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 24, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2077 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 14). Hon. Mr. Nielsen.

Introduction and first reading –– 2077

Oral Questions.

Interest rates. Mr. Howard –– 2077

Allegations against member for Central Fraser Valley. Mr. Macdonald –– 2078

Cable television merger. Mr. Mitchell –– 2079

B.C. Tel rate increase application. Mr. Lauk –– 2079

"Dirty tricks." Mr. Leggatt –– 2079

Administration of Justice. Hon. Mr. Williams replies –– 2079

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office estimates.

On vote 9.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2080

Mr. King –– 2080

Mr. Mitchell –– 2083

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2085

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 2090

Mr. Leggatt –– 2093

Mr. Barber –– 2094

Division on the motion that the Chairman leave the chair –– 2094

Mr. Barber –– 2094

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2098

Mr. Levi –– 2101

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2101

Assessment Appeal Board of British Columbia report for the calendar year 1979.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2101

An Act to Amend the Royal Canadian Legion Act (Bill PR404). Mr. Davis.

Introduction and first reading –– 2101

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. LEGGATT:

It's my pleasure to welcome to British Columbia a young man who is

seated on the floor of our Legislature today. He is the financial

critic for the New Democratic Party and represents the riding of

Broadview-Greenwood. Incidentally, this young man was named as one of

the ten most eligible bachelors by Weekend magazine and was married the

day after. His wife happens to be in the gallery. This is Mr. Robert

Rae, Member of Parliament.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: In the

gallery today are two gentlemen from Port Alberni, who are members of

the executive of the Social Credit Party there. Would the House please

welcome Joe Van Bergen and Charlie Haggard.

MR. BARRETT:

MR. Speaker, I have two introductions to make. The first is of two

colleagues of ours — former members of this House. I only see one in

the gallery right now, but I would ask the House to welcome two great

veterans in this Legislature, Leo Nimsick and Bill Hartley. Also in the

gallery today we have two long-time friends of the New Democratic

Party, Lloyd Ellis and Knut Norjberg, and I would ask the House to

welcome them.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like

the House to join me in welcoming a former member of this House and a

former minister of the Crown, Mr. Sam Bawlf.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I would ask the House to welcome two great British Columbians and

family friends over the years, Elizabeth Bell and Doris Andrew, both of

Vancouver.

MS. BROWN: Seated in the gallery today are

a group of students from McPherson Park Junior Secondary School

accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Kennedy. Would the House join me in

bidding them welcome.

MR. SKELLY: As the member for

Alberni, I too would like to welcome Mr. Van Bergen and Mr. Haggard to

Victoria. I'd also like to have the House welcome Bram Goldwater, who

is the husband of one of our caucus researchers, to the Legislature.

MR. LAUK: From Vancouver's Italian community visiting the gallery today, I would ask the House to welcome Mr. Elio Quattrochi.

For

the information of the gallery, the seats that are presently unoccupied

on the treasury benches are for the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Williams) and the....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK:

I was hoping to facilitate their entry into the chamber and their

settling back to await question period, which is only 15 minutes long,

as Mr. Speaker knows. Some of the members of the cabinet aren't here to

receive....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the member to take his seat, please.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I wasn't planning on asking a question of the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) at this stage.

Introduction of Bills

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

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

a bill intituled Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 1980.

Bill

14, 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

INTEREST RATES

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.

In view of the fact that the government's proposal with respect to

appointments to the Bank of Canada has not yet been accepted by the

federal government, and in view of the concern about high interest

rates and the consequential damage to our economy arising therefrom,

can the minister inform the House what steps he has taken to have

someone from B.C. appointed to the board of directors of the Bank of

Canada, even as an interim measure, pending formal acceptance of the

government's constitutional proposals?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. The government

of British Columbia has undertaken a number of steps with respect to

high interest rates, which are of concern to everyone in British

Columbia and, indeed, all Canadians.

I am pleased to report

on the fact that the question was discussed at length at the Western

Premiers' Conference. There was a very strong feeling of unanimity on

the part of the four Premiers in attendance and their respective

ministers who have some involvement. The member knows there is

representation from British Columbia on the board of governors of the

Bank of Canada. I have drawn the problem of high interest rates

directly to the attention of the Minister of Finance, which I believe

is the correct approach for a provincial Minister of Finance to take.

If I can assist the member further I'll be happy to do so.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the presence on the board of directors of

a Mr. D.M. Goldie from British Columbia, could the minister advise

whether he, his predecessor or anyone in his ministry made any

vacancy that was created by the death of the late Mr. Walton, as to

whom should replace Mr. Walton?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr.

Speaker, I have not made any representation. I am not aware of whether,

in fact, my predecessor in this portfolio did. However, I think the

ques-

[ Page 2078 ]

tion

is framed in a very narrow sense by the member opposite because

although representation on the board of governors of the Bank of Canada

may well be a useful step to take, the question is much broader and far

more serious than — I'm sure the member would agree — just to deal with

the question of representation on the board of governors. With respect

to the Bank of Canada itself, the problem is to be found in the offices

of the federal government. Again, I tell the member that that was dealt

with at great length by four Premiers and their respective ministers in

Lethbridge. A communiqué was issued, and the member would be heartened,

I'm sure, to know that the Premier of Saskatchewan and the ministers of

Saskatchewan who were present there shared British Columbia's point of

view on many parts of the communiqué and the topic with respect to

interest rates and the situation which Canada faces at the present time.

Beyond

that I don't believe that I can assist the member more. But during the

course of my estimates, when they are presented in August or September

or October — sometime this calendar year, I trust — I would be happy to

discuss the matter further with the hon. member and to express my views

with respect to interest rates. I think that the other point which

should be made, and it is perhaps more specifically directed to the

member's question, is the fact that, regrettably, the governor of the

Bank of Canada was either unable or unwilling to attend the Western

Premiers' Conference just concluded in Lethbridge. Our Premier followed

up with a request for reconsideration, and that request was also

denied. That would have been an ideal starting point for the discussion

and review of the kind of problem which the member has identified for

the House today.

MR. HOWARD: It's precisely because

of the broad impact of the Bank of Canada that questions are being

posed. They're not posed in any narrow sense, even though they may have

related to one individual.

Would the minister commit himself

to examine activities within his department before he became minister

to see whether anybody in his department — or his predecessor in office

— made any specific representations with respect to membership on the

board of directors of the Bank of Canada from British Columbia?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I sense that that is a request for me to reply to the member at some time in the future. I take the question as notice.

MR. LEGGATT: My supplementary is again to the Minister of Finance.

The

Minister of Finance has indicated to the House that he was aware that

Mr. D.M. Goldie was appointed to the board of governors — quite

recently, as a matter of fact. The two terms of office have

corresponded. Can the minister advise the House whether or not he has

put forth to Mr. D. M. Goldie the policy of the government of British

Columbia with respect to the Bank of Canada's management of interest

rates? Can he confirm that he, in fact, has put that policy before

B.C.'s representative on that board of governors?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member — no, I have not. Because, as I

indicated a few moments ago in response to the question from the hon.

member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), I saw it — as I believe it would be

seen by any Minister of Finance in any province — as more appropriate

to communicate directly with the federal Minister of Finance, Mr.

MacEachen, to outline at some length the concern which we have in

British Columbia, which we know is not unique to British Columbia, with

respect to interest rates.

I think that it should also be

seen in the context, Mr. Speaker, of the fact that there was this hope

— a very real hope at the time — that indeed the governor of the Bank

of Canada would be available for discussion with the four Premiers of

British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I can't give the

member the precise date of my Telex to Mr. MacEachen, but when you see

the context of the expectation, or at least the hope, that the federal

Minister of Finance would respond to my telegram and that the governor

of the Bank of Canada would be present for those discussions, it did

not appear necessary to take further action with respect to a single

member of the board of governors of the Bank of Canada.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MEMBER FOR CENTRAL

FRASER VALLEY

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a

question for the Attorney-General. In view of the statement on April 8

of Staff Sergeant Rosebury of the RCMP, can the Attorney-General advise

the House whether or not he is aware that the investigation relating to

the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) is still continuing?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, I could respond to the question more directly if the

member would please inform me what statement the staff sergeant has

made.

MR. MACDONALD: A supplementary. The staff

sergeant is reported to have made the statement that the investigation

into the allegations against Ritchie....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Don't you want to hear it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you quoting?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I'm quoting a statement that the investigation into the allegations against Mr. Ritchie is not concluded.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I thought the Attorney-General wanted me to tell him what the staff sergeant said. Now you're objecting to me saying it.

Will the Attorney-Gencral now confirm that the investigation is continuing?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I saw the newspaper

article to which the second member for Vancouver

East has referred. He is quoting the article, not the staff sergeant.

MR. MACDONALD: That's very bad, to answer "quoting the newspaper. " It gives the Attorney-General a nice little out, doesn't it?

My second question is: can the Attorney-General confirm that there is another affidavit — not that of Henry Friesen —

[ Page 2079 ]

which is also related to the conduct of the said member, and which is now under investigation by his department?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I have no knowledge of such further affidavit, Mr. Speaker.

CABLE TELEVISION MERGER

MR. MITCHELL:

My question is to the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications. On April 10 the minister advised the House that his

government will not intervene in the Canadian Cablesystems takeover or

merger with Premier Cablevision. Has the minister received any

representation from a director or persons associated with Rogers Cable

Communications Ltd., Premier Cablevision or Canadian Cablesystems?

HON. MR. McGEER:

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have had two meetings with representatives of

Premier Cablevision and of Canadian Cablesystems. These two companies

have presented to the ministry the complete proposal which will be

presented to the CRTC, and officials of my ministry have had an

opportunity to give me advice with respect to the details of that

submission.

MR. MITCHELL: Could the minister advise the House when these meetings took place?

HON. MR. McGEER:

I'd have to look up my log, Mr. Speaker. I'd be happy to take that

question as notice, but in a general way. The details of their proposal

would have been given to the ministry perhaps a month ago.

MR. MITCHELL: Has the minister had any discussions with the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) on the question of this merger?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Speaker. I've had discussions with the principals concerned.

MR. MITCHELL:

Is the minister aware that the second member for Vancouver South is a

director of Canadian Cablesystems and holds shares in Premier

Cablevision?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Speaker, but it wouldn't make any difference whether he did or didn't.

B.C. TEL RATE INCREASE APPLICATION

MR. LAUK:

I have a new question for the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications — the man in charge of the longest exhaust pipe in

history. Now that the date for intervention with the CRTC by the

government of British Columbia to oppose the B.C. Telephone Company's

application for a rate increase has passed, could the minister state

the reasons for the government's lack of intervention?

HON. MR. McGEER: It may be that the government will intervene.

MR. LAUK: Is it possible, now that the date for notice of intervention has passed, that the government will be allowed to intervene?

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

MR. MITCHELL:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to add one more supplementary. Now that the

minister may intervene in the telephone matter, would he file

intervention in the cablevision takeover?

HON. MR. McGEER: I'll take that question under consideration.

MR. MITCHELL: I have one further supplementary. The intervention has to be in by Wednesday, April 30 of this year.

HON. MR. McGEER: I thank the member for that information, Mr. Speaker.

"DIRTY TRICKS"

MR. LEGGATT: My

question is directed to the Premier. It was reported last week that an

executive member of the Social Credit Party had written a letter to the

Premier shortly after — I understand it was just a few days after — the

Bayshore Inn conference during which certain dirty tricks were

apparently recommended by Social Credit staff. Could the Premier

confirm that such a letter was received by his office?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I can't comment on any letters alleged to have been sent which were not received.

MR. HYNDMAN:

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

in question period. I own shares in neither Canadian Cablesystems Ltd.

nor Premier Cablevision Ltd.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, last month I took some questions on notice, and I would ask leave to respond.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

On March 10, 1980, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald)

asked: "Did the RCMP report on this matter either recommend or" — it's

in two parts — "set out grounds whereby it could be concluded

that there was an infraction of law that should be dealt with or

proceeded with?" It deals with the hon. member for Central Fraser

Valley (Mr. Ritchie). The answer to the first

part is yes, and the

answer to the second

part is no.

A question on March 12: "In

terms of the allegations surrounding the hon. member for Central Fraser

Valley, the RCMP were requested to make a report. Were they requested

by an official of the Attorney-General's office to make such a report —

by the Attorney-General or his predecessor?" The answer is that

Assistant Deputy Attorney- General Neil McDiarmid requested the RCMP to

conduct an investigation.

On March 20 there was a question

from the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk): "Did John

Hall take statements from Bruce Donald, Brian Weddell, or Dick Vogel,

or all three?" The answer is no.

[ Page 2080 ]

March 24 there was a question from the second member for Vancouver

East: "Would the Attorney-General then check as to whether, following

that statement of the Deputy Attorney-General, he at any time indicated

that if somebody else issued a subpoena he would see that it was

withdrawn or cancelled or something of that kind?" The answer is no.

March 27 there was a question from the second member for Vancouver

East: "Has anyone in the RCMP contacted the hon. Attorney-General or

someone in his department asking that the RCMP report and the evidence

therein referred to be revealed by independent counsel? This would be

following December 18, after the decision had been announced." The

answer is no.

On April 2 there was a question from the

second member for Vancouver East: "I have a question to the

Attorney-General relating to one of his internal investigations. I ask

the Attorney-General whether he, his officials or Mr. John Hall

received any evidence whatsoever about Mr. Brian Weddell complaining

about interference on the part of the Deputy Attorney-General in the

conduct of the Michael Moran case." The answer is no.

On the

same day, the same member asked: "Did the Attorney-General or his

officials receive a letter from a Crown counsel of the province of

British Columbia complaining about such interference and setting it

out?" The answer is no.

MR. LEGGATT: On a point of

order, Mr. Speaker, under the normal business for Thursday, public

bills in the hands of private members are called for debate. I

understand this may not be the case today. What I am asking is leave of

the House to go to public bills in the hands of private members and to

call the bill in my name. This would call for television of the

proceedings, since I listened very carefully to the Minister of

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

televising of the House. I thought perhaps we could have unanimous

consent to call that particular bill and we'll get on to televising the

proceedings.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. There is a precedence motion, hon. member, and that is....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: He's asking for leave.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave has been asked for. Shall leave be granted?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hear several noes, hon. member. Leave is not granted.

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member formerly from

Ottawa is fully aware of a precedence motion. I would also like to

assure members of the official opposition and certain members on the

government side that we have every intention of calling private

member's day, as the former government did not do.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

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

HON. MR. BENNETT:

First of all, Mr. Chairman, although he needs no introduction, I would

like to introduce to the House a deputy minister in the Premier's

office, Mr. Lawrie Wallace, who will be sitting in here providing

information and helping with the answers in my estimates. I would hope

the members would welcome him, particularly as this is Mr. Wallace's

birthday. I also state, Mr. Chairman, that some questions may come up

on the Western Premiers' Conference which was recently concluded in

Lethbridge. A number of major statements have been agreed to and made

by the four western Premiers, and I will be asking for leave to table

communiqués 1 through 9 when we get out of committee.

MR. KING:

I want to congratulate the Premier first of all on the appointment of

his new deputy. Lawrie Wallace has served a number of governments in

the province's political arena for many, many years. He's been a

dedicated public servant. We on this side of the House congratulate him

on his appointment and welcome him home.

I was intrigued by

the Premier's few comments when he indicated on introducing his deputy

that he might now have some help in answering questions pertaining to

his office. That started to develop great expectations within my breast

because we have been here for almost a month, it seems, considering the

Premier's estimates, and the opposition has been singularly

unsuccessful in eliciting any direct responses from the Premier.

Perhaps now he feels somewhat more confident when he has a

well-experienced, well-respected public servant to assist him. I hope

that that's reflected in the candour with which he addresses himself to

legitimate questions put to him by the opposition.

I would

like to get back to where we left off prior to the Premier's hasty

departure for Alberta to meet with the other western Premiers. I'd like

to refresh his memory respecting the questions that the opposition

would very respectfully like answered. I want to zero in particularly

on the meeting that was held in the Premier's office to discuss the

jetfoil operation to Seattle as some kind of a replacement for the

torpedoing of the Princess Marguerite.

I think the Premier

is aware that we in the province of British Columbia have a real crisis

in terms of unemployment. That's manifested particularly throughout the

forest industry today, because of high interest rates and a number of

other economic factors — some lethargy on the part of this government,

I believe. I think it's perfectly valid to ask the Premier, who

attended that meeting in his office, what kind of commitments were

made, in terms of taxpayers' money, to a group of businessmen to

operate this jetfoil, which we have subsequently learned is to be

manned entirely by American crew members. For the life of me, I cannot

understand the Premier's reticence about these questions. It involves

the expenditure of public funds, and I don't think it's impertinent for

the opposition to seek candid answers to questions regarding the

expenditure of taxpayers' money. Indeed, I think

[ Page 2081 ]

that's

our obligation and our responsibility in this chamber of debate. So

given the fact that the unemployment situation in the province is

becoming more bleak every day, given the fact that the Premier has had

a bit of a holiday in Alberta....

Interjections.

MR. KING:

I'm sorry. I apologize to the Premier, Mr. Chairman. I never meant that

in a derogatory way. I meant a holiday from this institution. I

appreciate and acknowledge that he was down there working on behalf of

the province. Nevertheless he had a bit of a respite from this

institution; that was my point. Now that he's had a chance to stand

back from the Legislature a while and have a look at it and has

retained a new deputy minister, I wonder if he would consider answering

those questions and briefing the House fully on who attended that

meeting in his office, what commitments were made in terms of public

money, what contracts were entered into and on what basis it was

decided that this new jetfoil marine passenger service would be manned

entirely by crews from the United States of America rather than by

workers from the province of British Columbia, whose taxpayers are

funding that particular service. I would appreciate it very much if the

Premier would respond now.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr.

Chairman, once again I must point out that questions relating to

transportation should be brought up during the estimates of the

Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). Also, any

suggestion of private sector or society-operated transportation having

received financial backing from the British Columbia Development

Corporation should be brought up in the estimates of the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips).

is difficult for me to comment on employment practices by either

societies or the private sector, but I can say that those

transportation systems operated under the government of British

Columbia do employ Canadian and British Columbian crews.

MR. KING:

I appreciate the Premier's advice, and I acknowledge that under normal

circumstances the particular area I am discussing would be within the

jurisdiction of the Minister of Transportation and Highways, I believe.

But the facts of the matter are, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier himself

convened a meeting in his office. He convened the meeting and in that

way, as president of the executive council and chief executive officer

of the government of the province, accepted and undertook the

responsibility for any agreement made at that meeting. That being the

case, I presume that since the Premier convened the meeting he had

control over who attended it. I presume that the Premier designated

which of his cabinet colleagues would be in attendance. I have to

presume that he indeed invited some select people from the business

community — I don't know on what basis, but I would appreciate learning

that from the Premier.

He undertook the responsibility. The

meeting was held under his auspices anyway, Mr. Chairman, and I can't

for the life of me understand his reluctance to provide the House with

a lucid, candid statement. That's all we're asking. We have a

legitimate right to know, on behalf of the people of the province of

British Columbia. Surely the Premier, if he convened the meeting, was

the senior minister in attendance, and therefore he must have

controlled the commitments that the province of British Columbia was

prepared to make in terms of financial guarantees or contracts

involving public money. He must have been in charge and responsible for

the mechanics of those agreements and contracts in terms of who would

be employed, the duration of the contract and who would be the supplier

of the hardware. All I ask from the Premier is that he tell the House

what went on at that meeting, how he decided who should be invited, and

whether it was his initiative or whether it came from the business

community. How much public money was expended and guaranteed, either on

a contractual basis or on some verbal guarantee or on whatever basis it

was made upon?

Mr. Chairman, that is public money. Once

again I have to appeal to the Premier and say that we, in all good

conscience and in all humility, have a right to know the answers to

these questions. If we have to be put off by the Premier in the hope

that the Minister of Transportation and Highways would be prepared or

authorized to answer these questions, that places the opposition in a

dilemma. Surely if the Premier was responsible for the conduct of that

meeting it does not fall to an underling in the cabinet to reveal the

precise terms of contracts that were entered into under the auspices of

the Premier. I don't think that it's good enough for the Premier to

suggest that we put aside our questioning until some vague point down

the road where the Minister of Transportation and Highways may well

tell us — and he may be justified, I don't know — "Look, I wasn't

responsible for the agreement. The Premier undertook that

responsibility. He convened the meeting. He was the one authorized to

allocate public funds, not I." So we ask the Premier's cooperation in

levelling with the House and in being honest, forthright and open.

would commend to the Premier the remarks of his colleague the Minister

of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who made some statements

last weekend when the Premier had left the province and was in

Lethbridge. I want to identify with the observations of the hon.

Minister of Municipal Affairs. He said: "The Premier doesn't run the

kind of government I would run; he's not open enough." His own cabinet

colleague said, "I wish the Premier would run a more open style of

government," or words to that effect. He indicated that he felt it

would be useful; the House would function better and the Premier's

credibility might be improved if he ran a more open style of

government. I don't know whether there is any significance to the fact

that the minister waited until the Premier was out of the province to

make those remarks but I certainly agree with them.

I see

the Minister of Municipal Affairs now has a visitor. He too commented

last weekend on the poor credibility of his leader, the Premier. He

also commented on the credibility of some of the aspirants for that

leadership position over there. I suppose the member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) has some credentials in terms of making

those judgments — I don't know. Nevertheless, it made the news, Mr.

Chairman, and I have to say to you, when members of the Premier's own

benches start to comment on his lack of credibility....

The

Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

put it in very euphemistic terms: "The Premier is rather stiff — he

doesn't shine in debate." Well, that may be the minister's view. I'm

not sure about that. I'm not asking the Premier to get up and shine in

debate. I'm not asking him to relax and be a bit less stiff, as his

[ Page 2082 ]

colleague

feels he should. I wouldn't demand that of the Premier. All the

opposition is demanding is some forthrightness, some candour, some

openness, some accountability to the people of British Columbia. That's

not unreasonable, is it, Mr. Premier? We haven't said the kind of harsh

things that your own colleagues have said about you. We don't want your

colleagues attacking you, Mr. Premier. Head them off at the pass, be a

bit more open, a bit more candid, a little less stiff. Get up and

answer the questions, Mr. Premier, which the opposition has put to you

in very legitimate fashion.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr.

Chairman, first of all, through you, I want to remind the members

opposite that we have a very, very capable Minister of Transportation

and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). That minister can be fully accountable,

both for transportation development within the government system and

for those areas that may belong in part of the private sector, whether

a non-profit society or profit-oriented, as long as they are

service-oriented. I know that minister will be able to provide the type

of accountability.... should such answers be required. It's not always

possible to give the answers to some of the questions that are asked,

but I do know that minister has shown great leadership in dealing with

transportation matters in this province. I know that his record, not

only to do with transportation which involves water, ships and ferries,

is unsurpassed. I also know that he has brought a new level of

excitement and competence to a ministry which apparently did not have a

high priority in relationship to highways — new highway construction

and highway maintenance. You only have to travel through the province

to recognize the great job this minister is doing.

It may be

that the opposition members don't want to open up areas on the floor of

this Legislature where his accomplishments make their efforts as

government pale by comparison. But this minister is going to be on the

floor of this Legislature and he will have a chance to speak about

transportation accomplishments, and such legitimate questions as can be

responded to can be answered then. I have provided as much information

on transportation matters.... I leave the glowing successes to the

Minister of Transportation and Highways, who is eagerly awaiting his

opportunity to deal not only with those questions of the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), but also to do a little bragging about

the accomplishments of his ministry and himself as minister. He has not

only rationalized the transportation system but has brought some hope

and some feeling of belonging to those communities that were neglected

during the earlier administration because they did not have adequate,

proper or acceptable access. I know he is eager to get on with his

estimates and he will provide those answers then.

MR. KING:

Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm inclined to agree with the Premier that the

Minister of Transportation and Communications is a rather lovable old

individual. I'm sure we all love him. In terms of just how effective he

is, we intend to fully explore that when his estimates are before the

House, as is our responsibility. We'll be exploring his policies at

that time. Certainly I have questions to put to him. But the Premier

begs the question all the time: he dodges and he darts, and he just

indulges in all kinds of gyrations to get out of answering direct

questions. That's becoming a trait that worries me a great deal. I

think some of his ministers are starting to catch the disease. They all

snake around from side to side — anything to avoid answering direct

questions. That's hardly accountable; that's hardly full respect for

the process we're indulging in, which is to elicit information from the

government, and to make them justify their policies and their

expenditures of public funds. That's why there's an opposition in the

British parliamentary system of government.

When the

government stonewalls and refuses to recognize legitimate questions put

to them by the people's representatives in the opposition, they deny

the historic role of parliament, which is accountability. The Premier,

by setting the bad example that he is doing, is setting the benchmark

for the rest of his cabinet colleagues. I have little faith that if

they pay heed to him they are going to be any more accountable or

willing to answer questions when their estimates come before the House.

That's very unfortunate. It's a matter of concern to the public all

over British Columbia. Therein lies the problem with the Premier's

credibility, as outlined by his colleagues so eloquently.

agree with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm):

it's time to be more open and less reticent in terms of answering

questions, even if you get into a little bit of trouble with your

answers. We may disagree with your answers, but we would respect the

Premier's forthrightness if he would get up and answer questions

directly. The whole crux of the matter is that we want one question

answered so that we might get at this issue of that meeting in his

office. Did the Premier convene that meeting? Did he convene and call

that meeting himself? Perhaps he would answer that simple question

directly and then, by the nature of his reply, we can determine whether

it would be more appropriate to deal with these matters of the jetfoil

under the other minister's estimates. But so far we've failed to elicit

one direct answer from the Premier. So can he now answer that simple,

brief, concise, cogent question? Did the Premier convene that meeting

in his office, or in the parliamentary precinct, with a group of

businessmen to discuss the initiation of a jetfoil service between the

city of Victoria and the city of Seattle?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke may not like some of the answers; I

may not like some of the questions. But we have provided the

opportunity for full accountability in the Legislature for any of the

actions of this government, or actions of government agencies, through

the appropriate ministries. The type of questioning may not provide the

type of answers the people want, but I believe that the Minister of

Transportation and Highways and the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development will be able to provide the type of accountability

if the questions are put to them when their estimates are before the

House.

The member may pose rhetorical questions or a lot of

questions, but I think the people would want to have the Minister of

Transportation and Highways talk about the transportation system in

this province, and he will. However, I have given what answers I can

give, and I can advise the member that no information will be kept from

the public of the province of British Columbia on the actions we've

taken. We'll be accountable for those transportation systems and all

other policies of the government. The appropriate ministers will deal

with them during their estimates.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, the question I asked

[ Page 2083 ]

was:

did the Premier convene the meeting I referred to? I want to ask how

many people in the House — how many people in the gallery — understood

the Premier's answer to that simple question.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. member, it seems to be a growing trend to refer to

the galleries, and it is strictly and totally out of order so to do. I

would advise all members that this is the case.

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, I didn't know it was out of order to refer to the

gallery. They are people. They happen to be taxpayers in the province

of British Columbia that pay the bills for the government and all

members of this House. Now I was not inviting any involvement by the

gallery, Mr. Chairman, which I believe would be out of order; I was

simply posing a rhetorical question. That kind of reference, I

respectfully submit, is not out of order.

Anyway, I appreciate the Chair's advice.

I ask my colleague, the leader of my party: did you understand the Premier's answer?

MR. BARRETT: No.

MR. KING: Do you think the Premier is being open and frank with this House?

MR. BARRETT: No.

MR. KING:

Well, how about that? There is a nonpartisan answer, Mr. Chairman. That

is honesty. I want the Premier to pay heed and recognize that. Perhaps

now I should ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs whether he feels the

Premier is open enough. Is that the style of government you would run,

Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs? Or were you misquoted by the Vancouver Sun as well?

Mr. Chairman, the Premier gets up and says: "Well, maybe it's not

the kind of answer the member wants." Well, Mr. Premier, the fact of the

matter is that there was no answer at all. You didn't answer the question;

you dived, ducked, bobbed and weaved. You might even be a good man in the ring,

because you can sure get out of the way of questions. You're quite a fancy

dancer.

All

I want is a simple answer. Was it you that convened that meeting? To

get up and ramble on about what a wonderful, cuddly, little guy good

old Alex is begs the question. We know how cuddly and lovable that

minister is, and we'll be dealing with him in due course, Mr. Chairman.

But if only the Premier could be forthright and honest enough to say

yes or no; either he convened the meeting or he did not. He's the chief

of the whole government in the province of British Columbia — the

number one executive officer — and he sits there in stunned silence

regarding this very easy question. If he can't address himself to a

simple question like that, my goodness, how does he deal with the more

complex questions of government? I fear for the province of British

Columbia.

All kidding aside, the real issue here is one of

accountability. That's why the Legislature is convened. That's why 57

members are elected — to come down here and do the people's business,

to ask questions, to elicit information, to understand government

policy, and for the opposition to criticize it and offer alternatives.

We clash in most policy discussions, and that's fine; but for the

government, and particularly the Premier, to introduce a tactic of

completely stonewalling for weeks on end regarding the most simple

questions about the conduct of his office is a new approach and, I

submit, a rather dangerous one. It's a threat to the traditional role

of parliament. It's a denial of the taxpayers' right to know the

questions underlying policies related to the expenditure of their tax

dollars.

The government over there is fond of clichés. How

often have you heard Social Credit speakers say: "The government

doesn't have any money of its own; it's all the taxpayers' money"?

Well, that's true. The government does not earn any money per se; they

gain their revenue from taxation of individuals and resources. If they

believe that those clichés which they mouth are valid and true, then

why are they afraid to respond and justify their expenditure of the

taxpayers' money? That's the question.

As I indicated

before, I'm more patient with the Premier than his own colleagues are.

I would like him to answer very much, but if he insists on

stonewalling, then I guess I can be as patient as the next man. I

suppose I'm more patient than the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who

says the Premier should be more open. I guess I'm more patient than the

Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer),

who says the Premier is stiff and does not shine and sparkle in debate.

I don't make those demands on him. I think I'm more patient than the

other guy down the benches there, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Mair). He says: "Well, I stick with the Premier. In fact, sometimes

when the Premier is speaking I pound my bench so hard, but that's to

overcompensate and let everyone know that I think his credibility is

okay." The Minister of Health must be the greatest overcompensater in

this whole House. I don't know whether he believes it or not.

But

seriously, Mr. Chairman, when the government's own backbenchers and

executive ranks start calling into question the Premier's credibility —

the Premier's unwillingness to answer rudimentary questions in debate —

then I think it's time for the Premier to reassess his position and be

less rigid and less stubborn and to get up and answer the questions as

well and honestly as he can; not to dodge the questions. Either he

convened the meeting or he did not. If he tells me one way or the other

I'll be completely satisfied. I don't think that's an unreasonable

proposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is the Premier not going to answer?

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I was just waiting to see if the Premier wished to rise again.

one of the newer members of this House I feel that when we rise to

participate in the debate on the Premier's estimates. the main job of

the opposition members is to establish within this House the

credibility of the government to give answers that we, the members of

the opposition, can accept. I think that when the questions that have

been pointed out or brought to the Premier's attention — questions

conceming the meeting of the jetfoil committee in his office, or who

put their signatures to the campaign funds that came out of the

Premier's office.... These are answers that only the Premier can give.

You can look down at the various members of the cabinet who sit here in

stony silence, but the Premier is the only one who can tell us who the

signing officers for the campaign funds from his office were.

I know that vou ruled me out of order when I asked that a committee be set up to study the quality of justice in B.C.,

[ Page 2084 ]

but

these are important questions that the public is interested in. The

public out there — and I wouldn't go against your ruling and refer to

those who sit in the galleries — the grass roots of B.C., demands

answers to these important questions. The firing of the research staff

of the Social Credit government.... We can't sit here, Mr. Chairman,

and ask the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) why he took certain actions,

but the Premier, the leader of this government, must rise and answer

direct straightforward questions that you have ruled as being proper

and legal and part of the parliamentary system. We listen to you. We

follow every piece of advice that you give, and when you rule something

is proper and just, I feel that we are on sound ground and I feel that

democracy is on the right track.

I think it was at the

beginning of the Premier's estimates that we asked: did the government

attempt to sell uranium in Europe or in Korea? These are straight

questions. I think the Premier has an obligation to answer them. And

why I ask that is because we — and I know I myself, as a member from

this wonderful province — have many questions that we want to ask the

Premier. I want to question the Premier about youth unemployment in

this province. I want to ask the Premier what type of leadership we are

going to have in developing industry to create employment for the youth

of this province. These are the questions we want to ask and have

answered. But before we can get up and ask these questions, we have to

establish — and I think the Premier has an obligation to establish —

the credibility of his office. I found that when the Premier stood in

this House the other day and he stated, either naively or with

sincerity.... Or was he stonewalling or trying to confuse the issue

when someone asked about the source of campaign funds that came out of

his office? The Premier of this province stated that he never asks for

nor requests the source of his political funds. I repeat that, Mr.

Speaker: he never asks for nor requests the source of his political

funds.

I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that prior to coming

into this House, I was involved in the criminal justice system as a

police officer, and I know the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) has

many, many files in his records where there have been investigations in

many police departments — Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal,

Detroit, New York — where police officers had been before a committee

and they had been asked: how come you could deposit or why were there

deposits of such sums as $25,000 or $50,000 into your accounts? When

money that could not be explained came into the hands of police

officers — they could be constables, NCOs, inspectors or chiefs — when

this money that could not be explained from normal sources arrived in

bank accounts and there was a rise in bank accounts, those officers, on

examination — very much like we are here — stated that they did not

look to the sources of those funds.

I know that the Attorney-General would assure you that no judge would accept

that bland, stonewalling answer. If money is changing hands, it is because people

expect service. When police officers accept money — and in that area there is

a lot of crime and prostitution — people look at the police officers and they

doubt their credibility. When the Premier of this province accepts money and

states that he never asks for the source of these funds, I cannot accept that.

I cannot accept that there is one standard for one

section of society and another

standard for another — because they sit to your right. I know that the majority

of the public of British Columbia, the grassroots organizations of my party

and the Social Credit Party, demand these answers. I say seriously that we are

drifting away from those grass roots.

think it's important that we establish this credibility. I think that

credibility of leadership must come from the government. I think that

the credibility of the explanations given by the government must be

above board. As the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) said,

there are many answers we may not be happy with and there are answers

that we will not support, but the answers have to be given. If the

Premier of the province of British Columbia will not stand up and make

these answers, if he is going to look to his back bench or his cabinet

members and say, "Well, when we get to their estimates, then they will

answer," we cannot accept that. This credibility will not be

established until we get an overall picture of what has taken place in

British Columbia.

This afternoon the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis) said in an offhand manner that when we get around to

his estimates in July, September, October, or sometime this calendar

year.... If we must go that long to get the answers we need, he should

amend that from calendar year to fiscal year. If we can get these

answers from the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr.

Fraser) or the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips), let us go on to their estimates and get these

answers. If this credibility is given in their estimates, then let us

withdraw the Premier's estimates.

As I said before, in maybe

23 years I have questioned many suspects in various crimes. But if I

asked a question of a person who was a suspect in a crime, and he

started talking about something else and said, "Well, let's talk about

your trip to Hawaii or your trip to the beach or your fishing trip,"

and I started talking about my fishing trip, my credibility as an

investigative officer would have gone down to the bottom. It's our job

to keep asking questions, promoting questions and refreshing the

Premier's memory until we get answers. Our job is to bring the answers

to the public.

Because of your instructions, Mr. Chairman, I

would not refer to the gallery; but that voice entered from somewhere

up above from the young lady who said: "We have a right to know." I

think that if ever there was a statement that we should campaign on,

it's that statement that we have a right to know the answers to these

questions. It was something that came from the heart of one person. It

didn't come from the political knowledge of party people; it came from

the heart of one young lady who, after listening and watching this

House in session, made a very simple statement: "We have a right to

know. " Your orders that the questions are in order and her statement

that we have a right to know are still justified and they should still

be answered.

If we can't get the answers from the Premier,

then I ask him to withdraw his estimates. Let us go to the

Attorney-General. Let him bring in his police report on the dirty

tricks scandal of British Columbia. Let him bring it in so that

committees from both sides of the House can study it. We can go over

the facts and testimony that has been collected. Let us bring the

background of the dirty tricks scandal to the attention of the public.

What were the statements made on oath to police officers that are filed

in the office of the Attorney-General? Let's bring those reports out

into the open, Mr. Chairman. Let us put them into parliamentary

committees. Let each one of us as members of both the government and

opposition and as representatives of the taxpayers of British Columbia

study and discuss these reports. Let us bring them out. It was done in

the past parliaments when they elected the

[ Page 2085 ]

ombudsman

and the auditor-general. They brought in unanimous reports after

studying and studying and reviewing. Let us ask and let the government

give us the leadership to bring these important issues to the people.

As the voice from the gallery said: "We have a right to know." Mr.

Chairman, we do have a right to know.

When we go into the

estimates of the Attorney-General, the Speaker, the Ministry of

Transportation and Highways or the Ministry of Industry and Small

Business Development, these are the questions that we want answered. Do

we have to go to their estimates to find out how much money was

guaranteed to provide services to an American-manned jetfoil system

that is creating jobs? It's not creating jobs for Canadians or for

people from British Columbia, but providing jobs, funds and profits to

an American industry when we in British Columbia, with all our

unemployment....

The Premier keeps on saying: "Let us talk

about unemployment and economic development. " Mr. Chairman, we want to

talk about economic development and employment. We want answers and we

intend to get these answers. If the Premier would like to answer some

of the questions I will be more than happy to sit down and accept some

of his answers now.

HON. MR. BENNETT: First of all I

would like to point out to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew — and

it may have been a slip, but I know that member does not make slips of

the tongue in this Legislature — that he made a statement saying that

the Premier accepted or accepts money. I would like to tell him that

isn't true, and I would ask him to withdraw that statement before I

proceed.

MR. MITCHELL: If the withdrawal is that he

accepted funds then I withdraw it. But what I'm saying is that he did

not. I'll again read the statement that he made....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. A withdrawal has been asked for and the

withdrawal has been given. The member will have a further opportunity

to speak.

MR. MITCHELL: I withdraw that statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Fine.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the member for his gracious

withdrawal. I know he did not intend to make that statement and leave

an incorrect impression in this chamber.

The member

canvassed ground that has been covered. Many of the answers were

provided before this Legislature sat, although I do not blame the

member for wishing to make some political marks in the House at the

expense of our party. I accept that; it's good politics. I know the

member has a good history of politics in this province. I remember him

well when he won a very major and key by-election in this province

years ago in which we had some interest. That was the famous

by-election over in Esquimalt that signalled the defeat of the

coalition government. I can remember the meetings and the strong

showing of an independent candidate, which was the start of the

groundswell that led to the election of a Social Credit government in

1952. The member has a long history of politics, and it was a key

election in which he showed and it was part of the events which led to

a major change in government at a period in our history. It was a long

time between elections for that member to sit in the House, but we

welcome him back.

The member did, during his questions,

mention that he did want to ask about unemployment, and he expressed a

concern to myself as the Premier about unemployment in the province.

Actually the concern and the question should be addressed not to

unemployment but to employment, and what government can do to encourage

a favourable climate in which the private sector can respond. It's a

legitimate question, because the role that government plays in the

employment picture is not that of a direct employer. The philosophy of

this government is for government to be there to serve the people — the

people being those who work for wages, those who are single

proprietors, those who may have small companies and be employers, those

who participate in ownership of larger corporations that may provide a

larger employment base.

It is to these people, these 2.5

million British Columbians, that we try to direct a climate of

security, a climate of confidence such that when they make an

investment in this province they feel that their investment is secure —

secure from government intervention and secure from government

regulation. Yes, they have the difficulties of the marketplace and yes,

there will always be some businesses coming and some businesses going.

But what they do need is the assurance that the rules and regulations

by which they're allowed to operate — I shouldn't say "allowed to

operate," because it's their province....

Really the rules

and regulations are there to provide guidelines. The right to go into

business and to be part of the economic development of this great

province of British Columbia is indeed a right of all our people.

Government shouldn't be there to thwart it or inhibit it but to

encourage it. That's why I say the policies of this government have

been, and are, important to that growing employment base. I'm sure the

member, as part of British Columbia during the last five years has been

able to see — because it's apparent to everyone — the growth in the

number of new businesses establishing in British Columbia. I know the

member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) is also aware of the

increasing numbers of those who are employed in British Columbia. I

know that member sees that employment and that activity taking place in

the private sector. It's not government gobbling up more and more tax

dollars to provide some fictitious short-term employment that will not

provide permanent employment opportunity. Rather the record is one of

success, where those seeking employment are part of a growing economic

and industrial structure that offers them not short-term relief but

long-term security. That is why we have hundreds of thousands more

people working in this province of British Columbia today. Yes, there

are still unemployed, but I want to say that during the last four and a

half years the number of employed has increased dramatically.

Unemployment as a statistic has decreased marginally. Those can only be

put in perspective when you weigh them against that which is happening

in the rest of Canada.

The member for Esquimalt is smiling,

and I know he's smiling because he's happy with those figures. He's

happy with the record of this government. He's smiling and nodding his

head and I know that he agrees that those things have happened, because

although politically it might be good politics in a partisan sense to

try and present a different record to the public, even the member for

Esquimalt knows that he can't change the facts that are apparent to all

the people, even

[ Page 2086 ]

if he would wish to in order to gain some partisan political advantage.

Let

me say, Mr. Chairman, that I just left a conference of my colleagues,

the western Premiers, in which this topic — that of economic stability,

that of dealing with Canada's economic problems — was very much on the

agenda. We recognize that while we can have successes in our own

provincial areas and while provincial policies can encourage

development — or discourage it in the case of the record of some

governments that have played a role in this province's history — we

must have a cohesive national economic policy that protects the people

as much as it encourages them and gives them an opportunity not only to

be employed but to provide employment for others.

That

policy not only involves a number of steps that must be taken by our

federal government, but would call for discussions and some additional

action by governments at the provincial level, the type of cooperation

in developing national economic policy — through you, Mr. Chairman, to

the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew — that this country has not had.

We have had ad hoc policies, unilaterally developed by the federal

government; we've had provincial governments trying to compensate for

measures that have been taken, not taken or reversed by the federal

government.

The things that the western Premiers agreed to

these last few days are not new. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew

keeps himself abreast of the major proposals this government has made

to Ottawa and to our colleagues in other provinces at first ministers'

conferences, and he will probably, given an opportunity in this debate,

refer to them verbatim, because he has detailed knowledge of them. He

will recognize that the things Premier Blakeney, Premier Lyon, Premier

Lougheed and I agreed to are really the basic proposals that we took to

the first ministers' conference on the economy a few years ago. Those

detailed proposals were as valid and as necessary then as they are

today.

But I want to say we've come a long way in a few

years. Those proposals dealing with employment opportunity, with a

measure of protection in this country, with interest rates, with the

Bank of Canada and with a number of other agencies of the federal

government or national economic policy, first put forward by British

Columbia, have now been agreed to and formally endorsed in a communiqué

by our colleagues from western Canada.

Mr. Chairman, those

are the things we can do in a broad way as governments. Because there

has been a problem in the country. As much as all governments have the

best of intentions to provide opportunities for the people that elect

them, quite innocently, unwittingly, through introducing the wrong

programs or through no action at all, quite often the thrust of

governments in certain programs has left the type of action that should

have been taken — economic action.... The actions they have or have not

taken have weakened the economic structure of the country. Certainly

burden on the taxpayers of this country that we are called upon to

repay at increasing interest rates — a dead-weight debt and dead-weight

interest charges that have taken more from the budget that should be

going to build the economy and help the people at this time. We're now

paying the piper; we're now paying for the excesses of the past.

The

member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew may, by relationship, be part of the

excessive spending that took place, because the worst period of

excessive public expenditure and the development of the economic

troubles with which our country lives today was when the federal

minority government.... By admission, the New Democratic Party said

they were able to hold them up for ransom by propping them up in power

and encouraged them to carry out the policies that compounded the debt

problem of this country. That is part of the problem we are now trying

to rectify. That is part of the communiqué that Premiers Blakeney,

Lougheed and Lyon and I all have stated. Excessive government spending

for current account has left the people of Canada in debt to those who

provided the funds and were willing to lend the money as they went on

their merry spending way. They are now calling the tune by repayment of

the capital at higher interest charges.

We now see debt

being compounded on debt, just in increasing interest charges. In 1972

and 1973, during that minority government period, the New Democratic

Party took great credit nationally for the increased spending. Today

those policies and that spending have been called — as others were

pointing out then — part of the problem we live with.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The

Premier of Saskatchewan has joined the other western Premiers in

declaring that not only was the excessive government spending and

borrowing wrong, but it has left a legacy of economic woes which we are

trying to deal with today. Those economic woes, Mr. Chairman — through

you to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew; I almost called him the

minister, and that's because it has been rumoured that he's going to be

the minister for multiculturalism in the shadow cabinet of the New

Democratic Party — are the types of thing that we live with today.

Now

what do we say about employment? Well, Mr. Chairman — through you to

the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, who brought it up — we say that

we must reduce the federal deficits. We must reduce government

deficits, where we still have unenlightened governments building up

public debt for current account. We must reduce the amount by which the

people of Canada have been bound to the money-lenders by free-spending

governments. We must reduce the amount of large-scale borrowing and

equity ownership from outside this country, where interest charges

flowing along with debt repayment have caused the disruption in our

balance of payments, because that is tied mainly to the problem of

unacceptable interest rates. That is mortgaging our country to those

willing to lend money from outside. Those governments and those

politicians talk about Canadians owning their country but are only too

willing to mount a public debt in which they mortgage the people to

those from outside, leave a debt and interest charges to provide a cash

drain on our resources that cannot be compensated for by the balance of

trade surplus we have in our current account. All the efforts of

governments — such as those of the government of British Columbia,

which has built up not only a major industrial expansion in the

province but increased international trade — have failed to compensate

for the mistakes of the past with the encouragement of free-spending

politicians. We have to balance that cash flow.

The Premier

of Saskatchewan realizes that; he is seriously concerned about the

future of this country. To him it's more than glib statements or

misstatements. To him the future of the country is more important. He

recognizes the mistakes of the past and is trying to prevent them in

the future

[ Page 2087 ]

saying: "We cannot continue that course." I would hope the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew would stand up, when he gets the opportunity,

and make the same type of statement. We must balance that cash flow; we

must bring down interest rates; we must end our dependency on that type

of outside borrowing, so that we can truly have a made-in-Canada

economic policy, Mr. Chairman, rather than being the tail of the dog of

the United States economy.

And that can be done. It can be

done in a number of ways. It can be done by restraint of government; it

can be done by increased equity ownership amongst Canadians. It would

call for governments in Canada not only to pay lip-service to Canadian

ownership, but also to have the type of government programs and tax

structures that not only leave money in the hands of Canadians, be they

individuals or small corporations, so they can continue and carry out

that investment — and, yes, buy back our industry — but also encourage

them to do so. Up until now, we've had governments which on one hand

were saying, "We want you to own the country," and on the other hand

were increasing the public costs, thereby increasing taxes and taking

the money out of the people's pockets at a level that left no money for

discretionary investment. The same governments that said, "You fail to

invest as individuals," even though they were the culprit for taking

all the money, now will be the buyers as governments — and we know what

a record that provides.

So, Mr. Chairman, there must be,

along with a tax structure that leaves money in the hands of people,

government incentives to encourage people to invest. They can invest in

a number of areas. The first area they can invest in is in an area of

deficiency that exists in our province and our country, and that is in

rental accommodation, in apartment construction. I've advocated and I

say now that we must restore the federal capital cost allowance to 10

percent. That would encourage the private sector to mobilize their

capital to build rental accommodation. Governments shouldn't be so

greedy for tax dollars that they cancel a tax incentive that encourages

our people to provide for a deficiency. The taxes from cancelling that

one single tax incentive amount to only $15 million across the country.

The impact in British Columbia of taxes which will go now to the

federal government is $1 million, yet that tax incentive was worth

hundreds of millions of dollars of potential construction in this

province. More than that, and more than the jobs it would create, it

would help to end the rental accommodation deficiency we have in this

province. You talk about zero apartment growth. Let's get to the root

of the problem with government incentives that will encourage our

people who have capital to build the apartments and rental

accommodation, and then allow the people a choice of where they want to

live and where they want to rent. They have no choice when greedy

governments don't provide the incentives to the private sector for

people to build apartment space. Instead, some people answer: "Oh, the

government must get into the construction business. The government must

build them."

That's not the answer. Governments, by leaving

the capital in the hands of our people, by government programs which

will encourage the use of that capital in specific areas, can obtain

the type of construction necessary. That's an incentive to getting our

people to invest in equities, to get their money out of

interest-bearing accounts or bank accounts and harness it to equity

ownership, not only for existing industry, but for the development of

new industry and new businesses. They don't have to be mega-businesses

of international scale; they can be small businesses which employ one

or two people. That's the way you solve unemployment. You encourage the

people who elect you by leaving them their tax money — not taking it

all in taxes — by incentives, by the security of the fact that they can

trust that the government isn't — I was about to say: "heck-bent"! —

hell-bent on confiscation by taxation, taxing their properties,

businesses and homes away from them, and by giving them the security

that they have a future and, given efficient operation, a chance to

achieve success. The vagaries of the marketplace are tough enough

without the fear of government as the real or potential enemy for small

business in this province and this country. That is why I say that that

is the way this government has attacked unemployment, by trying to

create a climate and opportunities for employment. And it's working.

It's

working on a large scale, because we've seen large scale investments in

major industries. It's working on a small scale, because we have record

numbers of incorporations of new small companies in this province. And

that is good. Those figures tell a tale. But it is the person who is

employed by the new small company, whether it's in the service

industry, which is expanding because of the great tourism promotion of

the Ministry of Tourism that has opened up an area providing employment

and investment opportunities for people with limited capital.... Those

are areas where our people can show initiative and start a new service

that doesn't need large capital amounts, but create employment, perhaps

for themselves as a single proprietor and, hopefully, for others.

That's where employment is being picked up in British Columbia, and

that's part of our success.

What about the unemployment rate

we have, though? The answer has yet to be fully developed because, as I

say, it has national and federal implications. But this province, in

the last four and a half years, has a record of twice the national

average for creating new employment. We have a record, against the

national average, of inflation. Really, this government and this

province have been moving in the right direction, but not as quickly as

we'd like, because while there is still one person unemployed who is

willing to work, then unemployment is too high. But we're moving in the

right direction and we believe the policies which we have been bringing

in will bear fruit. I know the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) will be expanding on this when it comes

to his estimates, because he has developed not only a climate, but he

has worked at the international level providing markets and encouraging

our private sector, as well as being a major part of giving new hope to

those wishing to start small businesses in this province. That's why I

say it's a record that, while it has not resolved the total problem,

has come a long way and made British Columbia the bright light within

this country.

Now, rather than criticize those things which

are providing success, what we should all be doing is working to make

sure they work even faster or better and to look back and say: "Yes,

those of us who believe that government ownership, government spending,

government borrowing and government debt of a few years ago was wrong

admit that it's part of the problem we've got to pay off over the next

few years, and then we won't be encouraged to repeat and compound past

mistakes." But admit that that's part of the problem we have today —

paying off the irresponsibility of the past.

Those are, in a general way, the things this government has done to create employment in this province — real

[ Page 2088 ]

things.

It's a record that's felt out there by those who are working. You only

have to go around this province today and ask people how things are,

and they say: "Good." Then they have to search to try and find

something wrong — something wrong here and something wrong there — but

generally the opportunities have never been greater.

As we

predicted in our five-year mid-term outlook, we have a softening of the

lumber market because of a lack of housing starts in the U.S. — that

will be relieved. In the years 1981-82-83-84 we see a stability coming

to our forest industry that it has never had before — a stability and

security it can rely on, because this government has, for the first

time, embarked on a five-year program of forest management to guarantee

that the forest base will be there not only for the industry but also

for the people who work in the forest industry, so they have gainful

employment. Prior to that, there was only lip-service to silviculture,

good forest industry, tree-planting and reforestation; but now there is

a major commitment by government of not only dollars but also a plan of

how it is going to work. It's a plan that will provide a more secure

forest base in every part of this province. That's appreciated by the

people who work in the forest industry. They know that they need this

type of leadership from government, which will not only guarantee them

employment now but will also guarantee that their jobs will be there in

the future. There will be trees to cut, chips to process, pulpmills,

newsprint, all of which will be manufactured and supplied because we

will have taken care of our forests, and we will have made provision

for the future. The overcut, the inefficient use of the forest industry

in the past is gone.

I know that our Minister of Forests

(Hon. Mr. Waterland) can hardly wait until his estimates are up, to

deal in detail with the positive programs, the new Forest Act which he

brought in, the major five-year plan, the provision for the security of

our forests in the future, and stability for those who work in them.

During his four and a half years as Minister of Forests he has taken

the industry from a period of insecurity to a point where they are

ready to commit billions of dollars to new, much-needed investment. I

hope the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) will

acknowledge the insecurity felt by the industry through the years

1972-75, when the type of investment which should have been taking

place didn't take place, because the public can see it. The people of

Powell River can see construction of the first newsprint machine in ten

years in this province. In other parts of the province the people who

work in the forest industry can see it.

Stand up and give

some credit. Say something positive about what's been happening. I know

that although that member made some mistakes during his earlier

remarks, he would not mislead the people of British Columbia. Mr.

Chairman — through you to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew — those

are the things we are doing about employment. By the eager way he has

been smiling and nodding, I know that he agrees with what the

government is doing and that he wants us to do more of it — and better

— and we will.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I

appreciate the Premier’s words. I sincerely hope that you will give me

the same breadth of discussion that you allowed the Premier. I hope

that you enforce the same law for me as for him, and that you don't cut

me off, as your predecessor did when I strayed a little bit from his

interpretation of the law.

I would like to get back to the

point of order — I will say that it's a point of order. If the first

minister of the province misinterpreted what I said, I think that if he

reads the Blues he will find out that what I said was not what he

stated. I said — and I repeat it again that the Premier, the leader of

the political party that governs the province of British Columbia,

never asked for the source of his political funding. If that is an

offence.... I didn't say that he received them; but his party

campaigned with literature, his party campaigned with thousand-dollar

bills, his party campaigned with vast sums of money throughout the

province. When that Premier says, "I never question the source of my

political funding," I find it interesting. All we are asking is that we

establish a certain credibility in this House, that we answer

questions. When we get direct answers to questions that have been ruled

as parliamentary and in order, then we can accept the flowing

statements and glowing stories that we hear from the first minister.

find it interesting, Mr. Chairman, just going over a few of the little

notes, that he talked about this great debt. I think the Premier

listened intently when the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) explained

the manipulation of funds that created the so-called debt that this

province is under, when in January 1976 there was a surplus of $60

million, and when in February 1976, following the defeat of the NDP

government, there was another $60 million to $70 million. Because of

the manipulation and the phony loaning of $181 million to ICBC one day,

and the phony borrowing it back the next day to create a paper debt

that did not exist....

When we have a minister who will

stand up and keep running by this House.... You're not convincing

anyone on this side of the House of the facts. They know the facts. And

you're not fooling the members of your own cabinet, because they know

the facts, they know the political manipulation that was done by that

ministry, by that government, to confuse, confuse and confuse. But you

didn't confuse the members on this side, you didn't confuse the members

on the government side, and you're not confusing the public.

talk about debt, and I know a part of the debt that was created. A ship

was built in my riding that was paid for out of general revenue. Two

ferries were constructed for $35 million, and they were sold to some

political friends of the government back east, and that money then came

back on a lease basis. Those were items that the people of British

Columbia had paid for in cash, and now we are saddled with a debt of

$80 million to $90 million. If that is not manipulation, debt creation

or building an albatross around the necks of the people of this

province, I don't know what is. We can go into this discussion and talk

about creating jobs. Money that was created from the industry that was

assembled by the NDP was turned over to the BCRIC shares. An $80

million investment created $600 million funds. What do they invest that

money in? They invest it in shares in MacMillan Bloedel. That money did

not create one new job. It created a profit to those who own the

shares. It was not even the people of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman,

it was the CPR back east. It didn't create one new job. It created

profits for shareholders. If there is money that isn't needed in this

province it should be invested in industry that is going to create

jobs. What we must develop is new jobs, new industry and credibility

from this government. We have asked certain questions, and if we are

going to accept and be expected to accept some of the statements that

are being bandied around, then you must establish credibility by

answering these basic questions that we have asked.

[ Page 2089 ]

again ask the Premier if he feels that he isn't capable of answering or

will not, for one reason or another, answer the questions that we have

asked, or if he would like the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) to answer how much money he committed

from the British Columbia Development Corporation to guarantee jobs for

American companies. If he wants to have that minister get up in this

House and give these answers, then he should withdraw his estimates and

we'll go on to that minister's. This is a very practical and simple

question. Let's get the ministers who have the answers that we want up

before this House and we will ask them. Then we will get back to the

Premier, because we have other questions that each one of us would like

to have answered, but we cannot accept any answers until we establish

credibility, and this will be by systematic, step-by-step answers to

questions that we, on this side of the House, have asked, and by what

we feel from the statements and what we are receiving from the

constituents throughout the province. As the young lady in the gallery

said: "We have a right to know. " Mr. Chairman, as part of the

opposition and part of the elected people, we have many, many

questions. But we cannot ask these questions until we have the answers

that are needed.

The minister stands up and very blatantly

says: "We have created all this employment." What is the employment

that he has created by selling Panco to an American-dominated poultry

and grain company under the name of Gargill, who are stifling,

condemning and holding up...?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Cargill.

MR. MITCHELL: Cargill. I accept your correction.

When this company can sit down and dominate the turkey business....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has the floor. Carry on, please, Mr. Member.

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: They're gargoyling. They're gargling. They're garbling facts. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One more point: Committee of Supply is chaired by the Chairman, Mr. Member.

MR. MITCHELL:

The Chairman. Well, I was promoting you. Everybody gets promoted today.

I got promoted to Minister of Culture. I'll explain it to you when we

do get on that side of the House. I'm going to be the Whip. I'll tell

my cabinet eventually.

Mr. Chairman, what we want on this

side of the House is answers. Then we will move on to why this

government, instead of creating hospitals and long-term beds, is

building and spending the money that is needed for important and vital

services to the people of British Columbia on B.C. Place and football

stadiums. These are the issues that we want to get into. Again, Mr.

Chairman, through you, I ask the Premier to humbly rise and answer the

simple questions that we on this side of the House have asked.

will run them by him again. When we were before the courts we'd say:

"We would like to refresh our memories from our notes." I would like to

refresh the Premier's memory from my notes. I'm asking you not to give

me speeches about the problems of the investors and why they shut down

such areas as Ocean Falls. I am asking him to stand up and give me

answers and tell me what took place in a meeting organized by him

dealing with the jetfoil shipping firm in Victoria. I'm asking him to

give an explanation. Who were the signing officers? Where did the

political campaign funds that came out of the Premier's office come

from? I'm asking the first minister of the province of British Columbia

to set up an all-party committee to study the police reports that are

available out of the Attorney-General's office and to study the dirty

tricks scandal that rocked our province. I'm asking him to bring to

this House a little light on the actions of the member for Omineca (Mr.

Kempf). Why did he fire all the Social Credit research staff?

Again,

the first question, I believe, that was asked by the members on this

side was: did the government of British Columbia wish to make sales of

uranium in Europe and in Asia, and have they changed their mind? If

they have changed their mind, I'm one of the first to congratulate

them. I think these are the questions we asked.

In sitting

down, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely ask that we not have any more questions

or speeches off in the never never land of fantasy. Let us get down to

the questions that have been asked. Let us establish the credibility

that is needed. If he cannot answer them, withdraw his estimates, and

go on to the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways

or the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development all these

other sections that we need. Once we get these questions answered and

have established credibility, then we can go on to the many, many

questions that we have to bring forward.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Just quickly to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew: the government

has outlined the first policy on uranium exploration I guess this

province has ever had, and that is that there is to be no uranium

exploration or mining in the province. He asked me to identify what our

policy is; it's already been identified and public statements have been

made on it. I don't mind reiterating it for the member for Esquimalt,

who I know keeps abreast of all the things that are happening in

British Columbia. Secondly, it was very interesting, Mr. Chairman,

because I think it's the first time that I've heard a member from the

New Democratic Party admit that taking over existing companies doesn't

create new jobs. It's an admission of failure of the investment they

made when they were government. That's what he said. He said that BCRIC

was irresponsible....

MR. MITCHELL: I didn't.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

He said that BCRIC was irresponsible, created no new jobs because that

company invested in some shares of MacMillan Bloedel. Well, I want to

remind him that the investment — if that's what it was — or the

purchases or the takeovers by his government created no new jobs. They

took over Plateau Mills. They didn't create it — it was already

operating. they took over Kootenay Forest Products. It didn't create

any new jobs; it was already operating.

[ Page 2090 ]

MR. MITCHELL: It was being shut down.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The member for Esquimalt says it was being shut down. That's incorrect,

Mr. Chairman, and it's the sort of thing we've come to expect from him

now. That's a complete misstatement; it was not being shut down.

MR. MITCHELL: It was going to be sold.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Well, now he says it was going to be sold. He's changing his story. But

I want to get back to the point he made in his vicious attack on the

management and directors of the British Columbia Resources Investment

Corporation when he said they were making poor investments in buying

shares of MacMillan Bloedel. BCRIC is not a government company — it

belongs to the people as individual owners. He's chosen to introduce

them into the debate by saying that's a poor policy because it creates

no new jobs, and that company out there owned by the people is not

doing anything because it bought existing shares. This is the member

who has been defending the takeovers by the New Democratic Party as

government when they took over Plateau Mills. It didn't create any new

jobs. They took over a mill that was operating and was going to

continue to operate. They took over Kootenay Forest Products. Those are

the sorts of things they acquired.

It was nationalization,

but it wasn't initiating new business. I know the business it did

initiate — it did try to initiate a company called Swan Valley Foods,

which we know has been a disaster. This is the first time I have ever

heard a member of the New Democratic Party admit that the actions that

they took in government ownership created no new jobs. He condemned

that policy among private sector firms. I'm going to be glad to take

that statement from the member for Esquimalt who is a major — if not

the major — spokesman for his caucus and his party. He's a member who

was elected to this House before many of the members ever entered

politics and who has been part of the political mainstream of the New

Democratic Party for years. So he speaks with authority on the thinking

of that party. His condemnation of the fact that taking over creates no

new jobs is a dramatic shift in policy for them and a dramatic

condemnation of the policy they carried out as government of government

takeover of existing business. I agree with him, and that's why we

think governments should not be in the business of business but should

allow the people of the province to carry out business and investment

in business development. The great industries that are operating out

there now were started by people; they weren't started by governments.

I agree with him. I like to see new initiative, new businesses, new

jobs. That's what I like, and I'm glad that member agrees with me. I

hope he convinces his party that they erred when their commitment to

takeover was stronger than initiative and initiating new business. Mr.

Chairman, that's been a dramatic breakthrough.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I'm very pleased to get into this debate on the Premier's estimates

this afternoon because I've heard my name mentioned the odd time.

start off I would like to comment on.... Oh, I see the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) has taken off. He can't stand to

stay in this House and have somebody comment on what he said.

MR. HOWARD: He's gone out to talk to the Premier.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, is he out talking to the Premier?

Mr.

Chairman, I listened with a great deal of interest to that member, who

was not in this Legislature from 1972 to 1975 or, as a matter of fact,

from 1975 to 1979. He's a new member, and he tries to lecture us in

this House about what happened when the party that he is part and

parcel of was really in this House. I think he must have been out of

the country.

AN HON. MEMBER: Out to lunch.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Yes, and I think he's still out to lunch. But I think he must have been

out of the country during those dark, dreary years — 1972 to 1975 —

when the socialist hordes overtook the government of this province.

I'll never forget those dark days. People were despairing in the

streets. Businessmen were going broke. Oil companies were leaving. As a

matter of fact, in my riding you didn't dare be on the road leading to

Alberta, because you'd have been run over by the oil trucks and the

seismic crews rushing into Alberta, leaving the great province.

Then

they try to stand up in this House and tell us: "Oh, it was the

national energy policy that drove the oil companies out of British

Columbia." I want to tell you that in 1973 there was an energy crisis,

one of the greatest that had ever hit the world. It offered the oil

companies the greatest opportunity to drill in British Columbia that

you had ever seen. But during that great crisis, what did they create

in the province of British Columbia? They created chaos; they created

havoc. And for the people of British Columbia, they created a false

shortage of natural gas due to their policies, because they drove the

oil companies out.

They had the opportunity handed to them

on a silver platter. They didn't create the world oil crisis or talk to

the OPEC countries to raise the price of oil. But they were handed,

through this world crisis, one of the greatest opportunities handed to

any provincial government in history: the opportunity to capitalize on

our natural resources; the opportunity to bring in the drilling

companies and the petroleum companies and have them drill. But what did

they do? The entire opposite. They drove them out, and they created in

this great province a shortage of energy. That shortage that they

created by not doing any drilling or exploration created insecurity not

only for the people but indeed for the industry of this province.

That's why we had a crisis. And the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew

tried to stand in this Legislature and tell us that we created a false

impression of the financial situation that existed when the socialists

were run out of power by the people of this government.

AN HON. MEMBER: It won't wash.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I want to tell you it will wash, because I was here. You're a new

member. You were down in Ottawa, with your ears full of cotton batting,

like most of the MPs down there in Ottawa. You weren't paying any

attention to what the socialist hordes were doing here in British

Columbia. You weren't paying any attention. You were....

Interjection.

[ Page 2091 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're biased, to start with. I'm not biased; I just want to lay the facts before the House.

all know that the socialists were facing financial ruin in the last

year of their government. It was during that period of time that the

now Leader of the Opposition for a few years tried very unsuccessfully

to carry the portfolio of Minister of Finance, although he had

criticized W.A.C. for the previous 20 years for being Premier and

Minister of Finance. What happened? The province of British Columbia

moved closer and closer to the brink of financial disaster, until

finally the now Leader of the Opposition, who was then Minister of

Finance, abandoned ship before it sank entirely. He knew it was beyond

his capabilities, or the capabilities of his cabinet, to run the

government and the finances of the province. So he jumped off the ship

and brought in the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) to try to get

things back into a state. He told the minister from Nanaimo: "Now look,

I've left the financial ship of state here in British Columbia in a

devil of a mess. I couldn't run it; I never could run it; I should

never have kept it. What I want you to do is try to smooth this thing

over. Don't let the people of British Columbia know that we socialists

have run the province into such financial chaos." So the member for

Nanaimo went to the Department of Highways and said: ''Mr. Member for

Prince Rupert...." He was then the Minister of Highways. He never had

any money to start with, because the highways.... Oh, I want to tell

you, on the highways in this province then there was no new

construction; there was absolutely no maintenance. No wonder he had to

tell our great American visitors to stay home, that we didn't want them.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Mr. Member, just before I recognize the first member for Victoria, I'm

going to have to tell the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development that, in fact, we are on the Premier's estimates, and

although wide latitude has been allowed, the member should remember

that standing order 61(2) says, "Speeches in Committee of the Whole

House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under

consideration," and that we are on vote 9, the estimates of the Premier.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, you have made my point of order more eloquently than I possibly could.

MR. HOWARD:

On a point of order, I think the generosity of the Chair should be

afforded the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. After

all, he has very, very little to say in any event, and he might as well

take up the time saying whatever suits his mind.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Standing orders are still maintained, hon. member.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate your admonition,

and you know that I would never want to disobey the Chairman; but, if you recall,

the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew was talking about the financial condition

of the province, and I was just trying to respond. I know that the member for

Skeena stood up on a point of order — he usually doesn't ever have anything

to say anyway — but it wasn't really a point of order. But we get so that

we expect that from the member for Skeena. The member for Skeena doesn't

really like me to talk about what the socialists did; he hopes that we'll

forget that.

Mr.

Chairman, to get back to the Premier's estimates, if you will allow me

to develop my thesis, you will understand what I'm getting at — and I

know the socialist hordes opposite really hate to hear this. What I'm

trying to point out is that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew was

saying that we created the financial disaster by manipulating some

bookwork. That's not true, because the people of this province are not

going to forget. Certainly we're not going to forget over here, because

we know that in order to stem the tide of financial disaster, the

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), when he took over the portfolio of

Minister of Finance, cut, cut, cut — cut out social programs, cut out

road expenditure, cut out expenditure on small business, cut out

expenditure on education. They even tried to cut out some programs and

stop expenditures in Human Resources.

MR. LEVI: No way.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Oh, no way. You spent more on that, because that would help the

economy. That was your theory. That was the theory of you and the

member for Vancouver East.

But, Mr. Chairman, it did happen;

it was there, and the province was indeed in debt — a far cry from the

situation when they became government, when the coffers were full. Mr.

Chairman, I want you to get the picture. The coffers were full; they

were bulging at the sides due to the good management of the previous

Social Credit government. Not only that, they took over an economy that

was moving solidly and swiftly ahead, and even they couldn't kill it

immediately. They had one good year, they had two good years, and their

cabinet ministers were running around the province saying: "We can't

spend the money fast enough." You remember them saying, "Why, what a

bonanza we've got here," never realizing that they should put a few

dollars away for a rainy day. They thought it would go on forever — and

it would have gone on forever if Social Credit had stayed in

government. But I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the policies

that they had initiated in the first and second years caught up with

them in their third year. And if you look at every graph — I'll provide

them during my estimates — every graph indicates the downhill slide in

1975, when the policies of the socialist hordes in British Columbia had

finally caught up with them. I can give you the figures. More people

were leaving than were coming to our great province. It was a disaster.

Now

what did we do? We turned the entire situation around, and we turned it

around because of the leadership given to us by our Premier? That's why

I feel that we should get this vote over with, give our Premier his

money in his estimates, so that he can get on with the job of building

this great province — building it not for today, but for future

generations, so that the young people of today, when they grow up and

take their place in this great community which we have here in this

great province of British Columbia, will indeed have the same

opportunities that we had when we were growing up, so that they will

not have to look to the future with insecurity, not knowing if they're

going to have a stable supply of energy in this great province of ours.

want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, the people of British Columbia can look

forward to the future knowing that because of the policies we have

brought in and the way we are

[ Page 2092 ]

husbanding

our energy resources, indeed British Columbia will be energy secure

well into the future. Because of the policies of the Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and because

of new initiatives taken this year in this budget by the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), all British

Columbians can look forward to the future, knowing that because of the

policies of this government under the leadership of our Premier,

British Columbia will once again lead all the provinces in Canada in

having secure energy resources — which will be diversified. We will be

taking new initiatives to gasify and liquefy our coal so that the

people can look forward to the future knowing that they will be able to

run their automobiles. We will be taking new initiatives to assist

industry in using wood waste, and, Mr. Chairman, that is a great new

initiative. We will be look at all areas, and we will be developing our

great coal fields, not necessarily for today, but to provide security

for the future.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.)

The

member said that we hadn't created any new jobs. It is very easy to

stand in this Legislature and talk about the unemployment figures,

because the unemployment percentage is related to the number of people

who are unemployed. But our workforce has been growing and people are

coming to British Columbia because there are opportunities here. They

are coming from other provinces and other areas in the world that don't

offer the same opportunities that are offered to them in British

Columbia. That's one of the reasons our unemployment percentage may be

higher than in some other provinces, because people are coming here,

and when they don't find a job immediately, they go on the unemployment

list. This government, industry and the private sector in British

Columbia hold an enviable reputation in new jobs created in the last

three years. It wasn't easy to turn that around.

While I was

talking about energy to give security to the future I was looking at a

publication which came across my desk on April 15 from the Northern

News Agencies in Fort St. John. The reason I'm pointing this out, Mr.

Chairman, is to tell you the significance of our policy. Because we

brought in policies, generally speaking, to ensure that the the

investors and the workers in our natural resource industries, and

indeed, the people of British Columbia, would receive a fair return,

and indeed they have, and that's one of the reasons that we have

surpluses today. It is not from taxation of the people, Mr. Chairman;

it is additional revenue from our natural resources and our natural

resource industries, which were here when the socialist hordes were in

power.

Here is a little item which caught my eye: "About ten

miles south of Dawson Creek there is a well which is keeping the rumour

mill well supplied with material." What they're talking about, Mr.

Chairman, is an oil discovery south of Dawson Creek. That oil was

there. The opportunities were there when they were government. Had they

had policies which would have kept the oil industry in British

Columbia, we would never have had to go through that insecure period

where we didn't know whether or not we had any resources. I remember

the member for Vancouver East, who was then Minister of Energy, when we

made the announcement in this Legislature that we were going to build

the Grizzly Valley pipeline. What did the opposition of the day say?

"Don't build a pipeline; there's no gas in the area." Talk about

creating jobs! The pipeline is now built at an expenditure of some $82

million. A new gas scrubbing plant was built at an expense of some $120

million — which created jobs. But not only that, there is additional

exploration and drilling going on in the area. The pipeline in that

Grizzly field, which lies only a little to the west of what is probably

one of the greatest gas fields in all of the world, the extension of

the Elmworth field into British Columbia.... They were there. But the

policies of the socialist hordes drove the petroleum industry out of

British Columbia, make no mistake about it. That's one of the reasons

you were going broke; that's one of the reasons there was insecurity in

this province.

Mr. Chairman, I could talk about practically

any policy that the hordes brought in. They all developed, and they all

caught all of their policies — their bad policies — policies which were

alien to the great province of British Columbia. It was those policies

that brought this great province of ours to the brink of financial

disaster in the dying days of 1975, when that group over there called a

snap election because they did not want the people of British Columbia

to know the facts about the financial picture. Yet the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew tries to stand in this Legislature, as he did a

few moments ago, to tell us we created the situation. I'd just like to

ask the people of this great province of ours: if they were not in

financial problems, if the province was not going broke, why did the

Minister of Finance cease spending — cuts, holds? If things had been

going well, why did they bring in that policy? The policies that they

brought in in their last six months of government, in curtailing

expenditure, speak louder to me about the problems they were having

with finances than any report we ever could have done. Under our great

leader, under our Premier, we have been able to turn that around. Now

that we have surpluses, they're telling us how we should spend them.

remember when we were first government in 1976, they were telling us we

should be spending more on this and more on that. I'll tell you why

they could stand in this Legislature, Mr. Chairman, and tell us why we

should be spending more and how we should be spending our money. Deep

down in their hearts they knew that this government had the ability and

would bring in the policies to turn the economy around. And today you

can't find one among them who doesn't know that this government has

done a fantastic job of turning this economy around.

I have

listened to the debate on the Premier's estimates. Not one time have

they stood in this Legislature and condemned the policies of this

government or the leadership of our Premier. I want to tell you, Mr.

Chairman, they know that under our Premier's leadership this province

has become the envy of the world. That is why they stand in this

Legislature day after day preaching pessimism, preaching doom and

gloom, telling the people of the province the sky is falling in. But

ask them what their policies are. Ask them if they subscribe to the

Waffle Manifesto. Ask them what they would do.

I ask each

and every one of you in this Legislature today to think: have you heard

a constructive policy decision from the socialists over there? The

answer is no. We've heard the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt)

stand up and make some statements. Every time he stands in this

Legislature he seems to make a mistake. Just the other day he said the

government hasn't increased the minimum wage since we became

government. They've got all these new research people, Mr. Chairman;

they've got it all....

[ Page 2093 ]

MR. LEGGATT: When was the last time you increased it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I'll tell you, my friend. You've got all kinds of people up in your

office, and I'm not going to do your research for you. You've got the

staff. Now I know, Mr. Chairman, that they need somebody to do some

research for them. And they need somebody to come up with some policies

so that they can stand up in this Legislature....

Every day

that goes by I'm hoping that they're going to talk to us about their

policies, because we haven't heard anything about them.

Under

the leadership of our Premier we have a solid, sound economy. We have a

growing economy. People are looking forward to the future with a great

deal of anticipation, hope and expectation — not pessimism and

insecurity like it was when the socialist hordes were in government.

That's all because of the leadership of our Premier.

moment ago the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) was

telling us: "Oh, you're spending money on bridges and B.C. Place, and

you're not spending any money on services to people." That's what he

said. Let's take a look at the record. I know they hate to hear the

facts. On health and social services in the year 1975....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. member, if we were to go into this we would, in all

essence, destroy the reference that we have for vote 9. I know how

anxious the member is to go into the particular aspects which he is

starting to refer to, but if the Chair were to permit continued

discussion on this, then, in fact, the debate under the Premier's

estimates, which is already more wide-ranging than possibly it should

be.... It would be virtually impossible for your Chair to try to

enforce the strict adherence to the administrative responsibilities of

the Premier under vote 9. If that is opened up by one side or the

other, then, in turn, a reply from one side or the other is very much

in order, and we're right back to where we shouldn't be in this

particular vote.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I

want to tell you sincerely that I accept what you have said. You know,

the Chair hasn't changed but the Chairman changed.

The

member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew was saying that under the leadership

of our Premier we were just spending money on job-creating hardware and

on great new visions for the people of British Columbia, which he's

against. We're spending money on B.C. Place and trade and convention

centres which will bring new industry and tourism and bring people to

British Columbia. It'll be great for the future because it will help

our trade. Whether we like it or not British Columbia is Canada's

window to the Pacific, and Vancouver is Canada's window to the Pacific.

want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that what the member was drawing

attention to was the fact that we were not spending any money on people

services. In a very few short words I wanted to point out that our

expenditure on health and social services per individual has grown

from....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

No, it's not. Not at all, my friend. You do not want to hear the facts.

Every time we try to bring up facts and figures in this Legislature and

put some truth into this debate, I'll tell you, they fight it. They

don't want to hear the facts, but I'll tell you the facts, Mr.

Chairman. The expenditure on services to people, excluding education,

has doubled from $420 per person. I'm not talking global figures; I'm

talking per person. And remember when I say " per person" that our

population has grown. It's doubled since 1975, the last year they were

government, to $906 per person this year in this budget. Yet they have

the audacity to stand in this Legislature and say that we're not

looking after the people of this province.

MR. COCKE: You're not looking after the people of this province.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Now there's the member for New Westminster, the man who surpassed every

other corporate manager in the province by losing $180 million in one

year through ICBC without any competition. That's the manner of the man

who just stood. I don't know how he did it. He must have had to work

day and night to lose $180 million with ICBC.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, in addition to pointing out that your time is almost up....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: My time is up? I've just got started.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, my green light is on. Hon. member, again I must ask that the debate return to the relevance of vote 9.

Ah, the time is up, hon. member.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They don't want to hear the facts

They don't want to know how much money we're spending on people services here in this province.

MR. LEGGATT:

I must say, I continue to be delighted with the Aesop's fables we get

from the minister. He's a past master at pressing certain buttons in

his skull. You know, there's a kind of brain damage that happens to

everybody in this business. But no one has been more able to set those

fables as firmly into the frontal lobotomy than that particular

minister. It's really quite incredible.

I rise to deal with

the Premier's estimates, but particularly in regard to the charge which

is constantly made by the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development about the statistics of immigration and emigration around

that period of time when Social Credit was government and when the New

Democratic Party was government. I wish he would listen to this,

because he is constantly accusing people in this place of not having

their facts straight. I was in Ottawa; I wasn't around. I had the

problem of reading what Statistics Canada said about immigration and

emigration in the province of British Columbia. I hope he will just

listen to this for a minute. The accuracy of the allegation concerning

the hordes of people leaving the province while the NDP was in and the

thousands who came to British Columbia when Social Credit came to power

is a fable these guys have lived on, It's such a wonderful falsehood

that they wouldn't know how to correct the record up there. It would

take all that kind

[ Page 2094 ]

political brain damage.... It's so deep in the minister's mind that it

may be a little hard for him to manage a few of those neurons around to

correct them. I just want to ask him to go and look at Statistics

Canada, which covered all that interesting period about which these

myths were created — about the government of British Columbia, both

Social Credit and New Democratic Party.

This is right out of

Statistics Canada. During the '72 to '75 period there was a net gain

through migration of 69,660 persons. That was the period when the New

Democratic Party held office. Let's see what happened when Social

Credit came into power.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that immigration?

MR. LEGGATT: Those are immigrants — net immigration to the province of British Columbia.

Let's

ask what happened when this allegedly terrible government was thrown

out in 1975, and these wonderful promoters — this new government that

was going to solve all our problems and would stop all these alleged

hordes running to leave the province of British Columbia.... What

happened then? Well, during the period 1975 to 1977 there was a net

loss of 5,885 persons. In other words, what the minister says is doubly

false, because in fact the reverse was true. I ask the minister to

check the statistics in Statistics Canada and to stop peddling this

silly myth around the province.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to have the member withdraw the fact that

I made a false statement. He is manipulating his statistics. I will

bring in the facts and figures and table them in the House, and I will

prove him completely wrong.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister has asked for a withdrawal of what he considers to be an offensive reference.

MR. LEGGATT:

There is only one problem with this, and that is whether you see fables

and myths as falsehoods. There's a question of definition around this.

MR. CHAIRMAN . I appreciate that. Order, please.

MR. LEGGATT:

We deal with so many fables and myths in this House, it's very hard to

deal with the question of whether falsity or otherwise is imputed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, a simple withdrawal of something which the member finds personally offensive has been asked.

MR. LEGGATT: If the member finds that personally offensive, I have an unconditional withdrawal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The matter is cleared.

MR. LEGGATT:

The last thing in the world one would do would be to try to introduce

personalities or try to get the minister mad. When the minister becomes

mad he becomes less funny. I think he's much better when he's in a good

humour and we can all laugh and have a great time with the Aesop's

fable he produces for us on a routine basis.

MR. BARBER:

We have a number of questions of the Premier, but he skipped out of the

House three-quarters of an hour ago. In order to call him back, I move

the Chairman do now leave the chair.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Lauk

Dailly

Cocke

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Passarell

NAYS — 29

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. BARBER:

I'm pleased that the vote got the Premier back in the House. Maybe now

that he's here, having been absent for almost an hour, he might be

prepared to answer a few questions.

The Premier puts forward

a very curious argument. He says that just because he called a meeting,

he shouldn't have to answer questions about it. Just because the

meeting took place in his office, he shouldn't have to answer questions

about it. Just because the outcome of that meeting was pre-arranged by

himself, he shouldn't have to answer questions about it. The Premier's

argument is not entirely honest. I'm not saying the Premier's

dishonest; I'm saying his argument is not honest. On that basis,

presumably the Premier could refuse to answer anything at all, if he

wished, and have us believe that some other minister did it, and some

other minister should have to carry the ever unpopular can for this

increasingly unpopular government.

The Premier's argument is

not credible. The Premier claims that just because he called the

meeting, just because he invited those who attended, just because he

chaired the meeting, just because he gave three long-winded speeches

during the meeting, and just because he announced at the end

[ Page 2095 ]

the meeting the decision he had already made before the meeting

occurred, doesn't mean that he has to answer questions about the

meeting. Well, he's wrong. He's wrong on a number of important grounds.

He's wrong because that's an irresponsible attitude. He's wrong because

that's a politically immature attitude. He's wrong because that kind of

maladministration is unacceptable to the people of British Columbia.

And he's wrong, as well, because it adds to his current problems.

The

people of British Columbia are well aware that the Premier of British

Columbia's credibility has been damaged in the last six months. It has

been most recently damaged in the Vancouver Sun

by his own colleagues, who tell us that he does not sparkle in debate,

that he does not run an open government, and that clearly he does not

command the respect of certain of his colleagues. If it were not so,

the Vancouver Sun would never have printed it, I'm certain.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARBER:

Ah, they're sensitive, Mr. Chairman. They read the same article, and

they all attended the same meeting to discuss how to re