier of the province of British Columbia? Is that not the Premier

himself sitting there? Is it none other than the Premier of British

Columbia, the man who sought election, who had the power delegated to

him by the voters of this province to make administrative decisions and

between elections to be accountable to this Legislature for his

expenditures?

This is vote 9. This is the legal, proper and

appropriate time in committee to ask the Premier questions, and I have

been constantly assured and supported by the Chair that my questions

are in order. I am not sure whether or not the Premier has heard my

questions. Perhaps they are too complex to understand, so I have to

deal with them seriatim.

[ Page 1923 ]

Perhaps the Premier would nod or give a nudge and let us know that he has heard the question and understands it.

Through

you, Mr. Chairman: did you meet on March 13 with a group of business

persons from Victoria to discuss with them the establishment of a

jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle? That's question number

one. Perhaps the Premier could say yes or no and then we could go on

with the other questions.

In the absence of a denial, Mr.

Chairman, I have to assume that a meeting did take place. If I am

incorrect, I am sure the Premier will correct me. The meeting that I

state unequivocally took place was on March 13. The Premier was present

and, as I understand it, there were a group of Victoria businessmen and

others present as well. May I ask the Premier whether it was in this

meeting that a commitment was made to finance the jetfoil service

through taxpayers' money? Perhaps the Premier would like to think about

the complex question that I am asking.

Will the Premier tell

us whether or not BCDC was advised that they were to finance a jetfoil

project between Seattle and Victoria? If they were so advised, would

the Premier tell us how much money, collected from the taxpayers of

British Columbia, has been committed to this project? Would the Premier

tell us how long this proposal is to run and how long it is to be

financed by the taxpayers? Would the Premier tell us how he instructed

BCDC to implement the decision that was taken at that meeting? Was it a

verbal request or order from the Premier? Were all BCDC board members

there and did they participate in the decision, or were they told of

the decision after the meeting's conclusion, either by telephone or by

letter? If there is an agreement, would the Premier be prepared to

table the agreements in written form with this House?

Mr.

Chairman, I thank you for your patience. I appreciate the silence from

the Chair, which is obviously an ongoing acknowledgement that my

questions are in order, that I am not abusing the committee and that I

am using in proper role and function the time-honoured committee role

of accountability questions to the minister concerned. We are indeed on

vote 9; we are indeed on the Premier's estimates; and we are indeed

acting as we are responsible to do as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition —

to ask questions as we are privileged to do under this particular part

of any normal session. Everything is in order; everything is proper; I

have the floor on the basis of time-honoured hard-won rights. Now I am

asking questions of the Premier on behalf of those people who fought

for those rights, some of whom even took the trouble to vote to

preserve these rights, some of whom actually went out and voted in

election campaigns, both provincial and federal, because they

understand maturely the obligation they have to ultimately have these

rights exercised in the proper parliamentary form.

Mr.

Chairman, because we are both here and because we are both in order I

will repeat the questions. I do not believe that the Premier, in his

very busy manner, has really heard what I have to say. I don't want

anyone to misjudge his silence as arrogance or indifference; that would

be unfair. Lord knows, no one should be unfair with the Premier of our

province, especially at this time. So I ask him again, in his

responsibility as Premier, whether he had a meeting with a group of

Victoria business persons on March 13.... I'll wait because he may be

interrupted and not grasp the whole meaning of this very complex

question that I am asking.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have the Chair's attention, Mr. Member. Please carry on.

MR. BARRETT:

Yes, I certainly have the Chair's attention. I have my own attention.

But neither is the attention I seek to maintain. I'd like to broaden it

and include the person who is responsible for the estimates we are

dealing with, vote 9 — the Premier of the province of British Columbia,

his salary, his office staff, and the money that we pay him to perform

his duties. We have a responsibility to ask the Premier how he

performed those duties, and what duties he was involved in. Was there a

meeting on March 13 between the Premier of the province of British

Columbia and a group of Victoria business persons to discuss a jetfoil

proposal between Seattle and Victoria? Through you, Mr. Chairman, does

the Premier wish to answer?

Number two: on the assumption

that such a meeting took place.... We'll just wait a moment until this

conversation is over. Now that I have the undivided attention of the

person whose vote we're dealing with, through you, Mr. Chairman, I

would like to ask again a series of questions.

We will

dispense with the question of whether or not there was a meeting. I

think that there was a meeting. As a matter of fact, I make that

statement: a meeting did take place on March 13 between the Premier and

a group of Victoria business persons. Let's get over that hurdle. I'll

accept the fact, without you acknowledging it, that a meeting did take

place. If I'm wrong, then say no.

Okay, a meeting took place

on March 13 between the Premier of this province and a group of

Victoria business persons. We've got that established. I don't hear any

denial of that. At that meeting, was a commitment made by the Premier

of British Columbia to assure financing for a proposal of jetfoil

service between Victoria and Seattle?

Mr. Chairman, perhaps

I spoke too quickly and the Premier didn't grasp the full meaning of

the question. Was a commitment made at that meeting to finance, out of

BCDC, a Jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle? If so, could the

Premier tell his humble taxpaying citizens of British Columbia how much

of their money he committed to this service? Could the Premier tell us

how long the agreement is to last? And could the Premier tell us the

total amount of the money committed and whether or not the total amount

of the money committed will come from the British Columbia Development

Corporation?

Mr. Chairman, under the rules, perhaps you

could inform me as to how much time I have left at this particular

juncture in my having the floor. I wouldn't want any of my time lost in

the complexity of what appear to be very difficult questions. If you

could inform me how much of my time is left, then I could certainly

cram in as many questions as I can during this very brief period.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Under standing orders, the hon. member has ten minutes left.

MR. BARRETT:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I'll be brief. We are on vote 9. We are

dealing with the accountability of the Premier of the province of

British Columbia. This is the one vote and the one time of any specific

legislative session for members of the Legislature to ask questions of

the Premier of the province of British Columbia. At no other time would

the questions that I am asking be in order in committee other than

this. Because there is no other time to

[ Page 1924 ]

ask

these questions, and since these sessions only happen, in current

practice, once a year, I ask the Premier of this province at this

time.... Since it is the proper accountability time under the

time-honoured rules in a free democratic society, establishing

parliaments, when accountability must be given for taxpayers' dollars,

I ask these questions of the person who is responsible at this moment

for answering these questions related to tax moneys collected from the

hard-working men and women, the people of the province of British

Columbia. I ask again: was there a meeting at which the Premier was

present on March 13, 1980, to deal with the jetfoil service between

Victoria and Seattle? I assume there was and I've agreed with myself

that such a meeting took place.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I heard some kind of interruption. I'm sure it was comprehensible but it escaped me.

Assuming

that the meeting took place, I would like to know if a deal was made at

that time by the Premier of the whole province of British Columbia,

using taxpayers' dollars to finance a jetfoil service between Victoria

and Seattle. Is that so? At the same meeting, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to

know, if an agreement was made, whether or not it was put in writing or

if it was verbal. I think it's important for the people of British

Columbia to know how business is conducted in British Columbia. Are

there minutes of the meeting and is there a written agreement between

the government of British Columbia and this group of persons which

wishes to implement a jetfoil service as a consequence of the agreement

reached at that meeting?

I'd like to know from the Premier

how much taxpayers' money — ours and his — he committed to this project

from British Columbia Development Corporation. How much money did he

commit us to in this project? Then I'd like to know how the British

Columbia Development Corporation was informed of the decision. Was it

by phone call or mail? To further satisfy my curiosity I would like the

Premier to tell us whether or not this was an unusual or particularly

unique meeting or whether or not further applications for the use of

British Columbia Development Corporation funds can be made directly

through the Premier's office. I'd like to know whether or not other

business persons in the province of British Columbia will have a method

where they too can be afforded the opportunity of coming to the

Premier's office or to a committee room where the Premier will attend a

meeting, to make a deal, to establish a project with funds out of the

British Columbia Development Corporation with the Premier's blessing.

Mr.

Chairman, all my questions are in order. Mr. Chairman, you agree that

there is no other time when I could ask these questions and be in order

in Committee of Supply. There is no other time when it is proper to ask

the Premier such questions. His accountability is now and the proper

time to ask the questions is now. I'm asking the Premier these

questions; he's not chosen to answer them. I have been charitable in

interpreting that. Perhaps he hasn't heard all of them, but I think he

has. I think he's heard all the questions; now I'd like some answers.

I'll sit through another speech on the window on the Pacific and how

wonderful you are if you tell us, and I'll humbly listen to and accept

your

interpretation of your own leadership. I'll try to limit my

comments about what kind of masochism I'm willing to submit myself to

in soliciting these answers. Or if you want to get a backbencher up to

take a little more time so that you won't be confronted with these

questions, I understand that too. If you have a device or a tactic to

get a backbencher up to ask a few questions, please be my guest. And if

you want to use another device — perhaps you have to answer a phone

call — go right ahead. These are your estimates. These are legitimate

questions. They are all in order. They all deal with taxpayers'

dollars. This is the time when you must be accountable. This is the one

time in a whole legislative session that we deal with your estimates,

and these are the questions that I'm asking you.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, apparently the Leader of the Opposition is the one who

has difficulty understanding, because I've answered the area that the

Leader of the Opposition has opened up very clearly. He proceeds to

play his game, but I've answered very clearly and that is the answer

that's there. If the Leader of the Opposition has had difficulty

understanding it, I would suggest he take the Blues home and read them

tonight, because that's the answer I've given. There will be plenty of

opportunity during various estimates in the upcoming months in this

Legislature, to deal with decisions made by government or government

agencies on the appropriate estimates. I think that's very clear, Mr.

Chairman. I know it's clear. It's clear to anyone who has listened to

the response from the repetitiveness of the Leader of the Opposition.

It is obvious to those who know him well and have studied his theatrics

and history and what has worked for him before, that he wants to repeat

the question so many times that you'll rule him out of order. He'll be

dramatic and get thrown out of the House. Well, Mr. Chairman, I

wouldn't want that to happen so I'm prepared.... All members in this

House realize that I've given the answer that I'm prepared to give. The

opportunities are there for any decision government makes to be further

canvassed during the estimates of any minister, for either those things

that take place to do with their ministerial responsibility, or to do

with any agencies or corporations under their ministerial

responsibility. I think that's clear.

I don't intend to get

involved with the Leader of the Opposition, who has now taken a lot of

time in the Legislature being repetitive and chirping across the floor.

I've given the answer; that's my answer. He can choose to continue this

ploy. He can keep it up. He may even try the patience of the other

members. He may even succeed in getting thrown out; maybe he wants

that. I hope not, but it may be that's what he wants. But, as I have

said, the answer is clearly there.

There have been a number

of questions I've responded to since my estimates have come up, and a

number of questions that I felt should be asked, to which, not having

had the question put by an alert and well-researched opposition, Mr.

Chairman, I have provided the answers. With those answers on the

record, perhaps the opposition, to look as though they are responsible,

will pose the questions now to the answers that I've already given.

There have been some very major answers given in policy areas of the

government. Perhaps now, because of the fact that they failed to deal

in these areas during their earlier opportunities, they will avail

themselves of the opportunity to fit their questions to the answers.

There have been some major areas dealing with gas reserves, energy,

policy of government, trade, and our relationship with the rest of

Canada. This is one time when we have an

[ Page 1925 ]

opportunity

to debate on a very high level. Those areas have all been introduced by

myself. Unfortunately, the tactic on the level of the opposition does

not lend itself to any of those issues, or those things which I — at

least the members on this side of the House — feel are important to the

province, and which I think all Canadians are concerned with now.

can remember before the session how the much-vaunted research staff of

the New Democratic Party were finally going to make them a credible

opposition. Up until now the news media have considered that they've

had to take the questioning role, not because they want to but because

they feel that questions should be asked and the opposition was not

doing a credible job. This was the year. Statements coming into the

session were that the opposition were going to come in thumping on

unemployment, inflation and all the things, I think, people are really

concerned about and the things I tried to deal with in my estimates.

They barely touched them. They don't care what worries the people. They

are in love, though, with their tactics. That's what they're concerned

about.

So if we take what would seem to be undue time to

you, Mr. Chairman, I hope you will be tolerant, because I believe this

is a very telling performance for them on where their priorities lie.

The questions and their style, as it evolves from day to day, are very

interesting to behold. It changes from day to day — the outrage, the

wild accusations, the innuendo, the quiet theatrics of repeating a

question over and over when, as much as that question can be answered,

I have answered. There will be great opportunity in this Legislature in

the coming months for ministers to deal with decisions of government

under their responsibilities.

So, Mr. Chairman, it is very

difficult to respond, but I am willing to remain here and deal with

these areas. Certainly on part of the questioning at least I could make

the comment again that I wish I could take credit for all of the good

things that happen in this province, but we're a team. I wish I could

take credit for a jetfoil service. I wish I could take credit for all

these good things, but the government operates as a team and there are

things that happen out there in the private sector for which credit

should be given. I'd like to take all the credit but I can't. It's

generous, by implication of the Leader of the Opposition, to want to

give me all sorts of credit. Should this government support any society

or any part of the private sector, should such a decision be made

either by a ministry or by a decision of government through which the

ministry or agency works.... Certainly I'm going to stand up and tell

them they've done a good job. If it involves government, I'll take the

credit for that, because I think credit should be given.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Answers

have been given. The Leader of the Opposition doesn't like the answer.

He wants to get into an area that goes into other ministries, that

involves agencies assigned to other ministries. He can maintain his

stance. I want to say I have given an answer, and I believe it's a good

answer. I believe I have tried to respond to those areas which could

involve the Premier's office and relate to the government as a whole,

aside from the fact that as members of cabinet we are all involved in

all decisions of government. If you applied the rule that everything

done by government could be brought up under the Premier's estimates,

there would be no need to go through the estimates of each ministry. If

you wish to embark on a new procedure, I'm prepared to carry that for

my colleagues. They all have many administrative things to do; new and

exciting things are happening. I'm willing, should that be the

determination of all the members of the House, to change the procedure.

Some

mention was made, during the repetition, of the size of the Premier's

office. I feel it's fair comment to respond to a suggestion of an

increase of appropriation for the Premier's office. It is substantially

up this year with reorganization and the new Ministry of

Intergovernmental Relations. After four years of experience as

government we are indeed looking for ways to continually strengthen the

performance of government. My office and, of course, myself have

introduced an additional position of deputy minister in the office of

the Premier — a senior deputy minister. We have introduced an

opportunity for an assistant to the deputy minister to provide

additional help and to strengthen the Premier's office. We have

provided in those estimates the normal secretarial complement to

accompany those positions.

The estimates do increase the

cost of the Premier's office. I am prepared to defend that increase. I

think the increase is warranted. I think the third-largest province in

the country should take no comfort.... We've run a very economical

office. In fact, it is still one of the most economically run offices

in the country although we are the third-largest province. The two

larger provinces of Quebec and Ontario take substantially more money

for the Premier's office. Combining the administration of the executive

council and the Premier's office, the cost in the province of Ontario

is $2,663,000 compared to a projected cost here of $551,000. These are

our figures for the coming fiscal year. These are only those figures

which are available for comparison with what would presumably be a less

costly year, the year just completed by those provincial governments.

Even P.E.I. shows a substantial cost, although it is one of the few

provinces that haven't gone for a separate minister of

intergovernmental relations; they operate it from the Premier's office,

as was done here. Of course, it was a tremendous improvement in

government organization even to have Intergovernmental Relations in the

Premier's office.

We found a tremendous lack of organization

and coordination when we came to government. The situation at that time

might — being as kind as I can to the administrative structure we found

— be termed chaotic. The structure now provides for some coordination

of government services, of cabinet committees; a proper cabinet

committee structure was set up. The orderly disposition of ideas that

become policy, that become part of the actions of government, can work

up through the committee system. The servicing of that committee

system, that is the executive council — all of those things now take

place; the coordination so that one ministry knows that impacts on

another ministry can have some association.

We can't have,

as the Leader of the Opposition says, things happening in his

government for which he denies he had responsibility, such as the

Minister of Mines issuing a permit for uranium exploration about which

he says now: "Oh, I didn't do that; my government didn't do it; it was

the ministry." You see, that's the sort of thing. I believe him when he

says that; I believe he didn't know. When he says he didn't know what

was happening when he was Premier, I'm sure he didn't. I believe he has

been consistent in his policy, and he can say that they just were not

able to have any policies that were clearly defined, so that the

government just

[ Page 1926 ]

went

its own way. We couldn't afford to do that, because the chaotic

situation we found had an impact not only in the ability of ministers

to run a government, but on good public servants, which we have in this

province, to respond.... I must pay credit to them, because they fulfil

a very, very major role in carrying out and in helping to develop

policies. I must say that it wasn't fair to them that they didn't have

a clear-cut way in which they could work with one another.

see the Leader of the Opposition yawning. He finds this part boring,

the part that's important, about how government gets things done. I

realize there is only one standard and one area of interest for him.

But the public, I think, are interested in the Premier's office and

every ministry doing a pretty good job.

We used to run an

inexpensive office — I think too inexpensive. So, as was alluded to, we

have increased the estimate to $551,000. Not all these people are in

place yet; the new deputy minister will be available in the buildings,

starting preparation in the office, April 21. That support staff and

additional support staff will be placed at that time. I'm sure he is

busy doing that now in the area of support staff, of secretarial

service. So not all the positions asked for in this vote have been

filled. They are very, very important, I think, Mr. Chairman, in

coordinating policy in government and dealing with other ministries

over and above Intergovernmental Relations.

I think Mr.

Wallace will do an outstanding job. He has experience in government and

a wide range of knowledge of the problems of communities, because of

having been involved in a number of centennial events; the number of

centennials that British Columbia has actually had has brought him into

contact with almost every community in this province. His is not just a

narrow viewpoint of someone who has been in Victoria all his life, but

that of a British Columbian. He also has a national and international

viewpoint. His experience in London, representing our province and our

country as agent-general, will assist him greatly in the administration

of these duties, which I think will be extremely helpful to the

development of new government policies and the administration of

government in the future.

So that's why there has been a

substantial increase from $245,047 to $551,612. All those positions are

not yet filled, but they revolve around what has already been

announced, the appointment of a deputy minister. Even with these new,

very important appointments — I think not a person here would disagree

that after four years' experience this additional staffing and

expertise will be good for British Columbia — the Premier's office is

very, very inexpensive compared to neighbouring Alberta, Manitoba,

Saskatchewan, or any other province.

AN HON. MEMBER: The lowest in Canada.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Yes, the lowest in Canada by the figures provided to me, using our

estimates and those they picked out of the estimates of the other

provinces. So I'm willing to defend it. I know the Leader of the

Opposition, who touched on it in his remarks, having had the office,

would probably recognize the need for more staff at a time when

government, not to grow bigger, needs to have the type of

administration and information at the top that can prevent the growth

of government for government's sake, that can make sure we concentrate

and have the coordination among ministries so we don't have the type of

overlap that was there when we became government. That's what we found,

and that's why we needed an Intergovernmental Relations ministry. We

didn't put it in lightly; it wasn't brought in because it was some

attack on the old government. We brought it in because the need was

there — there was chaos.

We looked at all the other

governments — Ontario and Alberta — and we looked at the way their

governments actually functioned. We found out British Columbia was

unique at that time in its lack of coordination. I think, perhaps,

there was no ability to lead and no understanding in that government.

You couldn't just get in there and start doing things willy-nilly. The

public service grew and programs were overlapping. Things were being

done which seemed to be policy matters like, specifically, an

exploration permit for uranium mining, which they now try to say was a

clerical error. I think I heard that excuse somewhere before.

Mr.

Chairman, it is very important that we have that type of coordination.

Intergovernmental relations is now a full ministry. It's important,

because it's been expanded again into the type of coordination that not

only ministries need, but to the contact we have with other

It's very important now that that contact be as effective as possible.

I'd

like to touch on one of the areas we've talked about that I think is

important. We should be debating or discussing it. Maybe it isn't even

a debate; maybe we should be encouraging each other about the future of

the country. It's a subject we tried to introduce earlier in the debate

and in the estimates, and it's the type of thing, I think, that comes

under the Premier's office. I think we need the best representation we

have. We need the type of solid support to discuss with our

counterparts and the rest of Canada just where the country's going at a

time when they say the west needs more effective representation. Well,

I think we do. I think we need the contact. If it's not in the

government in power, we need it government to government.

need a structure, and we've talked about constitution. If you mention

the word "constitution" everybody's eyes glaze over, but it's simple

reading. It's just the rules and ways in which the country is

administered. Recognizing the uniqueness of the country, our wish to

have a federal system, the ways in which we stop the overlap on the

tension and the fighting and the way we remove those tensions, we

should reaffirm ourselves to those things that the provinces do best.

Let them recognize their historic rights, and give them the ownership

of their resources in their areas to develop. That is very important.

We should be discussing that.

I understand that the New

Democratic Party, legitimately in their concern, don't agree with us

there. They believe that the resources, particularly, as I understand,

natural gas, can be best if turned over to the federal government and

used in whatever interest they may decide. But we disagree with that.

We say that those resources belong to the province. We will not turn

them over to the federal government. It's those sorts of things people

fight for, not just in the political sense, but fight to retain. We

fought to retain things in this world. In this country we'll fight to

retain those things that properly belong in the realm of British

Columbia and the provinces. We won't support — in fact, we'll violently

oppose — any political system, political party or politician that would

give it away. We will oppose just as vigorously any government, federal

or otherwise, that tries to come and take it away from the people of

British Columbia. We try in this debate to put that clearly on the

record.

[ Page 1927 ]

Does

the New Democratic Party wish to put on the record the last policy they

announced, that of turning over, starting with natural gas, the energy

resources to the federal government? Are they going to do that? Is that

still their policy? Because the people should know. You know, it's been

stated many times. They deny the Waffle Manifesto as stated there, but

then it has been their policy when they were government. We opposed it.

We think these things should be discussed and we would like to go down

— in fact, we're going to go down with or without the support of the

New Democratic Party, because I doubt, then, with that division....

We're prepared to go down and take a strong stand — the strong stand

being for the country and emphasizing that a strong country must

recognize its roots and those things that belong to the province and

recognize that it doesn't weaken the country to have a strong British

Columbia. We'll only have a weak Canada if they have foolish policies

and make moves that would weaken British Columbia. Because a strong

British Columbia means a strong Canada. If they weaken British Columbia

they can destroy one of the most optimistic parts of the growing

financial future and also an area of population development that this

country can look forward to. Not all parts of the country share the

same bright future. Some of them are part of our history. Some of them

have a future not as buoyant, but they're still part of our country. We

can devise and improve on what we have, respecting the traditional

rights.

Mr. Chairman, I think these things should be put on

the record. The opposition may wish to continue — they make think

they're being very clever — with what I view as a silly attack, if they

call it an attack, or a silly presentation. But I've dealt with it and

I think all members should be aware of it. I've dealt with it in my

remarks this afternoon and I think they will have full opportunity

during the coming months, in estimates, to deal with a number of areas.

I'm prepared at that time to get up in any of those estimates and

support the policies, decisions and programs of this government. And