1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 31, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1761 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions.

Shortage of coastal ferries. Mr. Lockstead –– 1761

B.C. Housing Corporation assets. Mr. Gabelmann –– 1762

Crown land. Mr. Gabelmann –– 1762

Rent controls. Mr. Gabelmann –– 1762

Human Rights Code. Ms. Brown –– 1762

Farm income assurance. Mrs. Wallace –– 1763

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office estimates.

On vote 9.

Mr. Levi –– 1764

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1767

Mr. Barrett –– 1768

Mr. Davis –– 1771

Mr. Lorimer –– 1773

Mr. Ritchie –– 1775

Mrs. Wallace –– 1777

Mr. Barrett –– 1778

Division on the motion to rise –– 1778

Mr. Hanson –– 1779

Mr. Brummet –– 1780

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1782

MONDAY, MARCH 31, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, thank you. I am sure that I may speak on behalf of all

hon. members in expressing sympathy over the passing of Mr. William T.

Sraith, QC., over the weekend. Mr. Straith was a former member of this

House and minister who was noted not only for his accomplishments in

government in British Columbia but also for his quiet, friendly and

interested manner; he was a friend of a number of us in this House and

in my particular case, if I may say so, sir, a very close friend of my

late father. If it is the wish of this House, would you convey our very

deepest sympathy to Mrs. Straith and members of the family.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The appropriate message of condolence will be forwarded.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, in the message I wish you'd make sure it's understood to

be the total unanimous condolences of this House. I happen to have

known Mr. Straith, not too well, but I join entirely in what the hon.

minister has said.

On the other point, Mr. Speaker, I would

like to express the hope that Mr. Schroeder will shortly be back in the

chair, well and fit and in good humour as always.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, we enjoy seeing you in that chair, but all members of the

House should know that Mr. Schroeder has had one series of tests and

they all are very positive. He will continue in hospital for a few more

days, and then we will look forward to seeing him back in his regular

place. I'm sure all sides of this House would ask you to convey to him

our very best wishes for his speediest return to his place.

HON. MR. SMITH:

On a happier note today, I'm going to make an introduction, but first

of all I will announce that this is the Greater Victoria Chamber of

Commerce Take Your Child to Work Week. In keeping with the spirit of

that week, I have taken my child to work. He has sat in on committee

meetings and was invited to stay in caucus in my place, and has

performed a number of my duties probably better than I. He's also on

time. So I would ask the House to welcome my son, Christopher Smith,

who is here in the gallery at the far end.

MR. SKELLY:

I would ask the House to make welcome my constituency secretary of

seven years, Shirley Deitrich, who is here observing the proceedings

today.

MR. KEMPF: With us in the gallery today are

two individuals from that great north-central part of our province,

Mrs. Olga Walker from Hazelton and Mr. Lloyd Gething from Telkwa. I

would ask the House to make them very welcome.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Speaker, we have in the House today from Kimberley, B.C., Mr. and

Mrs. David Stewart, their children, Jennifer, Georgia, Jane and Gwen,

and their friend Mrs. Agnes Nomland from Victoria. I'd like the House

to welcome them.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

welcome to the House today Karen Losh Lithgow, the wife of one of the

members of the press gallery, but I can't — she too is on the sick list

in surgery. I ask the House to bid her welcome upon her speedy return.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to welcome to the House today the

principal of Vernon Elementary School, Mr. Charlie Pierce, and his wife

Betty. They are good friends and fine constituents and they are

enjoying the spring break and being tourists in beautiful Victoria. I'd

ask the House to give them a very warm welcome.

MR. SEGARTY:

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House this

afternoon for the first time my wife Hilary, my son Justin, my daughter

Helen and my younger son Kieran, who are in your gallery. In keeping

with the Victoria "bring your child to work week," also here is the son

of the member for Prince George South, Dean Strachan. I'd like the

House to welcome them.

Also in the gallery this afternoon is

a very good friend of mine from Cranbrook, Elmer Higgins, with his

daughter Cate and his son Andrew. I would like the House to bid them

welcome as well.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, in your

gallery today are two outstanding students from Vanier Senior Secondary

School in Courtenay; I would like the House to welcome Karen Trimmer

and Brent Knights.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, in the

gallery today are a few of the competitors who were in Victoria over

the weekend competing in the North American speed skating

championships. I can't resist the opportunity to let the House know

that we produce more than oil, gas and grain in the Peace River

country; of seven competitors from my home town of Fort St. John, they

won five gold medals, five silver medals and four bronze medals in the

relay. A brother and sister, Randy and Lori Ljuden, are North American

champions in their respective age classes. I'd like the House to

welcome them.

Oral Questions

SHORTAGE OF COASTAL FERRIES

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways: can the minister assure this House, due to the refit of the Queen of the North , now known as the Queen of Surrey ,

or vice versa, that the central north coast will not be without

transportation services for no longer than the six-week period

previously announced by the corporation?

HON. MR. FRASER: As originally planned, we hope that they'll be no longer than from April 7 to approximately May 16 without service.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Supplemental to the same minister. I have been reliably informed that

that vessel cannot be in service until at least June 1, but more likely

June 8 or later,

[ Page 1762 ]

which

will leave, by the way, the people of the central north coast without

water transportation services for an eight- to nine-week period. I

wonder if the minister would look into this and report back to the

House.

Second question, Mr. Speaker: can the minister assure this House that the cost of the refit of the Queen of Surrey , now known as the Queen of the North , will not exceed $7.4 million?

Mr.

Speaker, on this same question, once again, I have been reliably

informed that that refit will now cost approximately $9.5 million.

Could the minister take this question as notice and report back to the

House?

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, I'll take it as notice, but I haven't

been advised of the figures that you are batting around.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Speaker, I may point out through the Chair to the minister that he

was also unaware of the change of

schedule on Route 7, the Powell

River–Comox route. Will the minister report back on the cancellation of

the ferry service on Route 7, previously announced on March 10 and

cancelled by the corporation, and will he take the trouble to ask the

general manager what's happening in the B.C. Ferry Corporation?

B.C. HOUSING CORPORATION ASSETS

MR. GABELMANN:

My question is to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Mr. Tom

Toynbee, the former president and former chief executive officer of the

B.C. Housing Corporation, announced in January that the disposal of the

corporation's assets was then complete. Can the minister now inform

this House of the breakdown of these assets and disclose to whom these

assets were sold?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's a question

that would be more appropriately put on the order paper. He's asking

for specific dispositions and dollar figures of a great variety of

lands and housing complexes in the province. I'll be glad to take the

question as notice. The figure is substantial, and the answer will be

fairly lengthy. I would have hoped you would have put it on the order

paper so that I wouldn't be pre-empting the members' opportunities to

ask more urgent and pressing questions.

CROWN LAND

MR. GABELMANN:

Can the minister inform the House how much Crown land has been serviced

and/or sold for housing purposes under the programs administered by the

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing in the past 24 months?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

I just happen to have that answer in my back pocket. This is another

question, Mr. Speaker, in abuse of the rules. This would be more

properly put on the order paper, because he's asking very technical

questions which I don't have the answers to off the top of my head. The

disposition of various lands, be they for recreational, residential,

agricultural or industrial purposes in the province.... I have no

alternative, Mr. Member for North Island, but to take that question as

notice. As soon as the information has been gathered from the various

sources, I'll bring the answer back to the House as the member has

asked me to do during the oral question period.

MR. GABELMANN: My question to the minister was simply: "How many units have been developed for housing?" No more complicated than that.

RENT CONTROLS

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Speaker, I have another question to the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs. At the present time no form of rent control is

applicable for the overwhelming majority of renters in small

communities such as Port McNeill, Port Hardy and other communities,

because almost all of the rental accommodation has been built since

1974. What steps has the government taken to ensure that full rent

controls are established in these areas to meet the present crisis?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, since it's a question of legislation, because those units

were exempted under the original act, it would have to be dealt with in

a legislative manner.

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour, who is

responsible for the Human Rights Code. The act, Mr. Speaker, does not

protect against discrimination of families with children who are

seeking rental accommodation. Is the Minister of Labour, who is

responsible for the Human Rights Code, willing to amend the legislation

to protect this particular group in our society?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is not in order, hon. member. It deals with legislation.

MS. BROWN: Is the Minister of Labour willing? Is that in order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not if it's on legislation, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Has he decided?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, she has given me a great deal of latitude to answer that

question. No, I have not decided, hon. member. But I would ask the hon.

member to refer to any breach or allegation involving any form of

discrimination to which you referred and to file the appropriate

complaint. It seems to me that I have seen across my desk a number of

cases wherein there was an allegation made of discriminatory practices

by a certain landlord. Those matters were investigated, and the matters

were resolved. I ask that the hon. member direct any complaints which

she may have to the executive director of the branch in my ministry.

MS. BROWN:

That is not good enough. Has the minister decided to amend the Human

Rights Code so that it does protect people on welfare who are being

discriminated against in housing, as well as families with children?

These are two very important groups in our community who are suffering

as a result of this lack of protection.

[ Page

1763 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Again, hon. member, the question deals specifically with the amending of legislation, and as such is out of order.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, may I reword the question? Has the Minister of Labour, who

is responsible for the Human Rights Code, decided to amend anything at

all?

FARM INCOME ASSURANCE

MRS. WALLACE:

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. On Friday it became

public information that since December 1976 Cargill, the international

grain corporation, had collected $13,000 under the farm income

assurance scheme. As the incumbent minister was the Minister of

Agriculture at that time, I would like to ask the minister if he was

aware then or later that Cargill was collecting farm income assurance?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

The matter of farm income assurance and whether or not Cargill collects

farm income assurance is based on the Farm Income Assurance Program

that's been in place for a number of years. It is considered a family

unit and it falls under what they call a grandfather clause. Cargill, I

believe, produces something like 10,000 to 13,000 hogs a year under the

program and the grandfather clause that is in that program, and they

receive one family unit of production coverage which equals, I believe,

about 1,800 hogs per year. So the total Cargill operation does not

qualify for farm income assurance. I have asked my staff for a report

in regard to the details of what coverage is available and what other

farm operations may be associated with or fall under the corporate

structure of any company. We will be reviewing that and if I feel it is

necessary I'll bring forward changes to that program to ensure that we

are not providing taxpayers' money to large corporate organizations.

MRS. WALLACE:

That's a very interesting statement, Mr. Speaker, but my question was:

when did the minister first become aware that Cargill was collecting

farm income assurance?

HON. MR. HEWITT: In regard to

when I was specifically aware — the Cargill matter was raised to me by

the press on Thursday or Friday of last week. I advised the particular

reporter that I would be investigating that matter and it is under

investigation now. If the member is looking for a specific answer, I

was aware of it as of last Thursday or Friday.

MRS. WALLACE:

Well, for a minister who has that responsibility, it seems strange that

he was not aware. However, is the minister aware, at this point in

time, that Cargill is collecting farm income assurance by virtue of the

fact that they gave or sold one share to their manager, who is a

British Columbia resident, and as such circumvented the regulations,

after that minister was made responsible for agriculture and the Farm

Income Assurance Program?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, I am aware that the matter relates to a share

being owned by the manager-operator of the farm and also that there are a possibly

a number — this is what I'm having checked out, Mr. Speaker — of other corporate

farm operations where they fall within this one share manager-operator of the

particular farm. But I want to make it perfectly clear that we aren't talking

about the total hog production of this corporate farm; we are talking about

a farm unit — a family farm unit equivalent. So they aren't getting subsidized

a tremendous amount. I'm having all that information provided to me as quickly

as possible, and after proper review I will be making recommendations accordingly.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as when this government was elected to office the

Premier indicated that farm income assurance was not an invitation to

feed at the public trough, I wonder whether or not the Minister of

Agriculture feels he's carrying out the Premier's wishes by allowing

Cargill to collect Farm Income Assurance.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

As I pointed out to the members so it would be perfectly clear, the

matter is certainly under review by my staff, first of all. Secondly,

we are not talking again of the total corporate productivity. I would

suggest to the member that we also have

an act that has sections in it

and regulations that apply, and I would suggest that before you attack

that particular operation you must remember that many of our family

farm units in this province are incorporated. We cannot, and I cannot,

jeopardize their assistance under the Farm Income Assurance Program,

unless you're indicating that all farmers will not have the opportunity

to incorporate, and if they do they'll lose their protection. So, Madam

Member, you'd better be careful on that score.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. HOWARD:

On a point of order with respect to the proceedings, I realize that it

may put you in a awkward position to respond to it, but with Mr.

Speaker himself being absent, and you in the capacity of Deputy Speaker

elected by the House filling the chair when the House proper is meeting

and now assuming the chair as chairman of the committee, you would find

it very difficult to report when the committee does rise to report. To

whom are you going to report, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will be reporting to the Speaker.

MR. HOWARD: And Mr. Speaker will be back by that time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, if I may quote from Erskine May's seventeenth edition:

"If

the House goes into committee, and he takes the chair thereof, when the

question for reporting progress has been agreed to, he returns to the

Chair of the House, and the Deputy Chairman or another member makes to

him the report of the committee."

MR. HOWARD: And you are sure, Mr. Speaker, that we'll be able to hear you when you report?

MR. LEA:

It strikes me a bit strangely that this is the course of action that's

been chosen, and that you, sir, will perform both roles. There are

people within this Legislature

[ Page 1764 ]

from

either side of the House who are quite capable of filling in when it's

needed. I want to be assured that this isn't just a move by government,

because of their numbers, to try and do something through the back door

that they're afraid to do through the front door. That's all this is,

Mr. Chairman. That's all this is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. LEA: Shame, nothing! You guys planned the whole thing.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I had thought that the hon. member for Prince Rupert might have

listened very carefully when you read to him the precedent for exactly

the kind of procedure that has been adopted today because of the

absence of His Honour, Speaker Schroeder.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, should there be a decision of yours in this House that is challenged, who do we appeal to?

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the Chair, hon. member.

MR. LEA: And who does that for us?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Whoever is in the chair, hon. member.

MR. LEA:

So you're the chairman. I want to get this straight. You go up to the

microphone, and you talk to whoever is in the other chair. Who's in the

other chair?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, at that time I assume the chair and another hon. member makes a report to the Speaker.

MR. LEA:

I have one further question. Every time the Speaker takes the chair on

a point of order or a challenge out of committee, he says he has no

knowledge of what goes on in committee. Can you assure us that you'll

have no knowledge?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I can, hon. member.

MR. LEA: How would you do that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have just done so, hon. member.

MR. LEA: You've just done so! As far as I'm concerned, this is a stacked meeting.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I don't think the member can allow the matter to stand in the way he

would like to have it left. The member, if he would take the time to

consider the rules, would recognize that if there is a challenge in

committee, the committee reports to the Speaker. It's the House that

makes the decision as to whether the Chairman's ruling is to be

sustained or not, not the Speaker. The House makes the ruling. All that

is required is that there be a report from the committee to the Speaker

for the House.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I think if members would search their Hansard ,

which is in their office, they will find that in the parliament

immediately preceding this, precisely the same situation did take place

and there was no difficulty at that time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, if I may quote from Beauchesne's fifth edition, page 42,

section 136:

"During

the unavoidable absence of the Speaker, and the Deputy Speaker, the

Deputy or Assistant Deputy Chairman of the Committee of the Whole takes

the Chair. If the House subsequently goes into Committee, he also

presides. When the question for reporting from the Committee has been

agreed to, he returns to the Speaker's Chair and a Member makes the

report of the Committee."

Very clear, hon. members.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Chairman, a point of order just came to my attention. While the

Chair was searching through the appropriate rules, without recognition

being given the Chair allowed the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams)

to act as Mr. Speaker and lecture the House about the procedures. Is

the Attorney-General considered to be Mr. Speaker?

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

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

MR. LEVI: Good luck, Mr. Chairman, in your Solomonesque situation.

This

is the second week of the Premier's estimates. So far we haven't had

any answers from him. I'd like to go over something that the Premier

said last Friday, particularly in relation to the economic missions

that he was on. I found that his observations were somewhat childish in

respect to the issues of protocol. He said at that time:

It's

important, Mr. Chairman, then to realize the goals of these various

economic missions, and let me specifically talk about our first major

trade mission in 1977.... It was important that we improve the image of

not only our country but our province; it was important that we utilize

the diplomatic services that are available to provincial delegations.

Because, unfortunately, delegations by the previous government, who now

sit in opposition, did not utilize these to the extent that would have

put forth a strong face for Canada and this province. They did not use

those facilities to that extent when they made a previous visit.

Now

I would suggest to the Premier, Mr. Chairman, that it's just

unmitigated silly rubbish on his part to suggest that a delegation

would have left this province during the time of the previous

government and somehow not had any contact with the Department of

External Affairs. He should know — and I think he knows full well —

that every delegation that went from this province during the tenure of

the last government did in fact go on the arrangements made by External

Affairs.

I can talk from personal experience. In 1973, when

I went on a trip to Europe, I had the opportunity for the External

Affairs department to make the kind of arrangements which the Premier

talks about: to meet, in the first instance, with the High Commissioner

of Canada, and then for the arrangements made in the Health and Welfare

department of the British government, and to meet with officials from

the Home Secretary's office and other groups. I went to coun-

[ Page 1765 ]

tries

like Sweden and was met by the ambassador of the country and introduced

to various ministers of that government, at all times putting on the

correct and proper face as a representative of the government of

British Columbia and also as a representative of Canada. For him to

suggest somehow that he has discovered this....

He goes on

to say in his presentation that along with his delegation there were

three people from the press, and they also sat in on the various

briefings. The problem that we have is that we don't know to any great

degree what took place at those meetings, Mr. Chairman, although he

said that these people were present and, presumably, had an opportunity

to report.

We've been asking the Premier for the past four

days about the nature of the discussions. The reports we've had of the

discussions, in respect to the issue we're concerned about, we've had

not from him but from the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who has certainly got the Premier into

a very difficult situation, because now we have two stories. One

individual is saying one thing and the other one denies what took

place. Not only have we not had any answers from the Premier, but we

don't have any answers whether truthful or otherwise. We have an

obligation to expect, as representatives of the people, that he will

tell us exactly what took place. But he's not prepared to do that. He

has already repudiated information that was laid before the committee,

and he continues not to answer the questions.

He has made an

issue about the present government's position in relation to nuclear

energy and the export of uranium. He was reminded by the member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke) that at the convention of the New Democratic

Party last year there was a considerable discussion as a result of our

having a number of guests, recognized experts in the field, speak on

the problems related to the development of nuclear energy and the

problems of uranium.

It should be pointed out to the Premier

that during the last election one of the issue leaflets published by

the New Democratic Party was a leaflet called "British Columbia is

Heading Into a Nuclear Future but You Can Change the Direction." This

leaflet, Mr. Chairman, was the leaflet in which we explained in a very

specific way our position in respect to the question of nuclear energy,

nuclear development and our opposition to that. All we got from the

government at that time was.... We had a conflict in the government and

presumably we still have that conflict. So we don't know, when the

Premier refuses to really develop the arguments that he has in respect

to the exporting of uranium and the development of energy, because last

year — and I don't think it's changed — we had the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) actively

supporting nuclear power and we had the chairman of B.C. Hydro

supporting nuclear power, but all the Premier guaranteed was that they

won't turn to nuclear power at this time. Well, we don't really know

what "at this time" means. This has to be more specifically spelled out

and we'll have more opportunity, presumably, under the estimates of the

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

to discuss this. So on those two issues we're still very much up in the

air and we need to know some things.

The Premier has refused

consistently to answer a number of questions that I put to him last

week on two occasions. I spoke to him, in terms of the debate, about

what he has got to say about one of his former employees, Mr. Dan

Campbell, in respect to the problems that he had in giving out money

which was not reported. What are his views on his party's problem with

an expenditure of $250,000 in election expenses that was not reported

until found out and then subsequently an amended report was filed? He

hasn't mentioned any of those things. He doesn't want to address those

kinds of issues and clear the air. He doesn't, in fact, want to clear

the air at all.

I can recall that he took a position in the

last session — as a matter of fact the last session plus one day, when

we had to come back into this House after the session had been

adjourned in order to reinstate a company by the name of Seaboard....

At that time realizing that his government was under severe attack as a

result of their blunder in wiping out an active company in the

province, he came into the House and he said, right off the bat: "I am

to blame. I bear the full responsibility for all of this." Well, at

that time he was candid. We've had none of that kind of candour from

him in this debate. He continues to completely ignore the questions

that are put by the opposition.

I asked him questions about

the resignation of the chief justice of the appeal court in 1978. I

asked him because he now actually is the only bridge that we have

between those events and today, the only minister who is responsible

for the government who can answer some questions for us. We really are

not able to put those questions to the present Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. Williams) because he was not the Attorney-General at the time, and

we're not able to put them to the former Attorney-General because

that's no longer his responsibility. So the Premier is the bridge

between those events who can tell us exactly what took place. As I

pointed out last week, the issue is serious because it goes to the very

roots of the sanctity and independence of the justice system in this

province, something in which the Premier has an abiding interest. He

made that very clear more than a week ago in this House in endorsing a

statement by the Attorney-General and expressing his desire that that

justice system proceed the way it has proceeded and that there are no

problems and it is strictly independent.

I pointed out, in

trying to elicit answers from the Premier about this system, that there

are some very serious questions to answer and they're going unanswered.

It is my intention to continue to ask questions of the Premier, and

then later on when we get into the estimates of the Attorney-General,

attempt to elicit from him some of the facts surrounding the

resignation of the former chief justice. The Premier can say — if he

wants to do this — that he has no knowledge of the circumstances. I

frankly doubt that that would be the case, Mr. Chairman. After all, who

would the Prime Minister of Canada call in terms of this particular

situation? Who would he call in the government to tell that there would

be a new chief justice of the appeal court appointed? But it's more

serious than that because what we're attempting to do in this debate is

to point out to the Premier that some of the circumstances surrounding

that resignation in fact place the justice system of this province in

very severe jeopardy because of the information that we have — which is

public knowledge — in relation to some of the reasons for the

resignation. But that simply isn't enough. As I've pointed out in a

previous speech, what makes the situation worse is that the

circumstances surrounding that resignation, I am informed, relate to

the fact that the information regarding the former chief justice came

as a result of a wiretap. Now I want to know from the Premier whether

he was apprised of that information

[ Page 1766 ]

because

I am still trying to find out from the Premier whether he was called.

He can simply get up and say, no, he wasn't called and that's the end

of the matter. And we will have to wait to go to the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Williams) and if we are able, to go to the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom). That's a very simple

question for him to answer. If he has to answer that he got a call,

then he should tell this House what the circumstances were.

For

two years this particular subject has not really been discussed in this

House, but it is being discussed endlessly in the community. There are

endless discussions and dissatisfactions about the way that whole

matter was handled. These dissatisfactions do not just come from the

ordinary members of the public, but also from the police, from members

of the justice system, from the legal system and from members of this

side of the House. I don't know what members over there think about

this matter. But it goes to the very root of what the Premier was

saying following the announcement more than a week ago by the

Attorney-General. The independence of the justice system and its

continuing independence are what we all have to bend ourselves to. It

is not simply a matter that has to be discussed between only those

people who are involved in the justice system. The Premier, as a

layperson, has intruded himself into this matter, and quite rightly so.

We should have more of that intrusion of the lay person into

discussions about the justice system. What I'm concerned about in

respect to the justice system — which, I presume, the Premier has some

concern about — is, on the one hand, the nature of the information

surrounding the resignation of the highest member of the judicial

system in British Columbia and.... On the other hand, there is someone

convicted as a common prostitute and a keeper of a bawdy house;

somewhere between there was a link. We don't know. We have not been

told that there is not a link which is serious and could in fact — or

did in fact — jeopardize that justice system.

We have

continually heard the concerns of the police in respect to prostitution

and the involvement of organized crime. Now can we legitimately draw

those two ends together and say that there was some very serious

jeopardizing of the system because of the circumstances surrounding the

resignation of the chief justice? What kind of a situation can the

chief justice of this province be in if he is picked up on a wiretap

which was installed in respect to the possible apprehension of a drug

trafficker, who was subsequently charged with drug trafficking? Surely

this is the most dangerous situation for the justice system in this

province. We have in fact the very serious involvement of two people:

one person in some way connected with organized crime, and the other

one the chief justice of the province; both on the same telephone line;

both doing the same kind of thing. Surely that is a very serious

question that has to be debated in this House. How do we protect the

justice system from that kind of thing happening? Do we protect it by

saying nothing? That's what has gone on so far. Nobody wants to say

anything. Everybody keeps quiet. They hope it will go away. They hope

Levi will sit down and not say anything. But that is not the issue.

It's more fundamental than that.

We have seen what has

happened in other jurisdictions in other countries about this kind of

intrusion, this kind of mixing between the criminal element of

organized crime and the judicial system. In this province we have to be

very sure that our system is as pure and clean and unrelated to any

links.... That's one of the serious issues in this question which that

Premier has to talk about in this House. If he is, as he stated, so

concerned about the justice system, then talk about it. Let us know

what has happened. Then we will have the kind of confidence we need to

have.

It's not my place to make reference to other

inquiries. They do not in fact come under the jurisdiction of the

Premier — except that he's the head of the government. But in this

inquiry he has a role and a function: he is the bridge between the

former Attorney-General and the present Attorney-General. He was there

during all these events. He must know what took place. If he didn't

know, then it is a very serious dereliction of duty. One of the things

we have to debate with him is whether he was completely ignorant of

this.

So let's hear from the Premier about the questions we

want him to answer. Does he have any views at all on this very serious

situation? Surely in terms of the information we have, and there is

other information.... We had a situation that was tantamount to a

possible blackmail of the chief justice of the appeal court, in the

circumstances in which he was found. What guarantee do we have from the

Premier that the system was protected and that everything was fine?

Remember, Mr. Chairman, this matter was originally referred to the

federal justice council for investigation, but that investigation came

to an end as soon as the chief justice resigned. Marc Lalonde, Minister

of Justice at the time, said: "There is no need for an investigation,

because the man is no longer a judge." Is the nature of the system such

that if a person is referred, which is a very serious question, and

then resigns, nothing else takes place? There is no one as interested

in the circumstances which were the basis for the referral for the

federal justice council. These are unanswered questions, and we have to

start with that Premier over there, to find out his concern about the

justice system, to get some answers.

I'll just repeat them.

Did he receive a phone call from the Prime Minister of Canada in

respect to the resignation of the former chief justice of the appeal

board? Did they discuss the reasons for the resignation? Did he receive

a phone call from the Prime Minister of Canada in respect to the

appointment of a new chief justice of the appeal board? Did they have

any discussions, or did he refer the matter to the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Williams)? He's not interested in telling us. Mr. Chairman,

we will have to continue to talk about this case until we get some

answers.

I want to suggest a situation to the Premier. This

is a tragic situation in itself — that we have a situation as a result

of police proceedings in respect to wire-taps in the attempt to

apprehend a drug trafficker. The wire-tap turned to be on the house of

a person who was subsequently convicted of keeping a common bawdy

house, and the police were interested in the comings and goings of

those people there. They took a great number of photographs of people

going in and out of that establishment, and we don't know who else was

taking photographs — because that is a possibility. Doesn't the Premier

see that the ingredients which I have just laid out for him are the

classical ingredients for the possibility of the most serious form of

blackmail, in terms of individuals who are going in there? That's the

kind of risk that everybody takes if they frequent these

establishments, but the risk of somebody of the stature of the chief

justice of the appeal court is quite different. After all, he is the

chief administrator of the judicial system in this province.

Those are the ingredients. We are trying to get some answers from that Premier, and I would trust that we will hear

[ Page 1767 ]

from

him sometime today without fatuous remarks which are completely wrong

in respect to what took place in terms of delegations that were

travelling overseas under the previous government. Just answer the

questions. That's all we ask, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, for the last week or so and again this week we appear to

be on the same note — a whole lot of negativism from the opposition. I

would just like to take a few moments to speak about the great things

that are happening because of the tremendous leadership we've enjoyed

these last five years. British Columbia is enjoying prosperity. The

growth is tremendous. The new industrial development is taking place in

all comers of this great province. Everywhere things are happening.

We're seeing things happening in the Kootenays, the Cariboo, the North,

the Okanagan, the lower mainland, and throughout British Columbia. As a

matter of fact, because of the tremendous growth that we've enjoyed

during these last number of years, we're experiencing an influx of

people from other parts of Canada, who too want to participate in the

prosperity and the promise of British Columbia.

Mr.

Chairman, we've heard a great deal of negativism about some of the

things that were proposed in our budget and in the throne debate.

Really, for all British Columbians there is great opportunity and

tremendous promise. I think it was well put by a number of people with

considerable influence — people who have been doers in our great

province. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce was very pleased with the budget

and claimed that it showed great foresight; Bill Hamilton of the

Employers' Council applauded the government statements that the federal

government should leave its hands off the resource revenues coming to

the province of British Columbia. The forest industry also was very

pleased and impressed with our programs and the great improvements over

past practices.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, although I am fascinated by the speech given by the

cabinet minister who has the floor, I would like to point out through

you that the cabinet minister is out of order. We are dealing with vote

9 and the Premier's estimates. If you care to be the Premier, slip the

knife in in a hurry, but you haven't got it yet, so let's stick to the

orders of the day.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of

order, the minister is discussing the administrative responsibilities

of the Premier and is replying in like to the debate that has been

going on to this time. I would caution the minister not to reopen the

budget debate. Let us see if we can narrow in on the administrative

responsibilities of the Premier.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, certainly what we've seen during these last weeks — the

budget, the throne debate — has all been indicative of the leadership

we've had in this province over the last five years. But I can

appreciate the Leader of the Opposition standing and saying that

budgets, throne debates and the proposals for the province don't

perhaps in his opinion relate to leadership, because that individual

has no understanding of leadership. We've experienced that in British

Columbia during the time that unfortunately he was in the position of

being the Premier.

We have seen tremendous improvements in

the programs provided through all the ministries — my ministry no

exception. Again we enjoy this because of the leadership that has been

displayed and provided to all of the ministries through our leader and

Premier. I might refer to the statements given us by the B.C. and Yukon

Chamber of Mines with respect to the improvements in the mining

legislation. The UBCM has made statements applauding the improvements

in the revenue-sharing program. All these programs didn't just happen;

they came about because we've enjoyed leadership in British Columbia.

To continually listen to the opposition making statements and asking

questions which are irrelevant, and spouting off a lot of negativism,

certainly isn't helping us provide those programs which have been

outlined by our Premier and the various ministries over these last

weeks.

There was criticism a little earlier — and it was

during this debate — about the budgets which were brought forth. That's

why I think it's appropriate that we make some reference to those

programs and to the budgets. Criticisms were made....

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I would enjoy instruction from the Chair as to how the

minister is appropriate to vote 9. Specific questions have been asked

of the Premier. It would facilitate the business of this House if we

stuck to the Premier's estimates and if the Premier answered questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Thank you, Leader of the Opposition. Hon. members, in the history of

this Legislature the Premier's vote has always allowed a certain amount

of latitude in discussion. But we always try to make that discussion as

relative as possible to the vote presently before us. Again I would ask

that we try to bring our scope of debate into the relevance of vote 9.

Again I would advise members that it has been the practice to allow a

certain amount of latitude, particularly and uniquely in the Premier's

estimates.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I repeat that the

prosperity we enjoy and the progressiveness that we're witnessing in

all parts of this province are because we've enjoyed good leadership.

Certainly one need only compare what has taken place over these last

five years, and the things that have happened and are about to happen

in the year ahead, with what took place prior to 1975 during the years

of NDP rule. In that comparison it isn't difficult to tell that we've

enjoyed great leadership in British Columbia and that we must deal with

this budget quickly....

MR. BARRETT: The budget! There you are, Mr. Chairman. What budget?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The budget for the Premier's office.

Mr.

Chairman, these things haven't just happened; they've happened because

we have had effective leadership in British Columbia, which was

obviously sadly missed through the few years preceding 1976. I would

urge the House to deal with these estimates, and I'm sure that if we

deal with these and we can get into legislation and get into the

various estimates of the other ministries, it will again be shown that

British Columbia has never enjoyed the lead-

[ Page 1768 ]

ership which we're enjoying now and which will bring us many benefits over the years ahead.

MR. BARRETT:

I'd like to address my remarks to vote 9. Mr. Chairman, I have some

specific questions to ask the Premier. Perhaps it would facilitate the

work of this House if we could pause so that the Premier is ready for

the questions. Perhaps he'd like to make a note of them in his Estimates . Normally ministers make a note of the questions.

it your position — through you, Mr. Chairman — to continue your

opposition to the Gloucester estates application in court to remove

those acres of land in Langley, to have that land returned to land the

freeze? Is that your intention? You've stated publicly that you want

that land back in the land freeze.

Question number one: will

you take action to see that that land is returned to the land freeze to

correspond with your public statements saying that you don't want that

land removed from the agricultural land reserve?

Number two: would the Premier...?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, is land remaining in the agricultural land reserve not

properly a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture estimates?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It was related in this case, hon. member, to a statement made by the Premier.

MR. BARRETT:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your protection against the wild slings

and arrows of a member who is ambitious beyond his capabilities.

Mr.

Chairman, now that we've got that straightened out, I must ask,

firstly, whether it is still the Premier's position — and what action

will be taken — to ensure that that land stays in the land freeze.

Secondly, the Premier stated publicly that in his opinion Hydro should

cut rates on October 13, 1978. The Premier said Hydro should cut rates

— and I quote the Premier, not the would-be Premier; you'll get your

turn later. "He expects Hydro rates to be cut now that the Transit

Authority is established and Hydro saves $60 million from transit." Is

the Premier still of the opinion that B.C. Hydro should not raise its

rates? I know that one cabinet minister has spoken out against Hydro

raising its rates, but I am asking the Premier. Thirdly, the Premier

made a commitment to go to Ocean Falls and talk to the employees of

Ocean Falls. Will the Premier be going to Ocean Falls to talk to the

people in that community? If so, when? Fourthly, does the Premier

remember the three previous questions?

Mr. Chairman, it is

the responsibility of ministers in estimates not to answer questions or

answer questions. It would be more appropriate and would facilitate the

workings of this House if at least a faking effort was made to pay

attention to the question.

Fifthly, is the Premier aware

that there is some question about his agenda during his discussions in

Korea, and that some confusion appears to be in the public's mind, and

certainly in my mind, about whether or not the Premier indeed did

discuss the prospective sale of some uranium to the Korean market,

specifically related to a mission in which he attended meetings along

with Mr. Phillips? Could the Premier tell this House whether or not he

did indeed discuss potential uranium supplies in Korea?

Sixthly,

for some time during these estimates we have brought to the attention

of the Premier the conflict in his statements regarding his visit to

Europe in 1977, at which time it was alleged by my colleague, the

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), whom I sit with, that the

Premier had discussed uranium sales in those meetings with Mr. Jenkins.

The Premier informed this House in no uncertain terms with the

unequivocal answer no, he did not. The Premier has had brought to his

attention a note sent to the research office of the New Democratic

Party from Mr. Etienne Reuter, who was the clerk who took the notes of

that meeting between himself and Mr. Jenkins. The minutes of that

meeting indicate that the Premier did discuss uranium with Mr. Jenkins.

The minutes of the meeting are in conflict with the Premier's

statement. Could the Premier inform this House who is correct — the

Premier or Mr. Reuter? If Mr. Reuter is incorrect, will the Premier

initiate legal action against Mr. Reuter for taking minutes that are

incorrect?

There's a series of questions. I would appreciate

some answers from the Premier. If you'd like to go over them again, we

can, but I think they are fairly clear and I'd appreciate specific

answers. I would like to inform the Premier that I have heard the

speech about "window to the Pacific" four times; I have heard the

speech about his excellent contacts with Ottawa five times, and I might

say, Mr. Premier, that your contacts with Ottawa going through the

embassy are very interesting. I just want to know: do you make it up on

your feet, or do you make it up before you come in here?

Mr.

Chairman, that's a fair question. I don't want to embarrass the

Premier, so I'd ask the press not to take note of these comments, but

while the Premier was talking on Friday, saying that I, as former

Premier, did not arrange my visits through the embassies or through

External Affairs.... I hate to embarrass the Premier by pointing out to

him that he's wrong. The real embarrassing point is that the person who

arranged those visits for me was at that time the Deputy Provincial

Secretary under my colleague, the member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) — that

self-same Deputy Provincial Secretary who the Premier's now going to

hire in his office. Now I had complete confidence in Mr. Lawrie Wallace

in handling all these affairs, and if the Premier's criticizing the

lack of anything in Mr. Wallace's handling these matters, he's

criticizing Lawrie Wallace, who he's going to hire. So after going

through all of my records, I have to ask the question: does the Premier

make that stuff up on his feet, or do you make it up before you come in

here? Just tell us when you make it up.

We've been at your

estimates all these days, and we can't get specific answers. Did you

discuss uranium in Korea? Is Mr. Etienne Reuter a liar? Are you going

to go to Ocean Falls? What are you going to do about the Gloucester

property that you made a promise on? Do you still believe that B.C.

Hydro shouldn't increase its rates? Five simple questions. We'd like

some answers so that we can get on with other very important business.

Mr.

Chairman, I think it's obvious to anyone that we have witnessed over

the last few days an attempt by the Premier to have some of his

colleagues, those who can stand it who were left in the House, jump up

and defend him, and if all else goes badly, get a couple of

backbenchers to do it. We've been through that ploy. We've been through

the ploy of the Premier making 30-minute speeches, taking up all his

time in rambling speeches. I must even say that he has continued the

record of not completing one sentence in 30 minutes, which is pretty

good by anybody's standards.

[ Page 1769 ]

We're now down to the nitty-gritty. The Premier refuses to answer simple questions.

(1) Does the Premier intend to take any action on the Gloucester properties

based on his commitment, his promise, his feeling that that land should

stay in the land reserve?

(2) Will the Premier be visiting Ocean Falls, as he promised the people of Ocean Falls that he would?

(3) Can the Premier categorically state that Mr. Etienne Reuter is a liar and the minutes he took are incorrect?

(4) Can the Premier clarify to us his position that B.C. Hydro should be

cutting rates? What is his position now on B.C. Hydro increasing rates

in spite of his statement?

(5) Can the Premier tell us,

categorically, whether or not he discussed uranium during his visit to

Korea, and whether or not in those discussions he was aware of even the

amount of the number of tonnes that were being discussed in certain

contracts? Could he tell us if the tonnage was even discussed with them?

Those

are simple questions and it would help a lot for the Premier's

credibility if he would deal with questions during his estimates, so we

can go on with other matters.

I don't know what the wave

meant — or was it a signal? I've asked these questions. Well, there is

no one else who wants the floor. My colleagues have asked me to ask

these question so that you can answer them. Once you answer these

questions we can move on to other things, but you cannot continue to

stall the House. You reach a point where all the bafflegab and all the

guff and everything comes to an end, and you've still got these

questions. If you're tired, we'll have an adjournment. You can have a

short nap, and then we'll come back and ask the questions again.

They're not too hard to answer; I'll even write them out for you:

(1) Are you a good boy?

(2) Who told you so?

Mr. Chairman, we're

dealing with very serious matters. The Premier made a public statement

about the Gloucester property. He wants it put back into the

agricultural land reserve. What action have you taken to keep your

commitment? Can you answer that one?

These are the moments

when television would be appropriate, but I think we'd have to stop for

a commercial break. Now, Mr. Chairman, I know that my good friend, the

member for somewhere in Peace River, who was a teacher, stands up in a

classroom and says to a pupil: "All right, Billy, can you give me this

answer?"

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You don't stand in the classroom?

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order for the member for North Peace River.

MR. BRUMMET: The latest reference by the Leader of the Opposition — whether this was still on vote 9?

MR. BARRETT:

In reference to the member for Peace River — on vote 9, Mr. Chairman,

related to the Premier's estimates, I just wonder if in a classroom

where we ask them one at a time and we put them out on blocks it might

be helpful, since you're a professional in the field? I don't know what

they do in the classroom with students who show dumb insolence, Mr.

Chairman, but dumb insolence is a form of dealing with questions. But

we eliminated corporal punishment in schools; we don't spank anybody

any more. We appeal to reason, logic, love, understanding and care.

Some people are slower than others; some people are faster, Now we

start again.

(1) Can the Premier tell us, in the face of his

promise to protect agricultural land in terms of the Gloucester

property, whether or not he intends to see that his promise is

fulfilled?

(2) Can the Premier tell this House whether or

not Mr. Etienne Reuter is telling an untruth in his recollection of the

minutes where he states that the Premier discussed uranium as potential

sales in Europe?

(3) Can the Premier tell the people of this

province whether or not his statement that B.C. Hydro should cut rates

is one that he still believes? Or did he believe it then? Or should

they now be responsible for that $60 million that he felt was enough of

a rebate to them in transit costs that they didn't need to cut rates?

(4) Can the Premier tell us that in Japan or in Korea, during his

discussions with the Korean groups, Norcen, Lacana and E&B South

Korean uranium contracts...? Were they discussed in his presence? Was

the amount of uranium potentially to be exported discussed in his

presence? Did he know the figure they were discussing? Was he present

when any of these discussions took place?

These are very

simple questions, Mr. Chairman, and I think it would be appropriate if

the Premier answered a few of the questions. It's very simple. I would

gladly yield the floor to the Premier. I would be delighted to go

throughout the province and say that after a number of times when I

asked the Premier some questions, he attempted to answer them. It would

be an exciting thrill for me to be able to travel around this province

and say how mature and responsible this Legislature has become, and

that during estimates, when we asked questions of the Premier, he

answered them. What a wonderful opportunity for me to tell all the

young people who have this week off in Easter holidays to watch

democracy in action and see their Premier, the number one leader in

this province, answer questions.... It's the taxpayers who pay the

money. The Premier doesn't bring any money down with him from Kelowna

to pay all the bills.

We'd just like to know what's in the

Premier's mind — through you, Mr. Chairman — on some statements that

he's made, not on those I've made. Do you want to answer them? Are you

going to answer now?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, I'll answer.

MR. BARRETT:

He said he'll answer. Could you let us know when you're going to

answer? Now would be an appropriate time. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to

be tricked into taking my place. I still am naive enough to believe the

Premier when he gives his word. I didn't think it was a little bit of

trickery going on here. He'd said he'd answer, and I went to sit down

because I believed the Premier — I made that mistake again — and

because I believed him, another member jumped up and he didn't offer to

gain the floor. Now I think the Premier is fibbing again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Central Fraser Valley rises on a point of order.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition came out and stated that the

Premier calls on the back bench when desperate. Well, I resent that

statement,

[ Page 1770 ]

and whenever the Leader of the Opposition is finished, I will be quite happy to respond to some of his remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not a valid point of order, and we cannot gain the floor on improper points of order.

MR. BARRETT:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for protecting me from improper points of

order. The Premier has waved his hand and I heard him call across the

floor, yes, he'll answer.

HON. MR. BENNETT: In due course.

MR. BARRETT:

In due course. Well, Mr. Chairman, the Premier has now got this far: he

will answer in due course. All right, now we're making progress. It has

taken us one week to get to the point where he will answer in due

course. I would like to ask the Premier and the leader of all the

people of British Columbia this question: can he give me some idea when

due course will be? We have waited five days. We have gone through all

the circuitous routes, excuses, delays and little games, and we're

still back to the same questions. No other member of the opposition, to

my knowledge, wants the floor. Do you want it, Mr. member for Dewdney

(Mr. Mussallem)? No, you're a government member. It's not the way they

treat you; it's what you belong to. The member from South Vancouver,

the new Whip — do you want the floor? Mr. Chairman, I'm just assisting

you since you've got a dual role to play today.

Mr.

Chairman, fun and games go so far. I think it's only appropriate, to

set a tone for the rest of the estimates, to facilitate those

estimates, that when an opposition member asks specific questions, the

minister concerned would answer those questions, particularly when no

other opposition member wants the floor and when government

backbenchers are through stonewalling or smoke screening for the

minister concerned. We've reached that point now after five days; we've

heard all the rhetoric and we've heard all the speeches. I would like

to go over these questions which I would like to answer because there

are people in Langley and in other areas who ask me questions about

government policy. It is a known fact that the Premier has stated that

he wants the Gloucester property left in the agricultural land reserve.

The Gloucester property's people are now starting court proceedings to

have....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You can't discuss it in the House.

MR. BARRETT:

Well, now we've got the Attorney-General in. I'm glad we've got

somebody responding. Hallelujah, brothers and sisters, we've got

somebody responding.

MR. MACDONALD: Somebody's listening out there.

MR. BARRETT:

Somebody's listening. Yes, we've got his attention. The

Attorney-General says, on behalf of the Premier: "We can't discuss it

because it's subjudice." What the Attorney-General doesn't appreciate,

because he is so busy in law books, is that this was a matter of law at

the time the Premier said: "I don't want it out of the agricultural

land reserve." Well, now that I've got your attention, I want to say

that these people are citizens of this province. They are entitled to

know whether, after the process of going to court, the Premier is going

to keep his promise and see that that land goes back into the

agricultural land reserve. Why should these people spend all that money

on lawyers? I know you'd give a positive answer to that question and

say that they should, and I don't blame you as a lawyer. But why should

these people spend all this money if it is on public record that the

Premier wants this land to stay in the agricultural land reserve? Does

the Premier intend to keep his word and see that that land goes back

into the agricultural land reserve? Yes or no? Is that asking too much?

Does the Premier intend to keep his word and see that that land goes

back into the agricultural land reserve? Yes or no? Just nod your head.

Give a nudge and a wink to the Attorney-General.

Second, the

Premier attacked B.C. Hydro for increasing rates. It is incorrect for

me to say that the Premier attacked B.C. Hydro for increasing rates.

That's incorrect and I correct my statement. The Premier said: "B.C.

Hydro should cut rates." He gave as an argument that B.C. Hydro would

be recovering some $60 million for the cost of urban transit that would

be passed on to taxpayers through other means. Does the Premier intend

to initiate any action to ensure that B.C. Hydro does not increase its

rates contrary to his stated wishes?

Third, a serious

allegation has been made in this House, and it is that something less

than the truth has been told by the Premier about his visits to Great

Britain in terms of what was discussed. The Premier shouted "no" across

the floor of this House to my colleague when he was asked the specific

question of whether he had discussed the possibility of uranium sales

in British Columbia during his visit to Europe. We all heard the "no."

Then a document was brought to the attention of this House, signed by

Etienne Reuter, who is the person who took minutes at that meeting.

Those minutes indicate a conflict with the Premier's statement in that

those minutes said that the Premier did indeed discuss the possibility

of uranium sales. Is the Premier prepared to tell this House that Mr.

Etienne Reuter is not telling the truth in that document?

The

next question.... We have lots of time, I suppose, if it's the will and

the wish of the Premier to continue to play this game, as he has for

some four and a half days now. Can the Premier tell us whether he will

go to Ocean Falls and meet with the people of that community as he

promised when a group of citizens and trade unionists visited his

office recently?

Through you, Mr. Chairman, with your help

and guidance, I have another question directly to the Premier and

certainly in order. During the Premier's visit to Korea, there were a

number of items on the agenda to be discussed by the Premier and the

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

relating to Norcen, Lacana and the E&B contract for the sale of

uranium. Could the Premier tell this House whether he was present at

any discussions over the quantity of the amount of uranium that was

proposed to be sold from British Columbia? If such conversations took

place, what role, if any, did he play in those conversations?

Mr.

Chairman, I think I understand those questions; I think you understand

those questions; I think my colleagues understand those questions; I

think that even some of the backbenchers understand those questions,

and that's being charitable. We have an indication that the Premier

understands the questions. Frankly, it would be appropriate to have

some answers from the Premier in a mature fashion.

[ Page 1771 ]

Mr.

Chairman, there has been a great deal of public discussion in the

province of British Columbia about the credibility of the chief officer

of the province of British Columbia. Discussion about the credibility

of the chief officer of British Columbia has taken place in newspapers,

on television programs, and over coffee cups. The credibility of the

government has been discussed in terms of the responsibility of

leadership by the Premier of this province. The citizens of this

province have some serious questions about the decision-making process,

the reliability of reasons given for decisions, and the consequences of

those decisions themselves.

It is one thing to play politics

in this House; I think that certainly is a vocation of a significant

number of members here. Far be it from me to suppress the rumour that

every member in this House is a politician — except you, Mr. Chairman,

in the chair, even in a schizophrenic role. Nonetheless, politics do

play a role in this chamber. Because politics plays a role, on occasion

we bring in the theme of political responsibility. When a citizen asks

for power through the transfer of votes, through universal suffrage, it

is a transference of responsibility to deal with the issue that person

or persons say they want to deal with, once having gained your

confidence in giving their vote.

I didn't vote for the

Premier, but I voted. The Premier didn't bother to vote federally, so

we won't talk about federal issues. He has no business talking about

federal issues, because he doesn't vote federally.

Now that

we've eliminated half the nation's business, we go back to simple

matters related to the Premier and provincial matters. I've asked some

questions.... No, I sat down. There's been intervening business. You

don't count that? Mr. Chairman, would it not be correct to say that

there has been intervening business and that my time has been

interrupted? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Whatever your ruling is, I will

abide by it.

I have three minutes left, I think. Three

minutes is enough time to ask the Premier again: please, Mr. Premier,

tell us what action you will take to ensure that the Gloucester

properties will be returned to the agricultural land reserve. Please,

Mr. Premier, will you keep your promise to go to Ocean Falls and speak

to the employees of the plant that is being closed? Please, Mr.

Premier, tell us who is telling the truth. Is Mr. Etienne Reuter lying

about your meeting in Europe and are the minutes he's taken incorrect?

Please, Mr. Premier, tell us: did you speak in Korea about the

possibility of sales of uranium from British Columbia to the Korean

interests on behalf of and with Norcen, Lacana and E&B? Please, Mr.

Premier, tell us: what action will you take on your disagreement with

B.C. Hydro's power rates? It would go a long way, I think, to dealing

with the business of this House, if you'd deal with some of these

questions which are related to your own statements.

MR. DAVIS:

Mr. Chairman, I admire your patience. I marvel at your forbearance. I

wonder at your endurance. How can you possibly stand all these endless

inferences to the effect that the Premier is lying, when there isn't

any evidence whatsoever that this has happened in the House?

It's

tedious and repetitious. I won't dignify it by calling it a debate. A

debate has an issue; two parties take different sides on that issue.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

During

the Premier's estimates the focus so far has largely been on uranium

mining and nuclear energy. But the government and the opposition really

don't differ on these matters as to policy. In fact, they have the same

policy: no nuclear power plants and no uranium mines here in B.C., at

least in the foreseeable future. So we have a debate — at least the

appearance of a debate — without substance. It's really an argument

about nothing at all. The Leader of the Opposition is grasping at

straws. He would like us to have a nuclear issue in the province, but

we haven't got one. He'd like to say that the government is

pro-nuclear, but it's anti-nuclear. This must be a very frustrating

experience for him indeed.

The Leader of the Opposition

reminds me very much of that delightful pool-playing character in

Gilbert and Sullivan's "Mikado," the one who, as the lines go, "had to

work with a cloth untrue and a crooked cue and elliptical billiard

balls." The chance of that comic character sinking a shot is

undoubtedly less than a hundred to one. And the odds that the Leader of

the Opposition will get back into the Premier's chair are much worse,

perhaps a million to one, unless he stops playing personalities and

gets down to real issues which undoubtedly divide our two parties,

Social Credit on the one hand and the New Democratic Party on the other.

But

let's put something finally to rest. The rest of the world may be going

nuclear, but we've got excellent alternatives here in B.C. We're rich

in resources other than nuclear resources, of which we may or may not

have a potential. We certainly don't need atomic power plants for a

long, long time, if indeed we ever need them. When I was energy

minister on this side of the House, the Leader of the Opposition asked

me many, many times whether we were going to build nuclear power

plants. I said no, we didn't need them. The Premier, the hon. member

for Okanagan South, has said repeatedly that we're not going to build

nuclear power plants. The present Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) has been most emphatic —

we're not going to build nuclear power plants for the foreseeable

future. So I cannot understand why this issue keeps coming up. I can't

understand why during the last provincial election the NDP candidates

kept saying repeatedly that we were going to go nuclear.

for uranium mining, the government has announced a ban. It is a ban

which will last for some time; it's a seven-year moratorium on

exploration and development, to start with. I know that the NDP was

dying to take the government on about mining in this session,

especially uranium mining, but their research has been all for naught.

The anti-uranium-mining lobby has already convinced the government that

we should forget this industry, for a while at the very least. So what

is the official opposition so upset about? Can it be that it hasn't got

anything else to grieve about, or has it been on holiday for the last

eight months? Surely there are real issues which it could be taking up

on the Premier's estimates. Let me give you a few examples.

First,

resource development. Both parties in this House, I think, agree that

foreign trade is important to B.C., resource-rich as it is. We will

continue to export raw materials and semi-processed goods for a long

time. Our resource industries, in other words, are our bread-and-butter

industries. Not only will they provide us with many jobs, but they can

provide us with many highly paid jobs as well.

We mustn't subsidize our export industries — or is this a matter of dispute between us? They must stand, I believe,

[ Page 1772 ]

essentially

on their own feet. If we have to provide a railway, a dock or a

highway, we should recover these costs over the lifetime of the project

in question. Also, Canadians as taxpayers should get at least 50

percent of the profits. Windfall gains, if there are any, should accrue

largely to the people who really own these resources, the people of

British Columbia. I don't see anything wrong with that. It's good,

sound common sense. It fits in, fortunately, with the private

enterprise approach to resource development. It shouldn't upset the

socialists too much. The NDP, for example, isn't really opposed to the

development of northeastern coal. They can't knock it, so they aren't

saying anything about it. Are they opposed to mining of non-renewable

resources, or are they in favour of it? Are they secretly in favour of

it? Would they revive their supertax on mining if they were to come

back to power, God forbid? I wish the Leader of the Opposition would be

frank in respect to matters of this kind.

This government

has a large transportation budget, which I certainly will defend. It's

building roads and highways in many parts of our province. The B.C.

Ferries service is expanding. Our small airport building program is

filling a vital need, especially in the interior and in the north. What

does the NDP have to say about the principle of user-pay? Does it think

that industry should pay its own way, especially where the carriage of

freight is concerned? Or does it see transportation subsidies as a

vehicle for industrial development? This is a very important point in

industrial development.

I personally think that aid to

industry should be limited, and where it is given to industry it should

be specific. It should go to plants and factories for a limited period

of time. The criterion, in other words, should be jobs. There should be

a limit to the extent to which public funds are used to provide

transportation services as opposed to direct subsidies to industries

with a high job content. In other words, I wouldn't subsidize truckers,

railways, airlines or our marine services. I would open up new areas of

the country, using government funds, but only in the first instance.

Thereafter I would expect the private sector to pay its own way,

especially in the long run. Otherwise, government is getting too deeply

into industrial development.

Surely the socialists will give

us an argument on that, but silence, Mr. Chairman.... I assume the NDP

agrees with the government's program on transportation and on

industrial development. Their attitude, at least on the Premier's

estimates, would indicate that this is so.

Third, in the

area of communications, we are rapidly moving into an era when the

individual can pick up radio and now TV signals wherever he or she

lives, from sources both inside and outside Canada. Receiving antennae

which are able to pick up as many as 100 TV channels are now in

existence in the lower mainland and in the far north. Where does this

province stand in this connection? Will it be helping people in

outlying places to have their own TV reception, for example? Will it be

doing some of its own programming, especially insofar as educational TV

is concerned? This is looking ahead, Mr. Chairman, but it is a vital

question. It is an issue to which we must address ourselves, and it's

one on which I think the party opposite and the present government will

have fundamental differences in the future. In other words, I sense an

important area of disagreement here. Certainly there is room for

dispute. The impression I had in 1975 was that the NDP would like B.C.

to have its own B.C. network — to originate the message, in other

words, as well as to carry it. It would like to become part of the

message itself. Or would it? Let's have a good debate on the subject.

Let us see whether we really agree on the province's having more power

in the broad field of communications. Not only is this a live

constitutional issue with Ottawa, but it is also one which will come

rapidly to the fore as satellite technology gives us access to ideas —

certainly messages — which come from all over the earth.

Fourth,

Mr. Chairman, people programs. An ever increasing share of the

provincial budget is being devoted to people programs. This is true not

only in current dollar terms but also as a percentage of the

government's overall expenditures on goods and services. Health,

education, housing and human resources taken together now account for

over 60 percent of our provincial budget. Add in the people elements of

labour, universities, parks and environment, and we get a figure of the

order of 66 percent or 67 percent. In other words, two-thirds of the

present budget brought in by this government and by this Premier is

people-oriented — involves people programs. This is a higher figure

proportionately than when the NDP were in power. It is a clear

indication of where the government's priorities lie insofar as

government-financed services are concerned. The official opposition,

recognizing this, at least by their silence on this important matter,

have therefore narrowed their attack. They are no longer talking about

this heartless, bottom-line government; they are talking about "now you

see it, now you don't" industries like uranium mining and nuclear power

instead.

Federal-provincial relations. Until the present

Premier arrived on the scene, British Columbia's appearance at first

ministers' conferences was regarded as something of a joke. Either B.C.

was odd-man-out or it was urging a national consensus on something for

which a consensus was unlikely to be achieved in your lifetime, Mr.

Chairman, or mine. Either we were offering to turn our non-renewable

resources, like oil and gas, over to Ottawa in return for

nationalization by the federal government, or we were advocating

programs such as equalization — currently equalization of provincial

government revenues across the country — which would be extended to

municipalities and towns. In other words, we were advocating a kind of

financial arrangement in this country which would make it the

equivalent of a unitary state, while at the time protesting that we

should have more provincial powers. That was the kind of thing we were

talking about off and on in Ottawa until the present Premier came to

office and began to attend those meetings.

Since 1975 things

have changed. Largely as a result of the thoughtful submissions which

this province has made at successive conferences between the provinces

and the federal government, B.C. has emerged as a force to be reckoned

with in intergovernmental relations. This government, under this

Premier, is for decentralization in government. We're for more power

for the provinces. We are for greater local responsibility. We would

put the emphasis much more on the individual. We would bring government

closer to our people in this way, and we would make government more

understandable, more predictable, and more responsible in the process.

Surely

the NDP isn't against this trend. But if it is, if it favours the

present approach by the present government, let it say so. Let it come

out flat-footedly and say it's for more power at the centre, if indeed

it believes in the opposite — in more power at the centre. Let it say

that it believes in more

[ Page 1773 ]

government

at a distance, that it believes our growth provinces in the west should

bend the knee to Ottawa, especially in respect to matters like resource

development. It seems to be taking this attitude in respect to the

pricing of oil and natural gas and the funding of people programs like

health, education and human resources. It rejoices whenever the federal

government takes an initiative in this area. Let it come out, however,

and say that it's for more power at the centre, more power for Ottawa —

more national programs, if I can put it that way, rather than

provincial programs where the provinces, and especially provinces like

British Columbia, not only have the financial resources but also the

constitutional equipment to do the job themselves.

Finally,

Mr. Chairman, foreign affairs. This government is for freer trade. It's

not protectionist, certainly, Mr. Second Member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald). It believes in competition and it believes the private

sector, with a minimum of government involvement, can do the best job

insofar as our future material well-being is concerned. It's against

high tariffs and opposed to quotas of different kinds, and it certainly

doesn't believe in lasting subsidies, especially large subsidies for

foreign-owned firms which are in difficulties because they're no longer

competitive here and abroad.

Let's take the Chrysler

Corporation, for example. It's in serious financial difficulties in the

United States. Its Canadian branch plants are also losing money. But

what is B.C.'s attitude to a big government loan to the Chrysler

Corporation of Canada Ltd.? Should we give it half a billion dollars in

loans or buy a large block of shares in the company, or both? Or should

we let it sink or swim, as most other Canadian private sector

operations have to do? I wonder what the situation would be in respect

to CP Air, if it were in difficult financial circumstances, or Cominco

or MacMillan Bloedel or Weyerhaeuser. I think I know what the NDP line

is. It's nationalistic in nature. It would take over the Chrysler

Corporation, with all its problems, fund it out of Canadian tax money

and hope that the local unemployment problem in southern Ontario would

simply go away. At least I think this is what they would do. Certainly

this is what the national arm of their party would do. What is their

stand in this connection? Unfortunately our new Industry, Trade and

Commerce minister in Ottawa is inclined the NDP way. Windsor, Ontario,

the home of Chrysler, is his own home riding. Also he's one of the

Walter Gordon school of protectionist Liberals.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Vancouver East on a point of order.

MR. MACDONALD:

I wonder what in the dickens Walter Gordon and the Chrysler Corporation

and the loan to save their financial backside have got to do with the

estimates of the Premier of the province of British Columbia. The

member is obviously out of order. There's some strange ploy being

played here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, the ruling of

the Chair, if you've been listening carefully to the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), is that the member who has the floor has

been itemizing — and he's now on his last item — a number of questions

which he feels in this debate are relevant to have been asked. Since he

is concluding that list, he will be allowed to continue.

MR. DAVIS:

Mr. Chairman, certainly the question of trade is not exclusively a

federal matter. It does involve the provinces; it certainly involves a

province like British Columbia which is highly dependent on its export

industries and, of course, must import many of its products. The

Premier and the B.C. delegation referred specifically to economic

policy, trade policy, in the papers presented at federal-provincial

conferences. I don't think there is any doubt that this is not only a

matter of real concern to this province, but also a matter which can be

dealt with perhaps most effectively under the Premier's estimates.

There's

talk about renegotiating the Autopact. If it's to be renegotiated at

all it should include free trade — freer trade, certainly — in such

areas as repair parts and even used automobiles and trucks. Then we in

British Columbia, certainly we as individual consumers, would benefit

more from free trade with the United States than we do now. Washington

has wanted a broader Autopact all along, and we in this part of the

country would be better off if we had access to North American-produced

automobiles at Washington state prices, something which we don't have

now.

I'm raising the Autopact for a second reason, Mr.

Chairman, and it is this. If negotiations relative to the Autopact are

broadened beyond automobiles and trucks and do include other areas — as

is typical often of foreign trade negotiations — such as the export of

raw materials, such as the price we're charging the United States for

natural gas.... If there is to be some give and take in this

renegotiation of the Autopact, let us hope that it's not at our

expense, that we don't have to accept a lower price, for example, for

natural gas as a quid pro quo for a somewhat larger share of automobile

and truck production on this continent. In my view the Autopact is a

good pact; if it's broadened, however, let it be broadened exclusively

in the area of automobile and truck manufacture between Canada and the

United States and not include negotiations relative to other trade

which Canada engages in with the United States, and certainly not

include price and other considerations relating to our exports in

western Canada.

I believe, as I have said before, that these

are the kinds of issues that should be discussed in this chamber. They

are here and now; they involve decisions that are about to be made, not

decisions that have either been made or, as is often the case in these

debates, were never made at all. We have a provincial position,

certainly a western Canada position, on matters relating to

international trade, so I think that matters like that could properly

be discussed in this chamber now. The New Democratic Party has to be

different in the position which it takes, at least relative to the role

of government on the one hand and the private sector on the other. It

has, or at least its socialistic counterparts in other countries have,

taken a very different attitude to international trade. They have

tended to be more protectionist, and certainly much more nationalistic.

why the silence? Can it be that this government here today in this

chamber, Mr. Chairman, is doing nearly everything right and very few

things wrong? Can it be that we have to invent issues such as the

mining of uranium in the immediate future or the construction of a

nuclear power plant the year after next in order to fill in the time of

this chamber? Surely not. There are matters of substance to be debated

here, and we don't have to engage endlessly in personalities. We don't

have to invent issues, and we don't have to continually infer that

someone is lying when someone is not.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the

[ Page 1774 ]

remarks

made by the previous speaker when he spoke of NDP policies with

reference to Chrysler and some other matters. Although I don't intend

to answer those today, I would be quite happy, possibly during my

estimates in the future, to reply to any questions. I promise that I'll

answer all questions.

I've been surprised and disappointed

in the Premier during the last few days. I find his silence in this

matter to be an odd and peculiar way to respond to the most serious

charge that he may have misled this House. This is the question: has,

in fact, the Premier misled the House? The member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) seemed to believe that it's a matter of a

mining question. That's not the issue here before us at all. The

question is whether the Premier has, in fact, misled this House. I hope

that the Premier will stand in his place and tell us that the telegram

from Mr. Reuter, the clerk at the Common Market meeting, was in fact

mistaken, that, in fact, the Premier did not say that, that the

telegram itself was not correct and that there were no suggestions of

the sale of uranium during that Common Market meeting. Or,

alternatively, maybe the Premier had forgotten that such discussions

took place. The matter happened two years ago and maybe he doesn't

remember. But I think he owes this House the courtesy of standing up

and telling us what, in fact, the situation was. The Premier said there

were no discussions with reference to the sale of British Columbia

uranium. Yet the clerk, Mr. Reuter, has stated that, in fact, there

were discussions. But instead of an answer all we get is silence from

the Premier.

The Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is here today. He said a few days ago

that he was at that meeting and there were no conversations relating to

uranium sales. This was mentioned prior to the reading of the telegram

by my colleague, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), in which Mr.

Reuter said that there were discussions about the sale of uranium,

among other things, at that particular meeting. We haven't heard since

that time from the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

regarding this subject. I'm not objecting to that. I'm not objecting

that he is not going to continue on that particular issue after the

statements he had previously made. The problem is what we are to do

with reference to future statements by the Premier. Are we to say that

they're accurate or possibly accurate or maybe accurate? What is the

position of the people in this province? What are they to expect from

the Premier, who is the leader of the government and the leader of the

province? I suggest that silence is certainly not good enough.

This

is a similar performance, it seems to me, with that effort.... You

might remember a few months ago, after the seatbelt legislation came

into effect, the Premier, when questioned by the media why he wasn't

wearing a seatbelt, reportedly said: "There are no seatbelts in the

automobile." After the photograph of the automobile showing seatbelts

were in place, it was obvious that the Premier had said the first thing

that came into his mind. He said it carelessly, without consideration

to the validity or otherwise of the statements he made. It seems

apparent that the Premier finds it much more simple to reply off the

cuff, carelessly, without considering the ramifications of those

replies.

I want to discuss very briefly a further matter — basically, the question of

the leadership of this province in another area. I want to speak about the statement

made by the Premier when he replied to the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr.

Williams') statement with reference to the Vogel investigation. The Premier

said at that time:

Mr.

Speaker, I would point out the unique position the Attorney-General is

in in any government. Therefore, I am responding for the government on

the very complete statement given by the Attorney-General today.

say, on behalf of the government, that we accept the statement of the

hon. Attorney-General as an honourable member of this House, and we

accept his statement without question because of our considerable

admiration for his reputation as a member and his reputation as a

counsel before becoming a member. Mr. Speaker, we accept it because it

is in this instance and in others the system of justice must be clearly

protected and the public must have confidence.

Now it seems

to me that that's a very odd statement the Premier made that day. It

would appear to me it is an indication that the Premier and the

Attorney-General were in no way in agreement with the statement which

was made by the Attorney-General. It appears to me that the statement

here is an indication by the Premier that he has cut adrift the

Attorney-General with reference to this particular case, and that the

Attorney-General will sink or swim. With reference to his statement,

the Premier has set aside ground for the government in case things do

not go quite as well as might be hoped. It certainly appears that the

statement made by the Attorney-General was not in agreement with the

Premier, and there's certainly no doubt in my mind that the Premier

wanted to go another route.

I hope the Premier will tell us

what happened between the Attorney-General and the Premier when they

were discussing what kind of action should or would be taken, what kind

of statement should be made, and why the Attorney-General made a

ministerial statement, which I believe, in all other cases that I can

remember, has been a statement generally for the government. When a

minister makes a statement he's generally speaking for the government.

But in this case the Attorney-General wasn't speaking for the

government, because we were told by the Premier that he was speaking as

Attorney-General and that the Premier would speak for the government.

suggest that the problem of leadership is in question in the internal

affairs of the Social Credit Party — the question of whether or not the

Attorney-General is the true leader, or whether it is the Premier who

is cutting out the ground from under the Attorney-General to make room

for his party and the government in case things go sour. But here we

find a case where it's necessary for the Premier to make a second

statement. He said: "I say on behalf of the government...." That is

immediately after the Attorney-General, whom we believed was making the

statement on behalf of the government, had finished a very lengthy

statement. When I listened to the Attorney-General, I thought I was

hearing a message from the government, but I found out that, no, I was

hearing a message from the Attorney-General. In fact, the government

made only a very small mention of this affair, and said only a few

words.

The important part of the statement made by the

government, not the Attorney-General, is in two paragraphs. What you

are actually saying, Mr. Premier, is that the ship is adrift, the Krazy

Glue is drying up, and that you cannot rely on one of your ministers to

make a statement on behalf of the government, but that, in fact, you

are there to give the true story about what you intend to do or what

you were doing with reference to an investigation.

I wonder whether the Premier will tell us what discussions there were between the Attorney-General and himself with

[ Page 1775 ]

reference

to the preparation of this statement, and whether the Attorney-General

knew that he was only speaking for himself. Did the Attorney-General

know that he wasn't speaking for the government? I wonder whether he

knew or not. Did the Attorney-General know that the Premier was going

to make a statement, after he had spent days on redrafting his

statement? Did he know he was going to be undercut in a two-paragraph

statement by the Premier? I wonder if he knew that. I wonder if the

Premier told him. I know that the Premier congratulated the

Attorney-General on the statement. He said that the Attorney-General is

an honourable member of this House, and we accept his statement without

question. He's not saying it's true or false or a good statement; he

says that he accepts the statement without question. I wonder if the

Attorney-General accepted the Premier's statement without question. I

wonder if he knew that the Premier was going to make a statement for

the government. I wonder if the Attorney-General knew that he was

speaking for himself, and that in actual fact in a few moments he would

be cut adrift from the rest of the party.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're desperate.

MR. LORIMER:

There is a man who says that we're desperate. Well, I'm not quite as

desperate, I don't think, as are some people across the way.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

will ask two questions, though. The Leader of the Opposition asked five

questions. I know that's quite a number, but I intend to ask only two

questions. The first question is: does the telegram from Europe

correctly state the true situation on uranium discussion in Europe? The

second question is: will the Premier confirm that he is still the real

leader of the coalition across the way? Those are two pretty simple

questions. If we can get answers to those two questions, I'm sure the

Leader of the Opposition will try for the other five questions. Then

maybe we will have some more questions later on in this debate.

MR. RITCHIE:

I can't help but feel that the lacklustre, negative approach, the

repetition and the personal attack in this debate, are nothing short of

a coverup for their own failings. Why doesn't the opposition tackle

something more positive, like people programs or our resource

development? These are positive programs provided under our leader. But

that's very difficult for them to debate. Let's follow the trend of

their debate, Mr. Chairman. I'll let you judge for yourself as to the

quality of it. I have gone through a little exercise here just for the

interest of this House, Mr. Chairman, and for your interest, just to

see exactly what they are doing. I'm not sure yet, although I want to

say that I think it's a coverup for something.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) — you would like to go out in the hall and have me say that?

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: Would the second member for Vancouver East like to have the floor?

AN HON. MEMBER: Use the word coverall.

MR. RITCHIE:

Coveralls? No, I prefer to use coverup because I really believe that

what this whole debate of yours revolves around is exactly that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is a word that is on our special little list which we try and adhere to in this chamber.

MR. RITCHIE:

If the second member for Vancouver East is finished, I'd like to come

back to a point that he made. He said as one of our speakers was up

here: "I wonder what foreign trade has to do with the Premier's

estimates?" Well, I too wonder, Mr. Chairman, at some of the comments

by his own party about the Premier's estimates. They've been all over

the place. I'm going to run down a few of them since this debate

started.

I refer, first of all, to the first member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett). He's yawning now. He's already tired. I

hope you stay around, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. First of all, you

dealt with the rate of inflation and government spending. That was

fairly good. Then, of course, you talked about changes in ministerial

portfolios. I wonder what that's got to do with the Premier's

estimates. Then you talked about B.C. Hydro prices, Gloucester

property, the Marguerite . All

to do with the Premier's estimates. Then he went on to talk about

uranium mining, national unity, the federal election. Then, of course,

he touched on unemployment, a good subject. From there he went on to

capital investment.

MR. HANSON: Are you reading a book index?

MR. RITCHIE: No, I've gone over Hansard . We'll get to you if you have spoken. I don't think you have yet.

Then,

of course, he talked about financing housing, Railwest and seatbelts. I

don't think there's a great deal in there that we could directly refer

to the Premier's estimates, and yet I notice quite often — in fact most

times when one of our members get up — we are told: "Get back to vote

9; you're not on the Premier's estimates. You've got to get back

there." Well, I wonder how often they get away from the Premier's

estimates.

Then, of course, we had the second member for

Vancouver East take the floor. He spoke for a long time, Mr. Chairman.

But he only talked about one subject: uranium marketing. That's all.

MR. MACDONALD: I was talking about the truth!

MR. RITCHIE: Well, if that's the truth, then so be it. But that is exactly what you talked about when you were on the floor.

Then

we come to the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who has just entered

the House, and he had two subjects on which took up an awful lot of

time. He talked about a meeting in Europe and he talked about uranium

exports, uranium mining and so on. But he took up a long time, Mr.

Chairman, talking about those two items, and I wonder just what that

has to do with our Premier's estimates. Not very much.

Mr. Chairman, I go on then to the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi). Again he talked about uranium,

[ Page 1776 ]

and

again I ask what that has to do with the Premier's estimates. He went

on to talk about the former chief justice of the court of appeal.

What's that got to do with the Premier's estimates? He talked about Dan

Campbell, and then he talked about a meeting in Europe. I wonder if

that's the same meeting that the member for Prince Rupert talked about?

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: That's the same meeting, eh?

talked about the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips). He talked about the Deputy Attorney-General. This

is quite boring, but really it's been boring right from when we started

listening to you. I just thought I'd recap to try to give you an idea

of just how exciting it has been.

He talked about a Social

Credit fund-raiser. What's that got to do with the Premier's estimates?

And he talked about bank accounts. Then he went on to talk about

election expenses — and I'm sure we'll be talking more about election

expenses. That was included in his debate on the Premier's estimates.

Of course, he talked about uranium exploration companies. He talked

about the member for Vancouver South, and lo and behold if he didn't go

on then to talk about jet airplanes. What has all this got to do with

the Premier's estimates? Not very much.

Then we get down to

the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber). He too talked about

uranium. There seems to be something here that they're concerned about.

Apparently I cannot use the word, Mr. Chairman — I referred to it

earlier when I started — but there is something strange about the whole

debate. He talked about philosophy. Then he went on and talked about

Gallup polls. What have Gallup polls got to do with the Premier's

estimates, vote 9? He talked also about a meeting in Europe. I wish he

were here; I'd like to know if he's talking about the same meeting that

has been mentioned by other members on that side. He too has talked

about uranium exports. He also talked about the Minister of Industry

and Small Business Development. Of course he went on and talked about

the Rupert , the Surrey and the Marguerite .

He also covered the Social Credit Party. What's that got to do with the

Premier's estimates, vote 9? He talked about the late W.A.C. Bennett.

And, of course, he went on to talk about Seaboard Life Insurance.

Mr.

Chairman, I'm merely recapping some of the debate from the opposition

benches to show you how boring it has been, and also to try to bring to

the House how far off beam they are when it comes to debating our

Premier's estimates.

I would like now to touch on the member

for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). He had a little variety. Somehow or other

he's not caught up in your uranium thing, I don't believe, but he

talked about B.C. Place. He was positive. That's good; that's something

we would like to talk about. He talked about the Barkerville fund, and

he also talked about the downtown revitalization. We like to talk about

that. That's good debate. That's what we would like, Mr. Chairman.

MRS. DAILLY:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the member who is now on his feet is

discussing a debate that took place with reference to a bill before

this House. He is off the Premier's estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member will continue on vote 9.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Chairman, it's very hard to know exactly when the opposition are on

vote 9 when you go over some of the things I've just listed here.

But

we like to talk about the downtown revitalization. We think that's

something positive. We'd like some debate on it, because we think that

some debate on that will be good for the economy and the people of this

province. That would be responsible debate.

He also talked

about alternative energy. Again, I would say there is some constructive

thinking behind this particular item. He talked about the Fraser River

crossing, the lower mainland stadium and computerized libraries — all

within vote 9, the Premier's estimates. He talked about the urban

transit fund. But strangely enough, Mr. Chairman, he also talked about

revenue in Saskatchewan, income tax and investment interests. There is

one member who doesn't seem to be caught up at all in the old uranium

waffling that's going on — flip flop or whatever you want to call it —

because he hasn't touched on uranium at all.

Then we have

the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). Listen to this. He started

out by talking about the Premier's dog. Then, of course, he talked

about the member for Central Fraser Valley. I can't recall what he said

about that particular member.

MR. LEA: He doesn't like you.

MR. RITCHIE: Well, that's too bad.

Anyway,

he talked about me, the member for Central Fraser Valley. Then he went

on to talk about overruns. He, too, talked about uranium. I wonder why.

Was he told to? Is he part of this little hoax that's going on? Why did

he talk about uranium and not the other one? And how he got on into the

NDP convention.... But he also talked about the NDP convention. Mr.

Chairman, this was during the debate on the Premier's estimates, vote

9. It's in Hansard . He talked about radiation.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: No, this is the correct debate.

Then,

of course, he talked about a discussion that took place in Europe. VV

hat's all this got to do with the Premier's estimates, vote 9? He

talked about the Bates commission, Ellen McKay, projection of

government revenue and the Annacis Island bridge. You know, Mr.

Chairman, I hope that I am getting the message across, but really, when

you listen to this coming back at you, it must sound very, very boring

indeed and far off beam. Certainly it doesn't have very much to do with

our Premier's estimates at all. It would be nice if we could get down

to some real constructive debate on that particular issue.

I've

got a couple more to go. The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead)

talked about the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) in the Premier's

estimates — exciting! He talked about Boy Scouts. That's a very good

issue to talk about. He talked about the Reuter letter. He, too, talked

about the meeting in Europe. Not all of them but a good number of them

talked about that particular meeting. He also talked about the Canadian

Paperworkers International Union. What does that have to do with the

Premier's estimates? Really boring, isn't it? This is what we've been

listening to now since the debate on the estimates started. He talked

about Ocean Falls.

[ Page 1777 ]

Then,

of course, I get down to the last one that I have recorded over the

past few days, the member for Vancouver Centre. Let's take a look and

see what he talked about in this particular debate on the Premier's

estimates, vote 9. He talked about meeting people. Then he talked about

the meeting in Europe — that same mysterious meeting that somehow

they're having difficulty with. He also talked about uranium policy. He

talked, too, about Lettergate. What's that got to do with the Premier's

estimates?

MR. LEA: That's what we'd like to know.

MR. RITCHIE: That's what I would like to know.

talked about the Deputy Attorney-General, the Premier's credibility and

the role of the Premier. He also talked about uranium. He went on to

talk, again, about our Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). He talked about a mining company in

Kelowna. What has that got to do with our Premier's estimates, vote 9?

He talked about copper mining and then he talked about the trade trip

to Japan and Korea and, Mr. Chairman, he talked about a Korea Electric

Co.

I wanted to summarize some of the items that have been

discussed on this floor over the past few days by the opposition,

supposedly surrounding our Premier's estimates. But I think the

opposition are merely using this opportunity to debate the Premier's

estimates in an attempt to undermine him. Mr. Chairman, that's going to

be an impossible task because I want to tell you that our Premier's

record speaks for itself and will continue to speak for itself.

Would you like to hear some more?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. RITCHIE:

I'll tell you what: if you will leave me to it I will keep recording

some of your debate material and I'll be glad to bring it back into the

House later. In the meantime I'd suggest that you try something more

constructive, something that is meaningful, something that we could

really take to task, something that the people out there would really

like to hear coming from the opposition.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Where's Jack Kelly now?

MR. RITCHIE:

If you would like to talk about that, we can do that too. Don't forget,

when you're in a glass house you shouldn't throw stones.

MR. LEA: Did you make that up?

MR. RITCHIE: No, I didn't make that up, but I can assure you there's a lot of truth to it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, let's address the Chair in our debate.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to conclude by saying that.... I don't know

what word I can use in place of coverup; maybe there's something you

can suggest. But the debate very clearly tells me that there's a

shortfall somewhere, and they don't know how to tackle this marvellous

budget of ours. They don't know how to tackle the activities of this

government. They just don't know how to tackle our Premier because our

Premier has given the leadership that this province needs. He has

brought this province from a real terrible financial situation to one

where we're now getting things done, particularly for the people of our

province. I would suggest that if they don't wish to hear another

rumination of some of the dull debate they get on to something more

constructive.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as

the Premier has now returned to the House I would be quite willing to

yield the floor to him so he could answer the questions that have been

posed to him. Inasmuch as he apparently does not wish to accept that

offer I would like on his behalf to thank the minister from West

Central Fraser Valley for providing some leeway so the Premier could

leave the House during the course of that very dull debate that he

launched into which showed his lack of grasp of what this debate is all

about. He has no understanding of what it is we are discussing. The

Premier is responsible for naming the cabinet, yet that minister said

he didn't know what the changes in the cabinet had to do with the

Premier.

MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, I admit

that I may not be fully up on all the rules of the House, but I'm

wondering whether the member for Cowichan-Malahat is referring to a

minister from West Central Fraser Valley. Who is it?

MRS. WALLACE:

That certainly seems a strange point of order, Mr. Chairman. My remark

was that his reference was apparently to try to make the point that to

allude to changes in ministerial positions has nothing to do with the

Premier's estimates. Certainly the Premier has to be held responsible

for the appointment of the cabinet.

Mr. Chairman, this House

is in a position of impasse. We have come to something that I would not

have believed could have happened within the confines of a supposedly

mature and logical form of debate. We have come to a position where,

somehow, the Premier of this province is simply abdicating his

responsibility. He is refusing to answer any of the questions posed to

him by the opposition. These are legitimate questions relative to his

responsibility. We have posed some questions; there are many questions

we would like to pose. I am concerned about the dollars and cents in

his budget. I am concerned about the fact that he is proposing to

increase the employees in his particular ministry from 9 to 17. I would

like to discuss those questions with the minister. I would like to

discuss with the Premier some of the activities that have occurred

within his office during the past year — occurrences relative to Mr.

Campbell and to Mr. Greig. They were both employees of his office.

But,

Mr. Chairman, I am very hesitant to ask that Premier any questions. In

the first place it's not likely he would reply. In the second place,

and even more important, if he did reply, what possible assurance do I

have that those replies would represent the true state of the

particular case? We are at an impasse here. We are in a position where

we have had two conflicting statements presented on the floor of this

Legislature. Those statements stretch the credibility of this House and

of every individual in it — stretch it beyond all reason, Mr. Chairman.

They were simple questions that were asked. There was no obvious reason

for the conflict.

The question of uranium and whether we

should sell it or not is not the question at issue. The question at

issue is whether the Premier, when he stands in his place and gives an

[ Page 1778 ]

answer

to any specific question.... Can this House be assured that they have

all the facts relative to that particular question? That's the question

that's at issue here today, and that's the question that has been at

issue over this last week of impossible impasse in this House. The

Premier has absolutely refused to face up to that fact — and it's so

simple, Mr. Chairman. You know, he's got three alternatives, really. He

can get up and say: "No, when I went to Europe in 1977, I didn't make

any attempt to sell or discuss the sale of uranium." Now, that would be

perfectly all right. This House would accept that. At that particular

time, the government's policy was not particularly opposed to the sale

of uranium. They had not, at that time, set up the Bates commission.

They had not declared any moratorium on exploration. It would have been

perfectly logical to get up and say: "Yes, I did it. That was our

policy at the time. Now we have a new policy. We've got more

information as a result of the Bates commission." That's one thing he

could have done. But he didn't do it. He could have said: "Yes, I

discussed it." He could have said: "No, I didn't discuss it."

When

the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) spoke in this House — he's

the one who sits on this side of the House — he offered a third

alternative. He said: "You know, maybe, Mr. Chairman, the way it

happened was like this. Maybe the first question Mr. Jenkins asked was,

'why are you here?' and the Premier replied: 'We're here to sell

resources.'" And then the member for Vancouver South said: "Well,

two hours later, question number 406 — what resources do you have? And

the Premier said 'uranium.'" He gave him an out. But the Premier got up

after that, and he talked about all the other things the member for

Vancouver South had said. But he never mentioned that. Maybe that's the

way it happened. Now if it happened that way, why doesn't the Premier

tell the House? This impasse has simply negated any possibility of

progress in discussing the Premier's estimates.

I have

questions relative to uranium which I would like to discuss with the

Premier. It was the Premier's announcement, and obviously his decision,

that he was going to ban exploration for uranium in British Columbia. I

would like to ask what led up to that decision. I would like to know

whether it was because there was going to be a massive rally on the

steps of the Legislature, or whether it was because a certain religious

figure was picketing his store in Kelowna. Or was it another reason? I

have my suspicions that it was another reason entirely. My suspicion is

that the real reason was that he wanted to cancel the Bates commission.

MR. LORIMER: Did he know about the Bates commission?

MRS. WALLACE:

Oh, he knew about it. He knew where they were in their evidence. He

knew they were going to start calling in certain health officials. He

was a little concerned, I believe, as to what was going to come out if

that Bates commission continued its inquiry. So this was the way.

don't know if I'm right. I don't know if I'm wrong. I'd like to ask the

Premier that. But under the present circumstances, there's no point in

me asking that question, because even if he did answer it, I wouldn't

know whether I was getting the right answer. That's our concern. That's

our problem.

Perhaps the Premier is following a long line of

politicians who follow his particular political beliefs. I can

remember, as a child back in Alberta, when Bill Aberhart was running on

the Social Credit ticket when Social Credit first came to Alberta. At

that time, Aberhart's stories didn't exactly match. He had an answer.

I'm just going to pass this along to the Premier, because perhaps he

could use this answer. I would suggest that the Premier should give

some consideration to following in the steps of Bible Bill Aberhart.

When he was confronted with his conflicting stories, do you know what

he said? He said: "I say so much, I don't know what I say." Well, maybe

the Premier could try that. Or he could try following a former cabinet

minister in this House who had an answer too. He had an answer that he

gave this House, when his stories didn't quite match. Maybe he could

try that particular minister's tack. I'm sure you're aware of that

story, Mr. Chairman. He simply said that even when he told a lie, he

believed he was telling the truth. Maybe that's the way it is with this

Premier.

There are so many things he could do. There are so

many ways he could resolve this impasse, but instead he sits there

reading his mail and signing his letters or going out of the House or

talking to his cabinet ministers, absolutely refusing to answer any

legitimate questions posed by this opposition. That's why we're at an

impasse in this House, and that's why we're going to continue to remain

at an impasse until that Premier realizes that he does have an

obligation to the legislative and democratic processes of this

province. I don't think he recognizes that. He somehow thinks he's a

law unto himself and can go his own way, that he's not responsible to

this Legislature, but he is. He's responsible to this Legislature, and

we as opposition intend to ensure that he carries out those

responsibilities, even though it takes many long hours of hard debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT:

I don't want to delay the work of the House. Earlier the Premier said

that he wished to answer in due course. I thought perhaps due course

had arrived. It would facilitate the work of the House if the Premier

could let us know if it's due course or not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a legitimate point of order, hon. member.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to take a moment to recognize that in

our gallery today is former Minister of Travel Industry and Small

Business Development, Mr. Elwood Veitch. I'd ask the House to welcome

him.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting

for answers, and it may be more appropriate if there was a bit more

time. There were five simple questions. I expected uncomplicated

answers. I think it would be appropriate if I move the committee rise,

report no progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on following division:

YEAS — 18

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

[ Page 1779 ]

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Gabelmann

Skelly

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchel