1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, JUNE 28, 1985

Morning Sitting

[ Page

6979 ]

CONTENTS

Private Members' Statements

Treatment for hearing and speech impairment. Mr. MacWilliam –– 6979

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Provincial-Municipal Partnership (Taxation Measures) Act (Bill 21). Report

Third reading –– 6980

Critical Industries Act (Bill 31). Report

Third reading –– 6980

An Act To Incorporate Chilliwack Foundation (Bill PR404). Committee stage 6980

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Premier's office estimates. (Hon. Mr. Bennett)

On vote 4: Premier's office –– 6981

Mr. Howard

Mr. Williams

Ms. Brown

Mrs. Dailly

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Reynolds

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Committee of Supply: Office of the Ombudsman estimates. (Hon. Mr. Smith)

On vote 3: office of the ombudsman –– 7001

Society Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 48). Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Introduction and first reading –– 7001

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today

is a very famous gentleman from my home town of Penticton, Mr. Bob

Gauchie. To give you some of his background, Mr. Gauchie was a bush

pilot in northern Canada. On February 2, 1967, his plane went down, and

he was rescued 58 days later. On April 1, a plane discovered his downed

plane on a lake. I just want to quote this comment made by the author

about the time he spent: "For 58 days, in temperatures as low as 60

below zero and almost without food, bush pilot Bob Gauchie fought back

longer by far than any other man who has ever survived stranded in the

northern winter." Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce Mr. Bob Gauchie

to the House today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I think it's most appropriate

this very delightful Friday morning for all members on each side of the

House to express their sincerest appreciation and thanks to the Pages,

the Sergeant-at-Arms staff, and the guides for their most efficient and

courteous service since we have been in session.

MR. HOWARD: There's no question and no doubt about joining

unanimously with those sentiments. I didn't catch that he had included

the Clerks-at-the-Table in those accolades. In any event, in addition

to those who keep us on the straight and narrow — procedurally anyway —

I want to wish them a good summer.

Also this day is the last day upon which we will have the delight of

working in conjunction with the interns — at least in our caucus — some

of whom are in the gallery glaring down upon us at the moment, having

come to the conclusion that internship has proved to them that they

don't want to proceed any further in this business. But we do

appreciate the opportunity of having worked with them, and wish them

the best when they leave here as well.

Private Members' Statements

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the original purpose of filing my

statement was to effect an alteration and a change in a situation which

I thought should not have prevailed. Yesterday we were advised during

the estimates of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) that that

change had taken place, and beneficial change at that. I think

therefore there's no need for me to proceed any further to deal with

the statement, if that's agreeable to the House.

TREATMENT FOR HEARING

AND SPEECH IMPAIRMENT

MR. MacWILLIAM: I wanted to talk a little bit today on

assistance for hearing and speech impairments as a result of a number

of concerns that have been addressed...

HON. MR. GARDOM: Louder!

MR. MacWILLIAM: He almost caught me on that one.

...in the North Okanagan area from families whose children have been

suffering from hearing and speech impairments. I want to point out at

the outset that the problems deal not the quality of treatment but

rather with access to the treatment program itself.

At a recent meeting of the North Okanagan Union Board of Health,

many questions were raised about the productivity and the lengthy

waiting-list for such services. Dr. Len Ellis, a consultant with the

speech and hearing division of the Ministry of Health, has said that

the public health speech pathology program has been recognized

throughout North America for its high rate of success, and he indicated

that rehabilitation rates in the area of 50 percent indicate that if a

child can get access to the treatment program then the chances are very

good of resolving the initial problem.

I'd like to reiterate that the problem here is not one of quality of

service, but rather one of access to that treatment. Nor is the problem

due to an inadequate number of speech and hearing pathologists in the

province. B.C. has about 230 qualified personnel, but when you look at

it there's only about 38 — citing Dr. Ellis's numbers — that work

directly with the Ministry of Health in community health clinics. Most

of the others are employed in the public school system, where they

serve in that capacity.

Dr. Ellis recently stated that early diagnosis and early treatment

of hearing and speech impairments is paramount in effective correction

procedures. It's recommended that treatment should be started when the

child is between 18 months and two years of age. Treatment after the

child reaches school age is more difficult and more costly. Here lies

the crucial element of the issue at hand. All our resources appear to

be focused in the wrong area; that is, after the child reaches school

age. Eighty-three percent of our speech pathologists are in the school

system, where it's almost too late for effective treatment to be

implemented. Only 17 percent of the specialists seem to be involved in

preschool treatment programs and in community health clinics, where the

preschool programs are critically needed. So we've got a recognized

program, we've got sufficiently and highly qualified personnel, we've

got a high success rate when the children can get treatment, but we

lack access to that treatment. I want to re-emphasize that the lack of

access is the critical element.

Very briefly, I want to cite a few cases in the North Okanagan area.

Last March 19 a family with a three-year-old son was put on a waiting

list for speech therapy. Eighteen others were ahead of the individual

on the waiting list. They were told that they could expect a two- to

four-month wait just for the assessment, and a further one-year wait

for therapy to be implemented. In another case a family with a

five-year-old girl is having to wait six to eight weeks for the initial

screening, and there's been no commitment on the starting date for

treatment. A family with a three-year-old girl, after a six month wait

for screening, was told it would be another two years for treatment to

commence. In a fourth case a mother with a three-and-a-half-year-old

son has been waiting a year — since last spring — for treatment. In

October that individual was told her son would have to wait another two

years. So by the time this infant receives treatment he will be five

and a half years old, and the treatment itself will be less effective

because of that delay.

First question: how can we effect an early diagnosis when screening

takes up to half a year in waiting? Second: how can we effect an early

therapy program when waiting lists are growing up to two years?

[ Page 6980 ]

In concluding, Mr. Speaker, a successful and cost-effective program

of speech therapy which we do have in the province is being compromised

through a lack of access to that program. There seems to be a

disproportionate number of professionals in the treatment process after

the child enters school, when it's harder to obtain the results that

are needed. There seems to be an inadequate provision of treatment or

access to treatment in the preschoolers, in community-based evaluation

and treatment programs. Perhaps the minister, if he wishes, would like

to make some responses to that.

[10:15]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I think the member's questions

and some of the comments he made during his statement to a very large

degree supply their own answers. The member suggested that there seems

to be a reasonable number of these specialists throughout the province

and that the expertise of these people leaves no question that their

capability is very effective.

Providing the necessary manpower to those in greatest need at the

optimum time is very difficult, for a number of reasons. The

distribution of such people throughout the province is very difficult.

frequently can be very difficult, because, simply, of where the person

may reside and whether the service is available. The assessments are

somewhat inconsistent, depending on where you may be in the province.

For some period of time a large part of that was conducted at the

school level. It appeared at one point in time that the school level —

the early elementary level — was the best opportunity of assessing the

needs of such children, because they were available for testing. The

private availability of testing is relatively new.

There has been a long history of improper diagnosis of what may have

been wrong with the child with a hearing or speech problem. Very

frequently it was considered that the child was slow or retarded in

some way. More recent examinations have indicated that in many cases

it's a matter of hearing deficiency. But the problem is being attacked

by the preventive health side of our ministry, I think, with some

effectiveness.

I would be more than pleased to have an analysis done in that

specific area the member mentioned. The preventive services branch of

our ministry is most concerned about being effective in this area, as

are the various health units and those people who are engaged in that

special form of care. Certainly I don't disagree at all with the

member's concern and with the questions he has raised; we have the same

questions. We are attempting to try to determine how we can most

effectively utilize the people we have in that area, and how we can

more effectively target their expertise to those in greatest need. I

agree with the member that a couple of years' wait for treatment seems

to be far too long.

I can assure the member and other members that we are looking at

this program most seriously. We are recruiting additional people, and

we are trying to improve the availability and access to those in need.

We're also expanding our clinics for adults and those who are beyond

that stage of life, to try to assist them as well. But the greatest

emphasis will be on the earliest possible detection and correction, to

avoid difficulties later in life.

So I have very little disagreement with the member's statement or

his questions, and we share his concern. Perhaps at some time we can

assist in trying to resolve specific problems. But I would be pleased

to have specific details on some cases to see if perhaps a direct

intervention could assist; recognizing the limits we have on the people

available through a province. I appreciate the member's statement. I

think it has identified a problem we consider to be most serious as

well.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's

response to the questions that were raised. May I forward to the

minister some recommendations that I've considered at length with this

problem. I think the minister has touched on some of these, but I'll go

over them. There are three recommendations here: firstly, that the

Minister of Health investigate the problem of inadequate access to

preschool treatment programs for the speech and hearing impaired;

secondly, that the Minister of Health consider the expansion of current

programs through the provision of more qualified speech pathologists in

the community health clinics; and, thirdly, that the Minister of Health

develop an integrated program of assessment and therapy in coordination

or in liaison with the Ministry of Human Resources and the Ministry of

Education that will focus our present resources that we do have to

where they will serve the greatest need, and that is at the preschool

level. I would hope that the minister would take those recommendations

in the spirit in which they're made. I know that he will give them his

consideration.

MR. SPEAKER: The final speaker, the member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I plan to defer my statement to later in the session.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 21, Mr. Speaker.

PROVINCIAL-MUNICIPAL PARTNERSHIP

(TAXATION MEASURES) ACT

Bill 21 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 31, Mr. Speaker.

CRITICAL INDUSTRIES ACT

Bill 31 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill PR404.

AN ACT TO INCORPORATE

CHILLIWACK FOUNDATION

The House in committee on Bill PR404; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 47 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

[ Page

6981 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill PR404,

An Act to Incorporate Chilliwack Foundation, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

On vote 4: Premier's office, $694,396.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before recognizing the member for Skeena,

I will point out to the committee that both the members of the

government and the members of the official opposition have had their

30-minute opening statement comments. So the time limit on all debate

now will be 15 minutes.

MR. HOWARD: Even my own members applaud that, Mr. Chairman.

The office of the president of the executive council is the supreme and

most powerful political office in this province. It transcends that

final sort of inherited authority which used to be the Crown, and the

Crown in the full power of government in a historic sense and in a

current sense resides in the office of the president of the executive

council, the Premier, and therefore affords and should afford the

opportunity for a very thorough, wide-ranging examination of that

all-powerful office and the influence that that all powerful office has

upon every aspect of economic, social and political life in this

province.

I think the government House Leader is acting in a contemptuous way

to the people of this province by proceeding to call the estimate of

the office of the president of the executive council without the holder

of that office being here. It would have been much more appropriate, I

think, and in keeping with the hallowed and time-honored obligation we

have to ourselves, to pay due respect to the question of responsible

government.

When responsible government emerged on the scene some centuries ago,

it was that government would be responsible to the people through the

legislative assemblies or through the parliaments. The essence of

responsible government means that people who have the responsibility

for administering either a ministry or the whole of government should

be available at the given moment to exercise and show respect for that

question of responsibility. That has not been the case here.

The government House Leader is the one who makes these decisions about when

to call whatever estimates are to be called. He is the person who every day

stands up and says what government business is and what the government wants

to deal with today. He has decided in this last moment when the holder of the

office is away.... And it's not a question of why the person who holds that

office is away; he's on government business, but he is absent, and it therefore

falls to the government House Leader to make that decision about the processes

to be followed in dealing with government business. That is an insult to the

people of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I will remind the committee that

the Committee of Supply does not give us the latitude to discuss the

agenda of estimates. We have an estimate before us, and we must be

relevant to that estimate, not to the actions of another minister.

MR. HOWARD: Well, I thought that was what I was doing, Mr.

Chairman. We are here with this estimate before us, and I am arguing

that the government House Leader, who is the one responsible for

bringing it here, should not have done that; should not have placed the

Committee of Supply in that impossibly awkward position of having to

deal with voting nearly $700,000 of taxpayers' money to an office when

the holder of that office is not here. It's not the fault of the holder

of that office; it's the fault of the government House Leader, who does

this to us. And now he may reflect....

[10:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That is not....

MR. HOWARD: It's a question of procedure now. The government

House Leader's decision may reflect what government wants. If that is

so, then obviously this is the only vote under which that can be

discussed, because there is no vote of funds for the government House

Leader's position. There are votes for funds for the holder of the

office of the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, but that is a

different office than government House Leader, and the only place in

which we can discuss the activities of the government House Leader in

the calling of the business is under this vote, because it is

government that's involved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Some latitude has been allowed,

but we clearly are discussing the estimates of the Premier. All the

Committee of Supply can discuss is that vote and the expenditures of

that office. Further, I'll point out to the member for Skeena that

according to Sir Erskine May, Committee of Supply does not afford the

proper opportunity for discussing which minister should represent the

government in respect of estimates under consideration. I would ask the

member to relate his remarks to the office of the Premier.

MR. HOWARD: I was seeking to do that, and need to reiterate

that it's a contempt of parliament to proceed in this fashion. We can

stand that. We're all grown people here and take our lumps from and

with each other with a little bit of humour sometimes, with a little

bit of anger at other times. But it's contemptuous of this assembly,

which represents the people of this province — the taxpayers, the

voters. All residents all over this province have determined, under an

inherited system of political democracy, that this is the assembly and

these are the people in the assembly who should be representing those

folks back home. We are not able effectively to do that, I submit, when

the government House Leader moves to call a vote for an office when the

holder of that office is not able to be here. That's the contemptuous

part about it.

There's not much point in proceeding any further to deal with the

estimates themselves when the government seems hell-bent to deny the

opportunity to examine them. That's what we said last night. We had a

more stringent discussion about this last night than we're having at

the moment. The only course available, I suppose, is to express our

view by passing.... They will pass; I don't think there's any doubt

[ Page 6982 ]

about that. When vote 4 passes, we can do so with

the new procedural opportunity to say, "on division." I say it publicly

so it'll appear on the record: when it appears in the votes and

proceedings "on division," it will show our disagreement with the

contemptuous way in which the government House Leader is handling

things.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All hon. members will come to

order. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

will come to order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the member

for Skeena takes the attitude he has with regard to the Premier's

absence in these estimates, because we all know that the Premier is in

Washington doing something that even the second member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Williams) said was one of the most important aspects of

business between Canada and the United States — all-important. Our

Premier is in Washington working on behalf of the province, working on

behalf of the workers in this province, working on behalf of the lumber

industry on a very important matter.

I'm also sorry he took that attitude because the Premier's estimates

were before the Legislature, and they were debated for some three and a

half hours in which the opposition didn't really take too much time to

do anything but try to be political. There was no debate on the main

issues facing this country today, and this province, in which the

Premier has certainly been a leader. If you want to talk about people

being absent from this Legislature, I think that the member for Skeena

should look at the Leader of the Opposition, who has been absent from

this Legislature and doing his job as leader of the official opposition

— a very important job in our parliamentary system — for some 21 days,

approximately 4 weeks, or 25 percent of the time we've been sitting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The committee was reminded

earlier when another member was speaking that we must be relevant to

the vote before us. That is the administrative actions of the office of

the Premier, vote 4. Only that debate which is relevant to that

expenditure will be allowed.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As I said, I'm quite disappointed in the

attitude that the member for Skeena has taken in these very important

estimates, and I'll be quite prepared to answer any questions I can.

MR. HOWARD: Obviously, the minister of international travel

does not listen to what's said in this chamber. He has a preconceived

determination to say a certain thing himself, and it bears no relevance

to what other people say. Either that, or he does listen and seeks to

distort what is said to suit his own conveniences.

Let me reiterate: we were talking about the contempt shown to the

people of British Columbia by the government House Leader calling a

vote when the person who holds that office is not here. Was the person

who holds that office away for good reason? That's what we're talking

about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Skeena will come to order.

Some latitude was allowed to the member for Skeena, but we are now clearly into

the estimates of the Premier, vote 4. The Chair has cautioned the member for

Skeena as well as the Minister of International Trade and Investment. I now

ask all members of the committee to return to vote 4, the Premier's office,

and to debate relevant to that expenditure. That is all the committee can discuss.

MR. HOWARD: All I was saying is that what I had to say had

nothing whatever to do with the contentions put forward by the minister

of international travel — nothing whatever. This is just a

determination to make some flappy political statement that he thinks

will gain something for him. We're not into that. He might be. He might

continue to want to live in the past, but on this side of the House

we're not into that kind of stupid game.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To the vote.

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't know the way you people have been

running this House this last while, I'll tell you, but this is a great

affront to the whole idea of parliament, the whole idea of

accountability. It is a pure and simple affront to the whole public

process in this province. Never, never, in the days of this man's

father, W.A.C. Bennett, would this kind of running stuff take place,

this kind of abandoning ship — giving orders to your lackeys to ram his

own estimates through while he's away. Never would it have happened

before. It is absolutely unheard of. It is an absolutely disgusting

piece of work on the part of this Premier. He should be here to answer

questions.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The second member for Vancouver East will please come to order.

Hon. members, the Chair, as was indicated earlier, has offered some

latitude to the member for Skeena, the Minister of International Trade

and Investment and the second member for Vancouver East, but I think

that scope of latitude — please take your seat; I'll just be a moment —

must now be condensed; we must return to the Committee of Supply and to

what is relevant to the office of the Premier. I'm sure all members are

aware of that. And if we keep that in mind, I'm sure we can maintain

orderly and relevant debate.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. WILLIAMS: What we have here is this nobody minister in a

sinecure, so-called intergovernmental affairs, the holiday boy,

answering for the person who is responsible. Absolute nonsense that the

geriatric brigade from Point Grey should be the one who answers for the

Premier of British Columbia.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

Interjections.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The personal references to another member of

this House are quite unparliamentary. I'll ask the second member for

Vancouver East to withdraw any personal references.

[ Page 6983 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: Whatever.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The member continues on vote 4.

MR. WILLIAMS: It is absolutely disgusting that the Premier of

this province provides only three and a half hours of his time. He

comes here like a space cadet off the jet from his two weeks abroad in

Japan, then takes off to Washington, dealing with very important

matters....

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. With

every respect, socialism's answer to Prince Charming can carry on this

way if he wishes to, but you're demeaning the process. Why do you have

to involve yourself constantly in personal attack? Why do you have to

do that? Why don't you...?

MR. WILLIAMS: It's not a point of order. There's no order.

HON. MR. GARDOM: If you don't mind, Mr. Member, I do happen to have the floor at the moment.

I would say, on behalf of the Premier, that I find those remarks

offensive — calling the Premier of the province a space cadet. He

thinks it's funny, or he thinks he's making marks. Mr. Chairman, I

would respectfully request that this official opposition's tower of

babble withdraw those remarks.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is there no order, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we have a little problem here, but we can

sort this out. I'm going to ask the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations to withdraw that personal reference, and following that I'll

ask the second member for Vancouver East to withdraw personal

references to any member.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm delighted to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Now the second member for Vancouver

East with respect to the comments made about another hon. member of

this House — will the member so withdraw?

MR. WILLIAMS: If the Chair requests, yes.

The day the Premier was here he was, clearly, in deep trouble. He

clearly was not able to handle the debate very well. That is the

reality. It may well not have permeated the ranks on the other side,

but it was abundantly clear that he was not able to handle the debates

very well at all. It was a stumbling and stammering performance.

His father would have been here, he would have dealt with these

estimates and he would have dealt with them and stayed in British

Columbia. He would have stayed in his seat and participated in the

debate. This offspring does nothing of the sort. The offspring

disappears from the chamber when he should be here to listen to the

debate and the arguments about how he carries out his office. He

carries out his office inadequately, Mr. Chairman. He's had ten years

in office, and we have an economy on the skids unlike any in any other

part of Canada. Here this blessed, resource-rich province is on the

economic skids. He should be here to take his lumps for his

part in

that process, because he has played a big

part indeed in the decline of

the provincial economy. But he is not here.

There are other matters that could be debated at this moment; there

are other sections we could be debating today. But we are not. It is

reasonable indeed that these estimates should be considered when he

returns at the beginning of next week. I'm sure you got orders from

long-distance: "Put my estimates through. I don't want to face the

Legislature." That's the sort of stuff that's going on here.

This is a Premier who intervenes in the process of these ministries

more than we've ever had in the past. In the question of deputies we've

got a Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing who was one of the last to

know that his deputy was being fired. John Johnston, who was the Deputy

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, was an extremely competent deputy

minister. He was given the axe by the Premier, and Mr. Brummet was the

last to know. He had to meet with Mr. Johnston, and he was embarrassed

and said he was embarrassed, because this was an action by the Premier

that he had no

part in.

This is the man who's intervening in all these ministries in that

way, along with his deputy, Dr. Spector, a man who never has to report

to the public at all. Dr. Spector, the author of forestry as a "sunset

industry." That's the real author of that phrase: the Premier's

executive assistant. He's the guy who weaves the web in terms of the

real process of government in British Columbia; the man from Montreal

who always has the Premier's ear; the deputy of deputies, who deals

with all their deputies. That's the way British Columbia's run now.

They're running it as an executive, running it in a presidential way,

with the assistant to the president calling the shots and calling all

your deputy ministers and telling them what the rules are and how they

are to respond, and, in effect, providing the linkage in control over

the rest of the cabinet out of that office.

That's the way this administration is run today, and that is

something less than adequate. We desperately need people with roots in

this province getting to work in the field, in the regions, and who

understand the resources of British Columbia. That is not happening.

That's because we have this person — with the ear of the Premier all

the time — who does not have his roots in British Columbia at all, and

who's got some kind of academic background hardly relevant to the

realities of British Columbia today. That's why we get these great

leaps, the stop-go in terms of the economy. Let's try a special

economic zone as one policy; let's throw all the tax money for

corporations into the pot; let's try this and that, but never

rebuilding the basics, if one really understood the basics of our

industries in British Columbia.

[10:45]

So there it is: a whole bunch of cabinet ministers, and all they

have control of is their expense accounts. This deputy with the Premier

calls the shot right down the line, and they've put in new deputies who

will jump to the line out of the Premier's office, so that you don't

get the kind of pluralistic process that should take place in any

genuine democracy or any cabinet worth the name. There is not the

pluralism in here that would reflect the range of abilities in this

province and the range of regions in this province.

And we have a Premier who has abandoned the ship. First he flies

into this Kinsella-proposed arrangement in terms of a partnership for

renewal, and then he finds that one's not flying very well. He abandons

the ship and he flies all around the province, but only speaking to

chamber of commerce

[ Page 6984 ]

dinners, never meeting with the real, hard-working

people, the unemployed and those in the welfare lines, the bread lines,

the soup banks and the food banks, and never talking to those citizens

of British Columbia. He is always at the expensive dinners at the

chamber of commerce — always with the Kens and Barbies of the world,

the nicely dressed folks in their stuffed shirts at fancy dinners.

That's what the process is: never dealing with the hard realities, the

people who have been abused by his mistakes through a decade — never

facing up to that. And now today he is not even facing up to the

opposition itself in this House.

There is no way that three and a half hours before the opposition is

acceptable. Let the people of British Columbia know this guy will not

face this Legislature. Let's understand that.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: You've got your orders. You take orders all the time, little fellow.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: Dr. Spector runs the shot, and on it goes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland)

will come to order, and the second member for Vancouver East will avoid

personal references.

MR. WILLIAMS: It is nothing short of incredible. Never would

W.A.C. Bennett have tried the tactics that this man tries — never,

never, never. He would be here. He would give and get in the cut and

thrust of debate. But not this fellow. Now we don't even have the

sinecure fellow in the House. There is nobody here to represent this

man who's away again today. That is nothing short of incredible.

Do you people on the other side have no feeling about this process?

Do you not think that the Premier of the province should respond in the

debate? I couldn't believe that this man pulled off the same caper last

year. It's such an incredible affront. That's what he did. So this is

no accident. This is clearly a pattern. This guy doesn't face up to the

full debate of this House as he should. There is a process. That's what

parliaments are about: parliaments are about accountability, about

dealing with the questions of the opposition and responding in public

on the public issues of the day. This man chooses not to do that. This

man abandons parliament. People who do that deserve to get the full

treatment of the electorate.

He has abandoned the democratic process. He has established a

presidential system in British Columbia. This is not the United States

of America. This is not a world where you have a Ronald Reagan who sits

in the White House, where you have an executive that is separate from

the legislative function. This is a region of British parliamentary

justice. We don't have that happening. That is simply inexcusable and

unacceptable.

MR. PARKS: Pursuant to standing order 43, it has been very

difficult to understand why you have allowed much of this debate to be

considered relevant, but assuming that it is relevant, Mr. Chairman, it

clearly in the span of the last 10 to 15 minutes has been unbearably

duplicitous and redundant.

If the hon. member wishes to make a new point, I think we should be

willing to listen, but I would urge the Chair to cease the member's

wanderings.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will decide points of order, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, the point of order is specious and foolish, especially coming from a person...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. HOWARD: ...who offended the dignity of this House, then went to a Socred convention and sold his damn boot off at an auction.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! We were doing so well.

MR. HOWARD: Spurious points of order should....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The member has not been recognized.

The Chair listened to the point of order expressed by the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam. The Chair has advised the committee and the

member that the Chair will decide on points of order and on the

application of standing order 43. The matter is finished.

Does the member for Skeena wish to continue debate on vote 4?

MR. HOWARD: I just want to point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that spurious, false points of order should not be used to try to stifle debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair simply recognized a point of order.

All members are afforded an opportunity to express a point of order if

they wish to bring it to the committee.

Returning to vote 4, the Chair recognizes the Minister of International Trade and Investment.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I've been listening to the

second member for Vancouver East, and I'm a bit concerned. There's the

member who led the NDP to defeat in 1975, and who accepted $80,000 to

get out of politics. I would like, in the same line of reasoning, to

ask why the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Skelly) is not here to take

his place in the debate on the Premier's estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. Hon. members, the Chair has

listened to some points of order with respect to relevancy. I would now

ask the minister if he could be relevant to the estimates of the

Premier's office. That would be most appreciated by the committee and

would, I think, serve us well. We are not here to discuss the actions

of other members, only the estimates of the Premier's office.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I realize that, Mr. Chairman. I just

wanted to point out, as I said before, that the Premier indeed is in

Washington carrying on a very important conference, discussions on

behalf of all of the people of British Columbia, while the Leader of

the Opposition is off playing politics at some political convention

which has nothing to do with the province of B.C. It's strictly a

political convention in Ottawa and will do absolutely nothing for the

people of

[ Page 6985 ]

British Columbia. Usually, when there are political

conventions in the province of British Columbia we understand that; we

adjourn the House, which we have done in the past.

The point I'm making, Mr. Chairman, is that the Leader of the

Opposition is not in the province of British Columbia, not here to

debate the....

MR. D'ARCY: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. There's no

mention in vote 4 of the spending estimates of the Leader of the

Opposition, or of any member of this House except the member for

Okanagan South in his capacity as Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The point of order is well taken.

The Chair expressed it earlier, but I thank the member for reminding

the committee of that.

Before I recognize the minister, I will point out that we should be

relevant in committee; we must be. We are clearly limited to discussing

only the administrative actions of the minister's office whose vote is

before us.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I certainly realize that. I

wanted to point out, because there has been a great deal of debate as

to the Premier's whereabouts and why he isn't in the Legislature....

You know, it's funny to me. Here's an opposition that has been

ineffectual all during the session — completely ineffectual in question

period, completely ineffectual in debate — and in the dying days of the

Legislature they are trying to make a last stand. It's like Custer's

last stand as they go down to defeat.

[Mr. Ree in the chair]

While on his trip to Korea and Japan, the Premier was working on

behalf of all workers in British Columbia trying to expand trade in the

Pacific Rim, which our Premier recognized, back in 1976, as the

fastest-growing trade area in the world. No other province, no other

leader, recognized that that was where the action was going to be.

Because of the leadership of Premier Bill Bennett, British Columbia has

led the rest of Canada kicking and screaming into the Pacific Rim. He

is the only leader in Canada, I might point out, who has been welcomed

as an official leader to the countries of Japan, China and Korea. No

other Premier, no other political person in Canada, not even our Prime

Minister, past or present, has been welcomed as an official visitor to

all three countries, and our Premier certainly has.

We listen to that member for Vancouver East, who took the NDP to

defeat in 1975 and will lead them to defeat again in 1986 or 1987 or

1988 or whenever it is, stand here and chastise our Premier, one of the

most respected political leaders on the North American continent, a man

who showed leadership, a man who has shown leadership in face of

opposition from the NDP, which has never in this House brought in a

suggestion to improve the climate or the conditions in British Columbia

— critical, harping, negative, against everything this government has

done, against everything our Premier has done to provide jobs and to

provide leadership.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There we get a little hack from Victoria

who is a puppet of Peter Pollen: "Yack, yack, yack." You've never done

a thing for the province. You've never worked a decent day in your

life, my friend.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) will have his opportunity to stand in debate.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, I find the words "a little hack

from Victoria" offensive. I ask that the member for South Peace River

withdraw them immediately.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I will happily withdraw that, and I regret it. I certainly didn't mean it. It was a Freudian slip, I guess.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I want you to recognize that everything that

our Premier had done in leading this province has been criticized by

the NDP. Expo 86, which will lead British Columbia and Canada into the

decade of the eighties and nineties and into a new world of a

different, changing economic scene, will invite the rest of the world

to British Columbia so that they can have a look at the opportunities

that exist here, and so that it will put the business world in contact

with the business community in British Columbia — a great opportunity

criticized and chastised negatively by the NDP. It took leadership,

I'll tell you, years ago, to realize that we should go out and seek and

work in Paris in order to get Expo here.

[11:00]

When they were building B.C. Place and the dome, criticized by the

NDP, the only province in Canada to have a closed stadium, built on

budget and on time, criticized by the NDP.... There is that great

province of Ontario still arguing and fighting among themselves as to

where they are going to have a covered dome. Under the leadership of

Premier Bill Bennett, we have a dome, the first and the largest in

North America. That took leadership, my friend; that took business

ability.

What about the ALRT?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the hon. minister direct his comments to the Chair, and would the second member for Victoria....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What about all the good things that are going on in the province of British Columbia? I want to tell you....

MR. BLENCOE: Soup-lines.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, there's soup-lines in NDP too, my

friend; soup-lines all across Canada, soup-lines everywhere. What about

NDP Manitoba? You seem to forget about that, don't you? I'll tell you,

they're leaving Manitoba. They're leaving the other provinces in

Canada, and they're coming to British Columbia.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that's leadership. Contrast that

with your own leader, who ran from the House during the debate on

education and stood with the lawbreakers on the steps of the school

board. That's not leadership. I'll tell you, your leader couldn't hold

a candle....

[ Page 6986 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would you please direct your comments

through the Chair, hon. minister. Would the second member for Victoria

remain silent.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, remind that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair is speaking.

The Chair is saying that if the hon. minister would direct his

comments through the Chair, we may have less disruption in the House,

and if the hon. second member for Victoria would remain silent, he will

have his opportunity to stand and debate.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I just wanted to point out again, Mr.

Chairman, that our Premier is a respected leader — the only Premier in

Canada, by the way, who saw what was happening during the changing

economic times during the last three years. He had the strength and the

courage and the conviction to do what had to be done so that British

Columbia would be in a position to have economic renewal, which is

happening at the present time — oh, yes, practically now on a daily

basis. Practically on a daily basis new economic developments are

happening. Contrast that with a leader who had to be elected on the

third ballot and then just barely made it, who doesn't have the support

of his party, and who allowed a dogfight to develop in this Legislature

last night. They were fighting to see which one was going to be captain

of the mud team.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please. Mr. Minister; this is the

last time. Will you direct your comments through the Chair. And we are

on vote 4.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I just wanted to say that the people

of British Columbia and the people of Canada are proud of our Premier

because of the leadership that he has shown in some very difficult

world economic times. Certainly over here.... When our Premier is away,

there are no dogfights developing here, because he is a leader — unlike

what happens when the leader of the NDP is away and a dogfight

immediately develops. But here on this side of the House we have

leadership; we work together for the common good; there is discipline,

and there is absolutely no discipline whatsoever on the other side.

I'll tell you, that takes leadership. I want to tell you that our

Premier was one of the great leaders during the constitution debate,

when he helped keep Canada together. He was respected all across

Canada. To listen to the likes of the man from Vancouver East who

accepted $80,000 to get out of politics and who led your party down to

defeat in 1975 have the audacity to stand in this House and criticize

our Premier....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes the member for Skeena on vote 4. The member for Skeena defers to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds on vote 4.

MR. HOWARD: I'm sorry, Rosemary. I didn't see her.

MS. BROWN: That's not his fault; it's the chairman who has problems with his peripheral vision.

I just wanted to remind the members of government that the agenda

for the calling of estimates is theirs and that if in fact they know

that the Premier has a lot of travelling to do, whenever he is in town

would be their opportunity to call his estimates. The opposition

members had no control over that. We could not call the Premier's

estimates; we do not have that authority.

MR. REID: That's not true, and you know it.

MS. BROWN: We cannot call the Premier's estimates! The only

person who can call the Premier's estimates is the leader of the

government, the House Leader over there. And the House Leader is also

the only person who knows the Premier's travel plans and should have

made arrangements for the Premier to give more than three and a half

hours to have his office examined and his policies and the programs of

his government investigated by the opposition.

Instead of that, the government and the House Leader deliberately

withheld the calling of the Premier's estimates so that the opposition

did not have an opportunity to examine the estimates while the Premier

was here. That was a deliberate decision on the part of the government

and a deliberate decision on the part of the Premier. The member for

Vancouver East is absolutely correct. Because the Premier got away with

it last year, a precedent has been established, and now as long as he

is Premier — for the next six months or a year or whatever until the

election is called — this is the pattern which has been established for

him.

He's never going to be here to give an account of himself. There's

never going to be an opportunity for the opposition to be able to

question him about the incompetence of his government and the

incompetence of his ministry, and about the disastrous economic

situation which we have in this province. There is no point in arguing

with the Minister of Lands, no point in arguing with the Ministers of

Forests or of Industry and Small Business Development or of

Intergovernmental Relations. The person responsible for the fact that

there are a quarter of a million people in this province on income

assistance is the Premier. The person responsible for the fact that

another quarter of a million people in this province are on UIC is the

Premier. He has to take full responsibility for the unemployment and

for the bad economic situation which this province is in; and because

he does not want to take that responsibility, and because he does not

want to be accountable and to answer to the opposition for that, he saw

to it that his estimates were not called until he was out of town. That

was a deliberate decision on his part, and I do not think that the

government should expect the opposition to accept that quietly.

I can remember when that minister, the member for South Peace (Hon.

Mr. Phillips), was in opposition over here. "Not a dime without debate"

— that was his motto, and he held the government to ransom until he had

had his debate. Now he is telling us that we are to allow the estimates

of the Premier through in the absence of the Premier for the second

year in a row. The pattern has now been established. Whenever the

Premier gets this province into a mess, whenever we find more of our

young people — 25 percent or more — unable to find jobs, whenever we

find our education system being eroded or our health care system under

attack, we are to accept that and not be able to question the Premier

about that. The Premier will absent himself and send in his place the

Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and other

ministers to run interference for him. That's the

[ Page 6987 ]

kind of cowardice that the opposition is supposed to be accepting from that government over there.

I don't know what we can do about it, Mr. Chairman, except to

register our disapproval and our rage, and be sure that the message is

going to go out across this province that the Premier of this province

is never in this House when his estimates are being debated. The

Premier of this province runs and hides, ducks and dives, and does

whatever he can do so as not to be in this province when his estimates

are being called. The Premier of this province has the authority and

the power to call his estimates on the floor of this House any day of

the year that he wants to, and he makes damn sure that they're never

called when he is in the province and can be held accountable for them.

That's the kind of cowardice that we have to put up with, Mr. Chairman,

from that government over there.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The second member for Surrey

(Mr. Reid) will have his opportunity to stand in debate. To the member

for Burnaby-Edmonds, the Chair brings to the attention of the committee

Sir Erskine May, seventeenth edition, page 739: "Committee of Supply

does not afford proper opportunity for discussing which minister should

represent the government in respect of estimates under consideration."

MS. BROWN: Well, Mr. Chairman, all....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the second member for Surrey please come to order.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I would

suggest the member should withdraw that statement. You and your

predecessor are requesting withdrawals on countless items, hardly as

offensive as that. Will the member withdraw it?

MR. REYNOLDS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, they have

selective hearing if they're asking the member for Surrey to withdraw.

I would also like to ask the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe)

to withdraw his comments, which I happened to hear when I was listening

to the two of them — one on either side of me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair did not hear the comments, so the

Chair cannot ask for withdrawal of comments the Chair did not hear.

Would the member for Burnaby-Edmonds....

MS. SANFORD: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, I saw

you distinctly look at the member for Surrey when he made those

comments that were unacceptable, and you immediately called him to

order for those comments, but you did not ask him to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair did not hear the comments of the

second member for Surrey. That was what the Chair stated, and the Chair

will not be questioned on that. The Chair saw the second member for

Surrey stand up and look as if he was speaking. The Chair did not hear

the second member's statements. The Chair called the second member for

Surrey to order because of what appeared to be disorder on his behalf.

Would the member for Burnaby-Edmonds continue?

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, on this same point of order, I

distinctly heard those comments. A number of people sitting around me

distinctly heard those comments. We find them offensive and we would

like to have them withdrawn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the member did make comments which another member might find offensive, would the member please withdraw?

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I repeated the comment of the second member for Burnaby about the word "coward." I withdraw the word "coward."

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to your

comment from Sir Erskine May, seventeenth edition, page 739. In

discussing the Premier's vote, vote 4, I was under the impression that

we had the freedom to make a general discussion about the

responsibilities of that particular minister. We've certainly been

doing that with all the other ministers, and as the chief executive

officer, who is responsible for the way in which his cabinet conducts

the business of the land.... I thought I was quite within my right to

comment on the fact that they were incompetent and that he should be

here to be held accountable for their mismanagement of the economy of

the province. Is that okay? Okay, fine. Because that's what I was

trying to do, Mr. Chairman.

[11:15]

Just to repeat: for the Premier, for the second year in a row, to

absent himself from the House during the debate on his estimates is to

undermine the democratic process. That's what he's doing. He is

depriving the people of British Columbia, who elected the members of

the opposition to represent them, of their democratic right to question

the Premier on his actions and the actions of his government. If this

had happened once, as it did last year, we could say it was

unavoidable. But clearly, now that it has happened a second time, a

pattern has been established, and the pattern is that the chief

executive officer of this province, the Premier, has decided that he is

never going to be held accountable to this Parliament. When the time

comes for his estimates to be debated, he is going to absent himself

and not be on the floor to respond to questions or listen to concerns

expressed; not be on the floor to explain the action or inaction of his

government. He's going to leave it to other members of the cabinet to

just stand up and make little speeches to the effect that he is

wonderful, he is beautiful, he is great and he is pure — none of which

is accurate, of course. That's what he's decided to do, and that is

just not good enough, Mr. Chairman.

I think there has to be some recourse for the opposition, on behalf

of the people we represent, to have that minister, the chief executive

officer, on the floor of the House for more than three and a half hours

so that he can be questioned about the actions of this government, so

that he can hear the concerns which we have to express about the

actions and the policies of his government, and that he can give us

some indication of what direction his government is going to be taking

and what they're going to do about the fact that we have a quarter of a

million people in this province on income assistance, welfare, and the

number is growing; about the

[ Page 6988 ]

fact that another quarter of a million people are on UIC and the

number is growing; about the fact that our young people are unable to

find work, and that the highest percentage of unemployed people in this

province are young people coming out of the school system, out of

universities, colleges and technical institutes ready to contribute in

a positive way to the growth and development of this province. They're

being stymied as a direct result of the actions and policies of that

government.

That Premier has to be here to address those questions. It is not

good enough to send messages via the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations and the minister for external affairs or external trips, or

whatever that new name is we keep giving the member for South Peace

River (Hon. Mr. Phillips). That is not good enough. We are not going to

accept any messages sent by the Premier. The Premier has to be here so

that he can deal directly with our concerns and questions.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It contributes absolutely nothing to the

well-being and the welfare of the province to stand here and criticize

a leader who is respected all across Canada and in other nations in the

world. For a lady who has contributed absolutely nothing except a bunch

of harping, carping, negative criticism to stand here.... I want to

tell you, Mr. Chairman, our Premier has been the most accessible this

province has ever had — always out, always around, working in the

community, making himself available.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Why don't you go and take another $80,000?

No wonder your leader is away when you are in the Legislature. No

wonder the Leader of the Opposition is away.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the second member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) and the member for Mackenzie (Mr.

Lockstead) please come to order. And would the minister address his

remarks through the Chair and not directly to other members?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I am. What I am saying is that our Premier is the most accessible of any we have ever had in this province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I don't see your leader. Where is

he? Down in Ottawa playing politics, while you and the member for

Skeena (Mr. Howard) have a dogfight about who is going to be captain of

the mud line. You call that leadership?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the minister direct his remarks through the Chair.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Again, our Premier is accessible — working

with the people, working with the community. He's the hardest-working

Premier this province has ever had, a man who sets terribly difficult

standards for himself and expects those who surround him.... He's a man

who has given of his personal life, who has sacrificed his family, who

doesn't need the money but has come forward to lead this province, and

who has made great personal sacrifices. He's not a political hack who

wants to be in politics for the sake of being in politics and for the

sake of power, or for the money, the pension and everything else. Our

leader came forward when he didn't need the money. He came forward to

lead this province, and he has made personal sacrifices. I want to tell

you that he will go down in history as the greatest Premier this

province has ever had.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There will be no monuments built to those negative, harping, carping critics over there, my friend.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't run against him, my friend. Nor did he come in third; he came in first.

MR. HOWARD: You don't know how much I appreciate the

entertainment just afforded this chamber by that hon. empty barrel from

South Peace River. He reminds me of an aged, near-senile comedian. He

still remembers some of the lines that used to get a laugh; he still

remembers some of the clichés. But do you notice how flat they fall?

Even his own members on the government side plug up their ears. Even

the members behind him say: "Oh, my God, not again! Are we going to

have to listen to that tripe all over again?" They've heard it so many

times in the past. In a sense — and like an aged, near-senile comedian

— some of it is still laughable, some of it is still humorous. And

perhaps the only thing for which the member for South Peace River will

ever be remembered is an element of ancient, lost humour.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We know what they will remember you for.

MR. HOWARD: Say it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. minister and the member for Skeena

will come to order, please. We are on vote 4 and references to other

ministers are out of order.

MR. HOWARD: I want to tell you something, Mr. Chairman. You

should get something clear, and that is that the same rules you apply

to the opposition should also apply to the government. I notice you

have not been doing that. You let the member for South Peace River act

like he was on stage and talk about everything under the sun that he

wanted to talk about, with a meek little comment from the Chair:

"Order. Order, please." But when it gets a little tight for the

government, then suddenly we're all out of order on this side of the

House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair's comments still stand. Would the member please come to order on vote 4, the Premier's estimates.

MR. HOWARD: All I want to say is that I enjoyed this

morning's humour from the minister of international travel, and I look

forward to as much more of it as he wants to give the House. It's

laughable — stupid but laughable.

[ Page 6989 ]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, the main point in that harangue of

the minister who just took his seat.... It's rather hard to find a

point, but there was the threat of a point, and that was that his

Premier is very accessible. The point I want to make is that the issue

members of the opposition in the Legislature. That's the issue.

The tragedy of this debate today is that I do not think that many of

the members on the government side seem to understand what the issue

is. It has gone past the whole line-by-line discussion of the estimates

of the Premier. It is now based on our concern that the Social Credit

government and its leader do not recognize what the British

parliamentary system is all about. That means, basically, that every

minister in the cabinet has a responsibility to stand up before this

House until the opposition is finished with them — to put it bluntly.

Some of you, including the minister who took his seat, remember the

days when the NDP was in government. May I say that as a cabinet

minister who had to put herself before this Legislature for seven and a

half days to answer questions, I happen to know that it is not

pleasant, but I know that it was my duty as a cabinet minister to do so.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll ask the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Schroeder) to please come to order and allow the member for Burnaby

North to continue uninterrupted.

MRS. DAILLY: May I say that the issue of debate at the time I

went through my seven and a half days was important, certainly, but

compared with the Premier, who's responsible for the economy of this

province, it pales in comparison. Yet, Mr. Chairman, we in the

opposition are being denied the right to question the leader of this

government until we are finished.

We have files. We have concerns to express on behalf of the people

of British Columbia. All we are asking is.... You have the right to

do so. We have a right to stand up here, even though it's the dying

days of a session, and express our concern. Out there the public of

B.C. may not be too concerned about the fact that the NDP is holding up

a debate because the Premier is not here, he's in Washington. But we

have to point out to you and to the people of British Columbia that if

this continues year after year, the parliamentary system in British

Columbia is going to be destroyed. That is the issue. We are asking you

not to allow this to happen to this parliament.

The Premier of this province, before he left, should have arranged

his itinerary so that the opposition would have an opportunity to

debate his estimates. That is the issue.

I want to close on this note. May I suggest that years ago.... I

hate to keep using what happened years ago, but there were some good

things. When the new members came to this House, many years ago, the

Clerk of the House.... He was Mr. DeBeck at that time. Most of you

have heard of him: 90 years old, sitting where you're sitting, Mr.

Chairman.

MS. BROWN: He looked just like you.

MRS. DAILLY: No, he didn't quite look like you; 90 years old — although you may feel like it by the time you get out of here, I know.

But on a serious note, Mr. Chairman, Mr. DeBeck took every member of

this Legislature — I know the member for Vancouver East well remembers

this — into his room, and he explained to us the traditions and the

importance of the British parliamentary system. I say to you that the

members of the Social Credit government, and particularly the Premier

of this province, should be taken into somebody's room and have that

explained to them today.

[11:30]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, it's very difficult in open

debate to really respond in an angry or aggressive tone to the member

for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), because in almost all instances her

debate is in a very reasonable manner. But we're questioning the

attendance in the Legislative Assembly of the Premier for his

estimates. Mr. Chairman, it's worth noting that during this session a

very real effort has been made between the Whips of the two sides to

coordinate the estimates....

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You wouldn't know, Mr. Member, because no one speaks to you about anything, in or out of caucus.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Minister of Health will come to order and please address vote 4.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: With respect to the Premier's estimates, as

an example, Mr. Chairman, a very real effort has been made, as is

traditional in our parliamentary process, for the Whips to try to

coordinate the estimates. During this session we have postponed

estimates of certain ministers to ensure that the minister would be

here for the necessary time to complete the estimates, and also to

permit the official debate leader of the opposition the opportunity of

being here when those specific estimates were to be called. The

schedule changed frequently, because of the unavoidable absence either

of a minister or of the official debate leader, or critic, from the

other side. That type of accommodation is necessary in a very difficult

system of coordination. The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) said

that the members in the opposition do not have the opportunity to

question the Premier on his estimates because he's in Washington, D.C.,

on behalf of the people of British Columbia with respect to the great

dangers facing our lumber industry. Mr. Chairman, in this concept of

coordination, one would anticipate and expect that if the Premier's

estimates were open for debate, his critic would also be in the House

available for that debate. His critic is the Leader of the Opposition,

who, I understand, is in Ottawa attending a socialist convention.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. As has been pointed out to the

committee previously, and quite often, we are here to discuss the

estimates of the Premier. That is the vote that's before us, and

there's no other office or expenditure of funds

[ Page 6990 ]

that can be discussed. Will the minister please restrict his debate to that estimate before us now.

On vote 4, the Minister of Health continues.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, when we're discussing the

estimates of the Premier under the best possible conditions, the debate

we would all look forward to at some time today, as an example, would

be to have the two principals present for the debate. But I would think

that if we had called these estimates earlier in this session, we would

have been requested by the official opposition not to proceed with them

until their leader were present so he could debate. So we have the

absence of the leaders of the two parties, and the debate is continuing

in the chamber, available to all members to make such points as they

desire, with respect to the Premier's estimates.

I think it's only fair to point out, Mr. Chairman, as has been

pointed out in the absence of the Premier at this time, that the

official critic is also absent. So if one is away and the other is

away, obviously the debate must take place between those members

present. It seems to be balanced. Our Minister of International Trade

and Investment (Hon. Mr. Phillips), is carrying the book forward today

quite capably, and if the opposition do have questions about the

Premier's estimates, there are no restrictions in asking, and they will

be answered.

MR. WILLIAMS: Answered by one of the nobodies over there. That's what it will be.

The person who's supposed to be representing the Premier is the

one.... Do you recall, folks, when he was in London on another one

of his joyrides at public expense, when his executive assistant was

canned, when his executive assistant was fired? Who fired him? Why, the

Premier's office. The political hack in the Premier's office, Bud

Smith, is the one who did him in, simply because there were no cabinet

members available for a meeting on poverty, for a meeting on food banks

in the city of Vancouver. And the reason? They were all in Maui. They

were all in Hawaii. And who got fired? Who got fired?

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: A person in his office. But where did it happen?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Just one moment.

MR. WILLIAMS: The work was done by the Premier's office. The Premier's office is where it was....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The second member for Vancouver East

will come to order. The Chair has asked many members during this debate

to confine their debate to the relevant aspects of the minister whose

vote is before us now. We are currently discussing the administrative

responsibility of the Premier's office, vote 4. As has been pointed out

to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), and many others, and now

to the second member for Vancouver East, we will confine our debate to

that vote and that estimate. The member continues.

MR. WILLIAMS: The Premier's office indeed! Even junior people in

the other ministries are fired out of the Premier's office. That is so with

respect to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom). That's

what happened. Mr. Smith, the political hack in the Premier's office, did

the job simply because the man made a minor joke about everybody being in Hawaii

and not being able to attend a conference on poverty last winter. That's

the reality. It was not done by the minister himself when he got back. No, it

was done out of the Premier's office. That's the kind of operation there

is in the Premier's office. You're a bunch of nobodies — that's why

we need the Premier here to debate the estimates. That's why.

Who else is the major contributor to policy in British Columbia? Who

else out of the Premier's office and who among the advisers in the

Premier's area do the bulk of the work? Why none other than one Patrick

Kinsella. None other than the marketer — the guy who can sell soap or

incompetent Premiers, who are bouncing around like pugilists. He is the

one who can do it. And make no bones about it, when the Premier did

make it back here for one day a week ago, and dealt with his estimates

for only three and a half hours, he was like a wavering pugilist in

this chamber. That's why he's not here today, because he can't handle

it. He simply can't handle it. He has to be away.

I want to read for the record in Hansard the kind of job that was

done on the people of British Columbia by one Patrick Kinsella, at the

hire of the Premier of this province. Let's get it straight. What it is

is a market manipulation game, in terms of trying to market this man

who's done such a poor job over the past decade. All kinds of funds are

spent in terms of that image-building and in terms of trying to put a

mask on this mess that is the Premier of British Columbia.

Let's read what Patrick Kinsella says, which is as follows, taped at

Simon Fraser University. Let's get it on the record so that in the

future the people of British Columbia will know the method by which

this man is marketed in British Columbia. He says:

"About 1975 it occurred to Bill Bennett, leader of the

opposition, that in order to get back the government, he had to run a

special type of campaign, bringing the Social Credit Party into the

twentieth century in terms of technique. In 1975 the Socreds were

elected. They hung on barely in 1979.

"Then about 1979-80-81, Bennett realized what he had

to do was to develop a structure that would allow the party to develop

a campaign technique that would get him elected in 1983, or whenever

the election was called."

MR. CHAIRMAN: If I could just interrupt the member for a

moment, not to frustrate what the member is saying, but to remind all

hon. members that when referring to a member of the Assembly, even when

reading, one should not refer to them by their name, but rather by

their office or riding they represent. I'm sure the member can

paraphrase, if you will, to satisfy that rule.

MR. WILLIAMS: Indeed. Okay. Mr. Kinsella continues in his

tape on the marketing of the Premier and the managing of elections and

the manipulating of the public, which is the process that this Premier

adheres to consistently. Mr. Kinsella says:

"I came out in the fall of 1981. I was executive

director of the Ontario Conservative Party and had been involved in the

party there for seven or eight

[ Page 6991 ]

years, working in various campaigns — both federally and provincially.

"I was involved quite a bit with the Republican Party

in those days, in the sense that we as a Conservative Party, both in

Ontario and Canada, have a working relationship with the Republican

Party in the United States. That allowed me to go to candidate schools

and candidate colleges and so on that the Republican Party puts on on a

regular basis.

"Frankly, I stole all of their ideas. If something

works, you steal it, and see if you can employ it in your own way, for

us. So that's what I did.

"When I came out in '81, one of the things I indicated to the Premier was that it was important that we really get into polls."

Let's remember that at this point the man was a civil servant.

"Polling in British Columbia was nonexistent. I think Barrett

did a bit of it. The Premier did some, but not very much — and that which he

did he didn't share with anyone. The poll was done, and he probably put

it back in his drawer.

"One of the things that I persuaded the Premier to do

was a 'baseline survey.' We would probably do it with 300 or 400 as a

sample size. But we wanted to do a massive sample, decreasing the

margin of error, and have a good idea as to what people in British

Columbia were thinking."

We still have not resolved the question in terms of how much public

funds — and out of the Premier's office, and out of Crown corporations

and in other departments — were expended in terms of public spending

for this kind of polling data, Mr. Chairman. But it is clear that

Public Affairs International is paid — that is, the Decima people and

their related companies — in countless ways through various departments

including the Premier's office, the Provincial Secretary's office and

Crown corporations. And the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development — he, too, has had those people on the payroll.

So Mr. Kinsella continues:

"That was done in October of 1981, about two weeks

after our arrival. As far as we were concerned, politically we were

measuring the Premier versus David Barrett. I'll share the analysis

with you, now that it's 'history, ' three years later.

"When our polling compared the two leaders, it told us

very clearly that David Barrett was far more popular. He was much more

likeable. He had a sense of humour. Most of the things about a leader

that you like — David Barrett was it! He was friendly, he had good

relations with the media. He had a strong party, of which he was truly

the leader. He was perceived to be strong. And he was, frankly, the

kind of guy that you would take to a Canuck game or take home to

dinner."

But what does Mr. Kinsella say about Mr. Bennett — or the Premier, rather? He said:

"This man, on the other hand, was perceived to be not

a guy that you'd take to a Canuck game. He was seen to be a guy who was

a strong businessman, with very strong views on how things should be.

Inflexible. A man who was perceived to be a strong leader, but who had

bad relationships with the press, and bad relationships to some extent

— it was felt — with his party, because there was always someone like a

Vander Zalm who wanted to be God or king.

"So the contrast was very clear to us. Here was the

Premier on the one hand: seen to be lacking in the sort of things that

you may feel are necessary to be a leader."

Lacking indeed, I say.

"And on the other hand you see David Barrett, who

everyone liked, was friendly, with a sense of humour, and who did all

the things right — or seemed to.

[11:45]

"So the problem we had was one of marketing. How do

you market a guy who, in contrast to the other leader, is seen to be

less friendly and less likeable? Well, of course, what you do is take

advantage of both their strengths and weaknesses. We felt there was a

weakness in Barrett being, quote, 'the ordinary guy.'

"Broadbent used that very effectively in the '84...campaign, talking to you as 'ordinary Canadians.' However, the contrast

that Mulroney tried to get across is that we don't think you want

'ordinary Canadians.'

"But I want to complete the saga of the Premier versus

Mr. Barrett. We developed a strategy to market the Premier on the basis

that, in these tough economic times, we should have a tough guy leading

us."

MRS. JOHNSTON: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I would

suggest that under standing order 43, the member's comments are

completely irrelevant. We could be reading any newspaper or from any

speech that any former government employee made, and really, I don't

see the relevance. I would hope that you would rule this type of

speaking out of order

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, during the comments of the second

member for Vancouver East there has been some reference to the minister

whose vote is before us. Unless the member strays too far from that,

then I would rule that he can continue.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think that's the whole point: that in this

man's eyes, and with his advisers at hand, everything in British

Columbia is seen as simply a marketing strategy. It's not a question of

managing the province in the best way. It's not a question of looking

at the long-term best answer for the economy of British Columbia. It's

not a matter of dealing with unemployment, of dealing with the poverty

that's out there. It's simply the question of a marketing strategy, and

it's an image game all the way. It's an image game before the chamber

of commerce, not before the average working people of the province.

It's an image game abroad, with the minister with the travel card going

to the Pacific Rim again during the session. Travelling around the

province during the session, traveling to Washington during the session.

It's absolute nonsense for the Minister of Health to say that all

these attempts have been made in terms of coordination. This is the

most improperly run House in the land, Mr. Chairman. The kind of

coordination that should take place in terms of advising the opposition

of the debate changes day in and day out, and we get word of the agenda

at two in the afternoon or in the middle of debate. Does anyone believe

that in a six-month session, which we've nearly had here now, one

couldn't have coordinated more than three and a

[ Page 6992 ]

half hours for the Premier? Nobody would believe for a minute that

you couldn't coordinate more than three and a half hours in six months.

For the Minister of Health to try to sell that line is hopeless. Nobody

would believe it.

So Mr. Kinsella continues that it was playing the tough guy in tough

economic times, and it was just a matter of having enough money to sell

that soap. That's the soap that was peddled, and at public expense more

frequently than not.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister will come to order.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Kinsella continues:

"It worked because we contrasted the position David

Barrett was trying to sell you — that is, that he's friendly and

likeable, but that he'll be a good premier: 'Please try to forget about

what I did in 1972-75. I know I made some mistakes, but I wasn't

experienced.... There were some things that I should have done that

I didn't do, and things that I did that I shouldn't have.... But

try to forget all that, because I'm really a friendly guy, and if you

elect me premier"' it'll work out.

He carries on that in 1982-83 Mr. Barrett set out on that deliberate

course. Mr. Kinsella carries on in terms of the tough-guy image, and

says that the peddling of that tough guy image was, to quote him again,

"the beginning of what we now know of as 'Restraint.' That started in

April 1982, based on data that told us what the people out there were

feeling. They knew we were in tough times. They knew someone had to

make some tough decisions and they were prepared."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, there's more from that weak member from Vancouver East.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that comment will be withdrawn.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'll withdraw that. I'm sorry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's avoid personal references.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, certainly. The member stands here

with nothing to say, so he reads from some newspaper

article or

some.... As usual, Mr. Chairman, he's way out in left field, because he

doesn't know what he's talking about.

I want to tell you something about our Premier. Policy in this

government is made by working together, unlike when he was the chief

potentate and the czar of everything. He moved everything that moved

while the NDP were government. The member for Vancouver East, whom

Barrett had to have bought off so he could find a seat for himself, was

in charge of everything.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To vote 4.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, policy is decided

by consensus — cabinet sitting down with caucus, developing policy. It's

not developed by a one-man show as it used to be, with cabinet ministers in

the NDP running off in all directions at the same time — no control, no policy.

In government they were like they are in opposition today: no policy, no coordination

and no leadership.

Now I want to tell you that in this government policy is developed

by consensus. I don't care what paper the member for Vancouver East is

reading from. Let me tell you how the policy for restraint was

developed, and how all policies are developed.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, you can guffaw and laugh all you want

to. I'm going to tell you how policies are developed. You seem to

forget that we had a cabinet retreat. The Premier called a cabinet

retreat in January 1982. That's where the policy for restraint happened

to be developed. It was in effect in this province a year before the

1983 election, and the member for Vancouver East knows that. I

remember it well. I remember the Premier calling me back from my

honeymoon to go to Bennett Point in Campbell River. I remember it well,

and I was not happy. But I had a leader, and I came back, and I left my

young bride, and I came back to Bennett Point, and that's where the

policy for restraint was developed. Now I'll tell you, you could read

from all the papers you want to, but restraint under the leadership of

Premier Bill Bennett was in effect a year and some months before the

election in 1983, and it was because Barrett said he was going to fire

it out, but the people of British Columbia fired him out and re-elected

this government. That took leadership, my friend; that's the kind of

Premier we have.

How many times did the NDP ever have a caucus meeting? Never! How

many times did they ever have a cabinet retreat? Bennett Point,

Cowichan Bay, Lake Okanagan Resort: that's where policy is developed by

consensus, under a leader who brings his cabinet together and develops

policy and discusses it with caucus. Bills are discussed with caucus.

I'll tell you, you were a one-man show. That guy over there for

Vancouver East thinks that everybody runs things the way he ran. I'll

tell you, we have leadership. That's why we're government. That's why

they were thrown out: because they had no leadership in 1975. You're

the guy that was responsible for the NDP demise.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. As the Chair has pointed out on

numerous occasions, we must confine our remarks to vote 4, the

administrative office of the office of the Premier.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I am containing my remarks, Mr.

Chairman, to the leadership of our Premier, and how policy is developed

under his leadership at cabinet retreats, and I don't care what Pat

Kinsella said. The record shows that the decisions were made when our

Premier recognized that it wasn't just an ordinary recession, that

indeed the economic times were changing and that the world would be a

changed place when we came through this change. That's why the policies

were developed. That's the leadership that this government took under

Premier Bennett to do the things that had to be done in the tough times.

That's what bothers the NDP. They wanted to throw it all out. They

wanted to take the easy road; they wanted to be flamboyant and not come

to grips with the difficult times we were facing. That's leadership,

and that's why our Premier will go down in history as one of the most

respected leaders of

[ Page 6993 ]

any province in Canada, and that's what bothers that leaderless,

directionless, policyless NDP opposition. They're performing the same

dismal job in opposition as they did in government, and the people

recognize that and they'll stay in opposition forever and ever and ever.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes the second member for Victoria.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have I got the wrong suit on today or something? He hasn't been here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time will come. Debate reciprocates, hon. member.

MR. BLENCOE: That member talks about policy developed by this

government. The only policy that they have developed is one that has

brought us memories that British Columbians won't forget for many a

year. Thanks for the memories: that's the theme. Thanks for the memory

of the highest unemployment that we've ever seen since the recession in

the province of British Columbia. Thanks for the highest welfare rates

we've seen in many, many a year. Thanks for the memories, and thanks

for the thousands of people who can't find work because of your

policies. Thanks for the soup-kitchens and the thousands of British

Columbians who want jobs and food. They thank the Premier of this

province, who's become known as the Premier of soup-kitchens in this

country.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Thanks for the incompetence of this government. Thanks to that

minister for getting the hole in the wrong place. Thanks for the

memories; thanks for the incompetence. Thanks for the memories of Expo,

the fiasco and the fun times you've been having at the expense of the

taxpayers. Thanks for the immoral parties of half a million dollars

while people are in the soup-kitchens and you have half-million dollar

parties at the expense of the taxpayer, People look for work, want

decent livings and a decent position in British Columbian society, and

at the same time you have half million-dollar parties at Expo. Thanks

for that immoral memory. While people are starving and want food and

jobs, thanks for that memory.

Thanks for that fine bunch of policies you people have developed

over the last few years — incompetence in government over the last ten

years. Thanks for the memories of firing thousands and thousands of

public servants who were loyal to this province and loyal to the people

of British Columbia. Thanks for those memories. Thanks for firing the

child-abuse workers. Thanks for those fine memories, and thanks for

those fine policies. Thanks for the huge deficit, the biggest deficit

in the history of this province, and the incompetence you have shown;

thanks for that memory. The highest deficit per capita we've ever seen

in the history of this province: that's your policies. Thanks for that

memory.

Thanks for declaring forestry a sunset industry. Thousands of jobs

could be created in forestry today if this government had the

determination, will and leadership. Thanks for declaring that our

forestry industry, the number one industry in the province of British

Columbia, is a sunset industry. You are telling our young people they

can't have employment in the forest industry. Thanks for those memories

and those policies. The people of British Columbia will remember that,

Mr. Chairman.

Thanks for the memories in education and the removing of teachers

and shortchanging our children. Thanks for the memories of some of the

best people in our university system leaving this province. Thanks for

those memories; thanks for those policies. Thanks for the memories of

well-known Canadians who wish to return to the university education in

British Columbia who are now saying they can't return to this province

because it's a laughing-stock in North America. You don't believe in

university education, and when you talk about university education you

say it's only urban slickers that support education. Thanks for those

memories of shortchanging our young people; thanks for those policies.

Disgraceful!

[12:00]

Thanks for the environmental concerns we've seen in the last few

months; thanks for the pumping of sewage into our oceans and our

beaches. Thanks for the memories here in Victoria where you won't

provide proper sewage treatment. Thanks for those memories and thanks

for those policies. What a history of total incompetence by this

government! Thanks for the jet-setting at public expense by so many of

these cabinet ministers while people are in the soup-lines and want

jobs. Thanks for those memories; thanks for those policies.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Thanks to that minister there, the minister of

aviation, the minister of the grossest jet-setting we've ever seen in

the history of this province while people want jobs. Thanks for the

gross manipulation of the people of this province by this Premier and

this government by your polls, advertising and in excess of $20 million

on misinformation that is pumped out by this government. Thanks for

those memories.

We have years and years of bad memories, bad government and total

incompetence by this government. It's time for a change, and this

Premier.... Not only has he only spoken for three hours in this

five- to six-month session, he didn't even speak in this Legislature

for nine months. We didn't have this Legislature in session, so it's

been in excess of fifteen months. The Premier has spoken through this

chamber to the people of this province for only three hours. That's

Columbia as you rip them off and put them on welfare rolls and

unemployment rolls. That's the memories we have of Social Credit

government, and that's the memories we have of this Premier. Three

hours in fifteen months he has spoken, through this chamber, to the

people of the province of British Columbia. Thanks for that memory.

Now we have a government that is determined to wrap this session up,

where the Premier of this province will not answer the questions. I had

a number of questions to ask him about certain things in his riding,

Mr. Chairman — about the Rutland sewer patronage deal that he got for

his riding at the expense of all other tidings in the province of

British Columbia. But he's not here to answer these questions.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Minister of Forests please come to order.

[ Page 6994 ]

MR. BLENCOE: What a history, Mr. Chairman, of total

incompetence. The highest debt, the highest deficit, the highest

unemployment rate, the highest welfare rate we've seen since the

recession, and this minister says: "We have policies for the future."

They bring forth on an ad hoc basis all these grandiose plans, with no

sense of long-term purpose and long-range planning. Thanks for the

memories. I suppose over the next few months we'll hear about these

ministers jet-setting around the world, having great fun while people

want jobs, jobs, jobs. They want jobs. They don't want jet-setting

ministers. They want jobs, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Let's have jobs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid)....

MR. BLENCOE: We can put 15,000 people to work in the forestry

today if this minister would get off...and do his job. Yet what do

you do? You spend $20 million on manipulating the public into thinking

that everything is great. You send out free advertising at public

expense and you manipulate public opinion and you jet-set around the

world. Thanks for the memories.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Barber's protege.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the

second member for Victoria. All other members should remain in their

seats until recognized.

Would the member continue.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, this year is the international year of youth.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'll speak on behalf of

youth. What kind of future can they see with this government and its

policies and the memories that it's given British Columbians over the

last few years? What chance of work, what opportunities, when you're

cutting the very things that will, with this Premier leading this

incompetent government, cutting the very things that allows those young

people to get education and university training in the twentieth

century, to enter the modem workforce...? What are you doing? We know

what's happened in education. We know what's happened in the

universities and post-secondary education: short-changing young people

— thousands of them unemployed in the province of British Columbia.

What does this government say? "Well, we'll devise some media package

in a month or so that will try to convince the people and those young

people that we have their interests at heart." Partnership in

enterprise we've all heard about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What are you for?

MR. BLENCOE: I'm for a government that is prepared to tackle the

most serious problem in the province of British Columbia today: that is, jobs

for our young people and a future for our young people. That's what we're

prepared to do and tackle. That's the most important thing — not jet-setting

around the world, having fancy parties in other parts of the world.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If you had half a brain in your head, you'd be down on the floor playing with it.

MR. BLENCOE: There's the minister right there who is increasing rents for senior citizens.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, increasing rents for senior citizens. There

he is. The people of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman.... The polls now

say that they recognize the incompetence of this government in economic

affairs. They know it. They have seen it. They have seen the biggest

so-called megaproject that the Premier talks about, and the minister —

now no longer the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development;

the minister of jet-setting — talks about his fancy project. And what

does he do? He gets the hole in the wrong place. He can't even dig the

right hole. The Premier, of course — we don't hear him talking about

that project now. They don't talk about that project now. The Premier

doesn't talk about it now. He goes running off somewhere else to try to

attract public attention that he's concerned about the youth and

unemployment.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Have you ever been to Tumbler Ridge?

MR. REID: No, he's never been out of Victoria.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Can we please have parliamentary

decorum and that the member who has been recognized be allowed to

speak, with silence from others, including the members for Surrey (Mrs.

Johnston and Mr. Reid).

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, it's time in the province of

British Columbia that the people had a say in where they want to go,

because they're tired of the incompetence and the unemployment and the

welfare that this government has given to the people of British

Columbia. They want a chance to express their views. Let's have a

chance to express the views. Let's have an election as soon as

possible, and let's see where you are on your incompetence. Let's go.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Thanks for the memories: unemployment — highest.

Thanks for the soup-lines. Let's go to the people, and let's look at

the policies and look at what other jurisdictions have managed to do.

It's time that the people of British Columbia had the opportunity to

express their pent-up frustration with this government at incompetence,

unemployment, welfare, soup-kitchens, half-a-million dollar fancy

parties and jet-setting, and at no economic policy that could lead this

province into the future, no regional policy to lead the regions into

the future, no new-enterprise planning to lead this province into the

future and no properly staffed universities to lead this province into

the future. That's what the people of British Columbia want to hear.

Those are the policies they want to see, not a jet-setting, fun-loving

bunch of cabinet ministers, who, at the expense of taxpayers, go

[ Page 6995 ]

around the world and have great fun. That's not what they want to see. They want to see solutions.

Mr. Chairman, we have tabled in this Legislature our policies and

our ideas for reforestation. We have tabled an alternative throne

speech that lays out clearly where we would go. And what do we hear

from the Premier? Three hours in fifteen months.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Three hours. He hasn't had the decency to come

into this chamber and face the people of British Columbia with his

archaic economic policies that were conjured up in the backroom by

Michael Walker and his crazy economic fools. That's where we've been

going. It's time for some common-sense approaches to economic

directions, Mr. Chairman, and it's time to eliminate the memories of

Social Credit incompetence in the province of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair would indicate that a temperate debate leads to decorum within the House.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I will try to temper the debate

with some facts. It's interesting, after listening to the second member

for Victoria in another one of his tirades, that I couldn't help but

think: thank God the Premier of this province is today in Washington

doing things for British Columbia, instead of having to listen to this

same nonsense from the second member for Victoria. He makes the same

speech. The one promise I will make, Mr. Chairman, is that after the

next election, which I, like the second member for Victoria.... I

wish there was one right now, because I'd be able to come back in here

in 35 days and sing that song, "Thanks for the Memories," to the new

second member for Victoria and the new first member for Victoria, after

the next election.

MS. BROWN: What a dreamer.

MR. REYNOLDS: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown),

down there, who wins by about 400 or 500 votes every time.... I'd be

very careful if I were her, too, in the next election.

I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, the Premier of this province — in

speaking to his estimates — is doing such a great job in the city of

Vancouver for the people of Burnaby, New Westminster, North Vancouver,

West Vancouver and Richmond with Expo coming there next year that the

people of that area are going to see what the Premier of this province

has done for British Columbia.

You only have to look at the advance ticket sales to Expo, because

of the work the Premier has done and the vision he's had for British

Columbia. It's just amazing to me, Mr. Chairman, to hear the second

member for Victoria get up here and talk about the half-million dollar

party and relate it to food banks and soup-kitchens. It sickens me, Mr.

Chairman, that that second member for Victoria....

MR. BLENCOE: You bet!

MR. REYNOLDS: He can't even sit quiet while somebody else is

speaking. But he doesn't understand marketing and promotion. He doesn't

understand.

MR. WILLIAMS: Kinsella!

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, Kinsella gave me some good advice

last week. He said: "If you want to get more votes than you got last

time, just put pictures of Bob Williams all around the province, and

you'll win in a landslide." This man who has the nerve to stand in this

House and quit his seat to pick up 80 grand comes back here and starts

to tell us how we should be running this province. He's the disaster in

the NDP, a party that wouldn't have been defeated, probably, if it

wasn't for this man alone.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. member refrain from personal references. We are on vote 4, the Premier's estimates.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I was doing so well until the

second member for Vancouver East got carried away and turned around and

yelled at me. If he's going to do that, I'll yell back at him.

[12:15]

Mr. Chairman, they want to talk about soup-kitchens and food-lines.

Why don't they go to the province of Manitoba? They used to brag about

that province of Manitoba in this House. They said how good it was. If

you want to compare it with British Columbia, they've got their

soup-lines. They've got their food banks. They're all around North

America. We've been in some tough times, Mr. Chairman. Nobody likes

food banks or soup-kitchens, but to compare them to Expo and other

things that are happening in this province is rather childish. I think

the public of this province just don't understand this type of debate.

If they want to talk about jobs, look at the fact that 47,000 more

British Columbians were working in 1985 as compared with 1984. Why

don't they talk about that figure and then compare that figure with

what is happening in other western provinces and especially in

Manitoba, in Alberta? As I said, 47,000 more jobs in British Columbia,

and in Alberta in the same period of time, 7,000 more jobs. In

Conservative Saskatchewan, 19,000 more jobs. In NDP Manitoba in that

same period of time, 1,000 new jobs. Mr. Chairman, it is significant to

note that Manitoba recorded the smallest year-over-year job creation

increase in Canada, smaller than all the other provinces.

Mr. Chairman, it's the programs of this Premier that are moving this

province ahead. They compare these socialists.... They want to talk

about what is happening in British Columbia. We're doing better than

all the other provinces.

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: They're saying: "Sell us some more ice cream;

sell us some Good Humour." Mr. Chairman, they don't want to admit the

fact that we're creating more jobs in British Columbia than all the

other western provinces combined.

Mr. Chairman, those people that are getting those jobs, those people

that are seeing the new projects that are being announced over the last

few months.... The reason that the Premier has been travelling is to get

more industry for British Columbia. We are hot right now. We're on a

roll. We're increasing jobs faster than all the other western provinces

combined.

[ Page 6996 ]

Mr. Chairman, these members opposite like to laugh about that. But

they don't want to go back in comparing. I know in speaking to the

Premier's estimates, I can go back and compare some of the things that

happened when we had a different government in this province. I would

like to quote one of the things that was said about a previous

government, so that I can then expound on some of the other things that

this government is doing.

In the Province in 1975, and I quote.... This is in the key resource portfolio.

"The resource minister, " the now second member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), "has done a great job to kill off

economic development in British Columbia. For three years the forest

industry in this province has been waiting for some clear indication of

the rules under which it must plan its future. It is still no nearer

that essential knowledge than it was on election day in 1972. Instead

it is still trying to cope with the vague threats and inconsistent

judgments that have been the minister's habit since he first entered

politics."

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: See, Mr. Chairman? He gets upset. He says: "Is

this the Premier's estimates?" Well, that second member for Victoria

wanted to quote lots of things. He quoted Kinsella. He can pass it out,

but he can't take what they were saying about him. The most dangerous

man in British Columbia can't take what they were saying about him.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. Reference to the

second member for Vancouver East is not on point with the Premier's

estimates. We would appreciate the member for West Vancouver being

relevant.

MR. REYNOLDS: What I am trying to point out here is all of

the things that the Premier of this province has done in comparison

with what was done in the previous disastrous government that was here.

Certainly I've talked about Expo. I could talk about the ALRT, which

certainly the members on our side of the House appreciate and support.

But I would also like to talk about what the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Nielsen) was saying, when we see the activity on the NDP side: four

of their members sitting here during the Premier's debates. Where are

the rest of them if it is that important, if it is the big issue they

are talking about?

Mr. Chairman, the Premier was in this House for his estimates, as

the Whip of this party said. He's been trying to arrange all during

these debates to make sure that the balance Of....

MR. BLENCOE: Fifteen months.

MR. REYNOLDS: Well, let's compare that, Mr. Second Member for

Victoria. He talks about three hours and so on. Does he know that in

all the estimates that have been done in this House since we started

doing them, we've only averaged about four hours on every ministry in

this place? Some of them, the Ministry of Human Resources, Health,

Education, billions of dollars.... We're talking here about

$600,000, and we've been debating over three hours on it with the

Premier here. But no, they didn't take time when other ministers were

here.

Where is their critic, Mr. Chairman? The Leader of the

Opposition.... As we all know, as members of this assembly we must

file a report with the Clerk of the House as to our attendance in this

place. I am looking forward to seeing.... Oh look, they're going to

get up on points of order now. It scares them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) on a point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: He's not even in his own seat.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, the Chair has recognized...

MR. D'ARCY: ...his salary or anything involving the other 56 members of this House, only the member for Okanagan South (Hon. Mr. Bennett).

MRS. JOHNSTON: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, the

member who spoke was not in his seat. I don't think he can be.... No

point of order.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The two points of order are well taken. We are on the minister's estimates.

MR. REYNOLDS: There is no question, Mr. Chairman: we are on

the Premier's estimates. But in discussing the Premier's estimates, I

want to discuss the number of days that the Premier has been in this

House and the number of things that he's done. To do that, I must

compare what other members of this House do. I think it's only fair

that I be allowed, when I am talking about the Premier, to compare him

with what other members of this House do. It has to do with his

estimates. The Premier has been in this House the majority of the time,

Mr. Chairman — I would suggest more time in this House than the Leader

of the Opposition has spent here. I would suggest, in speaking to the

Premier's estimates, that when these reports are filed as to attendance

in the House — which the Premier will file, like every one of us — I'm

looking forward to the cheque that the Leader of the Opposition will be

writing to this Legislature for about $2,750, because it's about 11

days' absence over and above the ten you're allowed. I have calculated

that he's been away over 21 days in this Legislature, with no excuse

whatsoever. Our Premier, when he was Leader of the Opposition....

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: I wish you'd tell this mouthpiece over here for

Mayor Pollen to slow down while I'm talking, Mr. Chairman. It's

difficult to speak when a member is yapping away in your ear.

On the Premier's estimates, I was saying that the Premier of this

province, when he was Leader of the Opposition, gave money back to this

Legislature when he had to be absent more than the ten days that you're

allowed. He was out working on behalf of the party and, because the

rules are as they are, he had to sign his form and honestly state that

he was away more

[ Page 6997 ]

than the ten days. He wrote his cheque and paid the bill. I look

forward to the Leader of the Opposition doing the same thing after July

I of this year.

Mr. Chairman, you can list off the things that are happening in this

province. I mentioned Expo; ALRT; a liquid natural gas plant that we're

talking about which is coming to this province; the gas pipeline over

to Vancouver Island; the fertilizer plants; new businesses in Port

Coquitlam where I spoke last week, where they are excited about some

new industries in that area; northeast coal. It goes on and on. The

Premier of this province is doing a job like no other Premier in Canada

is doing. That's why the province of British Columbia is a location

that people are looking now to come to, to move their plants here —

because they like the legislation we've brought in in the last couple

of years.

The second member for Victoria, whom I've never heard say a positive

thing since he got here.... I guess it stands in a tradition that

the NDP members from Victoria tend to speak that way. We come back, and

as our friend the Minister of....

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: Sure, the first member for Victoria hasn't been

here for the last week or so. Other members from their party

disappeared because summer vacation is here. It would be straying from

the Premier's estimates to say that, so I won't. But as I mentioned,

the Premier was in this House when the Leader of the Opposition was

here. He answered questions for three and a half hours, a lot of it

repetitious. Other major ministries weren't questioned that long by the

opposition.

I could go on and on. I've got a lot left, but I could do some of

that later. I expect they're going to get up and keep on talking

because they think they've got a hot little issue. It's amazing that

the second member for Vancouver East, the second member for Victoria

and the House Leader from Skeena are the only three from their party

who seem to want to delay things, not make agreements. Our Whip had

agreements between people. They couldn't decide....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That is not a matter of the House.

MR. REYNOLDS: The Premier is doing a great job in this

province, and I think all of us in this House are here.... We'll stay

here and talk about that for the next two or three weeks of the summer.

We're not anxious, like the NDP, to get out of here and get on our

summer vacation, because we work for the people of the province all

year round, not just when this House is in session.

I see the second member for Vancouver East getting ready. Well, I've

got more quotes for him in the past too. I'd love to get at them, so

I'm going to sit down and let him get up again. I'm sure I can

participate again, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WILLIAMS: One of the Premier's jobs is to appoint cabinet

ministers. That's a critical job. One of the things he has done in

this session is to appoint parliamentary secretaries as well. Let's

reflect on that. The member who has just spoken was appointed by the

Premier, and what was the job that he gave him? Why, it was

parliamentary secretary for the poor, for Human Resources. It's a kind

of black joke, when you think about it, that the member from Little

Mountain, the woman from Little Mountain, the minister and the

assistant are the Ken and Barbie of the Legislature; the sartorial

splendoured duet who could join with those in the food banks. That's

the kind of black joke that the Premier sees in terms of appointing his

cabinet. It's a kind of black humour in terms of dealing with the

hundreds of thousands of people driven to welfare by his economic

policies and mismanagement of this province's economy. It is more and

more a kind of black joke. Only this Premier would appoint Ken and

Barbie to deal with Human Resources and welfare. Only this Premier

would appoint Ken and Barbie to deal with those serious, difficult

problems.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Hon. member, the proper parliamentary

procedure is to refer to other members by their office or constituency;

other names are not acceptable within this House.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think it's also worth looking at the kind of

things the Premier said when he began his tenure, in those early days

when he was probably less jaundiced and may have had a clearer view of

what a Premier could or should be doing. Back then he said he was

nervous that governments borrowed to pay their year-to-year operating

costs, without using the good years to pay back the debts. He also said

we could restrict borrowing for operating costs, and then restrict

dependency on outside capital. Well, how times have changed! We are now

at the state in British Columbia, under this Premier, of borrowing

money to pay people on welfare. That is the equivalent of using your

Chargex to buy your groceries.

This man has clearly been calling the shots in terms of the

ombudsman's office in this province. There is a route that the

ombudsman must follow in dealing with problems that citizens and

individuals have — serious problems. The route is to deal first with

the minister, then with the Premier, and then with the executive

council; and if nothing moves, if no adjustment takes place, then it

comes to the Legislature. But the key player in this operation is the

Premier himself. The Premier has set the standard for all the others in

this cabinet in terms of stonewalling: always stonewalling the

ombudsman; always stonewalling the man who is the last line of defence

for the average citizen. Consistently through this spring and summer

and on countless other occasions, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland) has refused to meet the ombudsman. Why? Because the Premier

plays that game of stonewalling the ombudsman — never dealing with the

problems, never trying to unravel and accept the solid information he

receives.

[12:30]

[Mr. Strachan in the chain)

And now today we have another report out of that office, with

respect to the Nishga Tribal Council and tree-farm licence No. 1. What

we find there is actual breaking of the law; what we find is that the

civil service are being forced to do things they should not be doing —

and all under this Premier. Yesterday, dealing with the Ministry of

Forests, the minister said he would deal with professional foresters

who didn't work to professional standards, if they were sending in

false documents. Well, the report indicated, with respect to the Nass

Valley land, that false reports were being deposited

[ Page 6998 ]

and being accepted by the Ministry of Forests. Now we hear that in fact it has gone further.

This Premier abandoned the ship, when he should have been here

facing the opposition and answering questions. Three and a half hours

is not adequate. Think, across this land.... What garbage from the

Minister of International Trade (Hon. Mr. Phillips), singing the

praises of our spacey Premier! Good lord!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That will be withdrawn. Hon. members,

we've had quite enough intemperate language from both sides of the

House. Members have been asked to withdraw personal references. I will

ask the second member for Vancouver East to withdraw any personal

reference.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Think about it. Across the land.... Let's look at the other Premiers

in this land. Does anyone think for a minute that Peter Lougheed would

have abandoned the ship and not faced the opposition on his estimates?

Not on your life! Peter Lougheed would be in the Legislature dealing

with the questions and the debate. Does anybody think that Allan

Blakeney or Mr. Devine would not be in the Legislature? No. Does

anybody think for a minute that Mr. Pawley in Manitoba would not be

there in the Legislature dealing with the debate? No, not on your life.

Does anybody think that Mr. Davis in Ontario would have applied that

kind of strategy in terms of abandoning ship and not facing up to the

debate? No. Does anybody think that Mr. Levesque would not be there in

the forefront in the Legislature in Quebec? Does anybody think that Mr.

Peckford would not have been there in the Legislature, in Newfoundland?

And so across Canada, no Premier in the land would have carried on his

office....

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: Nobody in the land would have carried on the way this Premier has.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, hon. members, please. Interjections

are unparliamentary at any time, but for a member to interject and not

be in his place is most unparliamentary.

MR. WILLIAMS: This Premier is not here again today. He's not

here to answer, and he should be. The member for Point Grey says he's

the surrogate, even he isn't here. He says he's here to answer

questions for the Premier. I want to ask some questions about the

levels of borrowing that this Premier has accepted. When will we have

the minister that is supposed to be responding, Mr. Chairman? Is he out

chewing gum? Is he out in the sunshine?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: The level of unacceptable standard increases

daily in terms of your operation. The Premier abandons, the Premier

flies away, takes off with the credit-card kid over here, and we barely

see him in this House. Now the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs,

or whatever that sinecure is that he has, isn't even in his chair. Who

is to answer?

Welcome back, Mr. Member.

There is a kind of contempt for this process, a contempt for Parliament that seems to know no bounds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Where's your leader?

MR. WILLIAMS: This member, the member for North Peace....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Pursuant to standing order 38, a member can

only rise in his place. If you rise in your place, you will be

recognized, if you are requesting a point of order.

MR. D'ARCY: On a point of