1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MAY 5, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2253 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Forest Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 17). Hon. Mr. Waterland.

Introduction and first reading –– 2253

Oral Questions.

Rent controls. Mr. Levi –– 2253

Application of Workers Compensation Act to firefighters. Mr. Lauk –– 2254

Tree-farm licences. Mr. King –– 2255

Representation on Occupational Training Council. Mr. Lauk –– 2255

Motion 12.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2256

Mr. Howard –– 2256

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2257

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office estimates.

On vote 9.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2257

Mr. Macdonald –– 2258

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2260

Mr. Howard –– 2261

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2262

Mr. Passarell –– 2266

Mr. Lauk –– 2268

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2271

Mr. Lockstead –– 2272

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2275

Mr. Barber –– 2275

British Columbia Marketing Board annual report, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2279

MONDAY, MAY 5, 1980

The House met at 2:30 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

It's my pleasure to introduce those members of the Board of Economic

Development who are in British Columbia today on behalf of the national

government. They are here today for a series of meetings. They have

been meeting all morning — until about 15 minutes ago — with their

counterparts in the economic development committee of the government. I

might also say, Mr. Chairman, that it's a good exercise in democracy

and one that we hope will continue. It's a historic occasion for

British Columbia, and we have some commitment that it will take place

again so that we can follow up the kinds of things we discussed this

morning, and some of those things which may still be on the table we

will get off as quickly as we can.

I'd like the House to

welcome, first of all, an old friend of this Legislature, one who has

been here a number of times before. As a matter of fact he said this

morning that he was happy he finally made it to the B.C. cabinet room —

Senator Ray Perrault, leader of the government in the Senate. I'd like

the House to also welcome Senator Bud Olson, chairman of the Board of

Economic Development and Minister of State for Economic Development;

Senator Hazen Argue, Minister of State for the Wheat Board; Hon. Ed.

Lumley, Minister of State for Trade; Hon. Jean-Luc Pépin, Minister of

Transport; Hon. Don Johnston, president of the Treasury Board; Hon.

Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of Employment and Immigration and minister

responsible for the Status of Women; and one other member who was with

us all morning and has now left on other business, Hon. Judy Erola,

Minister of State for Mines.

MR. BARRETT: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to add my voice of

welcome to the very impressive board of economic review that is

spending some welcome and positive time with us here in British

Columbia. My colleague, the former Attorney-General, informed me that

this is the largest single group of elected Liberals we have had on the

floor of this House in a long time — other than closet Liberals.

want to say on a personal note how much pleasure it gives me to welcome

back to this House an old personal friend and colleague, Senator Ray

Perrault. Senator Ray and I sat together for many years, he at one

corner and I at the other, during some very formative years in this

House. We came to develop a very close friendship, which has lasted

despite partisanship. It is very strong on his side and equally strong

or stronger on mine. He is a very great British Columbian and is taking

on a very difficult task at this time. Every British Columbian,

regardless of political stripe, wishes him well in the difficult role

that he must now play with the national government. On a further

personal note — for Ray to explain and me to announce — Ray's wife

Barbara and I were in jail together.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the members of this

of British Columbia to the people of Yugoslavia on the occasion of the death

of the president of the republic, Marshal Josip Broz Tito. He was a remarkable

leader who much influenced the course of modern history. His presence will indeed

be missed on the world stage.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to have not one but two

announcements of visitations to make. The drought has ended in terms of

visitors from the Nelson-Creston riding to these distant precincts.

Touring the buildings and later today to visit the gallery are 31

students from Kaslo School, with their teachers Maynard Monroe and Mark

Fisher. Also in the gallery is Ms. Mima Wilson, secretary of the

Nelson-Creston New Democrats. I hope everyone joins me in welcoming

them.

MR. KEMPF: In the gallery with us this

afternoon is a fine, upstanding young fellow and a great Socred from

the constituency of Skeena, my son Brian. I would ask the House to make

him welcome.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, in the

gallery today we have representatives from Columbia River, from

Invermere, Mr. and Mrs. Seppwenger, and I'd like the House to join me

in welcoming them.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure

our visiting guests from the Board of Economic Development always feel

more comfortable in a chamber in which there is also a cousin to a

member of Her Majesty's federal loyal opposition. Would we all welcome

the federal Conservative Member of Parliament from Bruce-Grey, Mr. Gary

Gurbin, who is in the gallery today.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr.

Speaker, I would like the House to welcome this afternoon a long-time

friend of mine and president of the Kootenay Social Credit constituency

association, Mr. Bob Clarke from Fernie.

Introduction of Bills

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. Waterland presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a

bill intituled the Forest Amendment Act, 1980.

Bill

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

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

Oral Questions

RENT CONTROLS

MR. LEVI:

I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

We have been hearing for some years that rent controls would be

extended to cover permanent residents in hotels. The tenants of St.

Helen's Hotel, many pensioners and people on low and fixed incomes have

just heard that effective June 1 their rents will be increased from $27

to $37 per week. This is a rise of $40 a month, representing a 36

percent increase. Will the minister indicate to the House the steps he

has decided to take to intercede on behalf of these tenants?

[ Page 2254 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, I would have to be advised of the precise details of those

tenants at the St. Helen's Hotel, and I will ask the rentalsman’s

office to develop that information for me.

MR. LEVI:

I will make the details available. On a supplementary question, has the

minister decided to include permanent hotel residents in the coming

amendments to the rent control legislation?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That concern and that question will be approached in the legislation which I hope to introduce within the next couple of weeks.

MR. LEVI:

I take it that the answer was yes, it will be included in the

amendments. Could I ask the minister if, in his decision to include it

in the rent control legislation, we are now dealing with equity under

the legislation for people who live in hotels the same as other people

who are covered by the Residential Tenancy Act? If they go into the

act, will they be completely covered, rent control and all?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Those questions will be answered by way of legislative amendments when introduced into the House.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the same minister about the

Residential Tenancy Act. At present the Act does not protect families

with children and welfare recipients against discrimination in

acquiring rental accommodation. Is the minister aware of this and is he

going to ensure that the amendments to the Residential Tenancy Act

provide protection for these two groups?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to determine why the Residential Tenancy Act

would attempt to isolate any specific group of people for reasons other

than tenancy arrangements and agreements. I would think if people are

being discriminated against in this province, regardless of their

circumstances, then it would be a question for another ministry to look

at.

MS. BROWN: I certainly agree with the minister,

and that's why originally this question was placed before the Minister

of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), who is responsible for the Human Rights

Code. However, that minister brought to my attention that the Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was responsible for the Residential

Tenancy Act, and this is why I'm now putting the question to him.

Landlords

are discriminating in terms of their accommodation against families

with children and against welfare recipients. This is particularly

difficult in this time of tight rental accommodation. I'm merely asking

the minister whether in amending this piece of legislation he is taking

this fact into account and these two groups will be protected.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, I would refer the member to the answer I offered the

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) earlier; that is, those

questions that you raise, as they involve residents or tenants within

the province, would have been taken into consideration for any

amendments which will be forthcoming, but specifically they would be

answered by way of introduction of the amendment act. Residents and

tenants in the province should be considered to be that — residents or

tenants. There are innumerable groups of people you could attempt to

identify, and I don't know how you'd possibly administer

an act if you

attempted to identify the various groupings of people within the

province. I think the people who are tenants should be treated as

tenants. And I certainly agree: they should not be discriminated

against.

APPLICATION OF

WORKERS COMPENSATION ACT

TO FIREFIGHTERS

MR. LAUK: I have a question for the

Minister of Labour. A few days ago the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford)

asked the minister a question concerning the proposed changes to

schedule B of the Workers Compensation Act. The minister at that time

said that he would encourage any changes to be delayed until the matter

was considered under Labour estimates.

I have this question:

in view of widespread concern in the last several days, particularly

from firefighters and others, about proposed changes to

schedule B of

the Workers Compensation Act, has the minister decided to request that

the board conduct public hearings so that a full public hearing can be

held into the ramifications of these proposed changes before changes

are made?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I can advise the hon.

member that I have been in contact with the chairman and one of the

commissioners. The question the member put to me was the question I

placed to both the chairman and the commissioner. To encourage the oral

presentation in support of a brief, I can advise you that the example

to which I referred was in fact the firefighters' submission, which is

very, very detailed. Considerable expense was incurred by that

particular association in placing its case before the Workers

Compensation Board.

I should advise the hon. member that the

following information was given to me. Other reports in reference to

schedule B were all being received. After they have been reviewed there

is consideration — and I'm encouraging this, I might add — that those

who wish to make oral representations in support of their brief be

given that opportunity.

MR. LAUK: Will those representations be public? Will the hearing be public?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I cannot answer that question. I will take that question under advisement and discuss the matter with the chairman.

MR. HANSON:

A question to the Minister of Labour along the same lines. I found his

answer to the previous question very interesting, in that he has to

assess the firefighters' brief. Firefighters, it is stated, have heart

attacks with ten times the incidence of the normal population. The WCB

is proposing to remove a presumed relationship between the

firefighters' work and heart damage which has existed in the act since

1916, and between it and lung damage for two years. Has the Minister of

Labour demonstrated leadership and indicated to the board that he would

like them to have their proposed changes based on medical evidence, as

opposed to costs, which they are presently basing their changes on?

[ Page

2255 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I really didn't get a specific question. I

will undertake to read the Blues. I'm really in no position to answer

what I think the member is getting at. I don't really know too much

about cardiac infarctions, and all the other technical, medical

language which I read when I reviewed the brief. But if the member

wouldn't mind, I will undertake to read his comments in the Blues, and

take it from there. Perhaps he might be able to be more specific in his

next question next week.

MR. HANSON: For the

clarification of the minister, my question is: is the minister aware

that the primary reason for the proposed changes in the firefighters'

case are based on costs and not medical evidence?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Without being facetious, I am not really aware of the difference

between them — whether it's based on costs or medical reasons. I

suspect there may be a little of both; I don't know. But I'm really not

in a position to answer that question. However, I'm also very reluctant

to take it on notice, because I suspect the answer may be a very

lengthy one, and I think that the chairman and commissioners for the

board are in a far better position to assess that type of inquiry than

I am. I am particularly reluctant to involve myself in the decisions of

the board, because I think it ought to be free, to some degree, of

political influence.

I think what's important, Mr. Speaker,

if I may just add to this, is that I hope the commissioners and the

board will undertake to hear oral presentations in support of the brief

which was submitted.

MR. HANSON: On a brief

supplementary, does the minister agree that any changes should be made

on the basis of current medical data, and not costs to the board?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I would have to agree with the question and answer in the affirmative.

I would have thought that most items with respect to disposing of cases

before the Workers' Compensation Board would be based on current

medical data.

TREE-FARM LICENCES

MR. KING:

I have a question to the Minister of Forests. Can the Minister advise

the assembly why the 1979 annual reports have not been filed by

MacMillan Bloedel for TFLs 20 and 21, in view of the fact that

according to

section 1403 of the act these licences and reports are due

prior to April 1, 1980?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The answer to the member's question, Mr. Speaker, is no.

MR. KING:

On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate whether a

dispute between MacMillan Bloedel and the Forest Service does exist

over the actual level of annual allowable cut in the previous year?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the member means

by dispute, and I don't know if the annual allowable cut for the next five-year

working plan has been finalized yet either.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I didn't ask about the coming five-year working plan; I

asked about the annual allowable cut for the previous year. Is there

any dispute regarding the designated annual cut? Did MacMillan Bloedel

fall within the prescribed limits in terms of living up to that annual

allowable cut? Is there a dispute or anything in contention for the

previous year?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, no, there's not.

MR. KING:

On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, can the minister advise us whether

there will be an extension of time for consideration of the annual

allowable cut for the coming year in view of the late filing of the

1979 report by MacMillan Bloedel?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, the question by the member is based upon the premise that

the filing of such a report was late. I'm not sure that it was, and I

will endeavour to determine that for the member.

MR. KING:

I take it that the minister has indicated that he will return to the

Legislature with that information regarding whether the report was late

in violation of the regulations and so indicate to the House. Thank you.

REPRESENTATION ON

OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING COUNCIL

MR. LAUK: I have a

question to the Minister of Education. The Occupational Training

Council was established to advise vocational institutions and regional

colleges on budgeting and planning and on vocational training in the

province. The council was to be a balanced council with representatives

from labour and management — at least that was the original stated

intention by the minister's predecessor. Recently two members were

appointed to the council, both from management backgrounds, making six

representatives from management and two from labour. Does this present

imbalance on the Occupational Training Council reflect government's

distrust of trade union representation?

HON. MR. SMITH:

Mr. Speaker, I think that the member would probably agree that it would

be a mistake if these bodies ever became a fixed allocated constituency

so that there were so many representatives to go to management, so many

representatives to go to labour, so many to one trade and so many to

another. They are supposed to be a general and comprehensive group of

citizens who advise the ministry. I think you may notice that there are

now on that council persons with a labour background and persons with a

management background. I can assure the minister that there is no

attempt to downgrade the labour representation on that body, but there

is an attempt to try and have that body broadly representative of all

elements of society and education.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to Motion 12, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

[ Page 2256 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move the following motion in expectation that

it will, of course, have the unanimous endorsement of the House. I move

that in recognition of the friendly and expanding economic and cultural

relationships with our trading partners among the nations of the

Pacific Rim, this House extend a sincere and warm welcome to His

Excellency Prime Minister Masayoshi Ohira of Japan on the occasion of

his two-day stay in British Columbia following his recent visits to

Mexico, the United States of America, and our national capital, Ottawa.

further move that this House express its earnest desire that His

Excellency, on his return to Japan, bear the message of our wish that

our ties of friendship remain cordial and firm in the interests of the

socio-economic and cultural well-being of both our regions at a time of

unrest among some of the world's nations.

On Motion 12.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

On speaking to the motion I will be brief. I believe it is recognized

by all members of this House and the majority of the people of British

Columbia that British Columbia, as Canada's western most province and

on the Pacific Ocean, provides access to Pacific Rim countries,

primarily led by Japan, whose outstanding industrial and social

progress in the last number of years has given them a capability not

only of manufacturing but also the opportunity to expand their need for

products produced in British Columbia. Our government has been

aggressively pursuing those trade links.

The trade links

cover a number of commodities found in British Columbia, from coal

through copper and molybdenum to British Columbia building materials

and building techniques, which have now provided major access into the

Japanese market for our forest products. Japan, too, has a history not

only of trading with British Columbia but of guaranteed investments,

helping to invest and provide technology in developing some of the

resources that have been a part of a great trade expansion between us.

However,

there are other opportunities that we have been working on including

the access for our agricultural products, such as cherries, from the

Okanagan. Of course, that has taken the cooperation of the governments

of Canada and British Columbia and the growers themselves in meeting

the protection standards to make those products disease-free for the

market access. We have also been working with the Japanese government

to meet the standards of entry for our softwood plywoods, such as the

glue-line standards. That testing is going on and British Columbia

should have additional access for this product.

Trade and

friendly cultural relations were a major part of the trip I made on

behalf of the people of British Columbia to Japan in October last year.

At that time we had the opportunity to meet not only with senior

government officials but also with the leaders of Japan's industries,

steel and others, culminating not only in individual meetings by

resource or by industry, but also in meeting the Japanese industry

group Kadanrin, who cover the broad spectrum of Japanese industry and

are there for British Columbians to talk to.

I believe the

friendly relations we have built up have been cemented, and cultural

and social ties between our countries, and particularly between our

province and Japan, are growing. A number of our cities have developed

sister-city status with their counterparts in Japan. We share similar

concerns with some parts of Japan, particularly the northernmost

province of Hokkaido. We share with them our environmental concerns of

northern regions and developments. As such I can think of no better

opportunity to express to the people of Japan our feelings for the

continued success of trade between us and the continued development of

friendly nations whose interdependency is growing. We hope that the

cultural relations that have been built up over these last number of

years will continue to expand.

Among our citizens here in

British Columbia are a number of Japanese Canadians who have been good

Canadians. They have helped to bring their industriousness, ability and

innovativeness, and they are part of the multicultural fabric of our

country. They have played an important

part in developing the British

Columbia we have today. I have been pleased to grow up in an area where

a great number of Japanese Canadians also resided. They were, in fact,

friends and neighbours of mine, living adjacent to the home where I

grew up in. They had various business interests, industries or jobs

that they performed in the community. I knew them then as friends and

neighbours. Their relationship with their country has helped in the

trade and cultural association we have.

Again, it's timely

that we reinforce, through this motion and this Legislature and on

behalf of all of the people of British Columbia to the Prime Minister,

our continuing best wishes not only for expanding trade but for

continued friendship. As I've said, our interdependency will continue

to grow. It's an interdependency based on trust, reliability and the

understanding of not only one another's problems, but the uniqueness of

our different economies that allow us to marry those economies in a

beneficial way for both our countries and our people. We have a lot in

common and a lot of future opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, I move the motion which I have read that is standing in my name.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, if there exists within the rules an opportunity, either

formally or by statement, to second the motion moved by the Premier,

then on behalf of the New Democratic Party I'm very pleased to do that.

That in itself reflects the unanimous view of this House in doing two

things by the motion: to express a formal, official and warm welcome to

Prime Minister Ohira on his visit here, not only to Ottawa but to

British Columbia as well; and to express to him the hope that upon his

return to his home country of Japan, which we hope will be safe and

that he will arrive in a happy mood having had the benefit of a good

visit to this part of the world, he will bring back to the Japanese

people the expression that we make here in British Columbia of our

feelings and appreciation of having such a fine relationship with that

fine country. Our relationship is not only friendly in an external

sense of a relationship between governments and different countries

across different sides of the Pacific Ocean; our relationship is also

here at home. I'm not alone; there are many, many people in this

province who, like me, had an occasion during the early years of school

to sit in the same classroom and be compatriots and friends at the

educational level of people of Japanese origin who were born here and

who still live here and contribute such a great deal to what we know as

British Columbia. The relationship with Japan is more than trade, it's

more than an economic relationship and it's more than goods moving back

and forth; it's a very intense and, I hope, continuing cultural and

respectful relationship.

[ Page 2257 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate, let me welcome the remarks of the

member for Skeena on behalf of the New Democratic Party, which would,

of course, show the unanimity of this House, which is shared by the

people of British Columbia. As I say, there is a feeling of friendship

that has developed out of a growing understanding and growing access

between our two peoples. It's just a few years ago, in terms of our

country and our province, that the act of participation in trade was

developed — an investment. Many can look back on the successful

agreements with Kaiser in coal and they think of such companies which

pioneered in the forest industry, such as Daishowa. I know these people

— the principals of the company — and the people who work for them, but

what is equally important is they know us as well.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in closing the debate knowing it has the unanimous support of all members in this House.

Motion approved.

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

MR. REE: May I ask leave to introduce some visitors to the gallery, Mr. Chairman?

Leave granted.

MR. REE:

Mr Chairman, today I have the honour of welcoming 49 grade 11 students

from Carson Graham School of North Vancouver–Capilano under the

guidance of two of their teachers, Mr. Arnet and Mr. Porter. Half of

them are now sitting in the gallery; the other half will be through

here shortly. They've assured me that this is the best high school in

North Vancouver. I'd ask the House to welcome them warmly.

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

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

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Just to make a few remarks in the initial part of my estimates, as the

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

so eloquently expressed in his introductions, we have a unique

opportunity in this province today to have major discussions with a

topics, but on topics and items of concern to the people of British

Columbia, who demand resolution between our two governments. While we

would hope for easy negotiations, it is not always thus, because for

every question there are a number of positions to be taken. But British

Columbia believes that in those areas we have a strong case and a

strong presentation in what will provide outstanding results not only

for our own province and the security of its economic future in regard

to some of the larger items, but will pay great dividends to the

country as a whole. Transportation and sea access are important, then,

not just to British Columbia, but to Canada. The opportunity to sell

more products from British Columbia is equally as important to our

country in resolving its balance of payments deficit and increasing our

trade surplus.

British Columbia is a province that has the

unique opportunity to be an international trader, and it makes a great

contribution to this country. Part of the talks today surround the

opportunity for us to increase that role, Mr. Chairman, and to expand

Canada's products to further our market access, particularly in the

countries of the Pacific Rim.

I must take this opportunity

time available to come to British Columbia, and for the preparation

they have made for the meetings and for the type of detailed discussion

that has been underway today with their counterparts in this province,

cabinet to cabinet and minister to minister. I'm hopeful that these

discussions will bear fruit tasty not only to British Columbians but to

Canadians as a whole, at a time when our country needs good economic

news. We have a unique opportunity now to be the messenger and the

instrument by which that good news is provided, good news which will

inject Canada further into the international economy in a very real way.

terms of people it means a further development in some of the proposals

for areas of our province which do not now have access to markets for

the treasures and riches of their resources, not a single resource but

multiple resources. It means that the impact of the development of

transportation systems that will open up new areas will also open up

new opportunities. That means jobs for British Columbians, who now have

the opportunity to develop the skills to work in these highly

specialized areas. Young British Columbians preparing to come into the

workforce will have the greater security of knowing that there is an

additional opportunity for them which does not exist now, at a time

when they may feel uncertain about their future because of unemployment

figures which have been continuing on a national basis for a number of

years. It means greater career opportunity for them.

The

further expansion of transportation into new areas of the province....

We have a large province: 366,000 square miles large, or — if you've

completed your opportunities to develop it into metric — 950,000 square

metric miles. That means that there's a lot of British Columbia yet to

be developed in an orderly, responsible and satisfying way. It means

that we must seize these opportunities — not run for them, but seize

them at times of uncertainty and in an aggressive way. I touched on

some of those opportunities when I spoke to the motion I moved earlier.

Of course, the country of Japan presents a very outstanding opportunity

for British Columbia.

Again, the economic impact is not just

to the region, not just to those areas which would be part of the

transportation system, but will impact on the total British Columbia

economy. It will provide corporate and individual taxes for government,

both federal and provincial. It will provide then a greater guarantee

that the services of government can be not only continued but expanded

as well.

People fear when they see governments running deficits. They're

fearful that governments may not be able to continue to provide those

services upon which those in need have come to rely. The only guarantee

those people have that the health-care systems and income-support

systems in this country can be continued is to have an expanding

economy, where governments can pay their bills without plunging the

country into debt. Therefore, at this time, the money needed

[ Page 2258 ]

provide the infrastructure is not a waste of government spending. It is

not the type of restraint in spending that the people of this country

are demanding in government. This money spent by governments is an

investment in the country and in our people. It's an investment for our

people so that they may have the jobs and job security we need in the

future — and now, because the time is now.

There are times

in the affairs of men, they say, which when taken at the flood lead on

to fame and fortune. There are times in the affairs of provinces and

nations when the opportunities are there to be seized by those who are

bold enough to not only see a vision but to carry it out as well. We've

gone beyond the time of words. We've gone beyond the time of study.

We've come to the time of decision, when bold governments are called

upon to act, and to show the type of optimism and confidence that this

type of investment in our future will entail. It's not a waste of

public funds. It's the greatest investment we can make. It is an

investment that will help us to use the investment we make in educating

our young people to give them skills. That investment cannot be

harnessed unless we provide the additional investment in the expansion

of our transportation systems, and in the infrastructure, to allow the

orderly development of industry in this province. Mining is one of

those industries; forestry is one of those industries. Those industries

have a unique opportunity in a new area of this province — new in terms

of access, anyhow; not new in terms of being part of British Columbia —

whose time has come.

I must say that this time didn't come

by accident. It is not an event that has been thrust upon us. It's an

event that has taken a lot of work. I give full credit to the Minister

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

others for the initiative they've taken in making this a priority, as

part of the economic blueprint for British Columbia that was devised

some years ago by this government to open up in an orderly way those

areas in which these were resources to be developed, which could

provide jobs for our people.

It was done at a time when the

main resource — that of metallurgical coal — was not in demand. In 1976

the world had entered a recession as far as the steel industry was

concerned. The steel mills of the world were operating at below 70

percent capacity in most instances. This is an industry that demands a

capacity use of over 90 percent to break even, because of the high

fixed costs. It was not easy to market, because British Columbia had

not been aggressively marketing its coal. The prime trader with which

we would logically trade had been taken up by aggressive countries such

as Australia, who not only were developing their transportation

systems, but were becoming very aggressive and shrewd traders. British

Columbia had a lot of ground to gain. It was an ambitious program and

an ambitious goal. Today, four and a half years later, we have an

opportunity to satisfy that goal.

As I say, the present

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development — then the Economic

Development minister — led missions to Japan, to Korea and to the

marketplaces of the world, seeking new markets. He had the foresight to

add to the very dedicated and able people in the public service people

who could round out our store of knowledge and our aggressive marketing

presentation. Indeed, coming to this moment in time, all British

Columbians owe them a debt of gratitude. I have seen them work 18 to 20

hours a day on trade missions. There were no junkets, just hard,

grinding work, where you must be alert at every moment in dealing with

the very best of industry and government, whose knowledge is such that

they're quick to spot those making presentations who haven't done their

homework. The Minister of Industry had done his homework. The dedicated

public servants had done their homework. Now it lay for them to

convince those to whom we made presentations that we could be reliable

suppliers.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I've said

that Canada and British Columbia have made market penetration before;

but there was an insecurity among our trading partners, a doubt that we

could, with a single rail network and port facility, be considered a

reliable supplier. Because of accidents, such as a bridge going out, or

industrial disputes in both port and rail, our products could be cut

off at a moment's notice — products that are needed in a highly skilled

type of industry. It's important, then, for both our country and our

province to have a second outlet to the Pacific Rim at this time.

That's not saying that that may be the only addition to transportation

— both rail and port outlet — that this province will need in the

future. That outlet and that system are needed now.

It was

this government's decision to place the port facilities in Prince

Rupert, to develop them in Prince Rupert. Ridley Island was selected as

the ideal site for a bulk commodity port that could resolve a number of

questions about Canada's ability to be a continuous and secure supplier

of grain from the prairie provinces and our great northeast, potash

from Saskatchewan, wood products from British Columbia, and of course

our coal to feed the furnaces to provide the steel. As I say, Mr.

Chairman, today we've reached that point in time when that work has

brought us to this moment where success is within our grasp.

The

investment needed is just that, investment that must be undertaken with

a confidence that we have an opportunity to meet our future — the

development of British Columbia, development for people, opportunities

for people, opportunities for Canada, opportunities that Canada must

take. It's a significant point in time in this country's history when

there is some political uncertainty and economic uncertainty. British

Columbia will be pleased to be the good news that can be the forerunner

of other good news. Because there are those who would be negative about

the country, negative about our prospects, we need governments with

boldness who will make the investment to end the negative attitude and

unsureness that many people express. We can then help to resolve some

of the political insecurity. We can help to resolve some of the

economic insecurity and, above all, make a positive commitment to the

young of this province that they have governments willing to step out

and make investments to guarantee their opportunities and their future.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Chairman, I was rising to my feet this afternoon to ask the Premier

some questions on his salary vote. That's part of the picture of where

British Columbia is going as well — the willingness of a Premier to

answer questions about his own salary vote.

But I'd like to

say, just in passing, that when the Premier refers to four and half

years in terms of northeast coal, he's out about a year and a half. In

terms of some of the earlier studies of Sukunka coal, I remember going

to London in 1974 and meeting with the British Steel Corporation and

[ Page 2259 ]

arranging

for the first test shipment of the good coking coal of the northeast to

be shipped to Britain. In terms of the development policies of the

province of British Columbia, the NDP has an enviable record, both in

government and outside, in terms of the development of the resources of

the province of British Columbia for the benefit of all of its people.

We'll debate that on the proper occasion in this House, as it should be

debated, and we'll debate the way in which, for the benefit of all

British Columbia, these resources should be developed and should have

been developed before this time, because in some cases there's been a

lot of sleeping at the switch.

But I want to come back to

one question and explain its importance to this Legislature and to the

people of B.C. As soon as I can have the Premier's attention, I want to

direct him back to that meeting on March 13, 1980, in the Oak Room —

that's been established by newspaper clippings but not by any word from

the Premier in the Legislature — to do with the jetfoil service to

Seattle. That is a matter of very important public business. I'm not

only going to repeat the questions but I'm going to explain just why

these questions are of great significance. The Premier cannot, after 21

days, continue to sit in his seat and refuse to account for his conduct

in the administration of his high office. The significance of that

meeting and the reason why we asked what the Premier had to do with it,

who convened that meeting and what commitments were made on behalf of

the people of British Columbia or the Development Corporation, is very,

very manifest and it is clearly public business for which the Premier

should be answerable as to his

part in it. At that meeting, I

understand, a commitment was made that the British Columbia Development

Corporation would advance $600,000 by way of a loan — interest-free, I

understand, but it's up to the Premier to talk about these things — to

a company known as Flying Princess Transportation Co.

Now

the odd thing about that kind of commitment from the Premier of this

province — who, as we gather, convened the meeting — is that such a

commitment would be in breach of the Development Corporation Act, not

merely as a matter of policy — the government interfering in the

affairs of what is said to be a corporation set-up, public to be sure,

but independent of government, that makes its own decisions through its

board of directors — but in plain violation of the terms of the act.

Flying Princess Transportation Co. has no assets at all; that is point

number one. Point number two, while I expect it exists in the minds of

Mr. Bob Wright and Cedric Steele, who was a friend of the Premier, it

has not even been incorporated up to the present time. I understand

that the financial arrangements are made so that this service will

commence with a commitment from the government of $600,000 to this

private company by May 15.

Now why, Mr. Chairman, do I say

that is in violation of the legislation if indeed it is the case that

the Premier gave a commitment for this loan and made the overtures and

had DCBC.... I've got to be careful, because to make sure that it

wasn't an NDP company, they've changed it around; it used to be BCDC

and now its DCBC. Oh, you don't like all our children, do you? All the

good things we did for the province of British Columbia, the Marguerite

and all the rest of them — when they're too good to do away with you

carry them on under a different name, heavily disguised as Socred

children when they were really part of the progressive policies of the

NDP government.

Mr. Chairman, they can't make that kind

of loan to a company that doesn't exist and a company that doesn't have

any assets. When the government made a commitment in the Oak Room to

advance that company $600,000 without bringing it back to the

Legislature as they should have done....You know, the Princess Marguerite

was a special bill, hurried through to get the service in place, to be

sure, but the Legislature and the people not only were informed but

authorized it legally. Now

section 5 of the Development Corporation Act

says: "Notwithstanding any other Act, the corporation" — not the

government — "has all the powers necessary to carry out its

objects...." The object we are concerned with here is to: "(

a) lend

repayment or otherwise as the corporation considers advisable...."

Mr.

Chairman, there is no security. No security whatsoever can be put up by

Flying Princess Transportation Co., whose profits they are to be

allowed to keep but whose losses presumably are to be underwritten by

the government. But it isn’t even a paper company at the present time,

because while there has been a name reservation in the office of the

registrar of companies by the promoters of the company whom the Premier

called in, there has been no incorporation and no security. There is a

lease, presumably, that has been arranged with Boeing of Seattle to

lease the jetfoil, but that is hardly security that can be pledged to

DCBC to support the advance by the taxpayers of this province of

$600,000. The corporation is limited, Mr. Chairman, to advancing funds

on security.

If you read the other sections of the act, what

I have already said becomes further plain.

Section 25 of the act, for

example: "In making loans and investments, the corporation shall base

its decisions on, and shall take into account" — not a meeting convened

by the Premier, but the corporation acting independently through its

directors — "(

a) a thorough and objective analysis of the management

capability of the industrial enterprise...." It didn't exist. It wasn't

even a paper company when the Premier of the province of British

Columbia pledged to these promoters $600,000 of the people's money for

which he will not answer a single question in the Legislature.

Section

25(2): "In making loans and investments, the corporation shall be

guided...alone..." so that they "...shall be made without

discrimination...." I would say plainly, Mr. Chairman, that if some

individuals can come to a meeting convened by the Premier — or be

summoned to a meeting; he picks them out — and offered this kind of

money, $600,000 on an unsecured loan from the Development Corporation

of British Columbia, that is discrimination.

I see that the

Premier is getting ready to answer, but I just want to finish my few

remarks and then just pose the questions. In

section 27 it says: "It

shall be a condition of every loan made, that on the sale of any part

of the property mortgaged to the corporation as security for the loan"

— and that theme runs all through the Development Corporation Act —

"then the loan shall be immediately due and payable." It's the property

mortgaged for the security of the corporation, and here we have a

commitment for $600,000 — or whatever the Premier says it is, because

he's never been frank about this thing, and we have to, rely on rumour

and newspaper clippings when the minister doesn't answer. I say, Mr.

Premier, you were in breach of the act that your government amended

when you made these commitments. I'll just finish off in a very few

minutes and then I'm going to

[ Page 2260 ]

pose my questions. I hope that finally, after 21 days, we'll have accountability in this Legislature.

Mr.

Chairman, this paper company is working out arrangements now with

Boeing and the travel agencies whereby, if you want to travel on the

jetfoil to or from Seattle, or if you want to travel on the Queen of

Prince Rupert to or from Seattle, you have to go through a travel

agency and you have to make your reservation seven days in advance. The

effect of that is that you really have to be part of a package tour.

The arrangements that are being made are great for the tour operators.

It's great for the travel agents, but it is not necessarily great for

the people who like to visit the city of Victoria, and it isn't

necessarily great for the people of Victoria who like to take the

service and visit in the United States. All of these arrangements are

being made based upon a meeting convened by the Premier as to which he

has not answered any questions for 21 days.

Now my questions

are these, Mr. Premier — and I'm glad that finally, after all this time

on this important matter of public business where you were involved,

I'm asking you. Who convened that meeting? Was the Premier present?

Were overtures made to the Development Corporation of British Columbia?

Was a commitment made or discussed and, if so, for how much? Or was

this made independently by the Development Corporation of British

Columbia? What was the commitment that was made or discussed at that

meeting on March 13, 1980, in the Oak Room of these buildings at about

4:30 p.m.?

Public business, and the Premier's conduct in

relation to that public business, is what is an issue under vote 9. I

say that you just rode roughshod over the legislation of the province

of British Columbia, and I want specific answers to those questions.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the member for Vancouver East is talking nonsense at best.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, answer the questions.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

You've had the answer to the question, through you, Mr. Chairman, and

I'll tell you one more time: the B.C. Development Corporation has a

board of directors who make their decisions for their staff. From the

government on the board of directors is the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development, whose estimates give you the opportunity to

talk about any of the business to do with BCDC or his ministry. That

opportunity will come to you.

To make the bald, incorrect

statement that the Premier violated the B.C. Development Corporation

Act is utter nonsense, as that member well knows. I tell you again that

any arrangements the BCDC board of directors approve which become part

of the agreements they make to help companies develop in this province

solely are the final responsibility of the directors, and the member

knows that. Many times they take years in investigation; sometimes they

take months, sometimes they take weeks, but obviously it is their

decision.

It was very good of the member, Mr. Chairman, and

very good of you, to allow him the opportunity to refresh himself by

reading

an act which every member of this Legislature has read and

dealt with and understands. In merely having a copy of the act, the

member must know that that act and its responsibilities come under the

Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development.

To say

we've ignored the question.... The question is more properly directed

to the minister responsible, where it can receive the type of attention

that everyone wants, the type of accountability, because this is an

accountable government. Other members had those answers and have known

those answers, and I'm going to put to you, Mr. Chairman, that the

question is frivolously and mischievously asked by the opposition at

the incorrect time and place in this Legislature, merely to fulfil an

idle boast made outside this Legislature that they would make the

Premier be accountable for 50 or 60 hours, or whatever the figure was

that they were boasting. They had a time-frame to fill and that's the

only way they could fulfil it. And similar areas of discussion....

Obviously, I guess, the member knows the B.C. Development Corporation

Act quite well by now, because he quoted it. He must know, then, where

the opportunities lie to question it. He must know that any agreements

over a certain amount must be sent to cabinet. Below that amount, the

board of directors have the authority to make decisions on their own.

You have the answer. I can give no further answer to you. But the

minister during his estimates may make available the type of

information that's useful to the public. The B.C. Development

Corporation, within their framework, may make information available.

The

silliness of the question posed, the manner in which it's posed and the

allegations made are outright foolishness. The member has had the

response, but I suppose he has time to fill and time to spend. I would

point out, and it may come as a shock to the opposition, that certainly

the story they're putting out that they're holding up the government —

as great holdup artists in a legislative way — is false. The government

is proceeding; things are being done. This may be a great trick out of

your political primer. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, the time has given

us a great opportunity for members to get caught up on their

correspondence and things, but I'm not sure that you've best utilized

the time the public has given you when they sent you here to do a job.

Now if you want to know about the B.C. Development Corporation, bring

it up in the minister's estimates. If you want to know about agreements

that may or may not be concluded, or are concluded, bring it up in the

minister's estimates.

MR. MACDONALD: Tell us.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, will you tell that man to stop yelling from his chair.

He's giving a bad impression to the schoolchildren. They're shocked at

his behaviour. They'll be voters very soon. I warn you that you're

disturbing them.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say that I've

given the answer, and that's the only answer that could be given. The

member may wish to fill in more time, but I cannot provide any more

than that, and I have tried to give instruction to the member on how he

can fulfil his job and get the type of information he wants, in the

proper place, if and when any deals are consummated by the B.C.

Development Corporation.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman,

I don't know whether we need to be instructed by the Premier on these

points. I've asked simple questions as to whether or not he did not

make commitments at that meeting on March 13. If the schoolchildren are

interested in the province of British Columbia, they'll notice one

thing. They'll notice that the

[ Page 2261 ]

Premier

did not answer even the simplest question put to him about his

part in

making commitments on behalf of the taxpayers that were in violation of

the act. Those are very simple questions. Because this service is

supposed to start about May 15, obviously the commitments have been put

in place a long time before today. Commitments have been made.

Commitments were made at that meeting in the Oak Room, and the Premier

must have been involved.

You denigrate your high office, Mr.

Premier, when you won't answer questions about a meeting that you

convened. You won't even say that you convened it. You say: "Ask some

other minister whether I broke the act. Ask some other minister whether

I intervened. Ask some other minister about my conduct." It's your

salary vote. I'm saying very specifically that on that date in the Oak

Room you convened the meeting. Deny it if you will. That's one of the

simple questions asked of you for 21 days — that you hauled in the B.C.

Development Corporation and gave them their walking orders and that, in

doing so, you broke their act. You not only interfered with their

independence but you broke their act. Before that service begins, is it

not time that we should know something about the commitments the

Premier made in the exercise of his office last March? I don't think we

need any lectures about the time. In his imagination, the Premier says

that we had allotted so many hours to his estimates and had to fill up

the time. That's pure nonsense!

If the Premier had answered

questions about his salary vote the way his Minister of Labour (Hon.

Mr. Heinrich) answered the questions at question period today — maybe

the answers weren't so good, but at least they were forthcoming — his

estimates would have been over long since. This is what we're talking

about: accountability, so far as the people of the province are

concerned. The Premier says that we're going out and saying that we

brought the business of B.C. to a standstill. That is not at all the

message they're getting out there; they're getting the message of an

arrogant Premier who refuses to answer questions on his salary vote

about what he has done — his own conduct — and that's a negation of all

the parliamentary processes that have come down to us through the ages.

Mr. Chairman, I ask again, because we have a duty to ask on behalf of the people

who pay for these commitments: what was the commitment that the Premier made

to this cozy little group in the Oak Room on March 13, and did the Premier convene

that meeting?

The

message that the people throughout the province are getting is that

this Premier refuses to answer questions, and that the arrogance he

displays in this Legislature in refusing to answer simple questions on

his salary vote is not toward us but toward the people of the province.

MR. HOWARD:

I didn't want to raise it at the time as a point or order, because I

thought I'd let the Premier continue the flow of his remarks about it.

His reference to the members of the opposition having made some

determination about keeping the Premier's estimates alive for some 50

or 60 hours is not a true statement and is nowhere in accordance with

the facts. No decision of that nature was made whatsoever, and no

discussion involved any length of time. For the Premier to make that

kind of false and erroneous statement indicates how desperate he is to

get out of the deep hole he's dug himself into. I wouldn't dignify the

Premier's remarks by asking him to withdraw the reference that we had

made a decision of that nature, but I will simply say that, factually.

It is not true, not correct or not accurate. In fact, if anything, it

is designed specifically to be inaccurate and to leave a false

impression with the House. It's not a very good thing for the Premier

to engage in that kind of activity.

The Premier said quite a

number of things during the course of his estimates. Two statements

come to mind apropos the preceding discussion about the jetfoil. The

Premier said at one point earlier in the game when the question of the

jetfoil and the meeting which the Premier convened was raised that he

was proud of the jetfoil service coming into effect; he was delighted

to see it happen and it was a good thing. He also said later that, with

respect to his estimates and pursuant to his estimates, he would be

prepared to discuss any accomplishments of his government or any

accomplishments that he was involved in. Well, here's one of them: he

was involved in an accomplishment of which he is proud, namely the

jetfoil service. Then why isn't he prepared in a decent, responsible

sort of way to say to the people and to the province what his role was?

After

all, he's asking for $500,000 to run his office again for the coming

year. Certainly the general public is entitled to a little bit of

respect for the money they are putting up front in order for the

Premier to run his office. That little bit of respect should come in an

ordinary, simple, uncomplicated answer to a question as to whether or

not he did have such meeting, what deal he made, what arrangements he

made, and why he is so proud about it; not for him to slough it off and

hide behind the coat-tails of the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and behind the coat-tails of

B.C. Development Corporation.

Mr. Chairman, I want to

proceed a little bit to lay some preliminary information to the

committee. The other day I raised the item in the Speech from the

Throne which said "In anticipation of the federal government

transferring its jurisdiction over B.C. Telephone Co. rates to our

province....." Placing such a matter as bringing B.C. Telephone under

provincial jurisdiction in the Speech from the Throne gives it a

prominence far beyond what the facts show to be the interest of the

government in that particular matter. The Premier said the other day,

in response to some questions we posed to him, that perhaps His Honour

or His Excellency — I forget the exact words he used — the

Lieutenant-Governor was very optimistic about the transfer taking

place. We all know, of course, that the Lieutenant-Governor didn't have

anything to do with writing the Speech from the Throne; all he did was

read it. The Premier is the person who had a hand in preparing it.

That's the way things happen.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, oh!

MR. HOWARD:

If the Premier is now saying, "Oh, oh!", meaning I've transgressed on

something or other, or if he's saying I'm saying something which is not

accurate, then let’s assume that the Lieutenant-Governor did write the

Speech from the Throne. How can we get an answer from the

Lieutenant-Governor as to why he said in the Speech from the Throne

that there was an anticipation that the federal government would

transfer its jurisdiction over B.C. Tel to the province? If the

Lieutenant-Governor wrote it himself, he surely didn't write it just

out of the blue to fill up some space in the Speech from the Throne,

and figure that would be a nice one to throw in. No, it had its

foundations somewhere. Its foundation was in the Premier, because the

Premier, if nothing else, was the ghost writer of the Speech from the

[ Page 2262 ]

Throne.

It's the Premier's statement. So all this malarkey about the

Lieutenant-Governor being overly optimistic or very optimistic about

the transfer and so on is just that kind of specious nonsense that the

Premier gives out from time to time when he's not able to deal directly

and adequately with a question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon.

member, if I could just have the House's attention for a minute, the

Speech from the Throne is the Speech from the Throne, and we have

already debated it. It would appear that, unless the member is

referring to something that he will get at under vote 9, the Chair will

have to tell the member that we have debated the Speech from the Throne.

Also, all members should be reminded that courtesy in debate is acceptable to this House, and lack of courtesy is not.

MR. HOWARD:

I want to thank you for enlightening me with the fact that we have

dealt with the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Chairman, and also for your

perception in anticipating that what I'm doing is referring to that

part of the Speech from the Throne in order to deal with the Premier's

estimates. That's the foundation of what we dealt with the other day.

asked the Premier a number of questions the other day about when he had

approached the federal government about transferring jurisdiction over

B.C. Tel rates to the province. He wasn't sure at that time. He said it

was a continuing program, a continuing idea, that it was dealt with at

some appropriate first ministers' conference, that it was on the

record. But he didn't know when it was that he had dealt with it last,

or what the current status was. The master negotiator on behalf of

British Columbia, in dealing with the federal government, didn't

remember just when this matter had taken place.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, while the member may feel justified in bringing this up

during the Premier's estimates, because of the Premier's involvement in

first ministers' conferences, the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has this under his jurisdiction, and

is well able to deal with any continuing negotiation with the federal

government under his estimates. I think if you were going to allow it

during my estimates, you might.... The only thread I can see would be

the relationship to a first ministers' conference. So I bring that

point of order before the scope is broadened beyond all reason.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Premier. Relevance in debate is always encouraged, particularly during committee stage.

MR. HOWARD:

Well, Mr. Chairman, the only reason I'm pursuing it now is that on

Tuesday, April 29, this year, when we were dealing with the Premier's

estimates, the Premier was quite pleased to get into the conversation

and explain his part about what he did. And that's what we're talking

about. What did the Premier do about this? Now the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications didn't write the Speech from

the Throne. The Premier wrote the Speech from the Throne. It's his

baby. It is the Premier who has been dealing with the federal

government, negotiating on behalf of the people of B.C., arguing our

case.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, to take that

line of reasoning.... The member is being presumptuous, not only that

anyone other than His Honour writes the Speech from the Throne, but

also as to whom he would designate. I would point out again that the

member is going into another ministry in which that responsibility

would lie. Although he denies it, I guess he would try to fill up the

number of hours that he....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon.

Premier, you have stated your point of order. The member for Skeena has

the floor, and I will ask him to continue, once again reminding all

hon. members that if we can remain within the administrative actions of

the minister whose estimates are before the committee, that does enable

the committee to proceed in an orderly manner.

MR. HOWARD:

Since we dealt with this the other day, Mr. Chairman, I would like to

know from the Premier, because he was unsure then, which first

ministers' conference it was — if any — that this question of

transferring jurisdiction from the federal to the provincial

authorities was dealt with. The minister was not sure at that time when

he had raised it. Could the Premier tell the committee — it's his doing

— whether he's had a chance to look at the record and find out when it

was he broached this subject with the federal government? I'm not

asking the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, but

the Premier himself. That is the question I would like to ask. Could

the Premier tell the House at which first ministers' conference he

raised this matter of jurisdiction over B.C. Telephone Co. last?

expect he's not interested in answering that question, Mr. Chairman, so

I'll proceed a little further. He told me the other day he wasn't sure

about that. He said it was on record — the transcripts and the

information were there. I've been trying to find out two things. One is

whether the Premier in fact did anything concrete and substantive in

the last year dealing with the B.C. Telephone question. If he did do

something of substance as the Premier of this province representing

British Columbia's interest, what did he do and what response did he

get? That is the question I would like to ask. I'll gamble that the

Premier's going to answer the question.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You gambled getting up and posing the question.

Mr.

Chairman, the minister responsible for communications carries the

statement the government has made. I will say, as the Premier and

leader of the government, that certainly the statement has been made.

That is the commitment the minister would negotiate from. I don't do

the work of all my ministers. The member who probably is preparing for

the minister's estimates — I would assume that is what you are doing; I

can see no other reason for bringing it up — knows that it is the

stated policy of this government. That's where the Premier's involved;

that's the policy. Yes, that's the policy. There you are. Now what the

minister is doing, you can ask him. That's his mandate on behalf of

this government.

MR. HOWARD: I was sure that the

Premier wasn't going to answer, because he has dealt with these things

in this way before. We are dealing with what the Premier did. He is

[ Page 2263 ]

the

leader of the government. He is the one who talked about this matter.

He is the one who said that he approached the federal government. This

Premier, not the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications,

said: "Yes, I approached them. I don't remember when but it was" —

whatever appropriate time it was, or words to that effect. I am just

asking if he has had time to refresh his memory since the other day and

is able to tell the committee when it was that he approached the

federal government, not what some other minister is doing but this

Premier who is now asking for $500,000, or whatever it is, to run his

office for the coming year. I'd like to know how he has been handling

our affairs as the great negotiator dealing with the federal

government. That is all.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr.

Chairman, as leader of the government, I can say that the first thing

we've got is capable ministers. The member wasn't a member of that

party as government so he doesn't know what it's like to have to work

with inadequate ministers, but this government has highly capable

ministers who can carry out those functions, the stated policy of the

government. That should be very clear to the people. What isn't clear

is the roundabout discussion of it here. It's not as if we disagree in

policy and not as if it hasn't been a statement of the Premier. What I

said the other day stands, and the member has whatever answer he would

need from me. I don't even know what course he has embarked upon, if

any at all. Perhaps its the no-course attack that they've been

conducting for some time. I fail to find a reason for it, but the

member has the information. He knows the policy, I'm sure. I think he's

been in B.C. for some years now, at least since '79. I know he's been

here since the election. This government has announced policies on many

occasions. I don't want to get into future legislation, Mr. Chairman,

but I guess the federal government will only consider a government

serious if they set up such a vehicle to carry out such hearings.

MR. HOWARD:

I am having experience now dealing with an inadequate Premier. I have

discovered that, Mr. Chairman. We know what the statement of policy

was. There are many statements of policy that are made. There is a

difference oft times between statements of policy, statements of

intention and the mechanics of dealing with them afterwards. The

Premier can make all sorts of policy declarations. What has he been

doing about it? Is he just saying: "It's our policy."?

said he raised it at a first ministers' conference. Can he tell me

which one he raised it at? Admittedly, I'm not the best researcher in

the world, but I did go and look at the record of the first ministers'

conference held in February 1978. There's no record anywhere in those

proceedings about this subject matter having been raised — not a word.

I had read them before for another purpose, because I wanted to see

what the government's response was to the introduction of the

constitutional bill in mid-1978 by Prime Minister Trudeau. I went and

got them again from the library. They're in a different form now;

they're in one consolidated book rather than a number of little

booklets that I got earlier. The next one I could find was British

Columbia's constitutional proposals presented at the first ministers'

conference on the constitution, October 1978. I went all through that.

I couldn't find any reference to the government or the Premier making

any representations about B.C. Tel. I examined the records of the first

ministers' conference held in February 1979 — not a word there about

the Premier taking any action to engage the federal government in some

conversation about this. Here are the last three first ministers'

conferences — February 1978, October 1978 and February 1979. There is

no record in any of them, that I could find, of the policy statement of

the Premier which respect to B.C. Tel being dealt with.

I'm

trying to find out what we're doing. Are these just policy statements

in the Speech from the Throne that say: "Wouldn't it be a nice idea?"

What did the Premier do about it and when? Otherwise, we're left up in

the air with just a policy statement. If he's going to tell me to talk

to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications about it,

he can go ahead and tell me that if he likes; he's said it before.

That's not what we're dealing with right now. We're dealing with the

Premier's estimates. The Premier wants some money to run his office.

He's been intent on ignoring questions day after day — almost

interminably. There's another one, and it's a simple one. What did the

Premier do? What action did he take, and when, to put into effect the

policy statement that he would like to have jursidiction over B.C. Tel

transferred from the federal to the provincial government? What action

and what response? We're left in a kind of a quandary.

I could find something, Mr. Chairman. Let me read this. This is from the Vancouver Province

of October 4, 1978 — about the same time as the B.C. constitutional

proposals presented to the first ministers' conference in October of

that year. This was about a move by B.C. Tel to merge with the

independent — or what was identified as independent — Okanagan

Telephone Co. The news item in the Province

says that the provincial government had expressed opposition to that

move, but the CRTC didn't listen to the province and they went ahead

and okayed the merger anyway. But there is a statement attributed to

something called "the B.C. government." It doesn't say any particular

minister; we're not trying to imply that it does. But it says in there,

in part: "...nevertheless, the government wishes to make it quite clear

that it seeks no special consideration by either the federal or

provincial regulatory commission because of its stated intention to

negotiate revised regulatory arrangements." That's with respect to B.C.

Tel — October 1978.

What's the Premier done since that time

to engage in negotiations with respect to that matter? He can tell me

again that that's for the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications, I suppose, I don't know. We'll give him another run at

it anyway.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Let me take this slowly

for the member for Skeena. This government has a number of ministers.

Each minister has a set of responsibilities. The government is not run

by a single person. Each minister that has a set of responsibilities

within his mandate gets a set of estimates. During that opportunity

members may ask that minister what the minister has done to carry out

his mandate.

Mr. Chairman, what I have been saying to that

member is that the minister responsible for communications would be the

person to lead — or have carried out on his behalf, perhaps by a member

of his staff — any discussions that would meet a government policy or

objective. It is the same in education and in a number of other areas

with which this member has difficulty — in his eagerness to pose a

question or to obtain information — waiting for the particular minis-

[ Page 2264 ]

ter.

I am sorry that the member finds it very difficult to recognize that

that has been the procedure in the past in this House, and, as far as I

know, in any provincial legislature; however, that is the way it is

carried out. I might point out that the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications has a number of people who would work in

those divisions. Those people would undertake the assembly of material

for the minister in regard to the pursuit of any policy.

I'm

sure that now that it has been made clear once more where the member

can obtain this information, he will bring it up during the estimates

of the responsible minister.

MR. HOWARD: What that

says to me is that the Premier just hears what he wants to hear, not

what's put to him. He did exactly this the other day. I've got to put

it on the record, even though the Premier has to leave for a moment.

This is what I asked him the other day — and it is to prove the point

that the Premier does not listen to the question. He's got a

preconceived notion in his head about what it is he wants to hear and

away he goes in that direction. Let me put this to you this way. I'm

quoting what I had to say, and I read from Hansard

Blues of Tuesday, April 29, 1980: "Let me reiterate the question so the

Premier gets it. The question I posed was whether the Premier had taken

any action since the election of last May to revive this subject matter

with the federal government." You notice, Mr. Chairman, in reading

that, the question I posed was whether the Premier had taken any

action. That's what I said; the Blues reflect accurately what I said.

The Premier stood up immediately after that and said this: "Mr.

Chairman, that's not the question the member asked. He said: if the

government.... Now the government is a number of members...." Blah,

blah, blah.

The Premier wanted to hear the word

"government," and that's what he heard, which is why he responded in

the way that he did. But the question I asked was, what did the Premier

do? He dissembled, heard only what he wanted to hear, and went off in

doing this afternoon too: not listening to what the question is, but

attempting to answer and make it appear as if — from his point of view

anyway, and to his supporters on the other side — there is really

nothing of substance to what we're dealing with.

Let me go

on here about what happened the other day. "If he'd said: 'Has the

Premier....'" You will notice that I just read that; that's exactly

what I said. But in his dissembling way, the Premier said the other

day, "If he'd said: 'Has the Premier....'" which is what I did say, so

there is no point in fooling around about it. He said then: "No, I

haven't taken it to the government since we made the

representation...." Now that means he hasn't done anything at least for

the last year.

Now I want to put to the committee, Mr.

Chairman, that the Premier, that the Speech from the Throne.... If the

Premier says the Speech from the Throne was written by the

Lieutenant-Governor, then I submit the Lieutenant-Governor is

misleading this province as well, if that's in fact what happened. I

say the Premier did it; the Premier insists he didn't, that somebody

else did and somebody else is, but the Speech from the Throne did say

certain things were going to happen in anticipation of the federal

government transferring its jurisdiction.

Now that the

Premier is back, I put the subject matter to him directly in a

question. Is it a fact, Mr. Premier, that you, and or your government,

but you the Premier — I want to make that clear so you don't

misunderstand the question as you did the other day and as you did

again today — did nothing whatever about this question of transferring

jurisdiction over the B.C. Telephone Co. from the time you took office

following the 1975 provincial election until September 1978? I submit

to you, and I stand to be corrected, that you the Premier, and you on

behalf of your government, did nothing whatever with respect to

communicating with the federal government up until September 1978.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Will you resign if you're wrong?

MR. HOWARD:

There's the Premier with a smart aleck answer again. I've been trying

to get an answer out of the Premier all afternoon, and he comes back

with that smart aleck response: "Would you resign if you're wrong?" I'm

trying to ask him a question. What did he do between the time he became

the Premier of this province and September 1978 with respect to raising

the question of the B.C. Telephone Co. with the federal government? Did

he do anything?

Well, I don't know. I have no way of knowing

whether he did or didn't. He remains silent about that, and is just

talking policy without taking any action to accomplish and bring that

policy into effect. That makes the policy suspect, if that's what he's

doing. As long as he remains dumb and silent and refuses to deal

directly with the question, he is leaving the impression that there is

something there that isn't. He can't get out of it by stupid, silly

little remarks like whether a person will resign if they're wrong.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I'll have to ask the member to withdraw.

MR. HOWARD: To withdraw what, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You did comment on an hon. member, and that is unparliamentary.

MR. HOWARD:

In what way? What I said was that he is making stupid and silly

remarks, not that he, the individual, was in either one of those

categories. Now the Premier, time and time again in these estimates,

has used those same words relating to questions asked. That's all I was

doing — replying using the same words that the Premier has used on

other occasions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Carry on.

MR. HOWARD:

If you, Mr. Chairman, want me to withdraw, I certainly will. I'm sure

the Chair will be very careful and assiduous if ever the Premier uses

either one of those two words again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It will.

MR. HOWARD:

I want to put this to the Premier. I'm just trying to find out what

he's been doing, what's happening, because we're interested in having

the authority and the jurisdiction over B.C. Telephone Co. rest within

the hands of the provincial government. In fact that whole question was

dormant during the predecessor regime of Social Credit, and wasn't

dealt with the first and only time.... The commencement point of

dealing with that subject matter in a substantive way came about in

1973 when the NDP was the

[ Page 2265 ]

government.

It was actively pursued in 1974 and in 1975. But it was first raised

then, and that was an attempt, at that time.... And it's not an easy

thing to accomplish; I can appreciate that. One, B.C. Tel doesn't want

it; two, the federal government may be completely reluctant to go along

with the idea, either because they don't want to go along with it or

because they pay more attention to B.C. Tel's position than they do to

the people of B.C. Whatever rationale doesn't matter; we know that the

federal government is difficult to deal with.

I want to find

out what is happening in this matter, what's current. I have a letter

here dealing with this matter, stating that it was first raised by

British Columbia in late 1973, when the B.C. government requested the

federal government do certain things, laid out a number of alternatives

to bring B.C. Tel under the appropriate provincial regulatory body, and

so on. The letter says further: "From 1976 to 1978, the British

Columbia government did not pursue the matter any further." That's what

this letter to me says. Is that letter wrong? Did the provincial

government pursue this matter in 1976, 1977 and 1978? Or is the letter

that I have here from the federal government, saying that they didn't,

inaccurate? It's worth knowing.

We've been trying to find

out from the Premier, the other day and again today, when he raised

this matter and what he did about it. I would like to know whether,

from this particular letter, that is correct — whether from 1976 to

1978 the British Columbia government did not pursue the matter any

further. I would like the Premier to tell me whether he, in September

1978, wrote to Mme Sauvé, who was then the federal minister with

respect to communications matters, to raise the matter once again. Did

the Premier do that? Did the Premier write to Mme Sauvé in September

1978 to raise the question again — for the first time, incidentally,

since he became Premier — of transferring jurisdiction from the federal

government to the provincial government with respect to the B.C.

Telephone Co.?

I don't know. The letter says that's what

happened. Is that what happened? I've no idea. If the Premier won't

answer whether he did or not, well, we're left sort of uncertain as to

just what the situation was, or is right now.

Did the

Premier discuss this at the first ministers' conference in February

1979? Where are we? That's what we're trying to find out.

the Premier wants the unanimous view of this House with respect to B.C.

Telephone Co. boy, he'll have no difficulty getting it. It's been our

stated intention of policy for a long time.

Anyhow, the Premier wants to deal with that question.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I can't recall correspondence that far back, but I'll take the member's word for it.

Just

to finally conclude it, from the federal-provincial first ministers'

conference, February 5 and 6, 1979,

summary record of proceedings No.

155: "The Premier of British Columbia indicated they also supported the

draft text but felt that it should be within provincial jurisdiction to

regulate companies such as B.C. Tel, which operates solely within the

province."

MR. HOWARD: Would the Premier mind tabling that when the House meets?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Premier still has the floor, hon. member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member asked a question; he's got the answer.

MR. HOWARD:

The Premier gives me the answer that he did raise the matter in

February 1979. Why does it take so long? Is the Premier trying to

sandbag somebody? I've not been able to find that document. I asked the

library to find it for me.

MR. KEMPF: You've got the answer. Sit down!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All members are reminded, particularly the member for Omineca, that the member for Skeena has the floor.

MR. HOWARD:

Let me read you this letter, please. This is the letter I was reading

from earlier. I'd gladly table it, in response to the Premier's

statement just now. He said:

"Arrangements

were made to hold bilateral talks" — this was following the letter to

Mme Sauvé in September 1978 — "but the discussions did not take place,

largely because of such activities as the Kline committee on the

implications of telecommunications for Canadian sovereignty and the

constitutional discussions. These two exercises were thought to be

addressing the general subject of telecommunications carriers, in the

national context of communications. However, as it happened, the first

ministers did not discuss common carriers at their meeting in February

1979."

Now the Premier says they did. I take his word for

it, said as an honourable gentleman in this House. The information

given to me by Francis Fox, in this letter dated April 21, is obviously

wrong, when Mr. Fox says that they did not discuss the matter. I'm

prepared to table this letter, which I'll seek permission to do in the

House at the appropriate time. I would hope that the Premier would

table the document from which he read as well. It's not that I question

his word, but it's just so that the position of the federal government

is on the record as being inaccurate. I take his word for it. I have no

disagreement with it. And the Premier will table it; I'm sure he will.

The

letter dated April 21 from Mr. Fox says: "This matter is not being

actively pursued by the federal government at this time, and no

specific discussions have been scheduled to date." Again I'm in the

position now of wondering whether what Mr. Fox tells me is accurate.

That's what he says: that the matter is not being actively pursued by

the federal government — that's his statement. I assume he's speaking

on behalf of the government. He can express their view that they're not

actively pursuing it.

He also says: "And no specific

discussions have been scheduled to date." The Premier did say that it

was the policy of the government — that's beautiful. He said that it

was the obligation and the duty on the part of the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) to follow it

up, to carry out that policy declaration, to put the mechanics into

effect, to try to bring the policy to fruition and find agreement on

it. If what Mr. Fox tells us is true, that no specific discussions have

been scheduled to date, it appears that the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications

[ Page 2266 ]

has

fallen down on the job and that he is not carrying out the

responsibilities of trying to put into effect the policy decision of

the Premier and the government. If that's the case, that's the Minister

of Universities, Science and Communications' baby to deal with.

The

Premier has made it quite clear that it's government policy. I said he

wrote a letter in September 1978 to Mme Sauvé. He said he raised it. He

read from a document here saying that they raised it at the first

ministers' conference in February 1979 — that's policy. Beautiful! And

Pat McGeer has muffed it. Excuse me, the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications hasn't, according to the letter from Mr.

Fox.... That may be entirely inaccurate. That's why I want to table the

letter so it will be on the public record here, so that when the

appropriate minister sees the letter he will be forewarned and able to

deal with it, either to admit that he hasn't done anything about

bringing B.C. Tel under provincial jurisdiction since the February

conference in 1979 — over a year ago — or to say that he has done

something, and to tell the House what it is that he's done. I gather I

have to wait until the House rises to get permission to table the

particular letter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: When the committee rises.

MR. PASSARELL:

Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of my speech today, could you direct the

member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) to put away his newspaper. He's been

sitting there all day reading newspapers. There is a long standing

tradition in the House that members do not read newspapers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Standing Orders do say that newspapers or entertaining material will not be read in the House.

MR. PASSARELL:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted his undying attention here. We

have been debating aspects of vote 9 and the consulting fees of $2,500.

I know the Premier is an honourable man, even though there are some

members of this House who would disagree. I know you're honourable.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Who?

MR. PASSARELL: You are.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Who would disagree?

MR. PASSARELL:

Why I know he's honourable — I've read your press reports before

they're released. But for three or four days we have been discussing

the Goldfarb consulting firm, an eastern-based firm of international

magnitude, Mr. Chairman. I would like to take this issue some further

steps that haven't been debated yet in the Premier's estimates.

First,

the Premier didn't have a B.C. consulting firm to do a poll undertaking

for the political party or whatever. Why is that, Mr. Chairman? Maybe

because no B.C. firms wanted to involve themselves by undertaking a

political poll because they knew in fact that once they did a poll and

sent the invoice in, it would go back to the Premier's office and

specifically to Mr. Dave Brown. That was the direction given; send the

invoice for a cheque to be issued from the Premier's office.

But that was not the case, Mr. Chairman, for a political poll that Goldfarb

did. Goldfarb consulting firm of Bathurst Street in Toronto sent the invoice

for a payment of $2,500 to Mr. Dave Brown in the office of the Premier. We've

believed that Goldfarb was commissioned to do a political poll but that's

not correct. That's not correct at all, Mr. Chairman. That poll was done

to do a health study for the constituency of Atlin....

MR. BRUMMET: Mental, I hope.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, if it is I certainly know that the member would be one of the first visitors there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PASSARELL: Sorry about that, Mr. Chairman. So this consulting firm of Goldfarb, which does political....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. No, hon. member, I was not talking to you, I was

speaking on your behalf, because I find it very hard to hear you with

other members commenting. The member for Atlin has the floor.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for protecting me from the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf).

The

consulting firm of Goldfarb which does political polls out of their

Toronto base, with offices in New York, first did a poll for road

conditions in Atlin for the Premier's office. They also did a study,

following the conditions of the road, on why children in Greenville,

British Columbia, must walk across the ice of the Nass River in winter

to get to school. That was another political poll that Goldfarb did for

the Premier's office. Then from there, let's suppose the Premier was

concerned about the residents of the north — concerning health and

roads and uranium mining — so he dispatched a writer to Toronto. This

writer went to Toronto and the Premier informed his messenger with a

simple statement: have the consulting firm of Goldfarb do a study on

the lack of provincial services in the constituency of Atlin. This was

just a few months before the election and the Premier was perhaps

concerned for the north. Maybe, since he's never been up in Atlin

constituency, he wanted to know something about the area. He was

getting very poor information about Atlin from his backbencher and he

wanted to know something about it so he consulted Goldfarb's consulting

firm out of Toronto to do a study on the area.

Now the

Premier has done the study and he realizes that, lo and behold, the

province and his government have done very little for the north. He was

afraid the people of this province would find out that the government

has never put a first-aid station into Dease Lake, a community of 300

people with not even a trailer to be able to receive a Band-aid from.

The Premier knew that the ship of state was closing into drydock for

repairs and an election was called for because of this $2,500 political

poll by a consulting firm in Toronto. This consulting firm from Toronto

was wary of this government and so they sabotaged the entire issue and

for a joke they charged the Premier's office $2,500 for this poll.

Was

this maybe not the case, Mr. Chairman? Mick and Dick knew they were

trying to get to the leader, and those big-city businessmen from

Toronto felt they could draw this Premier into the sloughs of

destruction, because they felt the leader of this government could be

influenced by the Austin Taylors of this world. But the Premier was

stubborn, and that's his nature. He doesn't take advice and he sticks

to his

[ Page 2267 ]

stubbornness.

The Premier knew the tricks of the hustlers of the big cities. He

remembers well the train ride out east as a young man. Do you remember

that, Mr. Premier? So when the consulting fee of $2,500 came to his

office, he did the grizzly-bear sidestep.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Atlin has the floor.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for protecting me from the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips), that wild man.

sidestepped the issue, and he sidestepped it with a grizzly-bear

sidestep into the Provincial Secretary's (Hon. Mr. Curtis') ministry,

because he knew that member knew the idiosyncrasies of the big-city

hustlers.

Why doesn't the Premier answer these basic

questions concerning Goldfarb? Because he knows that the consulting

firm of Goldfarb told him some terrible stories. The rural communities

of this province, like Dease Lake, lack proper medical facilities. They

also, for this $2,500 which the Premier's office paid, said that the

children in Greenville might get hurt going across the Nass River

without a bridge to attend school. The consulting firm also told the

government in this report that retroactive taxes would be placed upon

the residents of the north and that the provincial government couldn't

offer any assistance by the end of April. It also said in this

consulting report for $2,500 that massive hydro dams would be built in

the north, flooding out certain areas of the Stikine Valley. It also

said that there would be a uranium by-products mine up in Atlin.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the member for Atlin is trying to tell us a fairy tale which has nothing to do....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point of order, please.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

I'm making my point of order. I hope you'll stop interrupting. My point

of order is that we are hearing fairy tales from the member for Atlin,

and I would hope that he would go back to questioning the Premier on

his administrative responsibilities.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

You have not made a point of order. The member is addressing items that

he feels are within the scope of the administrative actions of the

minister whose estimates are before us now.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I'd like you to tell me whether

health facilities and hydro dams in the Atlin region come under vote 9.

MR. PASSARELL:

Mr. Chairman, just to give some assistance — through you — to the

member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot), we're talking about a

report that was given.... I'm sorry, my friend in the corner has a

point of order. Maybe you could direct the Chair too; the other member

tried.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether the member for Atlin considers himself a comedian or what, but standing order 43....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Standing order 43 deals with relevancy. The member for Atlin has indicated....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, standing order 43 also deals with

tedious and repetitive debate in the House. The matter being canvassed by the

member has been canvassed a great number of times during the debates on these

estimates, and the Premier has answered the questions the member is referring

to. I wish you would enforce standing order 43.

MR. PASSARELL:

Mr. Chairman, I'm referring to a report for $2,500, and we still

haven't had an answer on what it contained or what it was for. To go

back to my friends here, this report also probably told that there

would be a uranium by-product mine up in Atlin, having some serious

health and environmental damage associated with 600 pounds of uranium

taken out per day.

For $2,000, Goldfarb told the Premier of

these five problems in the Atlin constituency. Mr. Chairman, what would

you do? Probably the same: sit down and never answer the questions, or

give some fairy-tale answers in return. What would the people of this

province want to know? Why wouldn't they want to know what was in this

report of these terrible conditions that existed?

Maybe I

should pay another visit to Kelowna, because it's interesting that

after I was there last time talking about uranium, the Premier put a

moratorium on it two days after I left. Maybe I should go back to

Kelowna. If you did, Mr. Chairman, maybe the Premier would start

answering some simple questions relating to the problems facing this

province. If you can’t answer simple questions, how can you answer

questions concerning the livelihood of people in the north? When you

have internal problems you soon lose interest for the concerns of

others who you have never met or lived with, and the northern way of

life.

To give an example, here is an interesting aspect that came out of Ann Landers. It's dated April 15, 1980.

"Dear Ann:

"I've got many problems, and maybe you can help with this one. I want

people to like me but nobody does, not even my friends. Sure, I've got

it all — money, fancy clothes and land — but everyone still looks upon

me as a weasel. People say I'm not truthful, but I am. What do I have

to do, give them my diary? I usually don't write letters to anybody,

because at times I'm even ashamed of my own actions. What can I do?

"Okanagan Tears."

"Dear Tears:

"You do have problems and you won't have them solved until you come out

front with your sincerity and truth. It takes a person of maturity who

can say that they have done things wrong and learned from it. The best

time to start is now."

Good advice from Ann Landers.

There

are five suggestions that I could offer to the Premier. I know the hon.

member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) often gets up and says

that there are no suggestions or constructive criticism given; it's

always negative. So I would like to give five of my own suggestions —

constructiveness.

[ Page 2268 ]

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The uranium moratorium. I

was pleased with the Premier when he put the moratorium on uranium

mining and exploration the day before the session commenced. This is

one of the few times I've ever got up publicly and said that I

supported the Premier. I think he did a tremendous job by putting on a

moratorium.

But there's one problem with the moratorium that

the Premier stated back in February — a moratorium that hasn't been

presented to this House yet for all members to vote on before it

becomes law. The problem is that mining operations like Placer

Development will be mining up to 600 pounds of uranium per day in their

moly mine at Surprise Lake in Atlin. Ministry of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources officials have informed the Premier that the daily

operation will be withdrawing 450 pounds of uranium a day at the mine,

which will be stored in plastic-lined garbage tins in the tailings

ponds. How can you have a uranium moratorium if Placer Development, the

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources — this government —

is making public statements that uranium will be mined through the moly

mine up in Atlin? The Blizzard claim, Mr. Chairman, in your

constituency of Okanagan was going to mine 250 pounds of uranium a day.

The Blizzard claim was postponed because of the moratorium the Premier

put out to the public. Now Placer, through their moly mine, will mine

twice as much uranium as the Blizzard claim in the Okanagan. How can

this be done?

Concerning this issue, the moratorium placed

by this Premier for seven years is good. I'd like to see it done

indefinitely. But by the time the moratorium has run out, Placer will

have stockpiled over 1,200 tons of uranium. Is this uranium for ready

sale? The credibility of the moratorium will be lost to the residents

of this province if the Premier allows something like Placer to be able

to proceed with their operation of mining up to 600 pounds of uranium a

day.

But back onto the Premier's estimates and my second

suggestion. His budget has increased 100 percent. How about taking

$10,000 out of your budget of $551,000 and putting it to good work for

the people of Dease Lake so they might have a medical trailer up there

so they can have some type of health help where nothing exists now?

Take $10,000 out of $551,000 and help some people in Dease Lake.

Another

suggestion. His staff has increased by 100 percent. Why not use some of

these manpower hours to start finding out exactly what's happening with

land claims? Send some of that staff, that's increased from 9 to 17,

out into the field to start sitting down with the native people of this

province, and start talking about the land claims that were promised

four or five years ago.

Another suggestion is the use of

moneys from the $551,000 of this Premier's budget to fly some of your

staff up to the north to find out what kind of problems the workers are

facing up there. Maybe some tax relief should be given to the workers.

The

fifth suggestion. You had a problem with a statement you made to a high

school student a week ago. And the story was covered throughout the

province. Don't you think it would show some type of leadership, some

type of maturity, to go back to that student and say that you made a

mistake, instead of just sitting down and ignoring it and ignoring that

student's feelings? You did make a mistake on that issue.

Those

are five suggestions. Maybe we should include that sixth suggestion,

taking into consideration what Ann Landers said to "Okanagan Tears."

That

consulting firm from Toronto told the Premier what his party has been

telling him since May 1979. You're in trouble and you're scared to

admit it.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to raise

an important issue with the Premier during his estimates. It concerns

the role of government with respect to British Columbia Telephone Co.

My colleague, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), has already mentioned

the issue of the government shirking its responsibility to seek

regulation of British Columbia Telephone Co. by British Columbia,

instead of having it under federal jurisdiction. And I won't belabour

that point.

I want to talk about the provincial government's

deteriorating role, established by the NDP, as representative,

protecting the subscribers to B.C. Telephone — that is to say, the

telephone users. It was very strong. And interventions were frequently

made to oppose rate increases and other actions that the public utility

operating in this province was attempting to take.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we have a Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who would cover those

areas under his communications jurisdiction. I'm sure that you were

listening and found that the first member for Vancouver Centre was

covering an area that didn't fall under vote 9.

MR. LAUK:

On the same point of order, the points that I have to raise deal

directly with the Premier and his statements with respect to the

actions of British Columbia Telephone Co. I'll make that clear in the

course of my remarks; he was speaking on behalf of the government. Mr.

Chairman, I thank the Premier for asking whether or not my remarks

would be relevant to his estimates. I'll have his direct quotes, as

they have appeared over the years with respect to B.C. Telephone Co.

know that the Premier's bored, because as a millionaire he can afford

increased rates on his telephones. He's probably got about 12 or 13 in

his house. You know, ordinary people in this province can't afford the

tremendous increases in telephone rates that are completely unjustified

by the public utility. People on fixed incomes, people who are

bedridden or shut-ins have a very difficult time making ends meet, and

they get furious when they see these things happen.

I sent a

letter to the Premier, and I know that he and I don't agree

philosophically on many matters. But he is the Premier of this

province, and as first minister he has the responsibility to deal with

major public issues of the day. The letter went to his office on March

16, 1980, and I have not had the courtesy of a reply, Mr. Chairman. I

think the people of British Columbia expect a little bit better action

than that. We've asked him questions in his estimates; he's refused to

answer. I send him letters, hoping for a reply stating the government

position. We've demanded the government intervene with the CRTC.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: It's dated March 26, 1980. Are you saying that you didn't receive the letter, Mr. Premier?

[ Page 2269 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I just said: "Show me." I just want to see what you've got.

MR. LAUK: Is this another letter you didn't receive?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I just want to see what you've got there.

MR. LAUK: It's a letter to you, dated March 26.

HON. MR. BENNETT: How do I know? I can't see it.

MR. LAUK: Get some glasses.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Let me see. Let me see. Send it over.

MR. LAUK: Get a grip on yourself, will you?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Your head is shining.

MR. LAUK: My head is shining, yes. I was out gardening on the weekend.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, you were not; you were just lying on the beach.

MR. LAUK: I forgot my southern exposure and didn't wear a hat.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You fell asleep again.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Chairman, I'll get back to the issue of these rate increases and

the lack of government action and policy with respect to them. This

Premier seems to be completely cowed by the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications. When that minister was asked in question

sense historically, constitutionally, legally or any way else. It was

just one of these off-the-cuff statements that the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications makes. You would think that

the Premier would have the leadership ability to stand up and

immediately say that the government will intervene. But the reason that

he has not intervened is that he is being cowed by the opinions of the

Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, against the

interests of ordinary people within this province.

The

second point is that since the governments of the Barrett

administration and the Bennett administration have been strenuously

opposing rate increases and other applications in front of the CRTC....

Since January 1979 the Premier took his government and inextricably got

themselves involved — and I say reprehensibly, as well — with the B.C.

Telephone Company in a conspiracy to create the appearance of some

benefit to the province when B.C. Tel took over Automatic Electric in

the east from the parent company of both Automatic Electric and B.C.

Tel, General Telephone. How did that occur? There was a creation of a

flow-through voting trust where 5 percent increase in B.C. Tel shares

became transferred — alienated further to General Telephone. It was a

terrible sellout of the public utility, one of the most terrible things

that's happened in recent years. That's when the government took a

complete reversal. This followed closely on the heels of the Premier

opposing CPR's takeover of further shares in MacMillan Bloedel and

saying B.C. was not for sale.

Shortly after that, the

Premier gets in bed with the B.C. Telephone Company and creates this

nonsense that hoodwinks the public into thinking it was something

beneficial for the province. That was the first sign of the change of

policy that the Premier's led the government in.

Since then

we've had the rate increase application and the CRTC intervention. The

government of B.C. was there. All of the officials and civil servants

were there fully prepared to oppose, but they got the word from that

Premier to keep their mouths shut and they didn't say a thing

throughout the whole hearings, Mr. Chairman. It was a shocking display,

and those civil servants were absolutely furious at that demonstration.

They got the word from the top that there was a change of policy on

B.C. Tel.

We've got to ask ourselves — and I want the

Premier to direct his mind to this, because the people of this province

are asking the same question — why the change in policy? What has B.C.

Tel donated? What has B.C. Tel got on the government? What's the hidden

agreement between them? Because on the face of it there's no rationale

for it. How can an elected government not take a position of protecting

the citizens of British Columbia against improper and unjustified rate

increases? There is absolutely no justification for that position

whatsoever.

The tremendous profits that are being made are

shocking. It's not just a question of B.C. Tel saying — as the

government, the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications

and the Premier well know.... B.C. Tel says: "Well, we need these

profits to buy new equipment." They're not using those profits to buy

new equipment. Those profits are going to the United States to a parent

company to compensate foreign shareholders. It's blood money, Mr.

Chairman, off the backs of ordinary telephone users in the province of

British Columbia.

Just have a look at the profit picture that has accumulated....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. I've followed with some interest your

debate relating to vote 9. While we have always allowed an overview

rather than an in-depth discussion during these votes, I am

hard-pressed to see how this specifically relates to vote 9, the

administrative responsibility of the Premier. In fact, it clearly falls

within the jurisdiction of another minister. Again, the problem the

Chair constantly has during the Premier's estimates is what can be

specifically and in detail examined. I would ask the member if he could

narrow his debate down to vote 9, the administrative responsibilities

of the Premier. I think now we are wandering just a little bit, with

all due respect, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Well, thank

you, Mr. Chairman, except I am referring directly to the Premier's

announcement in January 1979 with respect to the takeover by B.C. Tel

of two subsidiaries of General Telephone — General Telephone being the

parent company of both. Now his statement at the time was a statement

of government policy. He held a press conference and he announced it

and it was from the Premier's

[ Page 2270 ]

office.

It wasn't a question within the purview of the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications, who at that time wasn't even

concerned, as we recall, with that area of policy. It involved BCRIC

and the takeover and it involved the whole question of the

profit-taking of the public utility, and the question of public policy,

government policy with respect to the foreign takeover of not only our

companies in British Columbia, but a public utility.

Now I

want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the share dividends, just the

common-share dividends declared on shares of B.C. Tel, were $14 million

in 1974. In 1975 they were $15 million and in 1976 they were $18

million. Mr. Chairman, in the first full year of Social Credit

administration the profit went from $18 million a year to $46,716,000 —

that's dividends, not just profits but dividends on shares — and then

the next year to $51,307,000. Of that $50 million, $30 million went to

compensate foreign shareholders in 1978, and that Premier condoned the

further takeover of B.C. Tel by a foreign company in Connecticut, in

the United States, and that's what we've paying for. That's why B.C.

Tel is launching a rate increase, and the Premier is ignoring it.

Mr.

Chairman, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour had some interesting

comments about B.C. Telephone and, because he was the minister at the

time, he advised the Premier of his comments back in October of 1976.

It was the result of good work done by the Premier's administration,

and the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, as the minister at the

time, knew full well that it was substantive and supported the position

that he stated. Here is what it said: "Davis said in an interview from

Victoria Tuesday night that analysts in his department have found that

B.C. Tel doesn't measure up in performance, when compared with Bell

Telephone in eastern Canada, in a number of respects, and he named

handling of complaints, the quality of service and technological

advances." That's the whole ball of wax, Mr. Chairman.

Now,

you see, these matters have been raised time and time again, and the

Premier has steadfastly ignored them. I sent a letter to the Premier on

March 26, 1980, asking him to intervene. I'll read it out and put it on

the record, you know, the Premier was so interested in seeing a copy of

the letter, he doesn't even want to hear it. Or is he going to claim,

Mr. Chairman, it's a letter he didn't receive? Is that what he's going

to claim? Because he's done that before too; we know that.

This is addressed to the Premier:

"Re: B.C. Telephone's application for a rate increase.

"B.C.

Telephone Company in 1979 made over $51 million, and since 1974 B.C.

Tel has paid over $146 million in dividends alone to their

shareholders. Over $80 million of those dividends have been paid to

foreign shareholders. The government directly profits from common-share

dividends, because it holds 1,215,000 shares...."

You

know, I can't believe the rudeness of the first minister of this

province. He refused to answer my letter, and now he walks away. Are

you getting a pencil? The least your cabinet could do is to supply you

with a pencil.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, continue to address the

Chair.

MR. LAUK: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.

"The

government directly profits from common-share dividends, because it

holds 1,215,844 shares in B.C. Telephone Company. In the last 18 months

that company has advised that it intends to expend funds on major

capital projects. These capital projects appear to have been

re-announced by the company from time to time, and just what part of

their announcement should be taken seriously remains in doubt.

"It

is the wide-spread view that B.C. Tel service to customers, rather than

improving, has been deteriorating. In the face of the above facts I

urge you to intervene as the government of British Columbia, both with

the federal government itself and the CRTC to prevent B.C. Tel's

totally unwarranted request for a rate increase. It is not enough to

pass the buck and say that it is a federal responsibility. British

Columbians everywhere are depending upon you to defend their interests

and not throw up your hands and make excuses. I know that when you

carefully consider your responsibility in this regard you will reverse

the government's decision and intervene on behalf of the British

Columbians."

Mr. Chairman, I received no answer to that

letter. Indeed, the deadline for filing of intervention passed two

weeks ago and the government has not intervened. It's a shocking

display of the government's total lack of caring for ordinary people.

They've got their own high-level political games to play. When it comes

to ordinary people and protecting the public, they have absolutely no

interest. Under that Premier's leadership, this government is

responsible for turning their backs on ordinary people. The arrogance

is incredible. They're walking around and talking about pipelines and

tunnels and....

MR. BRUMMET: Coal moratoriums.

MR. LAUK: What are you talking about?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK:

You know, they have a terrible nerve. I'm so easily distracted by the

hon. gentleman from Peace River, who, as you know, is very skilled in

these matters of distracting speakers in this House when he has nothing

better to do. You know, Mr. Chairman, the Premier is responsible for

leading this government away from the people. I'm sure his ministers do

not support his view, by and large, that the government should not

intervene with the CRTC. The public of British Columbia have sent

petitions. They've sent me a petition. I've got two or three petitions

of 25 names; they're not in the proper order for submission to the

Legislature, but I'll supply them to the Premier. These are people in

areas of the city who have sent me petitions. Also, the consumer

association is intervening; other public agencies are intervening; the

NDP has filed an intervening brief. But we don't have the resources of

the province of British Columbia which the Premier has to intervene and

give facts and figures to support the case against a rate increase.

We're

calling upon the Premier to stop chewing gum, to stop turning his back

on. the people and giving the back-of-the-hand treatment to ordinary

people, and to intervene on their behalf. That's why you were elected.

I think it's impor-

[ Page 2271 ]

tant

that the Premier stop ignoring the legitimate pleas of the people of

this province for government action against the British Columbia

Telephone Co., which is profit-taking to a terrible degree.

would be different if it were a private enterprise organization that

was subjected to the vagaries of the free market system. They have

sanctuary from the pursuing hounds of free enterprise; that sanctuary

is a monopoly. That monopoly has been granted to them by the Crown,

provincial and federal, to be the sole supplier of telephone service to

this province. It would be different if they were in the competitive

marketplace, where they would take their lumps one way or another. But

I'll tell you, if there was another telephone company competing with

B.C. Telephone, Connecticut would not be getting $80 million of our

money today. They have a licence to print money to compensate foreign

shareholders. They are actively supported and encouraged and connived

at by the Premier of this province and this government.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Order!

MR. LAUK:

"Connivance" has a specific definition, and I'm willing to support that

argument. "Connivance" means they've stood idly by and watched the

monopoly organization profit-take at the expense of....

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

HON. MR. BENNETT:

To save you looking up the word, the word "connivance" as applied to

both myself and the government by the member opposite.... He's trying

to put an easier definition on