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)

FRIDAY, APRIL 25, 1980

Morning Sitting

[ Page

2103 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Western Premiers' Conference communiqué.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2103

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office estimates.

On vote 9.

Mr. Levi –– 2103

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2106

Mr. Lorimer –– 2107

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2109

Mr. Davis –– 2110

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2110

Mr. Cocke –– 2110

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2112

Mr. Macdonald –– 2113

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2113

Mr. Cocke –– 2115

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2115

Mrs. Wallace –– 2115

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2116

Mr. Howard –– 2116

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2119

Mr. Levi –– 2119

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2120

Mr. Cocke –– 2121

FRIDAY, APRIL 25, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask all members in the Legislature to bid

a most cordial British Columbia spring day welcome to three very

distinguished visitors: His Excellency Giorgio Smoquina, the ambassador

to Canada from Italy; Mrs. Smoquina; and Dr. Verderame, the acting

consul-general in British Columbia.

I would like to mention

that following a most distinguished diplomatic career His Excellency,

who has been ambassador to our country since 1975, will soon be

retiring; but not in the sense that he is going to, shall we say, sit

on a bench, because he is looking for other areas to conquer and other

challenges to meet. I would say to His Excellency that we have much

appreciated his many visits to British Columbia and his true feeling of

the Canadian west. I would say to him: buon giorno and arrivederci.

MR. MACDONALD: Sono molto leito de fare congratulatione ambassadore Italiano. Con il socialismo more democratico I'avenire e certeze.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I don't think the ambassador understood the member.

Mr.

Speaker, also with us today on the floor of this House as special

guests are the Lord Mayor and Mayoress of Westminster, England,

Councillor and Mrs. Forrester. They're here with a special interest in

paying their respects to the city of New Westminster. I think they're

the first guests from England to visit the city, which was probably

named after Westminster in Great Britain. I would ask the members to

extend a particular welcome from British Columbia and from this

Legislature to these important guests.

Hon. Mr. Bennett tabled a communiqué of the Western Premiers' Conference.

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. GARDOM:

I call vote 9, which is getting a little tattered here, to defray the

expenses of the Premier's office. I happen to note, Mr. Chairman, that

the hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) has just

swallowed two quarts of water, so we can assume that his speech won't

be too long.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall a tattered vote 9 pass?

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I think that we might advise the government

House Leader that he should take the vote and get it put in plastic, because

it might get a lot more worn out before we are finished with it.

Before

I go to the questions and attempt to get some answers, which I've been

trying to get from the Premier for some weeks, I just want to see

whether we can get the Premier to comment on something that he said

yesterday when he was talking about the role of the government and its

role as an employer. Perhaps the Premier, when he gets up to answer

some questions, might explain to us why it is that during three or four

years of his government, although he says that the role of the

government is not that of a direct employer, the public service under

this government has gone from some 39,000 public servants to some

47,000 public servants,

Interjection.

MR. LEVI:

Is it coming through too strong? It's nice and quiet now. Are you okay

there, Mr. House Leader? I just want to get the Premier's attention.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Everything's fine over here, Norman.

MR. LEVI: Everything's fine? Right! Well, you're wanted outside. Would you mind leaving, por favor?

Interjection.

MR. LEVI:

I'll continue in a minute, Mr. Chairman, just as soon as I can get the

attention of the Premier, although I gather I do have the attention of

his deputy. So I'll just repeat the question. Perhaps the deputy can

ask the Premier: if, as he suggested yesterday, the government is not

involved as a direct employer, how does he account for the fact that

the public service has gone from 39,000 in 1977 to some 47,000 in

1979-80? That is not in the way of a criticism; that is in the way of

an observation. We do find that the government is compelled to act as

an employer, almost as an employer of last resort. There has been

considerable increase in the public service, and I'd like the Premier

to answer that in respect to the role the government plays in terms of

generating jobs.

Over the past three weeks, I've been

attempting to get from the Premier some explanation in respect to his

involvement in the resignation of the chief justice of the court of

appeal. I'd like to bring to the attention of the Premier — through

you, Mr. Chairman — some correspondence that passed between Mr. Ian

Waddell, the Member of Parliament for Vancouver Kingsway, and Mr.

Jacques Flynn, who was the Minister of Justice....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Jacques Flynn.

MR. LEVI:

I'm sorry, Senator Jacques Flynn. The Attorney-General is quite right.

He's a senator. He was one of those non-elected cabinet ministers.

Mr.

Waddell wrote to Senator Jacques Flynn, when he was Minister of

Justice, on November 5, 1979. This relates, Mr. Chairman — so that we

can be in order — to the question of Chief Justice Farris, and I would

like to read the letter. He writes:

"Dear Sir:

"I am raising in the House of Commons today the matter of the Wendy King case and the resignation of

[ Page 2104 ]

the former chief justice of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia

which was apparently related to that case. Last week Ms. King pleaded guilty

to a charge of keeping a common bawdy-house in the Provincial Court of British

Columbia in Vancouver. I note that a stay of proceedings was entered on her

co-accused who has also been charged with trafficking in heroin.

"Your

predecessor in the previous Liberal government, Otto Lang, took the

position that there would be no inquiry into the matter once the former

chief justice had resigned. Is this the position of your government? I

would hope that you might take a different view and appoint a special

commissioner, perhaps an able and respected lawyer of the calibre of,

say, Mr. Arthur Maloney, QC, to look into the matter to see if any

improprieties have occurred. There are numerous reasons for this: the

fact that the appeal court has been put under a cloud, the fact that

the court records of the King case were sealed, the fact of apparent

plea-bargaining, to name only a few.

"What

most concerns me is that many people in British Columbia apparently

think that justice for the established and for people in high places is

different than justice for the ordinary citizen. That, of course, is

not justice at all. I look forward to your early reply.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Waddell, M.P.,

Vancouver Kingsway.

Mr. Waddell received a reply from Senator Flynn on November 16, and Mr. Flynn said as follows:

"Dear Mr. Waddell:

refer to your letter of November 6, 1979, regarding the prosecution of

a Ms. King and, as I understand it, suggesting an inquiry into the

resignation of the former chief justice of British Columbia and the

circumstances surrounding both these matters.

As you may be aware, the Judges Act establishes a procedure for an

investigation or inquiry into allegations of misconduct on the part of

a judge. Investigative functions under the act come to an end on the

resignation of the judge. The judge in question is not now sitting on

the bench, and therefore concern for the due administration of justice

would no longer be advanced by an inquiry.

"As for an independent inquiry into the proceedings relating

to Ms. King, those proceedings are, of course, within the responsibilities of

the Attorney-General of British Columbia, and such an inquiry would be or could

be regarded as an intrusion by the federal government into matters of provincial

concern. On the information that is available to me, I do not feel that such

an inquiry would be warranted or productive.

Yours sincerely,

Jacques Flynn,

Minister of Justice,

Attorney-General of

Canada. "

This

relates, Mr. Chairman, to the King case, but specifically to Mr. John

Farris, the former chief justice. You will recall that in the early

part of the Premier's estimates I raised this question, particularly in

relation to a statement that he made about his concern about justice,

following the statement by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams).

Now

in Mr. Flynn's reply to Mr. Waddell, he says that it is not the

position of the federal government to do anything about it because it

intrudes, or would intrude, into a provincial matter in terms of the

administration of justice, which the Attorney-General is responsible

for. Now I asked the Premier and I ask him again.... I'm trying to find

out what knowledge he had as the chief government officer, as the

Premier of the province. I asked him right at the beginning whether he

received a phone call from the Prime Minister of Canada or the Minister

of Justice in respect to the resignation of Mr. Farris. It was an

important question. It related directly to the concern for the justice

system expressed by the Premier following the announcement or the

statement made by the Attorney-General after the inquiry into a number

of matters in March related to three cases in which there were

suggestions by one of the media of intrusions into various legal

matters.

Now the Premier, in expressing his concern about the system, said that it should be protected and it has to be....

did not say "nurtured," but I think that was what he meant to say. We

have here, in terms of this correspondence, a Member of Parliament for

British Columbia, an officer of the court who is a lawyer — he is a

lawyer too — expressing to the Minister of Justice his concern about

this matter. The Minister of Justice gives his reply with respect to it

that if anything is to proceed from there, it would be a provincial

matter. Now I ask the Premier: did he receive a phone call from the

Prime Minister and was he informed of the circumstances relating to the

resignation of Mr. Farris? Mr. Farris was the chief justice of the

appeal court. So that, basically, is the reason for us asking the

question.

The Premier has said that a number of these

matters should be raised under other ministers, but we have a different

situation here than that. The answer given is really not adequate to

the problem that I face. I have to ask this question of the Premier

because he in fact is the bridge between the former Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the present Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams).

The present Attorney-General doesn't have direct knowledge of this — he

wasn't the Attorney-General at the time. I can't ask the former

Attorney-General because in his position as the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations that doesn't come under his purview. If I

don't get an answer from the former Attorney-General, and the present

Attorney-General was not privy to that information, the only person

that we can ask and get an answer from is the Premier, knowing that

he's concerned about the justice system. That's a fair enough question

for the Premier to ask.

Yesterday he took a run at answering

a couple of questions. When he was asked a question about Mr. Grieg he

said, if I might quote from the Blues: "He made allegations" — he's

talking now about the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) — "about a

former employee of the information services of government under Mr.

Brown, the information director. " As I understand it, Mr. Brown is the

information director who was employed in the Premier's office, so we

are in fact talking about one of the Premier's employees; Mr. Brown is

another employee. Mr. Grieg didn't just work for Mr. Brown; he worked

in the office of the Premier. That was the objective of the question.

He hasn't answered that question.

He said yesterday — and I paraphrase — that he didn't know about it, he wasn't informed about it. I think it's a fair

[ Page 2105 ]

enough

question to ask the Premier: did he have a discussion with Mr. Grieg?

Mr. Grieg is one of his employees. The fact that he worked for Mr.

Brown doesn't make any difference. Mr. Brown worked for the Premier and

Mr. Grieg worked for Mr. Brown. He said later on: "I interviewed Mr.

Grieg by telephone. " By telephone? I thought he worked in his office.

He says: "I interviewed him by telephone and passed along to the

authorities all the information I could get under the investigation

that was called by this government. The member knows the results of the

investigation." Perhaps the Premier would tell us that when he

interviewed Mr. Grieg over the phone.... That I find quite strange.

Here

we have a very important delicate matter, coming out of the Premier's

office, and the Premier treats the matter with such seriousness that he

has an interview with Mr. Grieg over the phone. He doesn't call him

into the office, but talks to him over the phone. Now if he did talk to

him over the phone, as he said, what did he say to him and what did Mr.

Grieg say? What was the substance of the conversation that they had?

Did he pick up the phone and call Mr. Grieg and say to him: "Did you

send out some letters signed in somebody else's name?" Was that the

substance of the conversation, Mr. Chairman? Or did he say to him: "Do

you have any knowledge of letters going out of my office using the

names of people who did not, in fact, send the letters and did not sign

them?" It's not sufficient for the Premier to tell us that he passed it

on later to the investigation. He quite obviously knows that we're not

satisfied with that investigation.

He should tell us what he

discussed with Mr. Grieg. It's not difficult. He had a conversation

over the telephone. Well, tell us what he said. Did he ask him: "Were

you involved in the practice of sending out letters under somebody

else's name? Was it done in my office? If it was, I'm very concerned

about it. " I can understand the concerns the Premier would express. If

it's happening in his office by one of his employees, obviously he has

to be concerned. But we don't know that. We only know that the Premier

said he interviewed him on the phone. That's a rather strange way of

interviewing somebody. Then he turned it over to some investigation.

That's a fair enough question, Mr. Chairman. That happened directly in

the Premier's office, by one of his staff.

He might tell us,

presumably, because Mr. Grieg worked for Mr. Brown, whether he had a

discussion with Mr. Brown. Not over the telephone, but did he call him

into his office and did he say: "What do you know about this business

of letters being signed with other people's names? Do you know anything

about that? Is Grieg involved in this kind of practice?" That's a fair

enough kind of explanation for the Premier to give to the House.

keeps making references to his speeches, and to happenings that take

place outside the chamber. Well, that's the basis of the estimates. We

are making inquiries into the actions of the Premier in respect to his

office.

A large number of questions have been asked that we

haven't got any answers to. I am particularly concerned about at least

two so far. We're talking about what knowledge the Premier has

regarding the resignation of the former chief justice of the appeal

court. Exactly what did he discuss with Mr. Grieg or Mr. Brown, or both

of them? Those are fair enough questions. They are raised because we

are not satisfied with the investigation that was done, as we have not

been satisfied with a number of investigations that have not been done.

We're still waiting over here with bated breath for a report to come

down from the Attorney-General's ministry regarding the Eckardt

election commission, which is being done by somebody.

I see

that the Chairman is giving me the indication that I'm straying a

little bit. Well, we'll go back to the Premier. We're losing track of

the number of investigations that have been taking place over there.

There

are two sets of questions which the Premier could answer. I asked him

earlier, when he was engaged in a discussion with the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom).... Perhaps I should

repeat that for his information. He made reference yesterday in respect

to the government's not having any involvement as a direct employer.

I'd like the Premier to explain to us how he accounts for the fact that

the public service has gone from 39,000 to 47,000 in a period of some

three years. Yes! The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) looks up

rather surprised. He was just looking in the Journals . The last

figure we were given by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) was

46,800 — almost 47,000. That represents a very significant increase in

the public service. We're not offering this as a criticism; it's simply

that this is the situation in respect to what has happened to the

public service. It's a creation of employment.

The Premier

campaigned, when he was seeking to be the Premier of this province,

that he would cut back on the public service. But he probably realizes,

as much as anybody who is in control of government, that if you are

going to run a broad operation — and we're told it's a much broader

operation, because we heard from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Curtis) that it's much more difficult to produce the second part of the

Public Accounts — you need more people. We must get some recognition

from the Premier as to how he explains, as he constantly does, that the

cost of government has been reduced since he's been in power. Now

that's not the case at all. The public service has not been reduced.

Generating

jobs — that's fine. There's no criticism there; people have to be

employed. If the government plays its role that's fine too. But it's

not correct for the Premier to say, as he said yesterday, that the

government is not involved in the economy as a direct employer. It is,

in fact, involved in the economy as an employer, both direct and

indirect; more specifically direct, because of the creation of jobs not

only in the public service but also in Crown corporations. That's a

question that the Premier might want to make an observation on.

Can

he make an observation on the issue of Mr. Farris and his resignation?

Does he not think, in view of the serious matters revolving around the

question of that resignation, that there should have been an inquiry —

not an in-house inquiry by the Attorney-General but an inquiry by a

judge or some other person as to what actually took place and whether

the circumstances surrounding that resignation had any impact on the

administration of justice? These are serious questions. These are

questions that the Premier is interested in, because he is constantly

concerned about the justice system.

The Premier has been

asked a third question about another employee of his, Mr. Dan Campbell.

He hasn't mentioned Mr. Campbell at all. In all the statements the

Premier has made in the House, he has made no observations, presumably,

up until the time of the circumstances that led to Mr. Campbell's

resignation, that he was a highly respected public servant who was

admired and extremely

[ Page 2106 ]

useful

to the Premier. He has made no observations at all about the questions

that have been asked. Of course, those questions relate to what appears

to be, in terms of the Election Act, the unstated use of funds he had

in his pockets. We have information from one of the former research

staff that he was giving out and paying bills with thousand-dollar

bills. Miss McKay made the statement publicly on television and radio

that he paid the bills, with respect to a party that was held, with a

thousand-dollar bill; he gave her a thousand-dollar bill to cover some

expenses of her and her colleagues, in respect to work that was being

done.

We know that subsequent to that, presumably, the

Premier or members of the Social Credit Party were concerned about

those kinds of activities, to the extent that there was an inquiry by a

former Attorney-General of this province, Mr. Peterson. Mr. Peterson

looked at it and made recommendations to that party that they submit an

amended report in respect to election expenses. I presume that's the

way it's done: you make an amendment. In fact, you imply that you did

not put everything down, and then you put it in as an addendum to the

report. It's a small oversight. It was referred to as an oversight, not

as a small oversight but as an oversight of some $250,000.

to now, we have dealt with questions relating to two former employees

who were on the Premier's staff. There was a kind of night of the long

knives existing around the Premier's staff and the Social Credit Party

caucus staff; practically everybody got fired. They've gone to other

places. But that they're no longer in the public service doesn't mean

that we can't get answers to our questions. They're fair enough

questions. They shouldn't be very difficult for the Premier to answer.

He's sitting there this morning in a very affable, smiling mood. It's

very pleasant here this morning, so we can have replies to some of the

questions.

The Premier should tell us his thoughts on the

justice system. After all, I read to the Premier the concern that Mr.

Waddell, a Member of Parliament for British Columbia, had expressed to

the federal Minister of Justice. They were genuine thoughts reflecting

some of the feelings people have. He said: "I hope that you might take

a different view and appoint a special commissioner, perhaps an able

and respected lawyer of the calibre of, say, Mr. Arthur Maloney, QC."

Well, we have equally competent and experienced counsel in this

province who might very well look into the matter of the resignation of

the chief justice of the appeal court to see in fact what the

circumstances were surrounding it, and whether it's had any impact on

the administration of justice, and what in fact is the general feeling

in the community.

Mr. Waddell goes on to say: "There are numerous reasons for this: the

fact that the appeal court has been put under a cloud...." Yes, the superior

court of our province was under a cloud. The fact that the court records of

the King case were sealed is a matter we will deal with under the Attorney-General's

estimates. "The fact of the apparent plea bargaining...." He was listing

some of the concerns that exist. Most of these matters can be dealt with with

the Attorney-General. They're substantive matters.

What

I would like to know from the Premier are his feelings and concerns

about the justice system and the impact the resignation of the former

chief justice of the supreme court had in respect to his involvement as

the chief officer of the court. They are not difficult questions; they

are in line with what the Premier has been saying in respect to his

concern for the justice system.

It's very good — I've said

this before — when non-lawyers in this House express opinions about the

justice system. All too often we have tended to leave it to lawyers

only to talk about the law. Yet most of the people who are subject to

the administration of the law are not lawyers. It's a very complicated

field. The Premier and I are somewhat fortunate in that respect — we

are not lawyers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aren't you a lawyer?

MR. LEVI: No, I'm not a lawyer. I was a barracuda lawyer once, but not a lawyer.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's those close-set eyes.

MR. LEVI:

No, they're not close-set eyes; it's the gills. Well now, there we have

the Premier making observation. I thought the Premier was making an

observation about the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). He said: "…the close-set eyes." I've

not noticed that any of the lawyers my caucus have close-set eyes. That

might be an observation worth looking at in terms of people who support

the Premier’s party: those with close-set eyes. There is an appellation

that we must observe. "Close-set eyes." The Premier has no right to

make that observation, Mr. Chairman. As the minister will tell him,

that is an observation that ought to made by the ophthalmologists, I

understand; not even the opticians can make that kind of observation.

But it is a fair enough observation.

Just to recap for the

Premier, would he make some observations on his feelings about the

increase in the public service? Bear in mind that this is not a

criticism in terms of the creation of jobs. Why is it that you have

gone against the policy you expressed when you were campaigning?

Nevertheless, 8,000 more jobs were created. That's fair enough but you

might make an observation about that.

Let us know about

Chief Justice Farris in terms of your concerns. Let us know whether you

had a discussion with the then Attorney-General as to whether an

inquiry would desirable in order to clear the air, to lift the cloud

that was over the appeal court. Mr. Waddell suggested that an inquiry

would be in order — a difficult inquiry, albeit, but an inquiry that

would have set to rest some of the feelings about the way justice is

administered. That's the second question.

The third question.... Oh, the Premier is leaving.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No.

MR. LEVI: Oh, you are going to be here. Good.

The

third question relates to two members of his staff. Tell us what you

discussed with Mr. Grieg. Tell us what you discussed with Mr. Brown. We

can understand your concern about what was happening. We'd like to know

what it was you discussed. We don't want to know every detail. If you

were expressing serious concern about that kind of activity, fair

enough. I would think you would elucidate for the House and for the

public your feelings about these matters. And Mr. Dan Campbell........

There are four questions, Mr. Premier. We'd like to be from you.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, it's nice to get four questions asked 24 times before I get a chance to answer.

[ Page 2107 ]

I'd

like to deal, first of all, with the fact that the member keeps asking

questions relating to the justice system. It's not even the provincial

justice system; he asks questions on the chief justice, which is a

federal appointment. Obviously, my advice is not sought in these

matters. The justice system operates independently of government

direction. I believe, though, if the member does have concerns about

the justice system, as regards British Columbia's responsibility, he

will have ample opportunity to ask that question during the

Attorney-General's estimates. I can give him no further information;

but he appears to be very interested in it, and I'm looking forward to

hearing what the member has to say during the Attorney-General's

estimates.

He talks about the last election campaign. Yes,

the election campaign chairman for the Social Credit Party was Mr. Les

Peterson. The manager of the campaign office was Mr. Dan Campbell, who

was not then on the government payroll but had taken leave of absence

from government for the campaign. He conducted his duties as a private

citizen interested in the campaign at that time — not as a government

employee and not as an employee in my office, but as someone who was

concerned with electing a government and keeping out those whom he

didn't wish to see re-elected on the other side.

The

campaign chairman has made a statement on that on behalf of the party.

That is their responsibility. I don't direct the campaign; they do. I

participate, as leader, in policy. The mechanics, the machinery, the

collecting and spending of the campaign is all handled by those who are

given that authority by the party. That has been well canvassed in the

public press, as I'm sure the member knows.

The next

question has to do with government employees. I'm glad the member

brought it up, because he's using some incorrect figures. He used the

figure of 47,000. Well, I have the answer to the question which Mrs.

Dailly asked the hon. Provincial Secretary: "What is the total number

of persons employed in each of the following public services: B.C

Systems Corporation, B.C. Buildings Corporation and B.C Ferry

Corporation?" Hon. Hugh Curtis replied: "Public service: established

positions are 32,000. " Then he goes on to give B.C. Systems

Corporation, B.C. Ferry Corporation and B.C. Buildings Corporation

separately.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Those in the public service are established at 41,125. That's what it says.

I've

got to say a large part of that increase came, as the member would

know, when resource boards, which were actually paid by the provincial

government but did not show up in government numbers, were brought into

the government service. They were in effect then hidden from the public

as being employed by the government even though they were. Their

salaries were paid by the government but they didn't show up as

employees. What we have done is remove the cloak of secrecy on the

number of people that were employed in government. It wasn't the

creation of new jobs; the jobs were already there. So there's the

answer I can give to the member. That's one part of the answer, and I

understand there's a question on the order paper now about the numbers,

which will be responded to again by the Provincial Secretary.

Also, a large number of positions which were called "temporary" were

incorporated into the public service. We came in and saw people who had worked

for the government for 15 years who were still being called "temporary"

although they were in full-time jobs in full-time service. It was bookkeeping.

For clarity there, those who they could no longer call temporary, even though

they'd worked for the last government or the government before that, were

brought in to make them identifiable, because they were full-time. It was a

matter of government reporting and that was changed as well. Large numbers there

which had been working for government for many years but had been classified

as temporary were put in the figures.

MR. LORIMER:

First, I'd like to offer my congratulations as well to Lawrie Wallace.

I hope he enjoy his new post. He'll soon get familiar with the

buildings and find his way around, and I hope he enjoys his retirement.

We've

witnessed a few weeks where the Premier of this province has refused to

answer questions. He's been stonewalling the Legislature, refusing to

answer questions and to answer to the people of British Columbia. The

Premier was referred to as saying that he would have an accountable

government, but in actual fact during his estimates there's been no

accountability whatever. There have been no answers to the public on a

number of facets of his responsibilities. There's no sign that the

Premier is going to accept his responsibility to answer questions

during his estimates.

He did state yesterday that he was

prepared to answer questions, but they would have to be limited to

certain areas of his responsibilities. I would like to have him answer

questions which I pose, but I'm not sure what questions he's prepared

to answer. So if the Premier would supply me with a list of questions

that he's prepared to answer, I'm prepared to ask those questions,

because I don't like the street gossip which I hear, that the Premier

is hiding something; he's not answering questions. He's my Premier as

well and I don't like the street gossip which I hear, that this Premier

is not being accountable to the public; he's not answering questions. I

want to be able to show that that's not correct and that he is

answering questions. So, Mr. Premier — through you, Mr. Chairman — if

you would send me a list of questions which you have the answers for,

I'll be quite happy to stand in my place and ask those questions.

HON. MR. McGEER: What colour of suit is he wearing?

MR. LORIMER:

Do you think he could answer that, Mr. Minister? The minister wants to

know what colour of suit you prefer. Now we want to assure the public

that this government is an open government. that they are not trying to

hide anything and that they're going to come out in full force and

answer the questions posed by the members of the opposition.

The

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) said the other day

that the Premier's not operating in the way that he would if he were

Premier. He said that he would conduct himself in a different manner.

He said he would be open. He wants the Premier to answer these

questions. The minister says that he has the right to know. He, as well

as the rest of the people in this province, would be very happy to have

the Premier answer the questions that are being posed.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page 2108 ]

The

Premier will be speaking on behalf of this government and on behalf of

this province on the important issue of unity. He will be speaking to

the other Premiers, the federal government, and I understand he's going

to have a talk in Quebec with reference to unity. We're hopeful that he

can speak with the unity of the province behind him. We have a motion

before the House, and as far as the motion is concerned I'm convinced

that he will have complete support. We want him to be able to speak

with a strong voice but we're fearful that this united voice that we

hope the Premier can speak with will not be as united as it might well

have been.

The Premier may not know that while he was away

in Lethbridge some of the boys were talking. They were talking about

his leadership. The member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) said

that there were aspirants in the wings and that people were ready to

take over the chair. With a situation of that sort it's going to be

very difficult for the Premier to be taken too seriously by any other

government in this country. Every time he's away from home he has to

watch what's going on behind him. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Mair), according to the member for North Vancouver–Capilano, says that

he's not an aspirant because he's unable to take criticism and he's not

likely to be chosen as the new leader. He also said that the two likely

ones were the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon.

Mr. McClelland) and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). They are

waiting for their chance to take over the leadership. He also tells us

that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is not a likely candidate. He

hasn't got much hope, because the people in the caucus are not that

happy with the Minister of Municipal Affairs. So he's down at a lower

rung of the ladder. No mention is made of the aspirations of the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). He doesn't mention

whether she's on the ladder near the top or the bottom or whether she's

on the ladder at all.

This all deals with government

leadership — the fracturing of the cabinet and the fight for the brass

ring. With the problems the Premier has at home it's not likely that

the governments of other provinces are going to take these things that

seriously. At this time in history the province should have a strong

government. This is probably the greatest crisis in the history of this

country that we are now facing, and we've had little action from this

government with reference to the problem of unity. We have a government

that refuses to answer questions and a divided government when we

should have unified government and the province should be taking a very

strong and prominent position.

The Minister of Municipal

Affairs said that he is embarrassed and uncomfortable with the

operation of the Premier. He said that he would have an open

government. As soon as the Minister of Municipal Affairs hears that the

Premier's out of town, he heads for the press room and gives a number

of off-the-cuff remarks.

The Minister of Universities,

Science and Communication (Hon. Mr. McGeer) said that no one questions

that the Premier's image is poor. And then the Minister of Health

straightened it all out by saying that he took the Premier to dinner.

Now in my opinion that shows real solidarity in the government.

The

Premier has refused to answer a variety of questions about dirty

tricks. Why were the research staff fired? Were they not carrying out

the orders given by someone else? From whom did the orders come? What

about the questions with reference to Dan Campbell and his

thousand-dollar bills — the obvious abuse of the Provincial Elections

Act? This would never have been reported if Tozer hadn't slipped out

the fact that there were secret accounts, when he was questioned about

the expenses of the research staff. Who were the signing officers of

the secret slush funds? Who looked after these accounts? Are the

accounts still in existence? Are they still being added to? Are moneys

still being expended from them?

He has not explained the

discrepancy between his and Etienne Reuter's story with reference to

the discussions held at the Common Market conference in Europe. The

Premier has denied that he made any reference to the sale of British

Columbia uranium, while Reuter, who was taking notes of the meeting,

says that there were discussions about the sale of British Columbia

uranium. Now which story is true? I think the Premier has the

obligation and the duty to tell us what the discrepancy is and to

straighten this matter out.

My colleague from

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) has asked a number of questions this

morning. All of these questions are serious questions and should be

answered by the Premier. They're not difficult questions.

few weeks ago the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) had an internal

review of the allegations of wrongdoing by the deputy minister. He has

had quite a few internal reviews during his short term in office. It

might be called the Allan-through-the-looking-glass investigation. He

looks into his own affairs and tells the House what he has found.

any event, the Attorney-General did give a long statement clearing his

ministry of any wrongdoing in what's now called the Vogel affair. He

thought he was making the statement — a lengthy statement — on behalf

of the government of British Columbia; but after the statement was

made, the Premier said that on behalf of the government he accepted the

very complete statement of the hon. Attorney-General as an honourable

member of this House, and that they accepted his statement without

question because of their considered admiration for his reputation as a

member of this House, and so on. "We accept it, because in this

instance and in others the system of justice must be clearly protected

and the public must have confidence."

Now I believe that

this is probably the first time in the history of this province that a

minister of the Crown has made a statement that is not, in fact, the

statement of the government. The Premier has stated that he was

speaking for the government, and not the Attorney-General. I would like

to know why the Premier found it necessary to state that the report

made by the Attorney-General was a report by the Attorney-General and

not a report of the government. Why did the Premier say that he was

accepting the statement because it came from the Attorney-General as a

reputable individual, and not because he was convinced of the truth or

the factuality of the statement?

I would like to know

whether or not the Attorney-General knew that he was not speaking for

the government. I'd like to know whether the Attorney-General had

spoken to the Premier, prior to giving his statement, to determine

whether or not the statement was satisfactory to the cabinet and to the

Premier. I'd like to know whether the Premier told the

Attorney-General: "You go ahead and make your statement, and I'll make

a statement on behalf of the government." These are questions that are

simple to answer. The discussions have been going on for close to a

month now, and we're still waiting for the first answer to any of these

questions that

[ Page 2109 ]

referred to today. We had hoped that the Premier, during his estimates,

would be forthright and answer the questions posed so that we could get

on with the other matters of government, the other estimates that we

have to go through in the ensuing weeks. I hope now that the Premier

will stand up and give us some of these answers.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I always love to listen to that member speak in one of his blistering

political attacks. I enjoy the member and I am a good friend of his

brother — as he knows. I appreciate him asking questions that have been

dealt with time and time again, and answered time and time again. The

member says: "Have you dealt with them?" Yes, they've been dealt with.

The member may have missed some of the debate for one reason or

another, but, yes, they've been dealt with.

We dealt with

the matter of research staff who work for the caucus. That's a

responsibility of the caucus. I don't know how your caucus operates,

through you, Mr. Chairman, to the member, but in ours the caucus

chairman and the caucus control their own affairs. I know you know that

and I suspect you're just being a little political. You know the

answer. You also know that there has been no policy on uranium by any

government in this province until this government brought in its

seven-year moratorium. We, as the government, have made that statement

and it is very clear-cut.

Concerning the number of other

things you've covered: yes, my statement to the statement of the

Attorney-General is in the record, and it is a good statement. I'm glad

the member read it out because it bears repeating. I enjoyed hearing

the questions again and I take them with good humour. I hope the member

now has the answers. But one thing I don't take with good humour is the

suggestion of the member that this government has not done its utmost,

and has not, in a very real way, tried to make a contribution to the

constitutional talks in the country toward improving the opportunities

for the provinces and regions. I don't know if that member realizes the

work the government has done. We did it not just for our party but on

behalf on all British Columbians.

The detailed papers on the

Constitution which were submitted to the First Ministers' Conference

have gained wide recognition in every other part of the country, and by

most British Columbians. They will all have a difficult time accepting

that member's word on anything after he makes such an outrageous

statement as that on something that touches all of us, and that is

about the affairs and the way in which our country can be made to work

and allowed to work, and how it can work better and how it can prevent

the type of threatened actions that are being suggested at the present

time, not only from the province of Quebec but people in all parts of

the country. It saddens me that the member would make such an

outrageous statement on such a delicate topic. The public is prepared

to let you be political and play your partisan politics and stir things

up and ask questions that can't be answered, and to make allegations

that are untrue by framing a question to which there can be no answer.

I'm sure they expect it of you, and it's all part of the fun and games

of politics, perhaps. But in an area as serious as the country I think

our record can bear scrutiny and not only stand the test of what we've

done, but.... I think we've played a leadership role in the country,

compared to any other provincial government, in attempting to deal with

this.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The

member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) scoffs. But he wasn't there at

the presentation to the Pépin-Robarts task force — to hear the

presentation of the government of British Columbia, to hear what was

the only time I ever saw a member of the New Democratic Party deal with

the subject at all, and to witness the tongue-in-cheek sort of

irreverent way that the second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald) represented their party. I don't ascribe that as the views

of that party, but it was the only statement that's been made during

the years that we have been working to do something. We put our

proposals out in a very serious way. We care about the country. It may

be that the member for North Island scoffs and laughs. Maybe he doesn't

think it's serious. Maybe he doesn't care. But this government does,

and while we will accept criticism and fun and games in a number of

areas, I think the member was way off base in making that statement. It

puts in perspective everything else he has said and is prepared to say,

because the public clearly know the answer in that area.

MR. LORIMER:

I find it rather distressing to hear the Premier talking about partisan

politics. I think that there is no one that has been more active in

partisan politics than the Premier himself. If he hadn't been so active

in partisan politics. a number of the matters that we are raising today

wouldn't be before us. The whole question of the dirty tricks wouldn't

have been here if it wasn't for the ardent partisan politics being

carried out by the Premier.

The question of the uranium

mining is not a question of whether there was the sale of uranium

discussed at the conference. The question is whether or not the Premier

was telling the truth when he said that there was no discussion. That's

the only question we're raising. It's not a question of policy; it's a

question of integrity at the top level of government.

As far

as the caucus matters that he raised are concerned, he says that that

was a caucus matter and not up to the Premier. The Premier is a member

of caucus. He's the senior member of their caucus. He's the leader of

their party. Whatever he decided would have been carried out. So he

cannot say that it is not his responsibility because it was a caucus

decision.

He asked about our caucus and how we operate.

Well, I can tell you that we have had no staff that have been fired. As

a matter of fact, they haven 't even had a menial reprimand — whatever

that means.

I would suggest also, to repeat what I said

earlier, that this government has been an absolute nothing as far as

the unity debate is concerned. We expect better things from the

third-largest province in this country.

HON MR. BENNETT:

Well, just to get back to the caucus thing, the way in which the member

for Burnaby-Willingdon thinks a caucus should work is very revealing to

this side of the House. I guess he only has the way their own caucus

works to go by, and that is that if the leader of their party tells

them to jump through a hoop, they jump through a hoop. They do not have

the type of democratic caucus that we have, where every member has an

equal voice. But that member suggests something we've suspected for

some time: that their members do not have any voice in the policies of

their party. When their leader speaks and tells them to keep

[ Page 2110 ]

quiet,

they keep quiet. That's when he's just told the House the way a caucus

works. He just instructed us how a caucus works. He says the leader is

senior and when he tells them to do something they do it. Maybe that's

the way their caucus works, but I've got to tell you that ours doesn't

work that way. Sometimes I wish it did, but it doesn't. It's been very

revealing to the members of this House why those members sit in

embarrassed silence sometimes — because their leader does veto what

they want and the policies they want.

MR. DAVIS: I'd

like to ask the Premier a question which falls in his broad area of

responsibility. It touches on several ministries, notably

Transportation, Municipal Affairs, Science and Communications, and

therefore I think perhaps the Premier would be in the best position to

answer the question. If — and I stress if — the government is prepared

to invest $1 million in an engineering study involving a fixed link

across the Strait of Georgia, would the government also consider

investing a similar sum in an aerobus demonstration link in downtown

Vancouver? Certainly such a demonstration link could lead to the

carrying of far more people than a fixed link across the Strait of

Georgia. An aerobus, for hon. members who are wondering what it's all

about, is a cable-car system. It's similar in a way to the cable-car

installation on Grouse Mountain in North Vancouver. But the cable runs

horizontally.

Also, the aerobus or cable-car is

self-propelled. It drives itself along the cable using electric motors.

It's fast, it's energy efficient and it's quiet. It moves above the

traffic and its capital cost is a fraction of that of fixed-rail

systems — certainly those currently in use in North America. Aerobus,

in other words, is cheap to build and cheap to install. At least it is

cheap as compared to other known modes of rapid transit. It costs

between $3 million and $5 million dollars a mile. Light rapid rail

costs between $20 million and $30 million a mile. Heavy rail

installations, especially if they are underground, cost as much as $50

million a mile today.

Not only is aerobus low in capital

cost compared to other better known forms of urban transit, but it is

inexpensive to operate, it's light in weight, it uses aircraft

construction techniques and the pylons which hold up the cables are

slender structures as compared to those which are used to carry the

monorail system in Seattle, for example. Each aerobus car can carry 50

to 100 people. It can reach speeds of up to 60 miles per hour, and

travelling two or three storeys up it doesn't have to stop at street

intersections. In effect it flies over the traffic. It's not held up by

red lights or long lines of cars and surface buses. In effect it's a

system free and on its own. The view is great and the progress from one

end of the aerobus line to the other is unimpeded by other vehicles or

weather, for that matter. It runs just as well in snow and rain as it

does on a bright downtown Vancouver day.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, at this point you have introduced the argument by saying

it is a question properly posed to the Premier and the administrative

actions of his office. However, at this point it would be clear to the

Chair that your debate is well within the realm of questions that

should properly be addressed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Vander Zalm), as you have already identified, and the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). Perhaps we could return

to the Premier's estimates and the administrative actions of his office

and stick to relevant debate.

MR. DAVIS: Mr.

Chairman, I will contend that it touches on more ministries than those

you mentioned. Certainly this kind of development, if it were built as

a demonstration link in relation to B.C. Place, could be useful not

only in relation to demonstrating a new technologically interesting

means of rapid transit but also could be used in connection with

Transpo '86. There are various ministries involved, and I think

decisions as to how money should be spent, touching on a variety of

ministries, come within the purview of the Premier as well as others.

Interestingly

enough, the inventor of the aerobus system, a well-known Swiss

cable-car engineer, first got his idea of light-weight cars running on

horizontal cable when he was assembling his aerial tramway on Grouse

Mountain. That was in the late 1960s when a new crossing over Burrard

Inlet was being considered. He reasoned: why not string cable-cars over

the deck of the First Narrows Bridge? In any case, that is when the

idea was first conceived.

I see you are getting impatient,

Mr. Chairman. I know I could continue along this line. I do want to

stress that this is an efficient system, a low capital cost system and

one that should certainly appeal to the taxpayers of this province. It

does involve new technology. It can only be developed a step at a time,

through an experimental link being built somewhere in the world. I

think it could well be built in downtown Vancouver in the early 1980s.

I think we could, in the long run.... Certainly taxpayers in this

province could save a good deal in the process, especially if an idea

like this was pursued by the government.

My question in

essence then is: if we are prepared to invest substantial sums in new

modes of transport, why not take a good, hard look at aerobus?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, the government is constantly looking for new ways and

means of transportation for the appropriate ministries to study. In the

greater Vancouver area, of course, the setting up of the UTA will allow

them to undertake studies. With the cooperation of the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, we have put before the House not only a substantial

amount of money in the budget for transit — in the millions of dollars

— but an additional $55 million, as part of a bill, that can go for

capital. I certainly feel all suggestions of innovative ways to move

people efficiently and economically should be considered, without

showing a preference for any single one.

If I could just ask

the members' indulgence, if they'll allow me to leave for five minutes

to welcome to my office a school class from my constituency, my deputy

will make a note of all the questions.

MR. COCKE: Mr.

Chairman, I certainly will indulge the Premier and the school children

that are visiting him. We're only too delighted that somebody sees fit

to visit the Premier in his office today. It's a surprise; nonetheless,

it's a possibility.

Maybe when he is talking to the children

he will be able to explain to them some of the reasons that he's unable

to explain to us his lack of concern about answering questions in the

House. I've been here only 11 years, so I'm not a neophyte, but I'm not

the oldest member in the House in terms of times elected. But I don't

think that I've ever seen a performance like the one that we have seen

for the last 20 some odd days. That performance has been one of a

Premier

[ Page 2111 ]

who

says: "It's not my responsibility, despite the fact that I'm the leader

of the party, despite the fact that I'm the Premier of the province and

despite the fact that I'm president of the executive council." That's a

fairly awesome responsibility, and it is particularly an awesome

responsibility in terms of our governmental process in the British

parliamentary system. The Premier takes the responsibility for building

the cabinet out of those that were elected and, having done that, the

responsibility of providing the direction in which the government will

go.

I would like to review some of the Premier's

responsibility in terms of what happened to one Ralph Loffinark. Ralph

Loffmark was a cabinet minister in the Social Credit government from

the 1960s until 1972, and an esteemed member, obviously, of that party.

Not only did he serve as Minister of Health but also on Treasury Board.

That is a high-profile position and also a highly responsible position.

The said Ralph Loffinark, I'm sure, did a lot of agonizing between the

years 1975 and 1979, and his agonizing took him to the point where he

saw the direction of the province taking what was in his opinion the

wrong turn. He made the charge — both privately and I believe publicly

— that a good portion of the blame for the wrong direction and the lack

of foresight and the lack of any kind of real direction was to be laid

at the feet of the Premier of the province.

He was a person

who had been in a highly responsible, high-profile position for a

number of years and a person who went back to his old work as a

professor at the university with nothing to worry about economically

and highly regarded in that particular field by his students and by

those other people with whom he was involved. For that person to

discomfort himself to the extent that he did when the election was

called in 1979, he must have been very highly motivated. I'm suggesting

that the motivation was given him by the Premier of the province. He'd

finally decided that he had to warn the people of B.C. about the lack

of planning, about the lack of economic policies of this Premier and

about the Premier's lack of understanding of the need for

transportation and how that related to the rail situation and other

transportation needs of the province. He made some very, very definite

decisions around whether or not he was going to be comfortable or

whether or not he was going to get back out into the field that he

decided to leave, and that was the field of politics.

Now I

recognize that Ralph Loffmark was a rather controversial figure, but I

also recognize that he had a vision. He had a vision somewhat similar

to the vision of the former Premier, now the Leader of the Opposition,

and also the Premier before that, W.A.C. Bennett, who had some

grandiose ideas — we didn't agree with them all, but certainly he had a

vision for the development of this province, a vision that has never

been shared by his successor in that particular dynasty.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Order!

MR. COCKE:

The Minister of Forests should go out and try to look for some

budworms, because that way you could do some real participating in this

province, rather than sitting back, chewing on your tongue and talking

about order. You wouldn't know order if you saw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for New Westminster on the Premier's estimates.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, I ask you to ask that member to withdraw the term

"mudslinging guttersnipe." It's unbecoming a minister of the Crown.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, I am sorry, the Chair did not hear that. If the member

heard that and if the Minister of Forests did make that remark, and if

the member for New Westminster finds that unparliamentary, I will ask

the Minister of Forests to withdraw.

MR. COCKE: No, on second thought, Mr. Chairman, from that member I don't find it anything.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I will remind all hon. members that I've already cautioned the member

for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) on sticking to the

administrative actions of the ministry whose estimates are before us in

committee now. I would ask all members to remember that we are on vote

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the first minister takes

responsibility not only as to his office; he takes responsibility as

leader of the party and also as president of the executive council. I

suggest to you, go back and look over the news accounts during that

election campaign. I'm talking about the Premier:

"The

noisier crowd in Victoria gave the same sort of welcome to his speech

which deviated only slightly from the night before with an oblique

attack on former Social Credit cabinet minister Ralph Loffmark. Without

referring to Loffmark by name, Bennett told the cheering audience that

he was proud to stand on his own record of achievement.

"'We do not have to stoop to shoddy manoeuvres to try

to capture the vision of W.A.C. Bennett, as others are now doing.'" He

is referring to Loffmark, of course. "'We stand on our own record; we

stand on our own policies. We have not run an election in fear, as the

NDP did in 1975'" — it's the biggest laugh I've ever heard — "'when

their financial mismanagement brought us close to chaos'" — which is

also rubbish.

But,

Mr. Chairman, then he showed his anger and his antagonism for one who

dared to stand up as a private citizen in this province, and as a

person who knew that we were in deep trouble, and defy his former

connection to the Social Credit Party by saying the things that he did.

What did he say, for example? He said one thing: "Barrett is a bigger

man on the north than Bennett. " Then he went on to relate why. I'm not

going to take the House through all that, but I am going to take the

House to this: that mysteriously, after the election, Ralph Loffmark

lost 80 percent of his pension that came from his service as an MLA and

as a cabinet minister in this House. He lost it, mysteriously, right

after the election. They were safely re-elected by that time, Mr.

Chairman. The first minister was once again in charge and felt, because

of his antagonism over this situation, that the best thing he could do

was show vindictiveness. That's characteristic in terms of what

happened to some of his staff.

I didn't see any important

person go down the tube during the dirty tricks situation in this

province, but I sure saw a lot of minions — seven, or is it eight?

Where is Grieg? Where

[ Page 2112 ]

are

the rest of them now? They're no longer employed by the government. But

Loffmark's pension was cut off and his excuse was that he was on salary

at UBC — an autonomous body, Mr. Chairman. That's why it was cut off.

I'm suggesting that politics in our province and all over the world

gets a bad name from this kind of behaviour, and particularly a bad

name when it's found that it shouldn't have happened in the first

place. Loffmark threatened to take it to the ombudsman and decided to

go further. He took it to the courts. What did the courts find? Well,

Loffmark is entitled to a full pension, by a B.C. supreme court ruling.

MR. HALL: Garde lost again.

MR. COCKE:

Garde lost again. No. You didn't really lose that one, Garde. You

didn't represent anybody. Anyway, Ernie is being unfair. The fact is it

was a loser and it wasn't a loser created by the Attorney-General. I'm

sure that the Attorney-General was as embarrassed as can be taking that

to court or having to represent the government in that situation,

having been taken there by the Premier. Don't talk about the fact that

there wasn't a responsibility there, that this coincidental situation

occurred without the full knowledge of the first minister in this

province. It just cannot be. We can't accept the kinds of answers that

say: "We weren't involved. We didn't know. We didn't understand." The

Provincial Secretary at the time made excuses for it. But those kind of

excuses don't wash. The timetable was just too perfect. Let me tell you

why the timetable was too perfect. It was perfect in this respect:

nothing happened for four years. Loffmark went on teaching and getting

his pension all through....

AN HON. MEMBER: Mister.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Loffmark. I would refer to....

AN. HON. MEMBER: Doctor.

MR. COCKE:

Dr. Loffmark. I'm sorry. Dr. Loffmark got his pension all those years —

from 1975 to 1979 — and then mysteriously he became persona non grata.

He must walk away from the pension and say: "I've lost another one."

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

Oh, Ralph won't blush. As a matter of fact, I think that he's a guy

with some vision, and I said that before you stepped into the room.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, do you know, regarding those asides being made, I don't

think I went around this province smearing my predecessor. Not once. I

can't remember it at all. The times I gave him a little trouble were

when I was the opposition health critic. Probably I was far more gentle

than I should have been, as one who is charged with the responsibility

of getting a government to clean up its act.

Now the first minister, who, in the eyes of his students, is a king, is back.

MS. BROWN: No!

MR. COCKE:

Oh, yes. He must be. Otherwise they wouldn't have gone to his office

like that. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds disagrees. Anyway, we'll have

to find the students.

Mr. Chairman, I have charged that the

first minister of the province was responsible, through vindictiveness,

for taking away the pension of Ralph Loffmark because he had the

audacity to come out and support the vision of the NDP and Dave

Barrett, as opposed to the lack of vision and understanding of economic

development and true development of the north by the present government

and its leader, the present Premier. Nothing more and nothing less. The

Premier was found wrong in the courts, as he would be again and again.

I'm sure the Premier was given plenty of advice as to whether or not he

should have taken that pension away, but, obviously, it was disregarded.

Loffmark

knew better. Dr. Loffmark knew, because not only is he an economist, he

also happens to be a lawyer. He's like the second member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Macdonald).

Interjections.

MR. COCKE:

Listen, the second member for Vancouver East is a brilliant man. The

Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) would do well

to go and chat with him for five minutes a day and then he might stay

out of trouble.

AN HON. MEMBER: He can't stay awake.

MR. COCKE:

I know, but the one person that keeps the Minister of Transportation

and Highways awake is Gallagher. Isn't that true? Up all night and all

day worrying: what's going to happen to my ferries? That's the only

reason the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon.

Mr. McGeer) is getting away with his $4 billion tunnel.

Mr. Chairman, I go back to this one statement: this is bad for the politicians

and it's bad for politics — this kind of behaviour, because of an election

situation. My question to the first minister is: why did you do it?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Well, Mr. Chairman what the member for New Westminster alleges is

totally untrue. I wish to deal with that very quickly. First of all, I

know Mr. Loffmark, and have known him for a number of years, and my

opinion has never changed about Mr. Loffmark in all that time. I also

know that the pensions part of the government — not the government —

interpreted the act and gave their opinion. We said we would not

politically interfere for or against and left it up to the people in

pensions to deal with it as they interpreted the law. That's exactly

what was done.

I wouldn't want to be seen to be politically

interfering for or against Ralph Loffmark, whom I know. For the member

to suggest that is totally wrong. I just wanted to make that very

clear. You're totally wrong. It is not true, The people in pensions

made the calculation on their own. They looked at it. Their names were

made available to the press to interview. In no way was it instigated

by myself or any of my cabinet. When advised of it before it was

released, I said we wouldn't interfere politically. That was the

correct thing to do. I said it to the minister and he so advised them.

That, too, is on the record.

[ Page 2113 ]

There

again, Mr. Chairman, it's very difficult to deal with continuous

political statements that are totally untrue. And that's not the type

of action that we would take. The member for New Westminster may feel

there are some that would act that way, and maybe he knows of some, but

I'll tell you that it was not the case.

MR. COCKE:

That sounds excellent. But will the first minister explain why it was

that Ralph Loffmark received a pension for four years under this first

minister's administration and mysteriously and coincidentally lost that

pension a few days after the election? That's all I'm asking. I've read

all the news reports. I've seen what you said. I know what the

bureaucrats will say. Whether you're government or we're government, of

course they'll carry the can. They'll carry the can for any government.

I would love to have a legal opinion, if there was one available. But

there sure isn't from that side of the House — obviously.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I just can't believe what I've just heard. Public servants are going to

act in a proper way, and they are not expected to carry the can for the

government. It works the other way with our government. If there are

problems with a ministry, then the government deals with them. But in

this case the names of the people involved were made available for

interview. They only told what was the truth. The member for New

Westminster may suggest that they're not telling the truth. I happen to

say they are. They're respected public servants. Maybe the member

doesn't believe them, but that's the truth.

MR. COCKE:

Just one more word, Mr. Chairman. The genesis of most things that occur

— or many things that occur.... If the machine is moving, then all the

working parts are left alone, and it just moves down the track,

whatever that track might be. No first minister or anybody else goes

directly to the pensions people and says: "Hey, how about looking into

Loffmark's situation." It comes in a far different way than that. But

certainly the genesis is very, very.... It's very difficult to

understand the timing of this one. I'll accept the first minister's

word. But believe me, it's been a mystery to me, because I've been in

pensions most of my life, and I understand something about them. And I

certainly understood Loffmark's consternation and his charge of having

been handled at such a coincidental moment and having lost 80 percent

of his pension.... Incidentally, the other 20 percent, of course, is

that which his contributions bought.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I've read the act, and you lost the case in court.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, I read the judgment. Autonomous!

MR. MACDONALD: Now that everybody's in a good humour, I just want

to ask the Premier a question about the jetfoil, to see whether today he will

give a full explanation to the House about the meeting convened by the Premier

in a committee room of the legislative buildings. If you're not going to

answer the question, just shake your head and say: "I'm not going to

answer." But if you're going to give an answer, now's the time

to explain to the people how much it cost.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I keep hearing about meetings in rooms and in offices; they keep

changing the location. But as I said. they can question the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) on any decisions on

public transportation that involve public expenditure. If it involves a

private or a non-profit agency which utilizes the support of a

government agency such as the B.C. Development Corporation, they can

question the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon.

Mr. Phillips) when his vote comes up — he is responsible in that area

and is a director of that corporation — on any decision they made. You

can find out if any such arrangement was made, what it is and whether

ito s good or bad in your opinion, and then you can criticize it. He

can say it's good and it was a sound judgment. Those are the sort of

things he can deal with. I can't give you any more information than

that. You'll have access to any information involving government funds

or funds from government agencies.

MR. MACDONALD: I

don't want to be tedious and repetitious, Mr. Chairman, but the Premier

totally misses the point. He said that they can give us the

information. We're asking about his conduct — the conduct of the

Premier of the province of British Columbia who convened the meeting.

That's a ministerial responsibility. In British Columbia are we going

to abolish legislative democracy in ministerial responsibility and

accountability? We're asking about your conduct, Mr. Premier. Did you

convene a meeting? Did you pick up the phone and phone BCDC? Let me

just finish for a minute. You got up, and I got nothing from what you

said, except that.... Have you ever asked a question of the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development? That's an experience.

Unbelievable! Gafflebag from that.... But that isn't the point. The

point is, Mr. Premier, that we're questioning whether you acted

properly or improperly in making a deal with Boeing about a jetfoil

service from Seattle to Victoria. You're in the hotseat now. You're in

the hotseat of democracy, and the hotseat requires that, on occasion,

you've got to answer questions, to the people — not to us.

There's

a word I hesitate to use, but I'm going to use it anyway. [Laughter.]

It's all very funny when a Premier of the province does not answer. It

doesn't happen very often that a minister doesn't answer questions

about his conduct — what he did.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD:

Do you want to know what the word is, Mr. Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) ? The word is "arrogance." I'm not going to

put a particular adjective with it, but when a minister of the Crown

who has charge of a portfolio convenes a meeting, and as a result of

that meeting there is an expenditure and a commitment of public money,

and then over a long period of time he won't answer simple questions

about his

part in it.... The Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development can't answer for the Premier's conduct; only the Premier

can. Mr. Chairman, when the Premier sits back.... Whether he's jovial

about it or kind of ratty

[ Page 2114 ]

about

it doesn't make any difference. The issue is willingness to be

accountable, not just to the opposition — we're just the spokesmen —

but to the people of the province. I have to say — and I'm using a

parliamentary word — that refusal to answer questions on your salary

vote about what you've done and whether you acted properly or

improperly in the administration of your office constitutes arrogance

not towards the opposition but towards the people of the province. It's

contrary to all the constitutional precepts of our democratic form of

government. It's ridiculous to give long speeches about having business

confidence in this province, and repeal the basic rules of democracy.

Was there favouritism? Apparently there was. Was there improper

interference with BCDC? Apparently there was. And no explanation.

Now,

Mr. Premier, we're not asking the other ministers to defend your

conduct or to explain it. We're asking you to give to the people of

this province a full explanation of this deal. Do it now.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The jetfoil service which the member talked about could be discussed

under Transportation or under the Ministry of Industry. If they don't

like the deal, then they can criticize it. If they don't like the

service.... As leader of the government, I will take responsibility for

whatever agreement the government may have made. I will take the

accountability.

If you don't like it, blame me. Tell the

people that the jetfoil service is all my fault. I just say the

government through BCDC has approved it. Bring it up in the estimates

of the minister and tell him you don't like it, then blame me; that's

fine with me. I've been listening for a number of days and apparently

you're against everything we do. I can't help that.

leave, Mr. Chairman, I would like the House to welcome a group of

students from Summerland. With them are two exchange students from

Newfoundland and Ontario.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I ask for leave of the House to introduce some students.

Leave granted.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I apologize to the House for forgetting to do this earlier, Mr.

Chairman. On behalf of the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) I would like

to introduce 23 students from Parksville Middle School who will be

visiting the House later in this session. I ask the House to join me in

welcoming them.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I want also to ask leave to welcome students, if I may.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I also would like to welcome the students from the Summerland Secondary

School. They are social studies students from grade 11. Although for

many years the municipality of Summerland was in the Premier's riding,

it is now in the riding of Boundary-Similkameen, so I thought I'd like

to have the opportunity to welcome the students and their teachers, Mr.

Don Gibbings and Mrs. Linda Beaven. I would ask the House to give them

a warm welcome.

MR. MACDONALD: I’m just going to sum up where we are and let other members deal with this or other questions that they have.

It's

a very unprecedented thing that's happening in British Columbia, where

there's no question of the Premier's involvement and leadership role in

some public business that has taken place, and no statement, even

outside the Legislature — but even if there was, that wouldn't satisfy

us, because he has to answer to the Legislature as well as to the

people.

Nothing's changed. I can't remember what day of the

estimates this is, but it's about the fourteenth or fifteenth day that

we've tried to ask public questions, matters of public importance

involving public revenues and expenditures where the Premier has been

directly involved. But he turns to the people of the province and says:

"I won't answer." Are you a king or a dictator or what? "I will not

give you an account of what I have done with respect to public

business."

That's where we are, and it is a kind of impasse.

In this Legislature. It's a breakdown of everything we've known. It's

never happened before. It didn't happen with W.A.C., Duff Pattullo, Dr.

Tolmie or Dave Barrett. It didn't happen with any of your predecessors.

What

kind of an example is the Premier, the first minister of the province,

setting for other ministers when they will take their place? Are they

going to follow his example and, in relation to their own conduct and

what they did, stonewall this Legislature? If that is the case I would

suggest to the various leadership candidates across the way — they're

not all present: from the apple-polishing ones to the silent ones; the

ones who smile and smile but can still do some villainous things if

they're not careful — that they go back and consult with their friends.

Some of them have friends; some of them haven't got very many. We

cannot have a Premier in the province of British Columbia who doesn't

answer public questions in the Legislature. We can't have that. We're

not going to have it. We're not going to stand for that. Why should we?

Why should a one-man government repeal the laws of democracy and

ministerial accountability and responsibility? Why should we allow

that? It's just a matter of time now, Mr. Premier, like Begin in

Israel. He's tottering. He's going to be out of office.

isn't just the opposition members who are saying this. It's the people

out there who are saying: "Well, we may not like your answers; we may

not like the way you have conducted business, or we may like it; but

for heaven's sake, own up to what you've been up to." That's what the

Legislature is here for. You have been stonewalling for all these days.

It's unacceptable not only to the opposition, Mr. Premier, but also, I

can assure you, to the people of the province. This is public business.

It's your conduct we're asking about.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, we've provided a lot of answers to those questions that deal with the first minister's estimates.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I am sure the second member for Vancouver East, who is a lot older than

I am, can remember the activities of Premiers far further back than I

can — back to John Oliver and Tolmie.

MR. MACDONALD: John A. Macdonald.

[ Page 2115 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: I do know the debate in estimates was held within the framework of their responsibilities.

think I have provided pretty good latitude in debate. I appreciate that

it's politics in here, and a good, roaring attack on the Premier makes

good stuff. And I recognize that the second member for Vancouver East

is one of the experts.

MR. COCKE: I would just like

to follow up for one second on what the second member for Vancouver

East is talking about, and that is the question of responsibility. If

the first minister convenes a conference about the jetfoil, or about

any other project in the province of British Columbia — whether it's in

lumber, mining, agriculture or whatever it is — he has then taken the

responsibility as first minister to answer questions about what

happened there. After all, the decision made at that conference has an

influence on everything that happens in the province — on our taxation,

etc.

He has totally stonewalled on this. You know, Mr.

Chairman, this is the laugh of the thing. Who will then be the person

responsible to answer? The Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development? I've been here a long time and I've never heard an answer

out of that minister. So the first minister is very safe in referring

it to the member for South Peace River. We'll never know what happened

at that meeting of business people, government officials and cabinet

ministers about the genesis of the jetfoil service between here and

Seattle.

AN HON. MEMBER: The question is in order right now.

MR. COCKE:

Of course the question is in order. The question became in order the

minute the first minister accepted the responsibility. I can recall

some time ago when another minister had something to do with

agriculture and had to take questions that seemed to be very much in

order. It's the same thing with a number of these questions.

Mr.

Chairman, I'm going to ask one other question. Getting back to the

Ralph Loffmark situation, I believe the Premier can satisfy everybody,

providing there is some documentation. I believe there is a cloud

hanging over everyone in this situation — there is a cloud hanging over

members of the public service — because of the timing. The timing was

most unfortunate. Mr. Loffmark was informed in July, after a May

election, that he was losing the pension of which he had been a

recipient since 1976, when he became 55. I'd be satisfied if the first

minister could get up and assure us that we can get some sort of

documentation that would lead us to understand how this happened.

want to tell you about one other little incident. We are going to go

into this a great deal further. There was one person at least on that

side of the House who decided to wait for his pension because there

were some changes coming in the act — it would be very accommodating if

that person waited. I'm going to get into a great deal more detail on

this in the Provincial Secretary's debate. But I tell you, Mr.

Chairman, there is just a sniff here of a little bit of vindictiveness

and also of a little bit of favouritism around that whole thing. I

think there is interference, and that's all I can see. I deferred to

the member for Vancouver East because I wanted to think it over again,

and it's just too darned coincidental for me.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Well, Mr. Chairman, what the member alluded to before.... I said it was

nonsense, and it is. What he suggests is untrue. The Provincial

Secretary made a very complete statement at that time, and I refer the

member back to that statement, which the research staff for the New

Democratic Party may not have made available to him. The opportunity is

there but, like I said, if the member is unwilling to take the word of

a public servant, that's his choice. I just say that what he has

alleged is untrue. I think everybody else accepts the word of a public

servant. It may be that the member for New Westminster thinks he's got

a good political issue and wishes to take this stance and say that. He

thinks it'll hurt the government and hurt me. He may be prepared to do

that and disagree with the public servant, but I tell you you're wrong.

You go ahead and play politics with it if you want but you're wrong.

MRS. WALLACE:

I would hope that this time round and I have asked some of these

questions before — with my good namesake sitting on the Premier's left

perhaps we can get some answers.

I would like to point out

to the Premier that he is asking for a sizeable increase in his budget

this year from last year. I can understand that, because there's the

change of organization. But unless I can be convinced that the money

which he had allocated to his use last year has been used wisely and

well and to good purpose for the taxpayers of this province, I can't be

very willing to pass a vote which is increasing that amount

considerably to add a great many more people to his service.

One

of the people included in his estimates for last year has been

mentioned before on the floor of this House, and that is Ron Grieg. Ron

Grieg left the services of the Premier's office. I would like to know

from the Premier why Mr. Grieg left. Was he fired? Did he resign of his

own free will or was he asked to resign? Mr. Grieg's departure from the

Premier's office occurred almost coincidentally with the information

coming to light of letters which were published in the Victoria paper

and an almost similar letter, just a line or so changed, published in

the Cowichan Valley newspapers and signed by one Gordon Townsend. It

was coincidental with the information that those letters were a forgery

that Mr. Grieg left the Premier's ministry.

We've had a lot

of information about how those letters came to be. We've had

information that the research staff advocated doing just exactly that

sort of thing. They advocated using the phone book to find a name and

an address. I'm wondering if perhaps, in the knowledge that that's what

was being advocated by their party and seeing these letters signed by

one Gordon Townsend with a given address, Mr. Grieg or somebody else

picked up a phone book, looked for Gordon Townsend in the Victoria

phone book at that address, found no listed number and decided that Mr.

Townsend did not exist. They thought they were safe, perhaps, in using

the tactic that they had devised to sign Gordon Townsend's name to a

letter. It was very coincidental with this whole thing coming to the

fore that Ron Grieg left the minister's services. I think the minister

has a responsibility to this House and to the public to advise this

House; why Mr. Grieg left his services. I have about three questions

for the Premier. I hope that he can remember this one until I sit down.

I want to know why Mr. Grieg left. Did he resign? Was he asked to

resign or was he fired? Why? That's the first question, Mr. Premier.

[ Page 2116 ]

The

second question is about Mr. Campbell. Mr. Campbell held a very

responsible position in the Premier's office. I suppose that the new

deputy assistant to the Premier could be considered as a replacement

for Mr. Campbell. I want to be very sure that this new replacement is

not asked by that Premier to hand out thousand-dollar bills for

campaign funds. I want to know that before I pass this vote, Mr.

Chairman. That's my second question. I want to know from the Premier

whether or not he was aware that Mr. Campbell was handing out

thousand-dollar bills for campaign funds. I want to know why the Social

Credit Party in its wisdom saw fit to send invoices for election

expenses to the Premier's office. I want to know what kind of a fund

was there and who had the signing authority for that fund.

That's

my second series of questions. I've got one more. They're all related

questions, Mr. Premier, and I'm sure that a man who's capable and able

to be the Premier of the province can recall those questions, and I

hope he's going to answer them.

My third question is about

the Eckardt commission. We've had two independent legal authorities

engaged to review some of the allegations that have been made. I'm

particularly concerned about this because the former researcher who did

work for the members on that side of the House has indicated that it

was his suggestion to the cabinet that a change be made in the

boundaries of my constituency. He suggested that Cassidy and Ladysmith

should be dropped from Cowichan-Malahat and put into Nanaimo. This

would be a politically expedient thing to do as far as the Social

Credit government was concerned. Mind you, it didn't work, but he

thought it would and a lot of people thought it would. That's what Mr.

Kelly has said, and we've had a report reviewing this. We've had a

report reviewing not only that, but the problems in Vancouver–Little

Mountain. That report has been filed, I understand. I would like to

know if the Premier has seen the report that was filed by those two

independent lawyers, because it seems very strange, Mr. Chairman, that

a report which was looking into a matter of that importance and which

has been filed for some time has not been made public. It seems to me

that if there was a difference of opinion between those two lawyers, a

third party would have been called in. It seems to me if the report had

exonerated the government, the report would have been made public. It

has not been made public. As my final question, I'd like the Premier to

tell me whether or not he has seen that report.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The answer to your last question is no. Much of this has been covered

before and I guess the member has been away from the House a fair

amount and hasn't been here to hear the answers. I will say, no, I did

not request Mr. Grieg's resignation; no, I didn't talk to him in

advance of his resignation. I was away from the office, came back and

he had resigned. Unproven allegations were made about him in the press.

I phoned him to ask him, and the result of that phone interview was

made public through the press and available to the authorities

undertaking investigation. I'm sure you know that and perhaps you're

asking these questions because it's good politics to ask them again.

But that's all been dealt with, and the information is public and has

been for some time. I know that member knows that. It's difficult to

keep answering questions where the answer is already there.

The second series of questions dealt with.... What was the second series of questions?

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Campbell.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

As explained before, the member knows that Mr. Campbell was in charge

of Intergovernmental Affairs. He took a leave of absence without pay

from the government to be a part of the campaign of the Social Credit

Party. The campaign chairman was Les Peterson. They set up the

structure and the financing and the method of payment. It certainly

wasn't suggested by myself. I can't comment any further on it other

than what the party who looked into it has been able to state. I can't

give the member any more information than that.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Chairman, there's a notable change in what's happening with respect

to considering and examining the estimates of the office of the

Premier. A week or so ago the Premier had the attitude of a rather sour

individual — not that he is, but he had and exhibited that attitude —

belligerent, careless, insensitive to questions, almost glowering. If

we look back to a few days ago, he was ignoring all the proceedings of

the House with his head bent to his desk, signing letter after letter

after letter, completely ignoring what was going on around him. That

attitude and manner was picked up and reported by a lot of people who

watch what goes on in the Legislature. Obviously that was brought to

the Premier's attention and now we have an alteration in the stage

manner of the Premier in relating to the assembly. We now find him

friendly, open, laughing, joking and convivial, seeking to set the tone

that he's now going to change his ways and that he is prepared to

answer questions that are raised in the House.

In fact, he

stands up in his place and does provide answers now. They're not the

answers to the questions which are asked. They are the answers that are

convenient for the Premier to give, apropos of that statement he made a

few weeks back that some answer he gave in the past was appropriate to

the moment. That's the type of answers which are forthcoming now —

answers not to the questions, but answers convenient for the Premier

and appropriate to the moment, without answering a question, but making

it look like his generosity knows no bounds in terms of relating to the

Legislature.

Last night, in fact, he got into the question

of how he'd like to have some more money in his estimates — not the

measly $500,000 or whatever it is which is in there now — and he turned

to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and almost pleaded with

him to give him maybe $1 million, $2 million or something of that sort

in the Premier's estimates. He tried then to say that this was all that

was needed to fix up the Premier's office — to straighten it out and

change it around. Well, Mr. Chairman, no amount of money can do that,

because it isn't a lack of money which is the problem in the Premier's

office; it's the person who holds the office. That's where the problem

is.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: I have the fortunate disability at times of not being able to hear some of those comments.

[ Page 2117 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: You don't like me, do you?

MR. HOWARD:

The Premier says there again that I don't like him. I have no feeling

one way or the other about him. What the Premier is asking me now by

that interruption and interjection is to relate to him on a personal

basis, but that's not what we're here for. He said that I don't like

him, but I neither like him nor dislike him. I have no feeling one way

or the other about him on a personal basis. That's not what we're

talking about. We're talking about the conduct of a person who holds

the office of Premier. That's what we're talking about; we're talking

about the office. We're talking about the manner in which the person

who holds the office of the Premier of this province has been

conducting the affairs of this province. That's what the questions are

all about. He could have $5 million in the estimates for his department

and it wouldn't straighten matters out and make them any better or

worse, because the Premier, I think, doesn't have the leadership

capability to realize what's necessary to run the affairs of this

province.

I will quote the Premier's words from yesterday

afternoon, towards the end of the day, in respect of campaign funds.

This is an example of what I'm talking about — the sort of dissembling

way in which the Premier deals with these matters. He said: "My office

does not collect campaign funds, nor does anyone in my office collect

campaign funds. " That's what the Premier said.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Where's your leader?

MR. HOWARD: Where's your leader? You should know.

That's

what he said: that his office — the Premier's office — doesn't collect

campaign funds, nor does anyone in his office collect campaign funds.

That's the type of approach that I mentioned that the Premier is now

taking. A question is raised about the conduct of activities in his

office, about something that occurred in the past. That was the

question that was related to the Premier about what happened before.

And he answers in the present and says what is happening or not

happening now. Nobody's saying anything at all about whether his office

collects campaign funds now, or anybody in his office collects them, or

whether he collects them. That is not the substance of the questions

that were posed to the Premier.

While he was away from

British Columbia last fall — I'm not sure if it was in the Orient or

Hawaii or California, but he was away from here — a number of matters

came to the attention of the public, one of which related to Social

Credit Party activities. I believe the former executive director of the

Social Credit Party — Gilchrist is the name that comes to mind. If that

wasn't his name, I'm sure somebody will inform me what it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: John Gilchrist.

MR. HOWARD: John Gilchrist, I'm advised, is the name.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD:

If that's the guy that got fired — that's what the minister just now

said.... I thought he got eased out to make way for a very close buddy

— a friend of the Premier's — from his home town.

In any

event, Mr. Gilchrist, who at the time in question was an executive

officer or an executive director or something of the provincial Social

Credit Party, told the public of B.C., while answering questions about

expenditure of party funds, that when bills came in to the Social

Credit Party office — on Main Street, I believe it was — relating to

certain types of Social Credit Party expenditures, he ordered them to

be sent over to the Premier's office to the attention of one Dave

Brown. I don't know if Dave Brown is still working in the Premier's

office or whether he has gone, or what, and that is neither here nor

there. But the fact is that one John Gilchrist — a functionary or an

executive director, which is the title in the Social Credit Party

itself — sent certain party bills over to the Premier's office to be

handled by one Dave Brown, and to be paid on this side of the water.

Shortly

thereafter, or around that same time, questions were raised by members

of the media about some secret fund that was supposed to exist — a

secret fund that was used to pay for the dirty tricks tapes that were

developed as a result of some conference in the Bayshore Inn with which

the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and the people on his staff at the

moment were involved in. The question arose then about this so-called

secret fund. The disclosure that such a fund existed came from a person

who worked in the Premier's office. Gradually it came to light that in

the Premier's office there were public employees, paid by the

taxpayers, who were engaging in private Social Credit Party activities.

That

was the question that involved campaign funds, not whether or not the

Premier collects campaign funds. I'm sure he doesn't. I'm sure many,

many times he has said he doesn't want to know where they come from. He

just wants his party to be secretly bought off. He himself doesn't want

to know who's paying the piper, who's paying the shot, what's the

source of the funds at all. The Premier has said many, many times that

he has a blind eye to all of that. He's not the least bit interested;

doesn't care where the money comes from. He doesn't want to know where

it comes from, what strings are attached to it, or anything else.

Obviously a person with that attitude about campaign funds wouldn't be

collecting them.

That wasn't the question that was posed.

That's just the current approach of this new-found Premier in the last

day or two, to appear to the general public to be answering questions

when, in fact, he isn't answering them; when, in fact, he is still

declining to answer; when, in fact, he is still denying what took place

in his office and refusing to deal with it. In effect, what he is doing

is telling the general public that it's none of the general public's

business what public servants, whom the general public paid for, were

doing in the Premier's office handling private Social Credit Party

funds and distributing them. That's the question that is vitally

important. That's the question that the Premier has refused to answer.

That's the question that he's ignoring now, as he's spending the time

talking to his old buddy from Central Fraser Valley.

The

other night the Premier said that as far as the opposition is

concerned, the Social Credit government hasn't done anything that's

good. I disagree with him; I think that they have. One of the best

things the Premier did — a commendable thing he did — was to keep the

member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) out of the cabinet. I

think that was a wise choice, and he should be commended for that. I

applaud the Premier for taking that course of action. Let's not have

the Premier stand up and say that we don't commend

[ Page 2118 ]

him

for doing good things. There was one very good thing that he did, and I

hope he sticks by that and continues to keep him out of the cabinet.

The

question we want to try to get to the Premier, and get him to answer,

is: when he discovered that special funds for Social Credit Party

purposes were being handled out of his office, did he himself cause an

inquiry to be made? Did he conduct an inquiry himself? Did he ask

anybody in that office what was going on with respect to those special

funds — party funds, campaign funds, slush funds, secret funds; I don't

care by what way they are labelled — moneys available to the Social

Credit Party, kept apart from the Social Credit Party itself, and

handled through the Premier's office? That was the question asked. What

did the Premier do about that? Did he get in touch — by phone or

personal conversation or whatever — with the people in his office who

disclosed that these funds existed and that theretofore there were

secret party funds operated out of the Premier's office? Did he inquire

about that? What did he discover? Was he dismayed and upset to find out

that his very, very close working buddies — whom he picked — in his

office, paid for by public funds, were engaging in handling private

secret party funds? Did that upset the Premier? What did he do about

it? That's the simple question involved. It's not whether or not the

Premier is or isn't doing anything at this particular moment.

The

general public does have a right to know, I submit, for another reason:

a few years back this government sold two or three — I believe it was —

ferries which the taxpayers of British Columbia had paid for. The

ferries were owned by the people. These ferries were sold. Of the

three, I don't know how many were sold to a stock brokerage firm, or an

investment dealer, called McLeod, Young and Weir, or how many were sold

to a trust company in eastern Canada. But I gather there were two

particular corporate groups involved: one was an investment dealer, the

other was a trust company. The ferries were sold, and we are now

leasing them back again.

I'm not going to get into the

bookkeeping arrangement that showed up on the books of the province as

a result of that transaction, which showed an inflow of money and made

the accounts of the province look better than they otherwise would.

That's been argued before. That's a reasonably standard way of

borrowing money without it actually showing up as a debt on the books.

Sell a capital asset and lease it back again so you get the money from

the sale, and then over a period of time you pay out fees to lease back

what you sold in the first place. I'm not going to get into the fact

that this was a connivance deal made for the advantage of the stock

brokerage firm and the trust company involved and that it permitted

them to get in just under the wire with respect to a tax loophole that

existed in federal tax laws, and that it accommodated a stockbroker and

a trust company to escape the payment of federal income taxes which

they would otherwise be liable for — just before the deadline. That

sort of connivance, that sort of manipulation dealing with public

assets, is something that we can explore at another level, but that was

one of the reasons for it as well.

The question we need to

ask is this, and this subsequently came to light as well: one Austin

Taylor Jr. Is reputed to be one of the bagmen for Social Credit. In

common parlance, a bagman is a person who works for or acts on behalf

of a political party — as you know, Mr. Chairman — and who wanders

around with a big bag and collects campaign funds, which, I suppose, is

where the word "bagman" came from. He keeps stuffing the money in this

bag, as it's donated to him. Then he brings it back home and usually

gives it to the political party.

In this case, some of the

money so collected apparently didn't go to the political party —

namely, Social Credit — but went to the special fund which was operated

out of the Premier's office. So public servants working in the

Premier's office seem to have been saying. The general public is

entitled to know, directly from the Premier.... I know he absolves

himself from all sin in this regard by saying he doesn't want to know

where money comes from, but perhaps in this regard somebody should know

where it comes from, because the great possibility exists, Mr.

Chairman, that we sold some ferries to a friendly stockbroker, leased

them back from the stockbroker, McLeod, Young and Weir, paid moneys as

lease fees, and found out that Austin Taylor Jr., who is also the

bagman for the special fund that existed and was run out of the

Premier's office, is a principal in the investment dealer company. Is

the general public of British Columbia finding that some of the money

it pays in lease fees for the ferries is filtering back again to Social

Credit Party funds? Is that the way they get funds? Is that why the

Premier doesn't want to know where the money comes from? If he knew

where it came from he would be aghast at the prospect that operating

out of his office was a special fund for Social Credit campaign

political purposes that might have in, it public money — laundered and

through an indirect route — but back again into the hands of the party.

That's a very important question. It's a question that the Premier can

shrug off if he likes. He can shrug his shoulders and give his

new-found bland smile and say: "That's nothing to do with me. I don't

collect any money. Nobody in my office collects money." He can say that

if he likes, and I accept his word that that's the case now.

accept his word that he never did collect campaign funds, because he

has continuously said that he doesn't want to know anything about them.

He doesn't want to know where they come from or who gave them or what

was being bought by the giving of those campaign funds. But in this

particular instance there is such an aura of nefarious secrecy about it

all — not on the part of the Premier — and such an atmosphere of some

wrongdoing in the whole area of campaign funds. There was wrongdoing in

the instance that these particular funds were not operated, Mr.

Chairman, and run through the Social Credit Party machinery. The

elected officers of the party didn't know anything about it. But they

were run through the Premier's office through somebody in the Premier's

office knowing about them.

What is the need for secrecy in

the collection, distribution and expenditure of campaign funds? Social

Credit is an open party, isn't it? It has conventions. They disclose

their books, they say: "Here's our income and expenditure for the year.

Here's an audited statement. Everything's above-board, everything's

okay." But in this case it wasn't. In this case there was a fund for

campaign purposes separate and apart from the party. That in itself

should cause some eyebrows to be raised. Why do you need a secret fund

secret from the party itself? Why did John Gilchrist, as an executive

director of the Social Credit Party in Vancouver, send certain bills

over to the Premier's office to be paid for here? Doesn't that strike

you as something just not quite proper in the conduct of political

affairs? That's the atmosphere that surrounds this whole activity.

[ Page 2119 ]

Secondly,

we have one of the principals in a stockbrokerage firm — as I said

before — who was instrumental in collecting money for this secret fund,

acting for the party that bought some ferries and is now leasing them

back. Doesn't the Premier want to know whether, in the process of doing

that, some public funds didn't stick along the way and get directed

back into this secret fund? I think the general public would like to

know whether its tax money is going a circuitous route to get back into

the hands of the Social Credit secret fund. This is a legitimate

question.

The Premier has denied all of that — not denied it

in fact, not stood up in this House as an honourable gentleman would

and said: "I deny that." That didn't happen. Okay. But he is denying

knowledge of it by refusing to reply, by refusing to involve himself in

looking at what has been going on in his office. If he did look at what

was going on, the general public is entitled to have a response to that

question as to what he discovered. The general public is entitled to

know. It's not a question of Mr. Campbell being on a leave of absence

and not being paid by the general public during that period of time he

was passing out pocketfuls of thousand-dollar bills. Mr. Campbell was

on a leave of absence; he wasn't being paid by the general public; he

was a private citizen at that time. All well and good. But this is what

needs to be answered. What relationship did Dan Campbell have, if any,

to that secret fund that was building up, operated out of the Premier's

office during the time that Dan Campbell was a public servant and was

paid for by the general public? Did he have access to that secret fund

in the fall of 1978, when he was being paid by the general public? Did

he have access to the fund at that time, to pay for the printed

brochures that MLAs in the Social Credit Party had printed to send out

to their constituents?

Did Dan Campbell have his hands on

that fund then? Did Dan Campbell have access to that fund as a public

servant paid for by the general public when that fund is reputed to

have paid for the preparation of the dirty tricks tapes? To answer

questions it's not good enough just simply to say dear old Dan was on a

leave of absence at the time he was found out to have passed out all

these thousand-dollar bills. Dear old Dan was on a leave of absence

when he just forgot to report about $250,000 in campaign fund

expenditures — forgot to report it under the law, forgot what the

Provincial Elections Act says and didn't disclose to the proper

authorities at that time. And those are the questions that need to be

dealt with, and I think need to be answered directly and openly.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD:

Well, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is

saying something about the green light being on. Fine. I've always

thought the green lights meant go.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not in the House.

MR. HOWARD:

I know there is a red light. I don't know what a red light means.

Perhaps my hon. friend who raised that question will know more about

that than I do. Red light here means stop. I've come to learn that.

Turn the green light on. For those who read Hansard

and wonder what it's all about, Mr. Chairman, there are lights here

that indicate the length of time you've got to go. Mr. Chairman, would

you turn the green light on for the Premier so that he can answer those

questions? That's the reason we need the green light. We need it so

that the Premier will open up, level with the general public and place

on Hansard the responses to

that fundamental question about what was taking place in his office

with respect to secret special campaign funds and all that is connected

with it. That is the simple question required to be answered.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes and no, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I've answered them; no, I can't tell him any more.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to go back to the answer that the Premier gave on my question in respect to....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Comment? Fermez la bouche, monsieur. Ah, oui. Merci beaucoup.

What

I would like to do is talk to the Premier and ask him, through you, Mr.

Chairman.... When I asked him about the public service he presumably

was reading from a question that was answered by the Minister of

Finance last June. At that time the member for Burnaby North (Mrs.

Dailly) asked: "What is the total number of persons employed in each of

the following: the public service, B.C. Systems Corporation, B.C.

Buildings Corporation and B.C. Ferries?" The total was 45,026. I don't

think the Premier added it all up, Mr. Chairman.

What he

didn't answer was.... I said to him that the public service had

increased considerably. He was the one who said the government must not

be a direct employer. In 1976 the Provincial Secretary, in answer to a

question, said the total number of employees in government employment

was 39,139. In 1977 the total number of employees was 37,720. Last year

it went from 37,720 to 45,026. I was wrong when I suggested it was

almost 47,000; I should have said 45,000.

However, what we

have there is an increase of about 8,000. The Premier offered as a

reason for this the incorporation of the Vancouver Resources Board. He

also said that was always hidden. It was never hidden and the Premier

knows that. It was always very clearly stated in the estimates of Human

Resources how much money was going to the Vancouver Resources Board.

There were, I think, between 1,300 and 1,400 employees. That is a long

way.... The Premier might be indicating that there were more than that.

If he has knowledge that there were 8,000 employees, perhaps he'll tell

us.

We know there was an increase in employees in respect to

the Systems Corporation because it was new. The Ferry Corporation

wasn't new; it was just made a Crown corporation. The Premier's

explanation for the increase is really not satisfactory. How does he

account for at least a 6,000-person increase? It's not a question of

not creating new jobs. Where did the figure of 45,000 come from? In

December 1975 there were 39,000. In 1977 it dropped down to 37,000. Why

did they find the need to provide another almost 8,000 jobs? Let's take

off 2,000 at the most; there certainly weren't 2,000 at the Vancouver

Resources Board. Where did the figure come from?

Of course the government is involved in creating employment. Nobody's objecting to that. But now that he has

[ Page 2120 ]

entered

into that debate and offered some indication of where the increase

might come to, all he's done is covered about a quarter of the

increase. What he should do is have his staff talk to him in detail

about where this comes from. I know that there is a question on the

order paper for this session, but I'm not referring to that. I'm

referring to the remarks made by.... A tout â l'heure!

AN HON. MEMBER: A demain!

MR. LEVI: Oui. Our friend is leaving. The noise level in the House has dropped 130 percent, and he isn't even out the door yet.

MR. HALL: He's in Invermere.

MR. LEVI: Yes, he's in Invermere.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he's not.

MR. LEVI: Yes, he is. Phone and find out. Eight hundred people came to the railroad station to meet him.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that that just left?

MR. LEVI: That was the former member for Columbia River.

perhaps the Premier might enlighten us on that. I just want to make.

one other remark. Yesterday the Premier was telling us how difficult it

is to get money out of the Minister of Finance. Frankly, I would have

no objection if he had a budget as large as that of the Premier of

Alberta. I took the trouble to look at it last night. You'll find that

it's something like $2,200,000. However, I don't see in the Premier's

budget an item called protocol, for which Peter Lougheed has some

$450,000 in his budget. He has an item for project management:

$355,000. He has an item for the office of the Lieutenant-Governor of

some $50,000. So we know that the Premier's not really reading the

information properly.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Ah! He wasn't listening, and I'm going to have to go over it again.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI:

Well, I think that what he was doing was stretching the truth to

suggest that the Alberta Premier's office actually spent over $2

million on the Premier himself and his staff. This is not the case,

because included in that budget, if he has the same information I have,

there's an item last year for $450,000 on protocol. Now I know that the

Premier doesn't have a budget on protocol, because that's generally

handled by the Provincial Secretary. Evidently Mr. Lougheed has, for

the following year's estimates, reduced that substantially — cut it in

half. But he's increased project management. Now that's a very active

government. He also has a substantial cabinet support staff. There's a

substantial support staff as part of executive council. There's one in

Manitoba, but not as much as there is in Saskatchewan, because they're

active governments.

The Premier should tell us, and we

haven't heard him tell us exactly what happens in his office. We know

that last year he was still maintaining a quasi-office in respect to

intergovernmental relations, but that's now a ministry; and that's

good, that's what it should be, because it's a crucial function of

government. What else was going on? What else was the Premier doing? He

had a procession of staff coming in and out, he had information

officers, but not really the kind of staff make-up that existed in

other Premiers' offices.

It was really a very low-profile

office. He wants to make a virtue of the fact that they spend very

little money on the office, and that somehow that's a good thing. I

would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that's not a good thing. The

Premier's office, which is the central functioning office of the

government should have all the staff necessary to carry out the

functions of that office. We know, from watching the Premier operate,

that he tends to operate standing on one leg and then the other one. He

doesn't really have the kind of support staff or the ability to make

presentations to the public that are lasting presentations in terms of

what happens when he makes announcements. We can see great holes in

public relations. After all, when he announced the $200 million program

for mortgage subsidies — a good program, but it didn't go far enough —

it went to blotting paper the next morning because some of the details

weren't cleaned up. It was not exactly stated whether, in fact, B.C.

lumber would be used. It was done in a hurry and not in a proper way to

present to the public. Nor was it presented to the public in such a way

that the citizens knew what they could expect from it. That's part of

the support staff that you need in the Premier's office to make those

kinds of presentations.

We saw it with B.C. Place. The

presentation — that would be the announcement of B.C. Place — became an

abysmal joke when they produced the plans and we found out that they

had been quickly drawn over the weekend. There was no support staff and

no staff work adequately done, and consequently that became a bit of a

joke in terms of its presentation. It's the same kind of thing in most

of the announcements that come out of the Premier's office, because he

doesn't have the kind of staff that he needs. Is he doing the kind of

thing within his office that other Premiers do with respect to

projects? Is he undertaking from his office particular projects that

other Premiers seem to find necessary to do within their offices? Has

he got any projects at all? I know that when he was the acting Minister

of Energy he was responsible for some