1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2719 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Williston appointment Mr. Lea — 2719

Richmond Private Hospital closure. Mr. Wallace — 2720

Designation of Jericho Hill School site. Mr. Gibson — 2720

Statement

Embarrassment to Speaker by Social Credit telegram. Mr. Kahl — 2721

Mr. Barrett — 2721

Mr. Gibson — 2722

Mr. Barrett — 2722

Mr. King — 2722

Mr. Speaker — 2722

Mr. Barrett — 2723

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates.

On the motion to reduce the minister's salary.

Mr. Lauk — 2723

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 2724

Mr. Lauk — 2727

Point of order

Suspension of Mr. Lauk from the service of the House — 2729

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates.

On the motion to reduce the minister's salary.

Mr.Cocke — 2730

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 2731

Mr. King — 2735

Hon. Mr. Mair — 2740

Mr. Lea — 2742

Mr. Davidson — 2746

Mr. Hewitt — 2747

Mr. Gibson — 2748

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 2750

Mr. Barrett — 2752

Mr. Wallace — 2753

Mr. Levi — 2755

THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral questions.

WILLISTON APPOINTMENT

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, a question to the

Premier. In view of the public statements made by the Premier and other

cabinet ministers to the effect that political appointments would not

be made to Crown-owned operations, can the Premier explain to the House

the appointment of a defeated Social Credit cabinet minister, Mr.

Williston, as president of B.C. Cellulose?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, we've said that the

B.C. Railway would not be operated politically from within the

government and that it was our intention for Crown corporations as

quickly as possible to remove cabinet ministers and the direct

influence of government, and that cabinet ministers would only be

associated with Crown corporations to report back to the Legislature.

This is the political involvement that we talked about.

In the selection of personnel to run Crown corporations, they're not

selected on a political basis — in fact, a non-political basis. Nobody

is penalized if they have been a cabinet minister just as much as

it's...necessary to have been one to be selected as a head of a Crown

corporation or even to serve the province.

I would expect that most people in British Columbia, those who

aren't interested in political attacks and motivation, will applaud the

appointment of Ray Williston as the new head of the B.C. Cellulose

Corp. I think regardless of which political party you're a member

of.... His service to this province as a minister for 20 years has been

praised by many. His service beyond that to New Brunswick and the fact

that he was recognized by the United Nations, in being sent to other

areas to help them with their forestry problems, certainly indicates

that the respect with which they hold him should be felt, and is indeed

felt, here in British Columbia.

I don't have to defend that appointment. I would say that that is one of the best appointments this government has made.

MR. LEA: Even after that long defence of something that was not going to be defended, I would like to ask the Premier a supplementary.

Could he confirm that there has been a commitment to another former Social

Credit cabinet minister, namely Wesley Black, that he will head up the new Crown

corporation, British Columbia Building Corp.?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

MR. LEA: No what — that he will not confirm it? What is the

no to? I would like to know if the Premier is confirming that he will

not be appointed to that board, or whether he's confirming.... What is

he doing?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to help the member

remember the phrasing in his question. He asked if a commitment has

been made to any former cabinet minister — and he particularly named

one, Mr. Wesley Black — that he would head a particular Crown

corporation. I said no.

MR. LEA: Will the Premier then inform the House whether any

ex-MLA or cabinet minister will be appointed to head up the British

Columbia Building Corp.?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that

at the present time no one has been considered for the job, be he MLA

or ex-cabinet minister, because the job has not yet been identified.

Now I would also say that at the present time none of our members are

considering resigning for a sum of $80,000 to make way for anyone in

the private sector to take a seat in the Legislature.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Speaker, on a

supplementary to the Premier: is it true that the government is

planning the imminent announcement of Mr. Phil Gaglardi as the

provincial ombudsman for British Columbia? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I hate to keep correcting the

opposition but, as they know, the bill has not yet been called for

debate, and as they should well know, and as the member for

Revelstoke-Slocan should know....

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Bring in Phil.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: If the new second member for Vancouver East can contain himself in his excitement at being back on the payroll...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...I'd like to explain to him, as well as the member for Revelstoke-Slocan,

[ Page 2720 ]

that the bill specifically states that the new ombudsman would be selected by an all-party parliamentary committee.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's tragic that they haven't read the

legislation, a piece of legislation we are proud to have introduced,

and which should have been brought in before, a piece of legislation

that, among other reforms, was never brought in by that tragedy that

served this province the last three and a half years.

MR. KING: Further supplemental, Mr. Speaker: I just wonder why the Premier's got such a high, hysterical pitch to his voice today.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: If it is, it's only in trying to emulate the former Premier, whose high notes set a record in this province. (Laughter.)

MR. BARRETT: I've never been hysterical in my whole life.

RICHMOND PRIVATE HOSPITAL CLOSURE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, a non-musical

question to the Minister of Human Resources: with regard to the

further closure of another intermediate-care facility, namely Richmond

Private Hospital, and the fact that the closure is caused by inadequate

per-diem rates to cover the cost of operation, and since closure will

seriously disrupt the lives of 81 patients, several of whom are in

their 80s and 90s, will it be possible for the minister to alter his

earlier decision to meet with the hospital owners after the current

session and instead arrange an urgent meeting in the very near future?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr.

Speaker, we certainly are distressed at the fact that this hospital has

announced a possible closure on July 15 and in fact has advised the

residents there that this will be so.

We've had continued correspondence with the owners of the hospital.

We have suggested they should await the outcome of the review which is

presently taking place between Health and Human Resources to establish

not only an equitable rate, but a formula which might be used in place

of the ad hoc methods that were in place previously with respect to

dealing with the rates. We cannot deal with this one hospital because,

certainly, if we deal with this hospital while the review is going on,

we'll be faced with every hospital taking a similar action.

I can assure you, however, that we are still corresponding and

communicating with the hospital. The suggestion was made that we

purchase this facility. I have asked that he make a proposal giving a

price or whatever other information he can give us. We have not

received this as yet — however, the request was only recently made. And

we will find alternate accommodation should the closure take place.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary question: since this is an urgent,

immediate situation, does the minister have contingency plans for the

relocation of the 45 patients receiving social assistance? In that

relocation what distances are involved in moving the patients from

Richmond Private Hospital to their new location?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, we have definite plans, Mr. Speaker, and the distance will not be great. It will be a short distance.

DESIGNATION OF JERICHO HILL

SCHOOL SITE

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I have a question

to the Minister of Education with respect to the decision to

decentralize Jericho Hill School. Does the minister agree with Frances

Fleming, who is assistant superintendent of integrated and support

services, when she explained in The Columbian of May 31 that the reason

for lack of consultation with parents, staff and the adult deaf

community was: "We wanted to stay away from involving people with

vested interests"?

MR. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I think

that what the member says is absolutely correct. We do want to stay

away from following policies of those with vested interests. We are

interested in pursuing policies that will be helpful to the

communicatively impaired.

Perhaps while I am on my feet I could answer the question which I

took as notice from the hon. member yesterday with regard to Jericho

Hill School. He asked about the terms of reference for Mr. Anderson,

who is the co-ordinator there. His terms of reference are: first of

all, to serve in the capacity of co-ordinator; secondly, to form a

committee of teachers of the deaf to work with him in this capacity;

and thirdly, to consult every parent of a profoundly deaf child

presently attending Jericho Hill School to discuss the alternatives

that are open — which are to board at Jericho Hill and attend a class

there, to board at Jericho Hill and attend classes elsewhere, to board

at home and attend classes at Jericho Hill, or to board at home and to

attend classes elsewhere than at Jericho. The fourth term of

[ Page 2721 ]

reference is that no single parent will be forced to accept a

placement with which they do not agree. Fifth, looking beyond the

present situation, Mr. Anderson and his staff were instructed to

evaluate every class for the profoundly deaf in the province to assist

with the upgrading of services by making Jericho Hill a resource

available throughout British Columbia.

Secondly the member asked whether there was a maximum number of beds

or positions that would remain open at the Jericho Hill campus. It's a

leading question, Mr. Chairman, because it does speak on behalf of the

vested interests of those who are desirous of taking children who can

do better outside the Jericho Hill milieu and, despite that, seeing

that encouragement is given them to attend that institution. At the

present time, Mr. Speaker, Tyler House has 42 students in residence and

there are 20 empty beds in that one particular hall. Lawrence Hall,

another of-the currently occupied residences, has 39 students and

there's availability there for a further 11. Blake Hall for the blind

has 30 students in residence and there are beds at the present time for

another 40. In other words, in addition to the five buildings which are

currently in surplus at Jericho, there are a total of 71 beds, that are

empty. I repeat again, Mr. Speaker: the majority of the deaf children

in British Columbia now are being taught, and taught successfully —

more successfully than at Jericho — in their own communities. The

objective of the Department of Education is to do the best thing

possible for the communicatively impaired in the province of British

Columbia.

MR. GIBSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I am surprised the

minister doesn't consider parents and deaf as legitimate vested

interests in this particular case. He mentioned again today in this

House that there were five buildings at Jericho Hill School that are

currently unused. Is the minister aware that one building is unused

because it's the original school that is now condemned and until

recently was to be demolished, and that another is the old gymnasium,

not suitable for other uses? Individuals familiar with the

schoolgrounds don't know what the other three buildings could possibly

be. Could he tell us specifically the buildings he has in mind, in

addition to the two I have quoted?

HON. MR. McGEER: I would be happy to provide the member with

a map of Jericho Hill School and show him the surplus areas. I myself

have toured the facility, and I must strongly disagree with the member,

who I am not sure has toured that facility. The two buildings which he

says are unusable might well be put to very good use for the people of

British Columbia and save expensive facilities that might have to be

built elsewhere instead.

MR. GIBSON: A final supplementary: First of all, I want to

assure the minister that I have toured the site, and I didn't say those

buildings were unusable. I was questioning his saying there were five

unused. I would like to know when the terms of reference were issued

for the Anderson committee.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that's been in

the hands of the administrative officials in the department. I'll have

to get the exact date for the member, but I will be pleased to do that.

I would think it was about two or three months ago but I'll have to

check.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, Hon. Member, but the question period was terminated by the bell.

EMBARRASSMENT TO SPEAKER

BY SOCIAL CREDIT TELEGRAM

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement and file same with the House.

Leave granted.

MR. KAHL: Mr. Speaker, on June 10 a telegram was sent to

various municipal officials in northern British Columbia criticizing

the role of the opposition in relation to Bill 58. This telegram was

sent in the name of the Premier and those government MLAs from the

northern constituencies. It has come to my attention, as government

deputy caucus chairman, that the name of the Speaker of the House, the

Hon. D. Edward Smith, was listed among those MLAs, in error. I want to

assure this House and the hon. Speaker that the hon. Speaker took no

part in the sending of this telegram and has obviously been embarrassed

by this mistake because of the letter I received as deputy caucus

chairman from you.

The error was one of inadvertence, and on behalf of the government

caucus, I want to take this opportunity to correct any misapprehensions

which may have resulted, convey my apologies to the House, and

particularly to you, Mr. Speaker. I've apologized in writing to you on

behalf of the Social Credit caucus.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in response to the statement, I

would like to know who has the authority on the government side to sign

telegrams without checking with the MLAs who they're signing for. I

would like to know who has been delegated authority and how that

authority was delegated for one MLA to sign for another MLA without

checking with the MLA before such signature appears. If that is the

practice, it may spread to other parts of the House where telegrams are

sent without checking

[ Page 2722 ]

with the MLA. I'd like to know whether or not any MLA gave up their right

to be consulted before their name was put on any telegram or message. I think

we need to know that, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the apology, but I want

to know who had the authority to put a name on a telegram of another MLA without

checking with the MLA first.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, this is a most important statement that the

member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) has made, and it clears up one problem but

leads to another. I want to quote from May , where he says:

"Confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is an

indispensable condition of the successful working of procedure, and

many conventions exist which have as their object not only to ensure

the impartiality but also to ensure that his impartiality is generally

recognized."

Mr. Speaker, this telegram of which the hon. member speaks, which

was sent to numerous mayors along the British Columbia Railway line and

a purportedly signed by Your Honour, among other MLAs, was exactly such

an attack on the impartiality of the Speaker. I suggest to you, sir,

that it is important to the integrity of your office, and to the

impartiality, that an investigation be launched to determine exactly

how it was that your signature came to be affixed and, in effect,

forged by someone without your consent. I think it most important that

such an investigation be undertaken by an appropriate committee of this

House. I would ask Your Honour to so rule.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll take the matter under advisement, Hon. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: A forgery. It's a forgery! He said it was a forgery. That's what it is.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: While taking the matter under advisement, could you please

report back to the House whether or not you gave authority to anyone to use

your name and if there is a system that is working in the House that allows

MLAs to use other MLAs' names as signators without their permission?

As a further matter of privilege in your report, would you please inform us

if this was initiated by another MLA or by a press secretary or a press release

without checking with the MLAs concerned? I think it's very important, not

only for the Speaker but for all of us. I believe that the sanctity of our signatures

should be directly related to our authority to use those signatures, and I hope

that there is no system whereby this has been going on.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to add my expression of concern

that this happened and that it's important the House know in more detail,

by whatever mechanism, how it happened. I feel personally concerned since I played

a role on opening day in challenging the election of the Speaker on the kind of

grounds which are now being resurrected by the impact of this telegram. It therefore

is a responsibility particularly, I think, on behalf of those of us who challenged

the election of the Speaker and who have since taken no further

part in perpetuating

such kind of criticism. But now it is being raised again as a consequence of this

particular telegram, and therefore I would certainly respect your judgment as

to how you investigate this matter, but I say with great feeling that it is not

adequate, in my view, that the House should accept the explanation that has just

been given by the deputy caucus chairman.

MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate your words, Hon. Member, and they'll be

taken into consideration in due course.

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think it's

highly important that you, sir, in taking this matter under advisement,

notify the House whether or not you were aware that your name had been

attached to this telegram before the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl)

rose and gave the indication to the House this afternoon, and if so, why

Mr. Speaker did not draw it to the attention of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll take the matter under consideration, Hon.

Member, in the reply that I bring back. I think you'll be satisfied

that when I became aware of a telegram going out without my permission I

took the necessary steps, as Speaker, to reprimand the Social Credit

caucus.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's not a question of....

MR. SPEAKER: It's under advisement, Hon. Member, and you've already spoken twice to the matter.

[ Page 2723 ]

MR. BARRETT: You made a statement that you reprimanded Social

Credit, and the matter is this, Mr. Speaker: if you were aware, you

should have drawn the House's attention to it, not the Social Credit

caucus. You are responsible to this House, Mr. Speaker, and we need an

explanation of why you didn't bring it to the attention of the House

but just to Social Credit.

We're all members of this House, not that caucus over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your voice is getting high.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Absolutely shocking!

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF MINES

AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 130: minister's office, $80,964 — continued.

On the amendment.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Chairman, yesterday, after extensive cross-examination of the minister and his estimates it was made clear that....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Not in estimates, my friend.

It was made clear that the minister was waffling, that the minister

would not answer the questions that were clearly put to the minister,

and I have heard from some people — who I don't necessarily agree with

— that the minister was not intelligent enough to know what the proper

procedure was for a minister under the circumstances.

Well, I say I don't agree that the minister is dumb, and I would not

suggest that for a moment. I do not agree with those who say he is

naive. I think that he might pretend sometimes to be naive, Mr.

Chairman, but he's not naive.

He understands the conflict of interest involved in getting Mr. Lau

to draft a giveaway mining bill. That's why, when he first talked about

the committee that drafted the mining legislation — and this is to the

press, The Vancouver Sun , June 5, page 32 — he called Mr. Lau a

lawyer. He forgot all about the mining expertise which he was so

fulsome in describing to this House yesterday.

That's why he would not introduce his bill, Mr. Chairman, written by

his bosses in the mining industry, until after the by-election in

Vancouver East. He knew the conflict of interest existed, and the

Premier knew the conflict of interest existed, and they knew the public

would know the conflict prior to that election.

The day after the election he tabled the bill. That's why he joined

backbenchers yesterday in denying that he himself owns active B.C.

mining stock. That in itself, Mr. Chairman, is proof that he

understands there's a conflict. He said to this House yesterday, and I

quote: "My only holding in the mining industry is a dog, " he said.

AN HON. MEMBER: A mongrel!

MR. LAUK: "It has a small silver prospect in the Yukon

territory and absolutely no mining interest in British Columbia" — it's

890-1 of the Blues.

That was a defence, Mr. Chairman, but not a good one — a defence

nevertheless — a defence which, by the way, acknowledges the guilt of

those who do own stocks in B.C. mining companies who sit in this

Legislature, and that's why, after telling the press on June 5.... I

quote: "A committee of four, three from outside the Mines department,

drafted the mining legislation." He said "drafted," Mr. Chairman. They

were Jim Fyles, Deputy Minister of Mines, Jurgen Lau, lawyer, et cetera.

He told this House yesterday — page 890-2 of the Blues — and I

quote: "That member well knows...." He's referring to me, Mr. Chairman.

"That member well knows that legislation is drafted by

legislative counsel. Mr. Lau had nothing to do with the drafting of

that legislation. Mr. Lau and the other people who worked on that

committee presented a report to me; this report was then discussed at

our planning and priorities committee in our cabinet. The levels of

taxation were decided. This information was given to legislative

counsel, and that is where the bill was drafted."

That is where the

bill was drafted. And I repeat: "Mr. Lau," he says, "had nothing to do

with the drafting of that legislation."

In saying that, he called none other than Mr. Jurgen Lau a liar, for

Mr. Lau has said — and let me be accurate in quoting what he said — The

Vancouver Province , page 1, today: "Of course I saw it. I was assisting in drafting it. If you assist in drafting it, you can't help but see it."

I want to ask the minister now. I want to give him the opportunity

to stand in this House and clarify his statement made in the

Legislature as an MLA and minister of the Crown. Under oath to Her

Majesty, as minister of the Crown, he said, Mr. Chairman, that

[ Page 2724 ]

Mr. Lau had nothing to do with the drafting of that legislation. I

ask the minister now to stand in his place in this House and say that

that was not a correct statement. I want him to admit that he knew —

which he did know — that Mr. Lau did draft the legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Let him speak for himself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: The minister of war.

AN HON. MEMBER: The defence mechanism.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Henry Kissinger of the government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. May we have order on both sides?

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's have the dirt.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, it had not been my intention to speak on this amendment....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: But you couldn't contain yourself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: I reviewed some of the news — the things

that were said by the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) in the

Blues, which constitute a maligning not only of myself but of other

members of the House. The member, Mr. Chairman, suggested that somehow

I was guilty of an improper position in this House — and other members,

too — on account of holding mining stock in this province and therefore

profiting, theoretically, from a change in policy on the part of this

government, whose intention it is to put back on its feet an industry

that was virtually destroyed by the irresponsibility of the Leader of

the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk) and the Attorney-General and other cabinet members of the former

New Democratic government.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: One of the measures brought in by the former

Attorney-General — a measure that I support, Mr. Chairman — was the

public officials disclosure Act. I voted for that piece of legislation,

and I thought that the Attorney-General....

MR. LAUK: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please. Your point of order?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, when I raised the question first off

at estimates today, in committee, I asked the question of the Minister

of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland). I suggested that he lied. I suggested

that that lie must be admitted here today in an apology to the

committee. In the meantime, the Minister of Education has interrupted

these proceedings with a red herring of an argument. That is not in the

parliamentary conventions of this committee or this House.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Let me take this opportunity,

Mr. Minister, to remind all hon. members that that is not a legitimate

point of order. The proper procedure — although I did not wish to

interrupt you — is to wait until the end of the speech and, if there

are any inaccuracies or any corrections to be made, then that is the

time to make them.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, at the time that bill was

brought forward, there was a considerable outcry on the part of many

reasonable people who held public office in British Columbia, many of

them at the local level of government, who, while agreeing in principle

with that legislation, were worried that in the hands of irresponsible

individuals at some future time they might be unjustly maligned by

publicity that was totally unjustified and unfair being brought forward

by a person who lacked principle.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

HON. MR. McGEER: Now, Mr. Chairman, we're in precisely that

position with respect to the statements made by the member for

Vancouver Centre yesterday.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

[ Page 2725 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: He has done a disservice to the people of

British Columbia, to many members of this House, to a piece of

legislation that may have been well-conceived but which had this fatal

error in it, which could be exploited by a person lacking principle.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I don't own any mining stock in British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) on a point of order. State your point of order.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Education attacks me by saying that

I am without principle. I demand that he withdraw any imputation of my

character.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the point of order is this: he is imputing that I lack principle in bringing to public view...

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: ...this behind-the-scenes coverup behind this legislation.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please. May I ask the

hon. minister if he was imputing any improper motive to the first

member for Vancouver Centre?

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, I suppose, Mr. Chairman, that within his standards...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. McGEER: ...he is not guilty of any improper motives.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I have to ask the hon. minister: were you imputing any improper motives?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I will....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! May I ask the hon. minister: were you imputing any improper motives to the first member for Vancouver Centre?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I will with pleasure withdraw and ask the member, following my remarks, to search his conscience. Is that fair?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. He withdraws.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the implication was clearly

made in the statements by the member for Vancouver Centre, and repeated

in the press yesterday, that I, as one member of this House, owned

mining stock in British Columbia and therefore might profit by the bill

brought down by the hon. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland). The

point I wish to make is that I own no mining shares in British

Columbia. I have two certificates of folly, one a mining corporation

that went out of business some 20 years ago in the province of Ontario,

and never held any claims in British Columbia and never had any

pretensions to hold any claims.

MR. LAUK: Are you sure?

HON. MR. McGEER: The stock is worthless. I would be happy to give it to the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, as a gift.

I also, Mr. Chairman....

MR. LAUK: Are you sure?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. McGEER: I also, Mr. Chairman, would be pleased to

give as a gift to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre the other

certificate of folly, which is for a non-existent or defunct copper

property in the Yukon Territories. Other members may have mining stock

in other provinces and British Columbia. I hope for their sake that they

are not certificates of folly, as are mine.

The point, Mr. Chairman, is simply this: that information was

available to the member who raised this issue on the floor of the

House, trying to draw an improper imputation to myself, to other

members of this House and to the minister. He failed to determine

whether or not the information he was presenting to this House was

false or true. He failed to act in a responsible fashion. The reason

why.... People who refused to run for public office at the time the

Attorney-General brought that bill down were people who anticipated

that elected to public life in British Columbia would be people of the

calibre of the member for Vancouver Centre.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I think in this

[ Page 2726 ]

respect it is worthwhile for the former Attorney-General to review

his position, because it was the former Attorney-General who sponsored

this bill, enthusiastically supported by the NDP caucus, with the idea

it would let sunshine in, in the affairs of the province of British

Columbia.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): So it has, and you know it!

HON. MR. McGEER: "So it has," said the former

Attorney-General. Yet who was the man who first hired Mr. Lau, who was

so severely criticized by the member for Vancouver Centre at the time

he demanded that the Minister of Mines resign? Mr. Chairman, it was the

Attorney-General who first hired that consultant. And what did he hire

the consultant to do? The former Attorney-General hired that consultant

to draft mining legislation for the province of British Columbia and

for the NDP government.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, what were those bills that

this man worked on — this man who the member for Vancouver Centre has

demanded that the Minister of Mines resign on account of? He worked for

the Attorney-General on the drafting of Bill 44; he worked for the

Attorney-General drafting Bill 101; he worked for the Attorney-General

drafting Bill 92, the Coal Act. In each of these cases the bills were

message bills. But that consultant was paid and hired by the

Attorney-General.

Mr. Chairman, we don't say that that is wrong, but by the NDP's own

standards, why was it that the Attorney-General, at the time he hired

that consultant, did not disclose to this House and to the people of

British Columbia the mining interests of the man he engaged?

Why didn't he do that? Why was it, Mr. Chairman, that that member

sat as a backbencher during those years and didn't demand the

resignation of the Attorney-General, as he demanded the resignation of

the Minister of Mines? Where were his standards then? Where were they?

Where was his conscience then?

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Is this the minister who was so unsure of

himself when he left office that he had to take his files with him? —

and which the government may have to move to attempt to recover.

AN HON. MEMBER: The people's files.

HON. MR. McGEER: Did the member for Vancouver Centre complain

about...? Did he sell mining stocks short after he drafted those bills?

Did he make a profit on it, Mr. Chairman?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: The hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

has just accused me of breaching the law. He's dropped an innuendo —

did I sell mining stocks short?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no!

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: It's a breach of the law, Mr. Chairman. Ask him to withdraw that remark.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

We can clear the matter just by asking the minister: were you imputing any improper motive to this member for Vancouver Centre?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The answer is?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

HON. MR. McGEER: The member is agitated, Mr. Chairman, and

he's not listening to what was said. I said, did Mr. Lau make money by

selling mining stocks short?

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: It certainly is, Mr. Chairman. Because if he

did, then he would have violated the code of ethics that he has as a

member of the bar and he should be disbarred.

Mr. Chairman, if the member for Vancouver Centre thinks that took

place at the time he was a consultant to the NDP drafting their

legislation or at the time he acted as consultant to the Minister of

Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland) drafting this legislation, then he should

step outside the House and make that accusation so the member can

defend himself. I'm talking about Mr. Lau.

Mr. Chairman, let the member for Vancouver Centre put his honour

where his mouth is outside in the corridor and make that charge. If he

has neither the courage not the honour to do that, then let him

[ Page 2727 ]

resign for conflict of interest right here in this House. Mr.

Chairman, I find it very interesting that the Leader of the Opposition

has suddenly left this chamber. Because he knows, just as the former

Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald), the former Premier (Mr. Barrett) and

the former Minister of Mines know perfectly well, that in the fall of

1973 this same consultant was called over to a meeting here in Victoria

and was shown the Mineral Royalties Act before it was brought into this

House as a message bill. I'm saying the people who were present at that

meeting were the former Premier, the former Attorney-General, the

Deputy Attorney-General and the senior counsel for drafting that

legislation.

Mr. Chairman, if that was so wrong, why didn't the Attorney-General,

who sponsored this conflict-of-interest legislation, declare that

before the House? Why didn't the Premier who was yesterday demanding

the resignation of the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland)...?

AN HON. MEMBER: Former Premier.

HON. MR. McGEER: Former Premier, and never again to be Premier...

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: ...and never again to be Attorney-General, and

never again to be a minister of the Crown. Why? Because of this double

standard — they were expecting something of someone else that they

wouldn't live up to themselves, demanding a resignation of this

minister, and yet they initiated a procedure such as this. Far more

guilty than ever this minister, they refused to make the declaration

for the House and stand behind the legislation that they themselves

introduced.

Mr. Chairman, I heard part of the debate yesterday demanding to know

why the Minister of Mines didn't instantly answer the question about

the meeting that Mr. Lau was present at. Why couldn't he answer

immediately, Mr. Chairman? Because he wasn't at the meeting, that's

why. Yes, the Attorney-General was at the meeting when Mr. Lau was

present, when the Mineral Royalties Act was discussed. The former

Premier, who was demanding his resignation, was at a meeting where that

gentleman was at.

Mr. Chairman, what are we supposed to have in this province — one

standard for the NDP when they're in office? Is that what we're

supposed to live by in this province? We're told over here to abide by

one set of rules that they themselves totally ignored when they were in

office.

Mr. Chairman, the member for Vancouver Centre isn't worthy to sit in

this House. This particular amendment is the most hypocritical

amendment I've ever seen presented to this Legislature in 14 years.

It's a disgrace, and I'm going to vote against it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please!

MR. S. BAWLF: (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I would just like to

call to the attention of the House the advice given to the House

yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. BAWLF: ...which was a point of order itself. I just would

wish to repeat it, Mr. Chairman. When an hon. member of this House is

on his feet and a matter is raised which is objectionable to him, he

should wait until the hon. member who is addressing the House has taken

his place — has sat down.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. first member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) has failed to heed the advice even of his

own leader in that regard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for helping us try to enforce the standing orders.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I attempted, at the beginning of the

Minister of Education's — or the minister of defence's — remarks, to

interrupt him and ask him to withdraw remarks that would impute

improper motives on my part toward the last part of his comments. I

just did not bother to do so. He continued to dishonour me in this

House, saying that I was not worthy to sit in this House, simply

because I had made an honest attempt to expose to public view...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: ...the underhanded, backroom activities of their government in the drafting of a giveaway bill.

He said that the statements I made yesterday with respect to the

holdings of 16 government MLAs...he imputed that I didn't find out

whether it was true or false. I got the information from their own

personal signed and sworn declarations.

Now if I can't rely on their own word, and that's why he's

suggesting.... He is suggesting that I cannot rely on his word; I

cannot rely on the member for Victoria's (Mr. Bawlf'

s) word and the

Minister of Economic Development's (Hon. Mr. Phillips') word. He said

that I didn't bother to find out whether they're true or false. He's

suggesting that the declarations could either be true or false. He's

bringing dishonour on the members of this House to whom I referred

yesterday as holding shares in mining

[ Page 2728 ]

companies. So that bunch of claptrap is just simply that.

Secondly, he states that Mr. Lau was hired by the former

administration, and so on and so forth. I had charged, and I have

charged again, two things: one that Mr. Lau drafted the legislation

that was tabled in this House. The minister denied it. Mr. Lau said he

did. Mr. Lau, whenever he was retained by the previous administration,

I'm told — I wasn't in the cabinet.... And I might point out that I was

in the cabinet when the mineral royalties legislation came down, but I

never met Mr. Lau.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: But I should tell you, Mr. Chairman, that to my

information, Mr. Lau never saw a draft of the legislation before this

committee. He never saw a draft until....

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): Are you saying he didn't?

MR. LAUK: That's the information I have.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Hon. members, order, please.

MR. LAUK: The charge that I'm making is that Mr. Lau drafted the

bill before this House. The minister deliberately lied to this House yesterday

and said that he did not. I have given the minister the opportunity on two

different occasions to qualify his remark. He will not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: I repeat again....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! May I ask the hon. first member for Vancouver

Centre to withdraw the remark "he lied to the House"? You've

been a member long enough to know that we can't have that in here.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please withdraw.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The first member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

MR. NICOLSON: I thought I had risen on a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and we are on a point of order. May I ask

the hon. member for Nelson-Creston to please release the floor until we

have resolved the last point of order?

MR. NICOLSON: Well, you've already allowed his thing to go on all afternoon. I'm wondering why it's becoming an issue now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. NICOLSON: You have obviously tacitly implied that the minister has lied to this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please! You are out of order.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: He said it before and you never stopped it; why should you stop it now? It's as true now as it was them.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Hon. members, the Chair was

listening to a point of order which had not yet been resolved since the

Chair had clearly asked the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre to

withdraw a statement that was unparliamentary. When we have completed

that point of order, the Chair would be very happy to entertain a second

point of order from the member for Nelson-Creston.

Now, please, can we have order in this House?

The first member for Vancouver Centre, would you please withdraw the remarks "he lied to the house"?

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I pointed out yesterday...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: ...that the minister had said that Mr. Lau had nothing to

do with the drafting of that legislation.

[ Page 2729 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! We are not interested in what happened yesterday.

MR. LAUK: I've asked the minister....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. LAUK: I've asked the.minister to clarify his remarks. He has not done so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ask the hon. member the second time: will you withdraw the remark that he lied to the House?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, yesterday I pointed out....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: Today I pointed out that the minister has told an untruth to this House....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! May I ask the hon. first member

for Vancouver Centre the third time: will he withdraw the remark that

he lied to the House?

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the minister has committed a dishonourable act by refusing to stand in this House and clarify his position.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre

leaves the Chair no alternative but to now order him to withdraw the

remark that the minister lied to the House. Does the member withdraw?

AN HON. MEMBER: Headline hunter!

AN HON. MEMBER: Throw him out!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. member withdraw?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Can we maintain order in the House while the Speaker is approaching the chamber?

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, in Committee of Supply, while we

were debating an amendment to vote 130, a statement was made by the

first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) that the minister whose

vote we are debating — the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland) —

lied to the House. I asked him on three separate occasions to withdraw

the remark, and he refused. Furthermore, I had to order the hon. member

to withdraw the remark, and he still refused.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, the Chairman has reported to the

Speaker that in the course of debate you have accused the minister of

lying to the House. I think the member is fully aware that to allege

that a minister has lied to the House is unparliamentary and, therefore,

must be withdrawn. I would ask you, as an hon. member, because you

fully understand the rules of the House, to withdraw any allegation

that the minister lied to the House. Will the hon. member do so?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the rules of

parliament, but I have my own integrity. For me to withdraw the charge

now would be dishonourable on my part, in my own estimation of what I

have just done. I am so compelled by that sense of honour — the higher

one, in my view, which is "to your own self be true" — that I cannot

withdraw the remark.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I must then order you to withdraw

the offensive statement. I so order, Hon. Member. Will the hon. member

obey the decision of the Chair?

In that case, Hon. Member, I have no recourse according to the

standing rules of our own House, which you understand and which I must

uphold. I order you to withdraw from the chamber for the remainder of

today's sitting.

Interjection.

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

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr.

[ Page 2730 ]

Chairman, I would like to report three things with which I am not...and I'm being somewhat critical here....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We must have the point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: The point of order is that.... I'd like to deal

with two different points of order, but one, the more serious, was the

fact that you allowed the same accusation of lying to go by unnoticed

earlier. I think you didn't fulfil the responsibility of the Chair; and

I think Hansard will show that...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. NICOLSON: ...the same accusation of lying was said earlier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That's not a point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, not dealing with it at the

first available opportunity has perhaps led to the situation which has

developed here this afternoon.

The other point of order is that the hon. first member for Victoria

(Mr. Bawlf) rose objecting to someone drawing immediate attention to

the fact that something unparliamentary was being said. He was

confusing it with standing order 43, which enables an hon. member to

get up and be recognized out of turn when some misinformation has been

raised, but nothing that imputes improper motives. There is a

difference there, and I would hope that in the interests of decorum you

would maybe take the time — although I recognize that you're trying to

expedite debate — but it might in the long run expedite debate if you

were to fully explain that rule to the member so that he wouldn't be

labouring under any misapprehension.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I appreciate your good advice.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, in the House in the past hour — less than an hour....

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're now on the amendment.

MR. COCKE: On the amendment, Mr. Chairman, and following the

great speech by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), that

minister told the House that the NDP — in his words — destroyed mining

industry jobs in this province.

Mr. Chairman, just to disorganize the totally disoriented member, I would like

to let him know hat his colleague, the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland)

, let slip an interesting fact during his speech on second reading of a bill

that is before the House, when he said: "Directly in this province there

are some 16,000 to 17,000 people employed by the mining industry." That's

today, Mr. Chairman. Now his revelation gives the lie to the myth that the Socreds

have tried to spread through the media so strenuously to justify the admitted

huge tax concessions that they're giving to the industry because of their

open financial support at the last election. Their own words prove that thousands

of jobs were created during this period, because statistics from the industry

itself, as published by Price Waterhouse, on the mining in B.C. show that direct

mining employment was 14,500 in 1972 when the NDP took power.

The irrelevancies uttered in defence of a defenceless situation by

the Minister of Defence, the Minister of Education, show again that in

order to justify what they're doing, in order to justify what they're

saying, in order to justify their direction, they use premises that can

best be described as false premises. I suggest that where there's been

an increase in the work force during those years, how can that group,

that coalition calling themselves government, come out with an argument

by a so-called senior minister — a minister vested with all sorts of

responsibilities on the government side — how can he come out and make

a statement like he did today and go unchallenged? Their very words

show that his statement was based in non-fact.

Mr. Chairman, I think we should all regard the carrying on that has

taken place as something that we are not, any of us, too happy with. We

recognize that the Minister of Mines had a very difficult

responsibility and a difficult portfolio to fill because of all the

wild statements that had been made by former candidates, now ministers

and now MLAs. How could he live in a climate with all those promises,

with all those statements? So naturally he has been very confused.

I say, Mr. Chairman, in speaking to this amendment, how can we but

support the amendment when the minister has fallen into trap after trap

set by his colleagues and set by himself? We all feel that this House

had better recognize that if we are to achieve the kind of proper

direction for this province, we have to have proper leadership. We have

been afforded very little leadership from this government that has been

taking us from crisis to crisis, sad situation to sad situation. Then,

as almost the epitome, to provide the kind of evidence in support of

this minister who is doing his best to reward his friends...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[ Page 2731 ]

MR.COCKE: ...the government's friends!

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Shame! Shame!

MR. COCKE: Shame all you like. Shame all you like.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I can say no more but to say that we can do nothing other than support the amendment before the House.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I rise this afternoon to

speak against this amendment. I must say that I am disappointed that in

the last little while we have seen the return of the type of sewer-pipe

debate that used to be prevalent in this House. Mr. Chairman, we have

only seen that return to the sewer-pipe debate since the return of the

ex-Premier, the now second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett).

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: He was responsible for this type of debate

when he led that party in opposition for a long number of years. He was

responsible for that gutter type of debate in this Legislature while he

was Premier of this province, and now we have a return.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that during the period of time when the

member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) was acting leader of the NDP,

we noted that the debate in this Legislature was on a very high plane.

While that member for Revelstoke-Slocan led that party, they started to

gain some respect from the House, from the voting public of this

province and indeed from the business community of this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now that that leader has returned — that

political opportunist who was on hire to the party as a leader for a

grand a month while he ran to gain election in Vancouver East — now

that he is back in the House, Mr. Chairman, some of his blind followers

are taking up the same type of gutter debate that he has been

responsible for, for so many years in this House. I am sad to say, Mr.

Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I interrupt the hon. minister just long enough to remind you that we are on the amendment...

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...which talks about a reduction in salary? The debate must be held very closely to the amendment.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am well aware of

that. It is the type of debate that I am referring to that has led to

this amendment being tabled on the floor of this Legislature. I am just

sorry to say, Mr. Chairman, that some of the blind followers in the

party opposite, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), the member who

was just relieved of his seat and asked to retire from this Legislature

— degrading all the members of this Legislature, I might say.

Mr. Chairman, it is bitterness on the part of that group that brings

in amendments of this type that we have to debate here today. That's

the reason we have this type of debate, because that party.... We would

not be debating this amendment if it were not for the bitterness that

that group over there has in their hearts because they lost the last

election. They are trying to still fight the battles of the last

election, while we on this side are trying to give leadership and to

restore a sound, basic economy to this province.

Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of entering this debate. I had no

intention of speaking against this debate and trying to point out to

the members of this Legislature why they should vote against this

particular amendment, of bringing up any of the mistakes that that

group over there made while they were in government. I think that

because of the type of debate that we are having in this House, Mr.

Chairman, so that the new members of the House will know and be able to

vote intelligently on this debate, I must mention just a few of those

mistakes.

I had entirely forgotten about them, but when the debate lowers in

the Legislature.... As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) has

said, "Remember, Mr. Chairman," he said, and I heard him say it during

his raving speech yesterday, "you can't have it both ways." So in order

that members of the House, both on this side and on that side of the

Legislature, may be informed, I would like to inform the House, Mr.

Chairman, about some of the sweetheart deals that were made, because in

speaking against this amendment, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. You'll have to relate the remarks to the amendment.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, in speaking against this amendment I

want to point out that there were sweetheart deals made by the member

who was just asked to leave this House — the first member for Vancouver

Centre, (Mr. Lauk). I want to say that all members should stand and

vote against this salary reduction amendment, because I want them to

realize, Mr. Chairman, that there were sweetheart

[ Page 2732 ]

deals made by that member, who stood so piously in this House....

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

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, is

it appropriate for the member to make accusations with such words as

"sweetheart agreements" against a member who cannot be with us during

this debate? And is it related at all to the amendment to the main

motion that we're dealing with?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point is well taken. I will ask the

Minister of Economic Development to relate his remarks to the

amendment. I say for the second time that the amendment reads that the

salary of the minister in vote 130 be reduced by $1. All remarks made

must relate to the amendment.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am relating my

remarks to the amendment. I am trying to say why I am voting against it

and to advise members of this House why they should vote against it.

With regard, Mr. Chairman, to the point that the Leader of the

Opposition brought up — that the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk)

can no longer protect himself because he is not in this Legislature —

let me suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that that member for Vancouver

Centre probably had some inkling of what I was going to bring up and

wanted to be removed from this Legislature...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Back to the amendment.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I am just answering the Leader of the Opposition's point.

...instead of staying in his place and listening to what I had to say this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, we're talking about reducing the salary of the

Minister of Mines. That minister's salary is being reduced because he's

being accused of certain things which to date have been unfounded. Mr.

Chairman, I accuse the member for Vancouver Centre, a man who supports

this amendment, of making a sweetheart deal outside of this Legislature

with a particular mining company.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I must ask you again, hon. Minister....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, we're talking about the

salary of the Minister of Mines, and I am pointing out to you that this

is very relevant to the motion before us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please speak to the amendment.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: This whole thing centres around a piece of

legislation that was tabled in this House, and the whole gutter debate

that has been brought on yesterday centres around this motion, Mr.

Chairman. I say to you that it is very relevant, because there was a

sweetheart deal made. Mr. Chairman, to back up my statement, I would

just like to quote to you from a letter which was dated October

17, 1975, signed by the Hon. Gary V. Lauk, the member for Vancouver

Centre, who at that time, Mr. Chairman, was the Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources. I want you to pay particular attention, Mr.

Chairman, to the dating of this letter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On a point of order, the first member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: I think there are two points involved here,

Mr. Chairman. One is that you don't attack somebody who is not able to

defend himself, because that would indicate moral qualities which the

member would quickly think better of, if he thought about it at all.

The other point is that this discussion is obviously irrelevant to the

debate, which is a reduction in the salary of the Minister of Mines. It

has nothing to do with the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk); it

is the reduction in salary of the Minister of Mines by the sum of $1.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. I would ask the hon.

minister to show his remarks are relevant. Hon. members of the House

are aware of the fact that sometimes the member takes a little longer

than some other members to get to the relevancy, and so I have been as

patient as I know how. Hon. Minister, once again I must ask you to keep

your remarks strictly relevant to the amendment.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, as I said before, the member

for Vancouver Centre chose not to be in the House because he knew that

I was probably going to bring this up. It is so relevant that he wanted

to have himself fired from this Legislature instead of standing here

and facing the music.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the opposition are very,

very nervous this afternoon, but I would suggest to you that this is

very relevant to the amendment which we have before us, because the

true meaning of the amendment is a complete loss of faith in the

present Minister of Mines. That's really what it intends to do. I want

to relate to you in my remarks this afternoon, because certain people's

characters have been put on the line in the gutter

[ Page 2733 ]

type of debate, Mr. Chairman, that we had yesterday afternoon, and this is all very relevant.

We're talking about the developing of mining legislation. It was the

debate about the mining legislation and the development of mining

legislation that created this amendment. Therefore I want to talk to

you about creation of mining legislation by the then Minister of Mines

and Petroleum Resources, the member for Vancouver Centre, who had

himself evicted from this Legislature this afternoon rather I than stay

here and face the music.

MR. MACDONALD: You wouldn't say that if he was here.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'd say that.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Minister of Economic Development has the floor.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I can understand him being so nervous, and

I can certainly understand the then Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald)

being so nervous today.

MR. MACDONALD: He won't attack me — I'm here.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Your time will come, Mr. Attorney-General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: But if they'd allow me to carry on, Mr.

Chairman.... And they know as well as you know and the rest of the

House knows that I am perfectly in order.

This letter, Mr. Chairman, that I've referred to was probably in the

missing files which are buried in the member's basement, which the now

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), who was then Premier,

instructed civil servants to have removed from my office. This is a

letter, Mr. Chairman, that would have been in those files had they

remained in my office. I can see why the files were removed, because

they also contain, Mr. Chairman, mining legislation which that

government was going to bring in had they been re-elected last December.

Just to prove how right I am, Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote

from this letter. It goes to Dr. N.B. Keeble, Jr., Teck Corp. Everybody

in the House knows that Teck Corp. is one of the largest mining

companies in Canada.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Minister, may I interrupt you just once

again, with great respect? Perhaps the line of debate that you are now

embarking on might better be discussed under the proper vote. We are

now on an amendment which really narrows the debate strictly to the

reduction of the salary of the minister. I make that suggestion to you

with great respect.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, what we're debating is the

loss of confidence by the opposition in this minister. This is very

relevant, because it deals with proposed mining legislation by the now

opposition. It's very relevant, and I wish to point out to you and the

members of this House, Mr. Chairman, why we should vote against this

amendment. This is very relevant. I realize that the opposition are

very touchy about this point, Mr. Chairman, but this happens to be dead

on the relevancy to this amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I wish to prove to the House

this afternoon, so that they can vote against this amendment, that the

first member for Vancouver Centre made a sweetheart deal promising

legislation with a company, with no legislation to back it up. The

House was not even sitting, and he made this sweetheart deal with Teck

Corp., Mr. Chairman, and yet he is the one who is supporting this

amendment.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I'd like you to weigh some of the facts....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if

you would explain for the House's benefit just what the limitations of

debate are on the matter of dealing with a motion of non-confidence in

the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any time an amendment is introduced to a main

motion, it restricts the scope of debate to a great degree. As a matter

of fact, May outlines for us the fact that the debate on an amendment

must be strictly related to the amendment itself, and perhaps debate

that would relate to a broader scope might better be reserved until the

amendment is dealt with and the main motion returns to the floor. I've

made that suggestion to the minister with great respect.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, what I will say is: can that

minister ever be accused of writing a letter to a mining corporation

and stating these words? Can he be accused of that? Can he ever be

accused of writing a letter to a private corporation before legislation

was introduced, Mr. Chairman? Can

[ Page 2734 ]

he ever be accused of stating these words? Has he ever written a

letter like this, Mr. Chairman? Did he ever say to a mining company:

"You are aware that we have under review a series of studies which may

well lead to new incentives for industrial development and employment

opportunities within the province"?

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Have you ever written a letter, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. Minister, I have been

waiting for you to demonstrate that the line of reasoning that you are

now following is not necessarily relevant to the minister's estimates

but relevant to this particular amendment. I must ask you now, Hon.

Minister, to show, perhaps by following a different line of reasoning,

that you intend to speak to the amendment itself. I am sorry that I

must restrict you in this manner but the standing orders and May insist

that I do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Follow the great Root Bear.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On a point of order, the Minister of Consumer Services.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, on the point that you have

raised, if I may, it seems to me that if we're going to pass judgment

on a minister by reducing his salary, perhaps by $1, we have to have

something by which to judge it. The Minister of Economic Development is

giving the standard by which Ministers of Mines are judged. I suggest

to the Chair that that is very relevant. It is the only relevant thing

that has been said in this chamber thus far, except what was said by the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) .

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, we're dealing with an amendment to

reduce the minister's salary by $1. The argument is related to points

whether or not we agree on whether that minister's salary should be

reduced by $1 or not. It has absolutely nothing to do with any other

member of this chamber. To use the spurious argument that some other

cabinet minister now sitting might buy a ticket to the moon but this

minister is too rational to do that has nothing to do with the

argument. The behaviour, the attitudes or the performance of anyone

else is not what this amendment deals with. It is the behaviour, the

performance and the attitudes of that minister, and all the fogging and

all the devious means of avoiding that amendment will not deter from

the fact that you must vote, sooner or later, simply on the amendment,

which is in order, and confine yourselves to dealing with the sitting

minister.

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

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): On a real point of order, I wish

you'd keep order here, because all the time the hon. minister was

speaking the Leader of the Opposition was intoning something. I call

for order because we expect in this House to be able to hear what the

minister or anybody else is saying. If that opposition will continue to

intone sounds, I can't hear down here what he was saying. That's a

point of order, and I am sure you heard it. I wish you'd call him to

order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, on a proper point of order....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! We can't move from one point of

order to another point of order without first resolving the previous

point of order. I want to thank the member for Dewdney, who wishes to

have standing order 17(2) enforced more strictly. I shall do that.

MR. BARRETT: If you can't hear me, come out in the corridor and I'll repeat it for you.

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

MR. BARRETT: No, I am just trying to clarify....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Son of a gun.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I regret all of the

interruptions, so I'll carry on. I would suggest that we should vote

against this amendment because this minister has never made any

sweetheart deals with any mining company. This minister has not written

letters to any mining company promising new legislation. This minister

has never written letters to any mining company promising royalties on

copper. This minister has not written to any mining companies

reassuring them that there would be mining legislation introduced in

the fall, assuring them that he would recommend to this Legislature

certain mining legislation by which those companies would go ahead and

build a multi-million-dollar smelter.

[ Page 2735 ]

I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that we should vote against this. The

new Leader of the Opposition, who has brought the debate in this Legislature

back to the gutter type that it was while he was Leader of the Opposition, says

you can't have it both ways, Mr. Chairman. I want to tell you sincerely,

Mr. Chairman, that I had no intention of getting into this debate.

MR. BARRETT: You haven't yet. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, that's the type of remark

that comes from that man. He has never stood up and made a positive

statement in this House as Premier or as Leader of the Opposition.

That's the type of garbage that you get from that member, and the people

of the province will recognize it. He's bitter because he was

government and they threw him out! After trying to become government

for 12 years, he led this province down the garden path, and now he's

bitter because the people of this province threw him out. He'll remain

over there in opposition year after year after year because....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. Member, to the amendment.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I urge the members of this House, Mr. Chairman, to vote against this amendment.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): I was interested in many

of the epithets used by the previous speaker in debating this

amendment, Mr. Chairman. Quite frankly, I felt the debate was a

rational one in the House yesterday when we talked about the

performance of the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland), where we

talked about the tradition of parliament in terms of ministerial

responsibility, in terms of the proper security for bills that are

introduced by message, bills that have the effect of imposing taxation

or changing revenue — dealing with revenue in any way. It's a

longstanding tradition and one that is taken very seriously by all

parliaments and, indeed, I had thought heretofore, by all

parliamentarians.

That is the issue, Mr. Chairman, that is before the House, and all

of the wild, emotional diatribes, like that indulged in by the Minister

of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) in launching personal

attacks on the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) and upon the

mover of the motion, will not sidetrack the issue that is before this

House.

The Minister of Economic Development seems to know a great deal about gutter pipes and garbage.

AN HON. MEMBER: Settling pools, septic tanks.

MR. KING: He seems to be an authority in those areas —

settling pools, septic tanks, and so on. And let him have his realm,

his sphere of interest, Mr. Chairman; I have no objection to that — no

objection whatsoever. But the Minister of Mines is responsible for

something more crucial to the economy of British Columbia, something

far more valuable, and that is the minerals and the ores, and the wise

administration and the wise custody of those resources on behalf of he

people of the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. KING: The question is, then: has the Minister of Mines

performed his duties as a cabinet minister in conformity with

parliamentary tradition? Has he exercised those duties well on behalf

of the people of British Columbia, with proper respect for the wise

husbandry of our resources...

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. KING: ...or has he breached the rules of parliament and

the common rules of good conduct that should be expected of any cabinet

minister?

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to you that it's interesting to took at

some of the material put out by the Mining Association of British

Columbia. They put out a letter last November, during the election

campaign, and they indicated that a copy of this letter was sent to all

candidates in that provincial election. This one is addressed to me,

and in the third paragraph of that letter they state, very clearly: "We

believe that taxes should be related to profits." In other words, they

object to the royalty principle in terms of minerals. They conclude

with: "If you wish further detail, will you please contact me, and I will

be happy to provide whatever you need."

The real issue here, Mr. Chairman, is: should the mining industry be

allowed to write their own ticket in terms of the price that they pay

for the resources of British Columbia? Should they be allowed to do

this? Should the fox be let into the chicken coop by the minister who

is supposed to be...?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! On a point of order, the Minister of Consumer Services.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm very much pained to

rise, particularly in light of the injunction of the hon. Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Barrett) yesterday that we should only rise at the end

of a speech. However, since he has done it twice today and all the

opposition have continued to do it....

[ Page 2736 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you on a point of order?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that if the hon. Minister

of Economic Development was out of order a moment ago, then the member for

Revelstoke-Slocan is three times out of order right now. I ask the Chair to

bring him to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The same rules to both sides of the House. Would the hon.

member for Revelstoke-Slocan continue and keep his remarks strictly relevant

to the amendment?

MR. KING: I certainly shall, Mr. Chairman. I have great respect for

the wisdom of Mr. Chairman, and I know that he will be very diligent in making

sure that I am held to order.

Mr. Chairman, what I am talking about is the Minister of Mines and

Forests' responsibility, his jurisdiction, his area of purview as a

minister. I am attempting to show that through his conduct he does not

deserve the confidence of this House, and therefore the motion, which

is one of tradition and one of censure which would reduce his salary by

$1, is well justified in this House.

He seems to have heeded the call of the mining industry. He has brought in

a bill in which he admits a person who was in a position of some conflict in

terms of his profession and in terms of his relationship with large mining corporations

was involved in the drafting — a bill that has the precise effect of delivering

to the mining industry precisely what they called for during the last election campaign, in November and December of 1975.

AN HON. MEMBER: You hired him.

MR. KING: And further, Mr. Chairman, when that Minister of Mines was

questioned in the House yesterday, he was very reticent to give information

to the House regarding the discharge of his duties as Minister of Mines.

He was constantly questioned, both by the first member for Vancouver Centre

(Mr. Lauk) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) as to whether or

not some individual, precisely Mr. Jurgen Lau, had been privy to a draft of

a message bill prior to its presentation to this House, and that is the issue.

That is the issue, Mr. Chairman, and all of the diversions by

various ministers of defence will not change that question that lies

before this House — and indeed, whether or not any past minister was

remiss, a question which no body of proof has been submitted to

support, is irrelevant in any event.

We are dealing with the conduct of issues before this House now. We

are dealing with the ministerial responsibility of the Minister of

Mines — a minister of the Crown responsible for an extremely wealthy

area in this province, that realm of metals and ore.

As I said, Mr. Chairman, the minister yesterday was most reticent to

answer the legitimate question put to him by members of this House. At

one point it as reported by Hansard in the Blues, Mr. Chairman, on page

890-2 of the Blues, the minister finally did answer and he said, and I

quote a portion of his response:

"Mr. Lau had nothing to do with the drafting of that

legislation. Mr. Lau and the other people who worked on that committee

presented a report to this minister. This report was then discussed in

our planning and priorities committee. In our cabinet the levels of

taxation were decided, this information was given to legislative

counsel, and that is where the bill was drafted."

Now, Mr. Chairman, there is an unequivocal denial that Mr. Jurgen Lau

had anything to do either with the drafting of the legislation or indeed

was privy to the contents of that legislation.

Later on, apparently after members of the press gallery had hurried out of the

House and contacted Mr. Jurgen Lau by telephone, the minister was again queried....

Interjection.

MR. KING: Well, there's the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Fraser) now apparently ready to conduct a vendetta against one member

of the press gallery who had had the temerity to question, in the best

investigative reporting fashion, the veracity of charges that were made

in this House. Is that some kind of ominous threat from the treasury

benches, now that members of the press might be sanctioned and might be

victimized in some way for reporting something that was adverse to the

government? It wouldn't be the first time. It wouldn't be the first time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And now to the amendment.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, after that enterprising reporter — and I'm

not aware who it was; quite frankly I'm not aware who that reporter was,

but I congratulate them for their ingenuity — after that reporter came back to

this House and apparently told someone that, in fact, Mr. Jurgen Lau had admitted

drafting and viewing the message bill before it was introduced to this House,

a bill which provided vast new sources of revenue to the mining industry, millions

of dollars, through the elimination of royalties, the hon. Minister of Mines

(Hon. Mr. Waterland) found his tongue.

He came alive, that reticent little minister who had sat there all afternoon with florid features and

[ Page 2737 ]

refused to comment. He has this to say in response to the question

by the first member for Vancouver Centre, when the first member for

Vancouver Centre said: "Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lau did see a draft of that

legislation." The hon. Minister of Mines rose and said: "Mr. Lau did

see a draft of that legislation. He drafted it."

Now, Mr. Chairman, I know what is acceptable in terms of

parliamentary language in this House, but I must say I empathize with

the first member for Vancouver Centre with evidence like this in the

official record of this House showing that grave conflict that exists

between two statements from the Minister of Mines. One is an

unequivocal: "No, Mr. Lau had nothing to do with drafting of the

legislation," page 890-2. And the last quote was at page 892-1, and

just as unequivocally, the Minister of Mines then found his memory

refreshing and came in and said: "Yes, indeed, Mr. Lau did see a draft

of that legislation. He drafted it."

AN HON. MEMBER: What was the first reference?

MR. KING: ...890-2. The second page 1've quoted is 892-1, and

I imagine the Minister of Mines will be saying "Dash Hansard!" for

preserving for posterity the great conflict that resides between

statements he made to this House.

I would say, Mr. Chairman, that I'm very aware of and very sensitive

to the permissible parliamentary language in this chamber, but I think

in good conscience and if the traditions of parliament are to be

preserved and respected, then that minister, Mr. Chairman, has some

obligation. He has some obligation to come up with an explanation that

will justify that conflict, that absolute turn-around in terms of the

information he gave to this House.

Really, there's only one conclusion that can be drawn from that kind

of direct conflict between statements a minister of the Crown made to

this House, only one conclusion, and the minister knows it. If he is a

man of good faith, if he is a man of good conscience, and if he has the

kind of integrity that those government benches were talking about, he

knows what the correct thing to do would be. It's been done before in

the best tradition of parliament, and it should be done again in this

case.

Finally, for the edification, Mr. Chairman, of the Minister of Consumer Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair)....

HON. MR. MAIR: Services.

MR. KING: I quote again from page 893 of the Blues, the

Hansard verbatim record of the debates in this House, and the question

was, and this was a question by the Leader of the Opposition: "Did he

see the draft of the present bill, yes or no?" The hon. Minister of

Mines finally answered: "While Mr. Lau did draft the Coal Act, he did

not draft the Mineral Resources Tax Act."

Clear, unequivocal misinformation to the House, Mr. Chairman, which

the same minister later agreed, after Mr. Lau had blown the whistle on

him, was false — false information to the House. That is the issue

that's before this House in terms of the motion of non-confidence in

the Minister of Mines.

I'm sure the Minister of Mines wants to have the respect of all

members of this House and the respect of the public in the province of

British Columbia, because it's my firm belief that no minister can

function effectively and discharge his duties to this province unless

he has the respect and the support of the community as well as this

House for his integrity, his candour and frankness.

I say in all good faith to the Minister of Mines, and above all to

the Premier, Mr. Chairman, that there is no way, while this cloud of

suspicion resides on the record as a result of remarks and statements

the minister made in this House, that he could ever be trusted again,

not only with current legislation but with all of the administrative

responsibilities that reside in his department.

I find it curious, Mr. Chairman, that while a matter as important as

this — and this goes to the very fundamental roots of parliamentary

conduct — I find it curious that the Premier has been conspicuous by

his absence almost from the moment this matter was brought to the

attention of the House.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): He's embarrassed.

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): Where's the Leader of the Opposition?

MR. KING: He may well be embarrassed, but I want to tell you,

Mr. Chairman, that the Premier of this province bears a larger

responsibility than anyone else in this House.

He appointed that minister, and it's up to him to ensure that the

ministers conduct themselves in a proper manner. When they do not, there

is a heavier duty of responsibility on the Premier's shoulders to take

appropriate action than resides anywhere else.

If the minister does not recognize, either through inexperience or

thorough some other inability, whether it relates to his moral

appraisal or not, then it is up to the Premier to explain to him and

demand of him that he conduct himself and his department in a manner

that is beyond reproach, and that he address himself to questions in

this House in a manner which is candid and frank, in a manner which

does not seek to hide, to fail to provide full information and full

disclosure to this House.

What is the responsibility of a minister of the Crown with respect to appearing before parliament

[ Page 2738 ]

and accounting for his administrative duties, his legislative

duties, and indeed the ordinary procedures of the House, such as

question period?

Mr. Chairman, if this case is allowed to go without proper redress,

all of those basic fundamental institutions of parliament whereby the

opposition, as the public watchdog, elicits information from government

to ensure that they are conducting themselves in appropriate and

honest manners...more and more, those institutions will be eroded.

Question period and the debate in this House will become nothing

more than a game, a game where the ministers share with the House and

the opposition and the public only parts and portions of the conduct of

public business. I say that kind of tendency — that kind of trend — is

one that threatens parliament in this province. It shouldn't be

tolerated and should not be undertaken and supported by any of the

government people — and certainly not the Premier. The Premier is the

one above all who is responsible to demand of his ministers proper,

honest and frank conduct or to replace them with other people who can

be frank and honest in terms of accounting for and in terms of

accepting responsibility for both their administrative responsibility

and their legislative responsibility.

Yet we see here in the records of this House unequivocal evidence —

unquestioned evidence — the absolute bald statements made by that

minister which are completely at variance with the facts, statements

that were repudiated within an hour, after the correct information was

obtained from another source. Are we to assume, Mr. Chairman, that any

question put to the Minister of Mines from this point on will have to

be checked out by going outside this House and phoning someone in the

business community, someone in the legal profession, some underling in

the Department of Mines? If we are to conclude, as we almost must from

the events of yesterday afternoon and today, we have nothing to

conclude except that the information, the advice and the candour of

that minister in terms of information to this House are not complete —

certainly not complete. I say that that is a shocking development in

this Legislature. It is one that should not be tolerated.

I think in good conscience the minister should tender his

resignation. I think in good conscience that every member of this

House, whether you represent the treasury benches or whether you

represent the government back bench — in good conscience, if you

believe that you have an obligation to this province beyond your narrow

political partisanship to that party — you will support this motion.

Because the proof positive is before you; the proof positive is before

you.

This man gave inadequate and conflicting advice to this House which

he himself repudiated about an hour later. Your constituents are going

to want to know if you can justify and support this kind of conduct by

a cabinet minister even though he is in your same party. When will you

stand up?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MR. KING: When will you stand up, through you, Mr. Chairman,

and expose impropriety or questionable conduct by a cabinet minister or

by your government? They are valid questions.

The proposition has been put forward by the Minister of Mines

himself that because some of the people involved in this breach of

ministerial responsibility were of a professional background, they are

safe and that their professional code of ethics protects the public

interest. Mr. Chairman, without casting any reflection upon the

particular people involved, because I do not know them, I want to say

to you that there is no alternative to responsibility to parliament —

no alternative, not reliance on professional ethics. Because how well

did professional ethics serve the people of America in the Watergate

shemozzle? Not very well — there was a whole litany of professionals

involved in all of the questionable tactics used in that tremendous

scandal.

Mr. Chairman, again, I am not trying to draw a parallel or a comparison between

this situation and that one. But I want to say to you that the analogy is only

this: it is never safe for the public interest to rely solely upon the professional

ethics of any individual. That's why we have a democratic parliament. That's

why we require that ministers of the Crown be responsible in answering to parliament

for their conduct. That's why, in my view, we have a stronger political system,

a stronger political structure and tradition in this nation than in others, where

questionable things have occurred to the detriment of the interest of all citizens.

These are the issues that are before this House, and they are extremely serious

ones.

I raised the point yesterday, Mr. Chairman. I want all government

members to search their conscience and tell me what you would have

thought when I was Minister of Labour in the previous administration if

I had had a trade unionist draft the Labour Code of British Columbia.

What would you have thought? You would have said, each and every one of

you, you would have been on your platforms all through this province

saying: "King has sold out to the trade union movement. It's one-sided

legislation. They're gaining advantage over management."

I want to say that I would have to agree, and that those

circumstances are not nearly as serious as this, because under those

circumstances we were dealing with impartiality in terms of

administration. In this case we are not only dealing with impartiality

in terms of administration. We are dealing with taxation

[ Page 2739 ]

laws which amount to millions and millions of dollars in this

province, because the bill is partly retroactive and certainly deals

with years to come. The reward and the temptation and the bonus for

those people being privy to the information contained in that

legislation and the temptation for those people to share that knowledge

with close friends and business associates is something that no

responsible minister should expect even of a professional. It's an

absolute dereliction of duty.

That Minister of Mines, Mr. Chairman, rather than forcing the House

to debate this motion of non-confidence all afternoon, if he were more

experienced and if he took his responsibilities and the rules of

parliament more seriously, would do the decent thing and he would

resign from the cabinet.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

That is his obligation, and it's clear. There have been resignations

from parliaments in the British system on grounds much less serious

than this one, much less serious, and when we start to look, Mr.

Chairman, at the record of this administration over a short six months

in office, I find it absolutely alarming and scandalous that for the

second time in that term of office we are dealing with impropriety in

terms of keeping confidential taxation bills and monetary matters

through which advance knowledge could give benefit to private

entrepreneurs and private people.

It happened with respect to the budget, when someone not sworn to

the oath of secrecy was made privy to that budget. We had mute defiance

from ministers of the Crown, Mr. Chairman, who would not answer to this

House, and again we have the same thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I believe that this is irrelevant. Would you kindly get back to the amendment?

MR. KING: I'm glad you believe it, Mr. Chairman, because it

is true. You see, even the Chairman believes me. All I'm trying to do

is make the rest of the government benches believe me too. They know in

their hearts it is right.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Oh, oh! Grow up a little bit!

MR. KING: Grow up? Well, we'll see how grown up the members

on that side are when the vote comes, because this is an extremely

serious matter. It is an extremely serious matter. Perhaps some of the

neophytes over there, Mr. Chairman, who are facing their first term as

ministers of the Crown, take their duties a bit too lightly. This is an

extremely serious matter, a matter in which advance knowledge would

allow certain individuals in the private sector to profiteer to the

tune of millions of dollars. That's the issue, and I say, for the second

time in the short tenure of this government, that we find a question as

to the security, as to even the understanding of this principle of

parliamentary rules. We find a real question as to whether or not bills

of that nature were treated with the proper safeguards and the proper

confidentiality that parliamentary rule demands.

That is true of the budget, Mr. Chairman, and it's certainly true of

the conduct with which the minister performed his duties surrounding

introduction of the bill that provoked this debate.

I want to conclude by saying to the minister that in many areas, all

a politician has left when he leaves public life, really, is the

integrity that he performed his duties with. It's a thankless job in

many ways, being a minister of the Crown and a politician. One receives

great criticism from the media, from constituents and from other

politicians, but in the final analysis, when all of the public

philosophy is divided and separated and ended, and when you no longer

bear the responsibility which the media is interested in, we are all

remembered in this province for the role we played. It is important to

me to be remembered as one who played the game fairly and was viewed as

honest and conducted the rules impartially.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Well, if the lawyer and the Minister of Consumer

Services from Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) doesn't have any more regard for

the law than what he displays here, he should have been disbarred long

ago, Mr. Chairman, because this is a serious matter and one that he

shouldn't play with.

I want to say to the minister, if he has respect for his future and

his integrity, that he knows what the honourable thing to do is. Thank

you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order or privilege, Hon. Member?

HON. MR. MAIR: No, I rose to speak in this debate, Mr. Chairman.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): A point of order. I think the

Chairman has made an error. What happened is that I stood first, and you

were about to recognize me when you noticed the minister standing....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, you took your seat, and I thought that....

[ Page 2740 ]

MR. LEA: No, you thought he was on a point of order, as I

did. It turned out that he wasn't. I mean, you obviously were going to

him because you thought he was on a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, you were both on your feet at the

same time, and when you took your chair — after I asked you if it was a

point of order — I thought you were going to remain seated. The hon.

minister.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I'm

sure that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) will have ample time

to speak, and will no doubt attract the attention of the House when he

does.

I first of all would.... I'm sorry to see the member for

Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) leaving, because I wanted to assure my

friends on the government back benches that during the years when the

member for Revelstoke-Slocan was in office there were statutes drawn —

two particularly, the Public Service Act and Public Service Labour

Relations Act. Guess who was involved in the drafting of them? Mr. Ron

Johnson, office of the B.C. Federation of Labour.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Shocking!

HON. MR. MAIR: Now, Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to get into

the argument of semantics, which has gone on for the last two days

here, as to what a draft of legislation is, what a galley is, and when

it becomes a bill, or what Mr. Lau saw or did not see, because I'm sure

that my colleague, the Minister of Mines, will address the House on

that point in due course.

MR. LEA: You hope!

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm sure he will.

I would like to speak for a moment, however, on the question that I

thought got everybody all agitated yesterday — it certainly got the

member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) agitated — and that's

the question of a conflict of interest.

Now we're dealing with the hiring by a department — as I understand

what was said yesterday — for some purpose or other of a man who had

served the government of British Columbia for five years, a Mr. Jurgen

Lau, who was hired by the NDP government when they were in power

because he was not only a lawyer skilled in mining matters but also a

geologist. This man established a pattern of dealing with the

government and advising government, and advised the NDP government on

at least three, if not four, bills. Now this man is not only a

geologist, Mr. Chairman, but this man is a barrister and solicitor and

took a very solemn oath. He took an oath which, if violated, would call

for his disbarment.

MR. GIBSON: He didn't take an oath with the government.

HON. MR. MAIR: He took an oath which would have had

consequences, Mr. Member, every bit as serious as violating any oath

that he might take for the government.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: Every bit as serious.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Kindly address the Chair, Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MAIR: The oath he took, and an oath I'm proud to say

I took, and the late-departed member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk)

took, is one which would call for disbarment and criminal proceedings

if violated.

I have no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that on each and every occasion that

Mr. Jurgen Lau served this government, regardless of the party in

power, he did so admirably and honourably. I'm sure that when he was

consulted — as my colleague, I am sure, will delineate in a moment — by

this government he behaved honourably again.

Mr. Chairman, the question of conflict of interest is always

interesting because the possibility of a conflict of interest always

exists. It might be said that the lawyer who assisted in drafting the

original Mining Royalties Act was guilty of misconduct by not going out

and selling shares short, prior to its passage. He might be guilty of

not buying shares. There are all sorts of things which could give rise

to suspicion, but the question that we must address ourselves to is

whether under these circumstances, these particular circumstances,

there was any misconduct of any nature or kind whatsoever.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or potential conflict.

HON. MR. MAIR: No. No, that's not so, Mr. Member, because

potential conflict of interest always exists. Whenever you go to anyone

for advice, you have that potential of conflict. The question to be

resolved here is whether or not Mr. Jurgen Lau was a man upon whom my

colleague could rely. And he relied upon him, no doubt upon the advice

of his staff, and his staff no doubt gave that advice because Mr. Lau

had proved himself to be reliable to two different governments on four

or five different occasions.

Mr. Chairman, if we are going to judge ministers of the Crown by their using people for advice who may,

[ Page 2741 ]

under certain circumstances, possibly have a

conflict of interest, then there's going to be nobody left to advise

the government.

Mr. Jurgen Lau has said that he did not see the legislation, as I

understand it, before it went to this House. That he saw information

that made up the legislation is probably so. What he saw is something

my colleague, no doubt, will tell this House.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: Of course not!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. MAIR: I do not argue with the member for North

Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) who, in his seat, is tossing a few

little lobs at me right at this particular time. I don't disagree with

you at all, Mr. Member. No question about that at all. But the fact to

be determined here — and it is a question of fact — is whether or not

under these circumstances there was anything improper in the Minister

of Mines dealing with Mr. Jurgen Lau. And I suggest that the evidence

is clear: there was absolutely nothing wrong with it at all.

There is one more thing that I must bring to the House's attention,

if I may, Mr. Chairman. The member who yesterday chose not to remain in

his seat was today unceremoniously thrown out by the Chair — and

rightly so. That member accused a number of people in this House, and

on this side of the House, of having a conflict of interest. He did so

by a flagrant abuse of the public disclosures Act — a flagrant abuse!

I want, and I think I have the right and privilege to do so, to

correct any misapprehension the House may have about my own situation.

MR. KING: Confession!

HON. MR. MAIR: I do not have any beneficial interest in any

share, in any company in British Columbia or anywhere else at this

point in time. Everything I own is held in trust and has been held in

trust for some three or four months. Now this goes to show, Mr.

Chairman, the reason that my colleague, the Minister of Education (Hon.

Mr. McGeer), made the remarks he did that that fine Act, the public

disclosures Act — and I commend the former Attorney-General (Mr.

Macdonald) for the Act — but it shows how it can be abused and how

people who do not wish to listen to their own principles but prefer to

use the moment for political advantage can use that Act, and can use it

unceremoniously and use it in an unprincipled way and use it in a

manner to bring disrepute to this House and to its members.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of things in the last two days

that I don't think this House ought to have heard. I listened with

great care to the pontificating, unctuous member for Victoria when he

gave his speeches a week or two ago.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Are you saying that about Bawlf?

HON. MR. MAIR: No, the second member (Mr. Barber). The first member (Mr. Bawlf) is a wise man, Madam Member, a wise man.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): You're a rude man.

HON. MR. MAIR: Of course I'm a rude man. I have to be to survive in this jungle. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. KING: Contempt! (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. MAIR: Beneath contempt, Mr. Member.

MR. KING: Yes, you are.

HON. MR. MAIR: You. I've listened to these speeches of piety

and, you know, it's an amazing thing, Mr. Chairman, that these speeches

of piety only seem to relate to this side of the House. When that side

of the House starts this nonsense, we don't hear from that member. We

never hear a word — not a word. How come we don't see you stand up and

talk to your own members?

MR. KING: What are you attacking him for? He hasn't even spoken on this amendment.

HON. MR. MAIR: That doesn't matter.

MR. KING: Stop trying to confuse us. Speak to the amendment.

HON. MR. MAIR: Speak to the amendment? If I did that I'd

violate an honoured tradition of the day; I'd be the first person to do

it. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's very good advice. Could you speak to the amendment, please?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I'll close these remarks by

saying that this amendment is not worthy of the support of anyone. It

is conceived by a lack of principle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[ Page 2742 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: It is accusatory in an unjustified manner, and it has brought this House into disrepute.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: If the cap fits, wear it. You're the person

who stood in his place a moment ago and accused me of conduct that

would give rise to disbarment.

MR. KING: Right!

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Read Hansard .

HON. MR. MAIR: Withdraw! (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, perhaps the time has come, at the end of almost two

days of debate on this issue, to get on with the business of the House,

get on with the business of the people, and stop this acrimonious

nonsense.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I just want to correct a statement

which the minister made where he accused me of having one Ron Johnson

assist in the drafting of labour legislation. That is absolutely

unfounded, false and untrue, and I wish to make that correction, Mr.

Chairman. It's completely without foundation in fact.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for the correction.

HON. MR. MAIR: I don't wish to belabour this point. I did not

mean to imply that the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King)

personally did. I merely said that this man assisted in the drafting of

the legislation.

MR. KING: Not mine.

Interjections.

MR. KING: I wish to clarify and say that Ron Johnson — or no

other trade unionist in this province — was never privy to a bill that

I brought into this Legislature. I received submissions from management

and labour prior to drafting legislation, but no one ever assisted in

drafting legislation in my department.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Chairman, I would just like to concur with the Leader of the Opposition, who has....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is this a point of order?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: A point of order, yes. I would be pleased

to clarify that Mr. Ron Johnson did not draft legislation for the

former Labour minister but for the former Provincial Secretary (Mr.

Hall) on the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

MR. KING: That's a different matter, then.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for the clarification.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, on speaking in favour of this amendment....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor.

MR. LEA: On speaking in favour of this amendment, I would

first of all like to remind the House, after listening to the last

speaker, that at one time one cabinet minister said that consumers in

this province should be kicked in the ass. I would like to remind you

that if that was reciprocated, it would have been a pompous one that

their foot would have reached. (Laughter.)

Now the thing that probably bothers the opposition more than

anything else, Mr. Chairman, is that the Minister of Mines does not

understand what conflict of interest is. At one point, in another

situation, the minister quite frankly admitted that he had been remiss

and apologized not only to the House but to the people in this

province. I think everyone applauded that minister for that action.

They said: "There's an honest person, and not only that; he's obviously

learned his lesson."

I think everyone in this province had a sigh of relief when that

happened, Mr. Chairman. Regardless of party affiliation, I believe that

everyone in this province said "thank goodness" because it was so

obvious there had been a conflict of interest that the minister didn't

seem to understand. When it was pointed out, he said: "Yes, I guess

there was. I was remiss. I'm sorry." Everyone accepted that.

MR. GIBSON: They said "good show."

MR. LEA: Good show — that's right. Then later on we have this conflict of interest, and hence the amendment that we are debating today.

MR. GIBSON: Bad show!

MR. LEA: Bad show! Thanks! (Laughter.)

Now the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) would have us

believe that there is no conflict of interest unless conflict of

interest did, in fact, take place — which is, of course, untrue. In

other words, he is saying that if no one made any money out of a

conflict of interest situation then it was not conflict of interest.

[ Page 2743 ]

Last night when the Minister of Mines was interviewed, he stated the

same philosophy. He said: "If no money was made, then it isn't a

conflict of interest." That is where we disagree. It must not only have

no conflict of interest, but it must appear that there is no conflict of

interest.

The minister said that the worst must happen — that there has been

money made or the possibility of money being made before there is a

conflict of interest. Mr. Chairman, we now have proof that the very

thing the minister said had to happen before there was conflict of

interest has happened. Today Mr. Jurgen Lau has admitted what the

minister said had to happen before there was a conflict of interest. In

today's Victoria Times — and here's an excerpt from today's story on

this matter: "During the telephone interview Lau said he had talked to

Reynolds about the tax legislation. 'The members of the committee went

to interview various representatives of mining companies,' he said."

In other words, Mr. Lau has now said that in the course of his

duties in drafting this legislation he went and talked to Bethlehem

Copper — to Bethlehem Copper — about the legislation. So what the

minister feared may happen has happened. In other words, people who

were on that committee who are not under oath of secrecy to government

and the people of British Columbia did go to mining companies and

discuss this legislation. So we clearly have a case of conflict of

interest. Clearly.

But we didn't need that kind of proof when we are talking about this

kind of situation. What the government doesn't seem to understand is

that if there is a possibility of someone using the information they

are privy to and are not under oath of secrecy, then there is a

conflict of interest. There is a conflict of interest, and that

situation should not be allowed.

A motion of non-confidence against the minister: I believe that it's

too bad that this amendment is in front of this Legislature, because we

had hoped, as I pointed out earlier, that once bitten, twice shy. I

think that people were willing to forgive because of the manner in

which the minister handled the first conflict-of-interest situation he

found himself in. People were willing to forgive.

The members of this House said: "He's new, not only as a minister, but

he's new to politics and new to this Legislature and new to the rules."

Everyone was willing to forget that and to forgive.

But here we have a situation where we would not be doing our duties

to the people of this province if we were to forget and to forgive,

because we do not have it within our power to forgive; and we cannot

forget, because we do not represent ourselves, but we represent the

people of this province, as we all do.

When the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) was defending the

fact, in speaking to this amendment, he was defending the fact that he

had mining shares and therefore...and the mining shares were "a dog."

They like that expression, Mr. Chairman — they talk about all their

stock as being dogs. Now the Minister of Education said that yes, he

did have some shares but it was "a dog." But again he failed to tell

all of the story, because the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk) said that the Minister of Education had shares in Stanrock. The

Minister of Education took his place in this House and said: "Yes, but

it's a dog, and they're not worth anything."

What the Minister of Education failed to point out was that in 1973

Stanrock was amalgamated with Denison Mines on a share-for-share basis.

Can anyone in this Legislature call Denison Mines a dog in terms of

what that company is worth and in terms of what those shares are worth

in Denison Mines?

Denison Mines amalgamated in 1973 — Stanrock with Denison Mines on a

share-for-share basis. Again we weren't told everything by that

Minister of Education — only what he thought would be palatable to the

House, to the media and to the people of this province.

What are we looking at here today, Mr. Chairman? Twice — twice since

this parliament has sat, questions have been asked of ministers. They

have stood up in this House and said one thing; then memoranda were

produced, and they changed their story. Once with the Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) and now with the Minister of Mines (Hon.

Mr. Waterland) — twice that has happened in this House, Mr. Chairman.

Are we to assume that, unless the operation produces a memorandum on

every occasion a question is asked a minister in this House, they will

not tell us the whole story? We have to have a memorandum before we can

get the whole story — that's what happened with the Minister of Mines,

and that is why this amendment is in front of us today. That is why.

For an hour he sat in this House and stuck with one story. A memo

was brought to light in this House, and he changed his story. The

Minister of Environment stuck with his story. A memo was produced; he

changed his story. How do we know...?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who stole the document?

MR. LEA: I stole nothing! The only thing you can do is attack the messenger. That's all you can do. They don't say: "We did wrong."

"You shouldn't have had the memo," they say. "Why did you have the memo? How did you get the memo?" Stand damned by the memo!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, we are dealing

[ Page 2744 ]

with this amendment, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Who stole the memo?

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Minister of Environment to withdraw that I stole the memo.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I said: "Who stole the memo?"

MR. LEA: I would ask the minister to withdraw. He said: "You stole the memo."

Interjection.

MR. LEA: He said "You stole the memo." The records will show that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I heard the words "Who stole?" —

That was a question: "Who stole the memo?" I was listening very

closely. "Who stole the memo?"

MR. LEA: That's a good question. That is a good question, and if I were you, I'd look rather closer to home.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you kindly proceed with the amendment, Hon. Member?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Have you got the guts to answer?

MR. LEA: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LEA: The same person who stole the briefcase during the election — that's who did it.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Who was that?

MR. LEA: A nondescript person, carrying a brown manila

envelope, who delivered it to me in a motel room in Vancouver at the

same time that you received the memo that was stolen during the

election campaign.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, will you kindly turn to the amendment, and can we kindly have order in the House?

MR. LEA: That's who.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: Show us.

MR. LEA: This was no one sharing the information.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Who gave the memo?

MR. LEA: It's none of your business.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. LEA: If you let him say that, let me say this: all you

have to do is stand up and deny that what was in the memo was true,

which you cannot do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LEA: Don't attack the messenger.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would members on both sides of the House kindly deal with the amendment?

MR. LEA: You lied to the House — now live with it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, will you kindly return to the amendment, please?

MR. LEA: Right. I'll return to the amendment.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I would ask the member for Prince Rupert to withdraw his remark that I lied to the House.

MR. LEA: Then call motion No. 9 on the order paper. Call

motion No. 9! Get it on the floor of this House. Let's find out. Call

motion No. 9.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman....

MR. LEA: Call motion No. 9! Call it!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order, please! Will you kindly withdraw? Thank you. Will you kindly return to the amendment?

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. LEA: Now we have one minister standing up in this House —

the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) — saying that his stock is

a dog; then we find out it was traded share-for-share with Denison Mines,

[ Page 2745 ]

which we also know is not a dog. That's what we know.

We know that we have a minister who will not answer questions until

a memorandum is produced. The only answers he gave were in direct

contradiction not only to the memorandum that was produced but also in

direct contradiction to the words of Mr. Lau when speaking to reporters.

What we cannot understand on this side of the House, Mr. Chairman,

is why the minister cannot see that the amendment which is before this

House, and is in order for this committee...why he can't see that it is

a conflict of interest. It is a conflict of interest. You don't write

taxation legislation that is going to give the mining companies a free

ride by using people who are involved in the mining industry.

Now they have tried to throw in a red herring, Mr. Chairman, They

have tried to say: "Well, you people did it when you were in

government." Okay, let's examine it in two different ways.

If we had done it when we were in government, and it was wrong, as

they are implying, then it implies that they are wrong and he should

resign. But that is not the case. The case is that the legislation we

brought in taxed the mining companies. The mining legislation they've

brought in gives the mining companies in this province a free ride. And

why now? Because the mining companies paid a great deal of money to get

the Social Credit elected.

And guess what. Lo and behold, one of the candidates running for the

Social Credit just happened to be a mining engineer. And guess what? He

just ended up being Minister of Mines. And guess what? Mining people

drafted his legislation. Guess what. The legislation gives the mining

companies in this province a free ride like they never had, not even

under the old Social Credit government. A complete free ride.

They say: "Tax the non-profit." Everybody knows that when they get

finished with the federal legislation allowing for tax loopholes there

aren't any profits. Seventeen and a half per cent of what? Why not make

it 300 per cent? Why not make it 500 per cent? Because 500 per cent of

nothing is the same as 17.5 per cent of nothing.

A free ride, that's what it is. That's bad enough; if he'd have

thought it up on his own, or within his department, or with people

under the oath of secrecy, and wanted to give them a free ride, that's

bad. But to have them draft their own legislation giving themselves a

free ride at the expense of the people of this province is a moral sin,

along with b