1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1715 ]

CONTENTS

Presenting Petitions

Pacific Command of the Royal Canadian Legion.

Mr. Davis –– 1715

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Incorporate the Institute of Accredited Public Accountants (Bill PR401). Mr. Segarty.

Introduction and first reading –– 1715

Pension Plan (I.W.A.-Forest Industry) Merger Validation Act (Bill PR402). Mr. Segarty.

Introduction and first reading –– 1715

Oral Questions.

Bank of Canada interest rates. Mr. Howard –– 1716

Administration of justice. Mr. Macdonald –– 1716

Air fare for Pearson Hospital technician. Mr. Cocke –– 1716

Rental problems of welfare recipients. Ms. Brown –– 1717

Trolley bus safety. Mr. Lauk –– 1717

Kenney Dam water level. Mr. Howard –– 1717

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office estimates.

On vote 9.

Mr. Lea –– 1718

Mr. Levi –– 1719

Hon. Mrs. Jordan –– 1723

Mr. Barber –– 1724

Mr. Ritchie –– 1727

Mr. Cocke –– 1730

Division on the motion to rise –– 1731

Mr. Cocke –– 1731

Mr. Mussallem –– 1732

Mr. Lockstead –– 1733

Mr. Segarty –– 1734

Mr. Lauk –– 1734

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1736

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1737

Tabling Reports

British Columbia Railway financial statements for year ending December 28, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1739

THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. MAIR: In the House today

are a number of students from Brocklehurst Junior Secondary School in

Kamloops. I'm very proud to say that all of my four children attended

this school. They're here today accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Doug

Butler and Mr. Ian Strachan. I ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. NICOLSON:

I think this is the first opportunity I've had this year to introduce

constituents of mine in the gallery. I note that the federal returning

officer, Helen Fairbank, is in the gallery, along with school trustees

Jack Martin and Bill McNown. I ask the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

We have international visitors to the House today. I'd like to have the

House welcome, first of all, Mr. Chuck Hoffman, who is here from San

Diego, California, on his very first visit to British Columbia.

Secondly, I'd like the House to welcome Mr. Urs Burri and Mr. Urs

Henner from Muttenz, Switzerland, who are both in British Columbia for

the first time. Some of the members on this side of the House served

them during a McHappy Day yesterday — the McDonald's effort to raise

money for crippled children. Finally, we have visitors in the gallery

who are new-found friends of just today. I met Mr. and Mrs. Avraham

Huri and their sons, Eyal and Alon, in the corridors today. They are

here from Israel as exchange teachers to Alberta. Please welcome them.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, from. the first capital city — New Westminster, for those

not so well informed — I'd like to introduce Michael Ewan, a school

trustee here in Victoria for a seminar.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Mr. Speaker, today and tomorrow in this gallery are some 80 new school

trustees who were elected for the first time in December. They are

visiting Victoria and the legislative buildings as part of a new

trustee orientation program. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, on this very special day I'd ask the House to express its

appreciation for the fact that the press, for unspecified reasons, had

to work overtime last night. We appreciate their efforts.

HON. MR. McGEER: I don't know who looks in better shape today, Mr. Speaker!

the members' gallery today we have a distinguished international

scholar, Professor A.H. Birch, a former vice-president of the

International Political Science Association. He's now teaching at the

University of Victoria, and I'd ask the members to make him welcome.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, also in the gallery today is one David Vickers, who was

the Deputy Attorney-General under two administrations and served the

people of this province well and impartially under both administrations.

MR. REE:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have a lady who is very dedicated

to the community on the North Shore. I'd like the House to welcome Mrs.

Margaret Jessup.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, it my

pleasure indeed to express thanks on behalf of the Social Credit caucus

to the press gallery for a beautiful evening. I understand that it went

very well indeed, although I had to leave early, but I've had an

excellent report on the meeting from that time on. Thank you very much.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery or in the precincts this afternoon there

are two gentlemen I'd like to introduce: Mr. Wally Brogan, the mayor of

the village of Oliver, and Mr. Dennis Back, who is the municipal clerk

of Oliver, but who was my executive assistant for some three years. I'd

just like the House to bid them welcome.

MR. SPEAKER:

I want to thank all the hon. members for keeping their introductions

very brief. I also noticed there were many names which not only were

difficult to pronounce but may even be almost impossible to spell —

having only heard them. So I suggest that the little slips you find in

your desks addressed to Hansard be used so that my staff in Hansard

will not be frustrated.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I spied an

old acquaintance, Mr. Speaker, a friend of many people in this

Legislature, Mr. Doug Strongitharm. I'd like to bid him welcome.

Presenting Petitions

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. DAVIS:

It is the petition of the Pacific Command of the Royal Canadian Legion

praying for the passing of

an act intituled

An Act to Amend the Royal

Canadian Legion Act. I move that the rules be suspended and the

petition of the Pacific Command of the Royal Canadian Legion be

received.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO INCORPORATE THE INSTITUTE

OF ACCREDITED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

On a motion by Mr. Ree,

Bill PR401,

An Act to Incorporate the Institute of Accredited Public

Accountants, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select

Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills.

PENSION PLAN (I.W.A.-FOREST INDUSTRY)

MERGER VALIDATION ACT

On a motion by Mr. Segarty, Bill

PR402, Pension Plan (I.W.A.-Forest Industry) Merger Validation Act,

introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing

Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills.

[ Page 1716 ]

Oral Questions

BANK OF CANADA INTEREST RATES

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations. Inasmuch as the bank rate today went to

15.49 percent, an increase of almost three-quarters of a point since

last week, taking into account the injurious effects this will have

upon homeowners, consumers, small businessmen and the economy

generally, would the minister, reflecting what I'm sure would be the

unanimous view of this House and certainly the view of residents and

citizens in British Columbia, on our behalf communicate to the federal

government our displeasure at this continuing escalation in interest

rates and ask them to return to the process of administered interest

rates rather than the float that is taking place at the moment?

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member, the question of interest

rates and the tremendously rapid increase in interest rates is of

tremendous concern to the government and to the opposition, and I think

to every person in this province. I can assure you that we are going to

make our voice heard at the central government concerning this issue.

I'm also of the view that at the previous Western Premiers' Conference

the head of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Bouey, was requested to make an

attendance. I think that's a measure that will be given consideration

to at the future Western Premiers' Conference to be held in Lethbridge

in April.

MR. HOWARD: The question was, really: would

the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations today communicate the view

of this Legislature, the province of British Columbia, and the people

in B.C., and our displeasure at this escalation in interest rates, and

not wait for the Western Premiers' Conference?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister may wish to make an undertaking but he's not obligated to do so.

HON. MR. GARDOM: There's already been communication between the government and Ottawa officials concerning the point in question.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney-General. I want to ask

the Attorney-General whether anyone relating to the case — not a case,

the question — surrounding the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr.

Ritchie) and whether anyone in the RCMP contacted the hon.

Attorney-General or someone in his department asking that the RCMP

report and the evidence therein referred to be reviewed by independent

counsel. This would be following December 18 after the decision had

been announced, Mr. Attorney-General.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, not to me, and I'd be happy to take the question as notice with respect to anybody else in the ministry.

MR. MACDONALD:

I have a short further question. I ask the Attorney-General, who

replied on March 10 that he had not read the RCMP submission on this

particular matter, whether he has now read it. Because he said at that

point that he would come back to the House.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I haven't yet received the information and the material to which the member refers.

MR. LEVI:

Mr. Speaker, this question is also to the Attorney-General. On December

14, 1979, the Attorney-General asked ministry officials for a written

report on whether, in their opinion, Dan Campbell breached the election

act by failing to report $65,000 he handed out in cash during the

election campaign of 1979. Has the minister received the written report

as yet?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

AIR FARE FOR PEARSON HOSPITAL TECHNICIAN

MR. COCKE:

I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. At Pearson

Hospital in Vancouver, roughly 5 percent of the patients require

respirators for their survival. The hospital has recently purchased

several advanced machines for the purpose of looking after their

patients. However, in order to keep these machines in good repair,

their chief technician should take a course that's offered by the

manufacturers in Colorado.

MR. KEMPF: Question!

MR. COCKE:

The member for Omineca is in a hurry, Mr. Speaker. Pearson Hospital

requested $282 for air fare for the technician and the Treasury Board

turned them down. Will the minister assure the House that the mistake

of this government will be corrected in the immediate future?

HON. MR. MAIR:

Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all I don't have a written answer to the

written statement and the written rhetorical question of my friend

opposite, and I don't, by taking this question as notice, acknowledge

the remarks that he made at the end. But if he's asking me whether or

not I will look into this situation, the answer is yes, and I'll take

his question as notice. If he's asking me to acknowledge any of the

sins which he alleges, the answer is that it is totally improper and I

refuse to accept that as a question.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I hear voices, but I don't know of anyone that's been recognized. The member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: It's odd, Mr. Speaker — I just had the same experience.

question to the Minister of Health. He just said that if the member for

New Westminster is right, it's a sin. In other words, if he finds out

that what the member asked is true, he's admitting now that it's a sin.

Is that correct?

HON. MR. MAIR: It's certainly a sin to tell a lie, Mr. Speaker. I don't know of any other sins.

I think the best answer I can give the member opposite to

[ Page 1717 ]

his

rather unusual question is that I will carefully examine the Blues and

look therein for some sort of a question that the member for New

Westminster wishes me to answer. Finding one, if I do, I will come to

this House with the answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, let's not let the purpose of question period escape us.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, this question has been very carefully checked out. Just so

the minister completely understands, I'll rephrase the question in the

following manner. The suppliers of certain life-saving and life-giving

equipment used at Pearson Hospital offer a free course; they pay all

the room and board. and all that is required is to fly the technician

to Colorado to take the course. The Treasury Board turned down the

request of Pearson Hospital for the $282. I'm asking the minister:

would he kindly correct this rather sad affair?

MR. SPEAKER: The question, in its present form, is not in order. But the minister wishes to answer?

HON. MR. MAIR:

Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to establish the precedent of answering

questions that are out of order. However, there are very few others

that are asked in this House, so I guess I'll have to attempt it.

Mr.

Speaker, I will look into the situation and find out, first of all, if

it is as the member has stated — not that I'm suggesting he would state

something untrue, but he may have his facts wrong. If his facts are

correct, then I will look into the matter and report back to the House.

RENTAL PROBLEMS OF WELFARE RECIPIENTS

MS. BROWN:

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

responsible for the Human Rights Code. Presently the Code does not

offer people on welfare any protection against discrimination in

seeking housing and rental accommodation. Would the minister be willing

to open the Code and insert an amendment to give this particular group

of people that kind of protection, since the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has failed to protect them?

MR. SPEAKER: The question has a tendency to be argumentative. Does the minister wish to answer? Is there a further question?

MS. BROWN:

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

responsible for the Human Rights Code. At present the Human Rights Code

does not protect people on welfare against discrimination in housing

and seeking rental accommodation. Because of the very tight housing

situation, landlords are refusing to rent accommodation to people in

receipt of welfare. Is the Minister of Labour willing to give these

people protection under the Human Rights Code?

MR. SPEAKER: Has the member for Burnaby-Edmonds a further question?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I think I'm probably not being very clear, so I'll try that one again, if it's okay with you.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the minister has the question.

MS. BROWN:

My question is to the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the

Human Rights Code. At present the Human Rights Code does not protect

people in receipt of welfare in this province against discrimination in

seeking housing and rental accommodation. In view of the very tight

housing situation in this province, landlords are beginning to refuse

to rent their accommodation to people in receipt of welfare. Is the

Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the administration of the

Human Rights Code, willing to open the Code in an attempt to protect

this particular group of people?

MR. SPEAKER: Any further questions, hon. members?

MS. BROWN:

Is the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the Human Rights

Code, willing to amend the Code so that it will give protection to

people on welfare who are being discriminated against when they seek

housing accommodation?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the minister has the question. We have to leave it with him.

TROLLEY BUS SAFETY

MR. LAUK:

My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is in charge

of the Urban Transit Authority. The poles on trolley buses in the city

of Vancouver are so brittle because of age that they are breaking with

great regularity and endangering both pedestrians and passengers. In

1979 there were 398 reported accidents of poles breaking and bending

beyond repair. Two breakages resulted in serious injuries to

passengers, because when the poles break they have a tendency to crash

through the rear windows of the buses. Buses with defective equipment

still attached are operating in the city of Vancouver. What action is

the government taking through the Urban Transit Authority to ensure

public safety?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The first new

trolley buses in 12 years were recently ordered by the Urban Transit

Authority with the approval of this government.

MR. LAUK:

These buses were condemned as inadequate several years ago, when the

NDP administration ordered and had already been placing new trolley

buses on the system. So the minister's statement is totally inaccurate.

What immediate action is being taken to protect the safety of the

public riding these vehicles in the city of Vancouver?

MR. SPEAKER: The purpose of question period is not to enter debate. Has the minister an answer?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to distinguish between diesel buses

and trolley buses, but I will take the question as notice in any case.

KENNEY DAM WATER LEVEL

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Environment. Inasmuch as the federal

[ Page 1718 ]

Department

of Fisheries has expressed concern that water levels in the Nechako

River system below the existing Kenney Dam there last fall were

inadequate to protect salmon runs, could the minister advise the House

what action his department or he, himself, has taken to ensure that

there will be a sufficient water flow in that river system to maintain

and enhance the fisheries?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I will

speak to the comptroller of water rights today to find out and will

bring the answer back to the House. I haven't a specific answer on that

particular river.

MR. HOWARD: I will direct a

question, then, to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources. Given the fact that the water levels referred to in the

Nechako River in the system below the Kenney Dam were low because power

in excess of the Aluminum Company of Canada's requirements for its

Kitimat smelter plant was generated to supply B.C. Hydro, would the

minister make some representations to B.C. Hydro, requesting it to

reduce its purchase of electrical energy from Alcan in order that

sufficient water flows can be maintained in the Nechako River system?

MR. SPEAKER: If the question is, "Has the minister made representation?", it's in order.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, if that's the question, no, I haven't, but I'll take the question as notice.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

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

MR. LEA: I think the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) put it rather well. He said it's a sin to tell a lie.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, Fats Waller said it.

MR. LEA: Well, I'm glad to see you carrying on the tradition.

Mr.

Chairman, yesterday and the day before, in this discussion of the

Premier's estimates, we asked a number of times for the Premier to

clarify what transpired at a meeting in Europe in 1979, when the

Premier, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon.

Mr. Phillips) and the now Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), who

was at the time of the meeting the Minister of Finance, met with the

Commission of the European Communities in the office of the president.

For two days we have tried to find out whether or not we have been

misinformed by the secretary to the president of the Commission of the

European Communities.

I would like to outline exactly

what it is that we have been told by letter by the secretary of the

Commission of the European Communities. In 1977, while visiting Europe,

the present Premier of this province visited the office of the

president of the Commission of the European Communities. That much we

have ascertained. The Premier admits that he was there. The Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development admits that he was there. I

would assume that the Provincial Secretary will admit that he was

there. But then the contradictions start, because the Premier, in this

Legislature, said that while in that office, he did not discuss the

sale of uranium nor did he try to sell uranium to the European

community.

I would like to refresh the Legislature's memory,

because here are the contradictions. Mr. John Mika, who works as a

researcher in the office of the Leader of the Opposition, phoned

Brussels and asked that commission whether or not, when the Premier and

his delegation visited them on behalf of British Columbia, the Premier

endeavoured to sell uranium to the European Economic Community.

Remember, Mr. Chairman, the Premier has denied trying to sell uranium

while on that visit.

The letter to Mr. Mika, dated December 6, 1979, reads as follows:

"Dear Mr. Mika:

refer to our telephone conversation of last week relating to Prime

Minister Bennett's visit to the Commission on 15th September, 1977.

During the conversation between President Jenkins and Mr. Bennett,

which was mainly devoted to Canada's constitutional problems and the

political situation in Quebec, the Prime Minister underlined the

concern of his government to find markets for the province's products

and listed, among others, uranium. In reply to a question put by

President Jenkins..."

Surrounding this province through its Premier's desire to sell uranium!

"...the

Premier explained that natural resources were under provincial

jurisdiction but that the Federal Minister for Mines and Resources was

exercising export control on uranium."

Now I'd like to tie

that into a statement made by the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development. This is from a press release dated Friday,

September 16, 1977 — after the trip. "Phillips told top EEC officials

in a separate meeting to 'come and be our guests' in the exploration of

B.C. for uranium. But he warned they would have to 'take their chances'

whether the federal government would take the embargo off uranium." In

the same press release, the Premier is quoted as saying: "'They want

it, we've got it,' Bennett said of B.C.'s unmined uranium deposits."

Now, armed with this press release quoting both the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development and the Premier, tie that to

the fact that the secretary to the Commission of the European

Communities said that when they were there they tried to sell them

uranium. Tie that to the fact that the Minister of Economic Development

said: "Come on, be our guests in the exploration for uranium in B.C."

think, Mr. Chairman, that any common-sense person, looking at the

evidence — and it isn't even circumstantial evidence; it's cold, hard

facts in black and white — would have to assume that one of two things

is happening in this Legislature at this time. Either I am holding in

my hand a letter in which Mr. Reuter has lied to Mr. Mika.... Either

Mr. Reuter has lied to Mr. Mika, and Mr. Bennett didn't try to sell

uranium when he was in Europe, or Mr. Reuter is telling the truth, and

the Premier did try to sell uranium while visiting the European

Economic Community. Before we had the proof we said to the Premier:

"Did you try to sell uranium while in Europe?" He said: "No!" He yelled

it across the floor. "No!"

[ Page 1719 ]

Now,

since we've brought in the proof that he did try to sell uranium, he

hasn't taken his place in this House and spoken about uranium. In fact,

he gets his backbenchers to stand up and say: "Mr. Premier, why are you

so wonderful? Mr. Premier, aw, gosh, shucks, you're so great. Would you

answer my question, Mr. Premier? Why are you so wonderful? Why are you

so great?" And then the Premier stands up and says: "I'd like to answer

the more decent questions in the House. I am wonderful, yes, I admit

it." But, Mr. Chairman, the fact remains that neither the Premier nor

the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development has stood in

his place in this House and made a statement on whether or not they

tried to sell uranium in Europe, since we've brought the proof in that

they did and since they denied that they did. They denied it before we

brought the proof in.

Mr. Chairman, we've now brought the

proof into this Legislature that the Premier and his delegation, in

1977, tried to sell uranium in Europe. We know that for a fact, unless

Mr. Reuter is lying. We also know for a fact that the Premier and the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development stood in their

places in this House and said they did not try to sell uranium when in

Europe. Something is amiss. We can't have it both ways. Why will the

Premier not stand up and call Mr. Reuter a liar?

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the member for North Peace River.

MR. BRUMMET: I believe

section 43 of the Standing Orders

makes reference to tedious repetition and I believe we heard that

speech at least six times yesterday afternoon. Do you think perhaps we

could move on...? At least if the member could phrase it a little

differently it might make it more interesting.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Thank you, hon. member. The member does raise a valid point. I would

ask the members in debate to consider that

section which does really

refer very carefully to repetitious debate.

MR. LEA:

I also believe the member raises a valid point because I think that

rule was put in there to refer to tedious and repetitious debate not

designed for a purpose. It may be tedious, it may be repetitious, but

it is designed to get the truth and we want the truth.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what they're worried about.

MR. LEA:

Yes, that is what they're worried about, because if through tedium and

repetition we can get the Premier to stand up in his place in this

House and say, "Here's what happened in Europe in 1977 while visiting

the office of the president of the Commission of the European

Communities," then we will find that in some instances the rule that

the member has cited is a rule that brings out the truth in this House.

The

Premier can pretend to read his documents; the Premier can pretend a

lack of interest in this debate. The Premier can depend on us to

continue to press this point until he takes his place and clears this

matter up. The Premier can depend on that. The Premier can pretend all

he wants that it didn't happen. I know he'd like to go back and take

back every word he said prior to the proof coming into this House. I

know you'd like to do that, Mr. Premier. He shakes his head, no. Is Mr.

Reuter lying to Mr. Mika in this letter? Is he lying or is the

Premier's memory so bad that he can't remember anything that happened

in that meeting in Europe in 1977? Mr. Chairman, I'm going to sit down.

The Premier and his colleagues can chuckle and laugh but I think

everyone in this Legislature — including deep down where they really

live, the backbenchers of this government, and probably some of the

cabinet — would like to see the Premier take his place when I do sit

down and once and for all clear it up. Did this letter to Mr. Mika

contain a lie? Did the Premier not try to sell uranium when he was in

Europe? We'd like the Premier to answer that question.

MR. LEVI:

We have persisted on this topic in debate because we're not able to get

a number of answers from the Premier. I want to ask the Premier about

the question of uranium. I want to go back over the question I put to

him the other night about when he was notified about the resignation of

the chief justice of the appeal court, Mr. Farris. I also want to ask

him one other question in light of the fact that we're not able to, as

yet, get the information on the report in respect to a former member of

his staff. I have in mind Mr. Dan Campbell, who was in charge of

intergovernmental affairs before it became a ministry, and his

involvement in spending some $65,000.

We are, in the debate

under this vote, Mr. Chairman, attempting to examine the leadership of

the Premier. Examining the leadership of the Premier as head of the

government involves an examination of veracity. One of the things that

he has not told us — and it escapes me why he will not simply get up

and tell us — is what the context was of the discussions that he had in

Europe in 1977. He was over there, he suggested earlier.... Then we

heard from the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips) that the intent was to sell what B.C. had to offer.

Interestingly enough, when he came back in 1978 there was a long, somewhat detailed

article in the Sun

of September 14, 1978, by a man called John Moelaert, who is the

chairman of the Kelowna branch of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear

Responsibility. In his article, Mr. Moelaert went to great lengths to

explain exactly what was going on in the province in respect to uranium

exploration. Towards the end of his

article he said: "Premier Bennett

said in Brussels last year that he favours selling B.C. uranium to

western European countries. B.C. Hydro chairman Robert Bonner has

stated that nuclear power plants should be considered as a power option

for B.C." Now we know that the Premier has already put to rest the

issue of B.C. Hydro and uranium, but he still hasn't put to rest for us

whether in fact, when he was over in Europe, he was selling uranium. We

heard from the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development that

that was, in fact, what they were doing over there. Well, we have

conflicting stories here. Both people say they were present at the

meeting. One minister's recollection is that they did discuss it, and

that the proviso about the consummation of the sales had to do with the

fact that there was a federal government embargo on the export of

uranium. Those facts, if we consider them to be facts, are on, the

record.

We're simply asking the Premier to confirm or deny

what it is that took place. He made quite a to-do about the fact that

he was over in Europe attempting to sell what B.C. produces because it

was to the advantage of the B.C. economy. Well,

[ Page 1720 ]

simply want him to explain exactly what it was they were talking about;

he has not done that. We're constantly getting a lot of criticism about

the question of how you research whether what somebody said is accurate

or not. My colleague for Prince Rupert produced the information in

respect to the memo from Mr. Jenkins and his assistant that the Premier

made some statements in Europe. We only have the newspaper reports

about what he said. On September 16, 1977, there was a headline in the Colonist

which said, "Bennett Says Trade Eggs Can't Be All in One Basket," and

there was a report, on the same date, about his discussions in Brussels

— in a general way, nothing specific. In that column he didn't mention

any of the products. He simply made reference to the fact that they had

some goods to trade, and that they were looking in Europe for some

know-how which could help them, but he wasn't any more specific than

that. It's a fair enough comment to say that if he gets up and tells us

what took place, then somehow he has to put to rest the story told by

the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development who, in his

usual effusive way, appears to have let something out of the bag — that

in fact, yes, there were discussions about the sale of uranium. That's

a fairly straightforward kind of situation which, surely, the Premier

must be able to answer.

I want to move to the question of

the resignation of the chief justice, Mr. Farris. We have yet to hear

from the Premier just what took place in 1978 at the time when the

chief justice of the appeal court resigned. The other night I

suggested, and I want to again remind the Premier, as the head of the

government, that I presume that that kind of discussion on that

particular issue usually takes place between the heads of government,

government of British Columbia. The Prime Minister of Canada doesn't

tell his executive assistant to phone up the Premier and tell him we're

going to have to appoint another chief justice of the appeal court. I

ask the Premier again if he will tell us, when he gets up to reply, if

he received a call from the Prime Minister of Canada regarding the

issue surrounding the resignation of the former chief justice of the

appeal court, Mr. John Farris? What took place? Did he have discussions

with the then Attorney-General? We now know from the report given last

week by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) in relation to what's

known as the Vogel report that there was some involvement in respect to

a case that is known as the Wendy King case.

I raised this

issue under this estimate, Mr. Chairman.... We did have some problems

the other night, but you accepted that it was appropriate and we could

do this because the Premier had insinuated himself into a discussion

around the Vogel case after the statement by the Attorney — General. He

said that he wanted to be able to....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI:

Don't worry about him, Mr. Chairman. You've already ruled. Just let him

sit back there and when he gets enough feeling about it all, he'll get

up and say something. Now, Mr. Chairman, we have dealt with this issue

of whether it's relevant under this vote, and it is.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. We have not dealt that thoroughly with the

issue. The fact of the matter is that the "Vogel situation" is

presently before the courts and as such is sub judice and will not be

discussed in this....

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not before the courts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is before the courts, I am informed.

MR. LEVI: No, it's not. It's not before the courts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Chair is advised that the Attorney-General did advise this House that the matter has been filed.

MR. BARRETT:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I don't know what you refer to in

terms of any statement made by the Attorney-General. We are dealing

with the fact of law, not opinion. The fact of law is that under

federal statute any application for suit against the Canadian

Broadcasting Corporation must wait 90 days as an application before the

suit is filed. There is no suit against CBC on this matter.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You don't know that.

MR. BARRETT: You don't know; I don't know. We'll deal with the facts. We both confess to the same ignorance. On that basis....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you....

MR. BARRETT: Let me finish, Mr. Chairman. On that basis there is no suit. There is an application but no suit.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: That has to be ruled on after the 90 days are up.

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

MR. LAUK:

On the same point of order, irrespective of any lawsuit being commenced

— one apparently has not been — the question of sub judice lies only in

that evidence which is gravamen to the case, which is libel and

slander, as we have seen. It has nothing to do with the evidence that

may be involved in criminal actions.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The first member for Vancouver Centre has the floor on a point of order

and on a very important matter before this House. I would ask members

to give him the floor.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. My understanding of the sub judice rule is that we should not

discuss the actual evidence that may be heard before the court in a

matter that is currently before the court, either by process or actual

trial. The difference here is that the libel and slander action will

incorporate evidence that did.... For example, the CBC used the word

"alleged" in their broadcast. What was, perhaps, the truth of the word

"alleged" about interference by the Deputy Attorney-General? The

question that is being

[ Page 1721 ]

raised

by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) is related to the

actual evidence surrounding the Wendy King case, which only

incidentally was alleged in a CBC broadcast as being a case in which

the Deputy Attorney-General interfered.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

Hon.

members, it is my duty and obligation to advise members of this House

of the sub judice rule as it applies so they will not offend the rights

of any party presently before the courts. The Chair will take this

matter under advisement. In the meantime, I would ask members just to

refrain on that particular matter until it is resolved.

Further,

while I have the members' attention, I would again point out that we

are discussing at this time the matters before us under vote 9, the

Premier's estimates. As such, matters falling under the purview of the

Attorney-General are more aptly discussed in that particular vote.

MR. LEVI:

Mr. Chairman, just to be clear on what it is you have said, I made only

a passing reference to that unmentionable situation. Only in respect to

the role that the Premier had in relation to being informed about a new

chief justice of the appeal court did I raise those questions. I gave

the reasons, as I understand them, why there was a need to have a new

chief justice — because the other one resigned. So I am not in any way

going into that unmentionable situation. I simply want to know from the

Premier whether he had discussions with the Prime Minister of Canada

and whether he had discussions with the then Attorney-General regarding

the circumstances of the resignation and the reasons for it. That, I

think, is fair game in the discussions we're having.

To move

on, I indicated earlier that the Premier, as the leader of the

government, within his own ministry and his own office, employed for a

period of four years an individual by the name of Dan Campbell. His

job, as I understood it, was to coordinate intergovernmental affairs.

We have information to the extent that at the moment an inquiry is

going on by the Attorney-General in respect of whether there were any

breaches of the elections act. Now I want to ask the Premier.... One of

the Premier's friends, Mr. Austin Taylor, who is generally known in

this province — and has been known for some time — as what is

characterized as a bagman for the Social Credit Party.... A bagman is

an individual who goes around raising money for political parties. This

is not peculiar to the Social Credit Party; all parties have people who

do that. This particular individual, Mr. Taylor, raised money for that

party. During the revelation, which came from a former member of the

Social Credit caucus research department, that Dan Campbell, who at

that particular time.... For more than three years he was an employee

of the Premier, a close confidant, previously an executive assistant

when the Premier was the Leader of the Opposition. The allegation was

that he was giving out thousand-dollar bills to pay for parties and

accommodation.

I recall that at the time the issue was

raised about what bank accounts this came from, the Premier said that

he didn't know much about the bank accounts, but that in any case there

wouldn't be very much money in those bank accounts. We found out

subsequently that there must have been at least $250,000 in those bank

accounts, because very quickly the former Attorney-General of the

province under the previous Social Credit administration, Mr. Peterson,

in probably the fastest investigation on record, told us that there was

an oversight of $250,000 in the issue of the election expenses, and

they filed an amended report. Now that Premier has to tell this House

exactly what the situation was in respect to Mr. Campbell, who was

being paid with public money; he was a public servant, he was involved.

You're looking at something, Mr. Chairman. Am I trespassing?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

MR. LEVI:

Oh, I thought I was trespassing somewhere. You've got to be very

careful with this estimate, you know. We're dealing with a Premier

who's not going to get up; he won't answer any questions; he keeps

whispering little asides; he hasn't made one objection yet, except

through the side of his mouth, which usually reaches your chair, Mr.

Chairman. I would like him to get up to make a specific objection on a

point of order and tell us what it is that he's upset about. So far we

haven't had that.

Going back to Mr. Campbell, Mr. Campbell

was his employee, paid for by taxpayers' money. Now the Premier might

tell us, when he answers the question, whether at the time Mr. Campbell

was giving out this money, as reported by Miss McKay, he was being paid

as a public servant. In other words, while he was in the employ of the

Premier, was he also doing work for the Social Credit Party? I'm sure

that that's the kind of thing that might have come to the Premier at

the time when this particular case broke. After all, he was his senior

official in that department; he had so much confidence in him that he

was going to send him to Ottawa. During the time that the last election

was fought, was Mr. Campbell on salary? The Premier should tell us that.

While

the Premier is back there, thinking about what took place in the last

election, perhaps he'd be good enough to tell us another thing. As the

leader of the Social Credit Party, as the Premier of the province, he

spends a great deal of time flying around the province in a jet plane

that was not a government plane, but a plane that was either on loan or

a gift or grant. What was it? Perhaps the Premier would like to tell us

about that. Was that part of the election expenses that were tabled? Is

that the kind of thing that was declared by his party, or was that an

oversight? These are very simple questions for him to answer.

are not moving very far in his estimates, because there is a very

serious issue of getting some confusion out of the way about who was

telling the truth about the uranium. I'm trying to find out from him

just what took place about the resignation of the former chief justice

of the province; I'm trying to find out what action he took in respect

to a former employee of his, Dan Campbell, and his wholesale giving out

of some $65,000. I can well imagine what would have happened if that

group over there would have discovered that the NDP had given out $65

and not declared it. We're talking about $250,000, and yet we have no

accounting in those statements from the Premier, and we're now waiting

for the report from the government.

So from the point of

these estimates, all of the questions that have been asked are valid.

They can be answered simply if there is nothing to hide, because

they'll continue to be asked. After all, there is sufficient proof, and

if the Premier does not accept that proof, then I don't know what proof

he will accept.

In the first instance, the thrust of this debate since his

[ Page 1722 ]

estimates

have been up has been in respect to the sale of uranium. And that is an

important issue. Because what has happened all of a sudden, because the

Premier has put a moratorium on uranium — and that's okay; that was

pretty late, almost three years after he was in Europe — we didn't hear

a word from him. The only justification for what he was not doing, in

terms of putting on the moratorium, was the fact that in 1974 the NDP

issued a licence to do some exploration — some six years ago.

Well,

since 1973 we've had a number of problems that we've dealt with in

terms of uranium and nuclear energy, particularly the Three Mile

incident, which makes the whole discussion publicly a compelling debate

about the present and future safety of people in respect of this. That

debate has gone on for some time. What took place in 1974 is not

terribly relevant. Then the feelings about the use of uranium were not

as intense as now. North America got a very severe warning as a result

of the meltdown that took place in 1979 in the United States, so that

became a very compelling subject of discussion. The Premier cannot

continue to say that somehow there is a problem in respect to the

position of the opposition in this matter.

What we are doing

is simply reviewing the behaviour of the Premier and one of his

ministers in respect to what he was doing overseas in 1977. Did he have

correspondence with people, after he came back, about the sale of

uranium? He had discussions — was there correspondence? Was there

encouragement in respect to setting up in British Columbia? People have

done this; there are at least eight companies in British Columbia that

were involved in doing exploration, and they did not spend a great deal

of money, on the basis that somehow nobody was interested or it was not

going to be possible to do. We had Hydraulic Lake Resources, which is

not too far from where the Premier is; we had Tyee Lake Resources,

Placer Development, Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel — which is a

Japanese company — Union Carbide, Union Oil, Beaverdale, we had Noreen

Energy Resources, Gambeau-Chicamauga Mines, Sedimex Fund, which is a

West German company, and Mickana Mining Corporation — they were all in

this province developing plans and technical knowledge for the

exploration of uranium. Companies like that do not do that kind of

thing without some expectation that they will be able to go forward.

Some of that expectation, we submit, was based on the fact that in 1977

offers were made by the touring ministers that we would sell uranium.

Those are the facts as we know them. Those companies are here investing

money. They don't do it to throw it away. They had some expectations

that what they were developing could come to fruition and would be part

of that trade — the selling of uranium.

Those are the

questions that we want the Premier to answer. It's not difficult. We

don't want him to tell us that because we are going after him in

respect to this, somehow he is going to dig up something that took

place years ago which is somehow going to deflect from this debate.

We're not going to be deflected from this debate. We simply want to

know the truth about what took place in 1977, what the thinking of the

Premier was in 1978. We know that he suddenly saw the light about a

month ago and put a moratorium on uranium. But what was his thinking

prior to that? We have never had that kind of discussion from him. All

we've had from him was that they go overseas and attempt to sell all

the products produced in this province. We're informed that among those

products uranium was mentioned. That's very straightforward. Now if

that's not the case, then he should get up, very quietly, without

shrieking, and tell us exactly what did take place then. That's the way

it's got to happen.

What will he say, for instance, if we're

able to produce another letter from somebody in Europe who says: "Yes,

he did talk to us about uranium?" What will he do then? He'll probably

insult those people. He'll get the member for Vancouver South (Mr.

Hyndman) to make an incredible defence. I listened to that member

yesterday and I thought the Premier was on trial. When he says the only

evidence we have is double hearsay.... This isn't a court of law. It's

the highest court in this land. You don't have to be defended by an

individual who is a lawyer. You simply have to get up and answer for

yourself. It's very straightforward.

Just in review, Mr.

Speaker, so that the Premier won't forget what I'd like him to answer —

tell us about the uranium. Tell us straightforwardly about it. What was

your thinking in 1978 and 1979 in respect to the possibility of uranium

exports? Did you have any discussions with these companies? Did they

receive any encouragement at all to continue exploration? What kind of

expectations did they have? Mr. Moelaert, who comes from your area, Mr.

Chairman, to the Premier, said: "Premier Bennett said in Brussels last

year that he favours the selling of B.C. uranium to western European

countries." That's the question we would like to have answered.

would like to have questions answered in respect to the appointment of

the new chief justice of the appeal court and what discussions took

place around the resignation of the former chief justice of the appeal

court. What discussions did he have with the Attorney-General? Did he

make inquiries as to why this resignation was necessary? What is he

privy to that he's not prepared to tell us? Let him tell us about Dan

Campbell, his former trusted friend and employee, who during the 1979

election was throwing around thousanddollar bills in the most

incredible way while he was in the employ of the Premier. What kind of

discussions do we have there? What is he prepared to tell us about the

funds that he indicated he really didn't know existed — but if they did

there wasn't very much money in them, which turned out to be something

of the order of $250,000? I'd like him to tell us about that aircraft

he flew around with during the election. Who paid for it? Is that more

money from Mr. Austin Taylor or Mr. Ian Adams? Is that part of the...?

MR. LEA: Was it money from Canada?

MR. LEVI:

Yes, was it money from Canada? Did they get money from overseas? He

does a lot of travelling. Do you get any money from the oil companies

overseas?

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: You see,

that's his answer. We're asking him whether he got money from overseas

and then he says something about Washington. Do you think that really

answers the question? Because that took place on one side, somehow that

justifies you doing it on your side. Simply say: "We didn't get any

money from them." Don't use that silly argument about "did you get any?"

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, let us address the Chair and return to the regular rules of debate.

[ Page 1723 ]

MR. LEVI:

You're right, Mr. Chairman. Well, we're getting more debate from the

Premier today from his seat than we are from him on his feet. So

hopefully we'll get him on his feet and he'll answer some of the

questions. He looks like he's ready now to go into a quiet,

dispassionate answering of questions that have been put to him. The

uranium question; chief justice of the appeal court; Dan Campbell

giving out all this money; the jet plane — who paid for it? Just tell

us those things in a very candid fashion and then we'll get onto other

parts. It's a very straightforward request coming from the opposition,

Mr. Chairman.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, that

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam who just sat down kept asking the

Premier to get on his feet. I would suggest that this House would have

been better off in terms of the quality of debate and the

responsibilities of a member of this House to the citizens of this

province if that member had stayed in his seat.

I was home

on the weekend; I've just come back from Vancouver. I got three phone

calls last night from people in the interior asking me what is going on

in this Legislature. They're asking why, under the budget debate, the

content of the budget was not debated. Now they're asking why, under

the Premier's estimates, the content of the Premier's responsibilities

are not being debated. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to know the same

thing.

This hon. member from Maillardville-Coquitlam has set

himself up, not only in this House but outside, as being the greatest

proponent of the British parliamentary system, of fairness, of equity,

of responsibility. He's talked in terms of the traditions of the

system, the honour of the system, the decorum of the House, and the

quality of debate. Yet, Mr. Chairman, nobody in this House, not only

during this session but in previous sessions, has offered such an

affront to those very qualities that he proposes to espouse and does

espouse outside this House.

I cite for your consideration

the debate we have just heard, if I may dignify it by the term

"debate." What is it about? Where does that member stand? The only

reason he can talk this way in this House and act this way in this

House, which is the direct opposite of what he espouses outside, is

that he's not getting any press and most people don't read Hansard .

I would challenge, through you, Mr. Chairman, that member to go outside

and wallow in the muckraking out there that he's wallowing in in this

House. When it comes from a member with the record that member has in

terms of his own conduct when he was a minister of the Crown, then I

believe the people of this province and the members of this House have

a responsibility to question him, to question the responsibility of his

actions and to question whether or not he's meeting his commitment to

the people of this province, for which he is being paid most handsomely.

ask you: where do you stand, Mr. Member, on uranium mining? We've heard

this muckraking. We've heard this phone call from a civil servant of a

socialist philosophy from a different government in a different

country, who took his leaky phone line to a paid political animal of

your employ. And you ask us to give that sort of an argument any

credibility? Do you ask the people of British Columbia to have any

sense of concern about that sort of an argument? I suggest, Mr.

Chairman, that it's ridiculous.

But where does that member stand? It is your government and your party, I would

remind you, Mr. Member, that is the uranium-mining capital of Canada. It is

your government — the NDP in Saskatchewan — and it is you, Mr. Member, and all

your members across Canada, who said: "It is our party that espouses one

policy across Canada. " It is your party, Mr. Member — stand up and admit

it — that is the proponent of uranium mining in this country, and you're

skirting around a masquerade. You didn't tell the people that it was under

your Premier's leadership — the very estimates we're now debating for

our Premier — that the first uranium exploration permit was issued in this province.

Did you tell the public that? Have we heard that referred to in your debate?

Where do you stand, Mr. Member?

would also say, Mr. Chairman, that it's that party that has been the

leader and that says publicly: "There is money in uranium." But after

that permit was issued under the NDP administration in this province,

under the Premier's estimates of that day, did they set up a royal

commission? Did they set up an inquiry committee? Did they set up

anything to examine the feasibility of uranium mining, to look into the

health and food concerns of the people? Did they do anything? No. Why

don't you, Mr. Member, tell that to the public of British Columbia? If

you want to talk about uranium mining, then let's stick to the facts,

because it was your administration who were the ones that wanted to be

the money-grubbers through uranium, not this administration, and not

this Premier.

What does this Premier do? He has led health,

education, and recreation policies in this province which are second to

none in Canada. Do you ask questions about that, Mr. Member? Do you

offer any constructive criticism about that? No way. And let the

records show that, under our Premier's estimates and under the

leadership we've experienced in British Columbia, it's not there.

I'd

like to talk about tourism for just a moment, because the Premier of

this province, whose estimates we're debating now, has done more for

the people of this province, in terms of developing an imaginative new

industry of the future, than any other Premier or leader in this

country. It was under this Premier's leadership that a very, very

troubled industry, that was suffering from the kicks of your

government, appointed a Minister of Tourism who gave the industry flair

and international attention, and who set the groundwork....

MR. LEA: And $500,000 worth of smile buttons.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Yes, Mr. Chairman, we think a smile is of great value on this side of

the House. We believe in smiling and being optimistic, and we believe

in the future. Look at the mouths over there. They all turn down like

sad faces. They are sad faces. If I belonged to that party, I'd have a

sad face too.

Let me say for your information, Mr. Chairman

— and I know you're interested — that this Premier then, through his

estimates, appointed a Minister of Tourism who put together the

foundation for the type of information that we have to have to develop

a stable industry for the future. And it was under this government,

under this leadership, that we saw the first-ever five-year development

plan for tourism in British Columbia, the introduction of annual

marketing plans, and the introduction of annual short-term and

long-term — oh, you're leaving, Mr. Member; I'd leave too if I were you

— promotional plans, and resident awareness programs, so that people in

British Columbia could know the industry, understand it, and know the

role they played.

The list is endless, but I would point to what's happening

[ Page 1724 ]

right

now in British Columbia, in terms of the future of our people, under

the estimates of our Premier. I would refer to British Columbia Place.

I know the opposition don't like to refer to British Columbia Place. I

don't think they even understand it, because they're so hindsighted.

One

of the first obligations of a leader of this province, or of anywhere

in this country, is to design a new type of secondary cash flow and a

new way to create jobs for people in the future, because the world is

changing — whether it has escaped your notice or not, Mr. Member — and

it's under the leadership of this Premier that we in British Columbia

have some of the most imaginative revenue-producing concepts anywhere

in the world. Our Premier has recognized that by developing

international attractions we not only create jobs in British Columbia

directly through that development and that promotion, but we also

generate an interest in British Columbia that will spread and benefit

throughout the province. I would cite the trade and convention centre.

What did the NDP leader, as Premier, do for British Columbia in

tourism? Name one thing that he did that in any way contributed....

MR. LEA: The Marguerite .

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Yes, that was the Titanic looking to happen, and you made it happen, my friend. Name one thing that they did under their leadership to develop a future.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

You're quite right, Mr. Member. Under the leadership of the NDP

then-Premier, they told the visitors to stay home. "Get out! Go home,

Americans. Go home, Europeans. Go home, Japanese. Go home, Chinese.

Don't come and visit us." They also entertained a very hostile

attitude, Mr. Chairman, to people of other races, and that's something

we don't subscribe to. That was under the leadership, and is still

under the leadership, of that NDP leader.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: It's in the paper. It's in Hansard .

The minister of Tourism of that day used racially discriminatory terms

in this House. If it was an accident, then how do you explain them

being repeated again by the very same party and referring to the very

same people? It's a shame. Under our Premier, and with these estimates,

we welcome people to British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

I wonder if the member would like to stand up and make a speech instead

of chit-chatting all the time. Take your place. In the debate.

Mr.

Chairman, in the very city of Victoria where we now stand, under the

leadership of the man whose estimates we're now debating, we will open

Crystal Gardens tomorrow. It's totally supported by the government of

British Columbia and totally dedicated to the people of this province.

It will encourage visitors to come to British Columbia, as will the

Victoria Trade and Convention Centre.

It's not confined to

the lower mainland. The benefits are all over the province. In Fort St.

John, the northern area and the Peace River area, there are

opportunities for those people to develop a solid industry that will

help themselves as well as attract visitors. In the Terrace and Prince

Rupert area there are benefits under the federal-provincial agreement

that were signed and initiated by this Premier, this staff and this

government. It gives an opportunity for people outside the lower

mainland to find out what their assets are, to identify them and to

develop them. Again, it is for the benefit of their own people as well

as for the visitors.

Mr. Chairman, there was a report

introduced in this House yesterday on a study of the British Columbia

ski areas and their marketing potential. We have the 3-M study which

will be introduced shortly. We had an industrial organizational study,

all done under the leadership of the man whose estimates we are

debating now. Why aren't the opposition asking questions or making

comments about that? Why aren't they offering suggestions as to how we

can take these reports and make them develop in such a way to benefit

our people? What did the NDP do in the area of tourism? What effort did

they ever make under their Premier to lay a foundation for this future

industry? What effort did they ever make to identify where future

markets should be? What effort did they ever make to identify where the

revenues would be most beneficial in this province?

Well,

they're awfully chatty over there, Mr. Chairman, and it makes me feel

that certainly they understand one thing, and that is that under the

leadership of their Premier they were a disaster. Under the leadership

of our Premier, the man whose estimates we are debating right now,

British Columbia has never fared better. The people have never been

more optimistic, and the future has never looked brighter. We have

never been better equipped to meet that future for the benefit of our

people.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, when a government

changes policy, there is nothing whatever wrong with that. It is their

prerogative to do so. When a government substitutes a good policy for a

bad one, that is to be commended and congratulated. When a government

determines that its previous policy was wrong or in error for some

reason or another and introduces a better policy in its place, most

reasonable people would agree that's a good thing. This government

changed its policy, and approximately a month ago announced that

uranium mining and exploration in British Columbia will be forbidden

for a period of some seven years. They announced their policy and it

was clearly a change from the previous policy. There is nothing wrong

with that, except...

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't agree with it?

MR. BARBER: Oh, I support it. I strongly support it.

...in

this special regard, and that's what we're debating today. When a

government changes a bad policy and introduces a good one, we

congratulate it. When at the same time they attempt, however, a 1984

rewrite of history to try and persuade us that their bad policy never

existed, then that's unreasonable and cannot be supported.

The

reason we're attempting now to raise questions that clearly members

opposite would rather we did not raise is because we reject the way in

which this Premier is attempting to rewrite history. It was his

government's policy to encourage, assist and promote the exploration

and mining of uranium in British Columbia. That was his policy.

[ Page 1725 ]

says today that it is no longer their policy and they have, in fact,

for a period of seven years established a moratorium on uranium

exploration and mining in this province. That is their new policy,

replacing the old one. Now that's fair. There's nothing wrong with

that. The new policy is better than the old one because the old one was

not adequate on economic or environmental grounds, and most certainly

not on health grounds either. Up to this point, Mr. Chairman, the

opposition does not dispute the government's new policy. What we

dispute is the pretence that they never had an old policy in favour of

selling uranium. What we dispute is the unwillingness of the Premier to

stand up and say: "You're right. This new policy replaces an old one.

In the past our government did allow and support the exploration and

mining of uranium, but we have now received new evidence which

persuades us that such a policy is incorrect." A political leader of

stature will be respected when he stands up and says, like another

political leader of stature used to say so often: "We've taken a second

look. On the basis of that second look, I'm pleased to announce this

new policy, this new decision, this new creation, of government." Fair

enough. The public is fair-minded. The public is honourable. The public

gives credit to people who will admit that they made a mistake — for

innocent reasons, I'm sure — and having made a mistake, own up to it in

a responsible way and say: "This is our new policy because the old one

was not adequate. It was mistaken. "

What we resent is that

the Premier tries this Orwellian rewrite of history, which pretends

that the old policy was never there at all.

The reason we

imagine — there's no other rational approach — that the Premier is in

this difficulty is because so far they have been unwilling to justify

in a philosophical or logical way the new uranium policy. Rather, all

they've done is announce it, attempt to take political credit for it,

and make the best mileage they can from it. All governments do that.

Ours did it, yours does it. There's nothing wrong with that; that's

politics as usual. Where this Premier lacks stature, though, is the

fact that he has been unable to acknowledge that his previous policy

was incorrect, inadequate and insupportable, so much so that he's now

in the current conflict that this opposition has been discussing for

two days and will continue to discuss for days further. In a moment of

anger, in a fit of pique and annoyance, he yelled out "no" across the

floor two days ago when we asked him: "Did you ever try to sell

uranium?" I bet he wishes he could withdraw that. I bet he wishes he

could take that back, because in fact his credibility is now at stake.

Let

me remind him, the people are fair-minded. This opposition tries to be

fair-minded, but we're as partisan as you are, and we're not always

fair-minded, I'm sure. We're no less, or no more, partisan than you

are. But, nonetheless, the people generally are not partisan; they are

rather fair-minded. They give credit to people who are big enough to

admit mistakes and to announce that the new policy is better than the

old. They don't give credit to people who pretend there never was an

old policy. Now in this case we're dealing with a Premier who would

have us believe that he never did intend to sell uranium.

Why

is this Premier in so much trouble? Why do most people acknowledge that

if an election were held tomorrow the coalition government would be

defeated? Why is it that poll after poll for the last eight months has

demonstrated in a scientific and credible way that this government

would be defeated tomorrow if they had to go to the electorate?

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Well, I guess Dr. Gallup took some of those. You've seen the same polls we've seen. Come on, don't pretend otherwise.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Are you denying Gallup Polls exist too?

Mr. Chairman, most people in this province acknowledge that the

coalition government is in some trouble. Their hope, of course, is that

in the next two or three years, if they can postpone an election and

not inadvertently cause one by failing to show up for a vote — thus we

no longer have night sittings — they will be able to recover their lost

fortunes and win the next election in — dare I suggest it? — 1984.

The reason they are in some trouble is because the Premier has

lost credibility in the eyes of the people. When ne returns from Japan

to defend his party's involvement in dirty tricks, wears a silly little

red bandana on his head, smirks a silly little grin and pretends

nothing happened, the Premier loses credibility. He loses credibility

and stature in the eyes of the people. The Premier is losing further

credibility today because apparently he won't admit that what everyone

knows was their policy until a month ago has now been changed.

The

political standing of the Social Credit Party is today at the lowest it

has been since August 1972 when they were defeated. If the government

disputes that fact, let them call an election. We would be delighted to

bet money on the outcome. However, they won't do that.

Let's

go back a bit and examine the credibility of the Premier and examine

the atmosphere in this province in terms of the development of resource

industries in 1977. In that year, the Premier led a delegation to

Brussels to meet with high officials in the European Economic

Community. In that year he did what he should have done. He stood up

and he said: "These are our resources; this is our ability to deliver

them; this is the price we look for; and this is the resource

development policy we espouse. " Let me say again that we don't object

to any of that. It is right and correct and proper. No problem.

In a report from Brussels that was published by Southam News Service in the Vancouver Province , September 16, 1977, was the following:

"Leading

the first provincial government delegation to the European Economic

Community since the Trudeau government forged a contractual link, the

Premier" — referring to Mr. Bennett — "said he was not trying to drum

up business for today. He said he had come to create a climate in which

deals would be signed, and that his talks with European Economic

Community president Roy Jenkins and other top European officials had

gone better than he had expected."

It is credible and it is

reasonable that in 1977, on the basis of the old policy, the Premier

would have gone to the EEC and told them: "Yes, uranium is present in

British Columbia. Yes, it is developable. Yes, we are prepared to help

develop it." That was the climate in 1977; that was the policy in 1977;

that was his duty in 1977. We fully believe that is what he did in

1977. Again, fair enough. That was the policy and that was the

position. There can be no dispute. However, the fact that

[ Page 1726 ]

the

Premier was then encouraging the mining and exploration for uranium is

a fact he prefers to deny in 1980. So you have to ask what happened in

the intervening three years. You have to ask whether the new policy,

which replaces the old policy, derives in some degree from the

coalition government's current unpopularity with the people. We suspect

it does. We suspect further that, for political reasons, the policy

announced a month ago was made necessary in this province. We suspect

that the Premier, who apparently isn't big enough to admit that the

1977 uranium policy has been replaced by the 1980 policy, is thereby in

trouble today. His credibility is further undermined.

If he

had simply said, "You're right, the new policy replaces the old. You're

right, I did talk about uranium in 1977. That was the policy then, but

we changed the policy today," he wouldn't be in this trouble. He

wouldn't have these questions raised about his credibility. But, no, he

prefers instead this Orwellian rewrite of history. He prefers instead

to blurt across the aisle: "No, I never went to sell uranium." It is

credible that in 1977 he did. That was the atmosphere; that was the

policy; that was his duty; that's what he did. It is credible that he

did it then. It is less than credible that three years later, following

a new policy, he would have us believe he never did any such thing.

The

same

article published from Brussels by Southam News Service goes on to

add strength to our case that it was credible in 1977 that the Premier

attempted to sell uranium. Let me continue with the article: "European

Economic Community officials told the British Columbians they were

displeased at the Canadian government's halting last January of uranium

exports, pending the European adoption of tougher safeguards against

nuclear proliferation. "

Back to the atmosphere of 1977. The

people of Canada were suspicious that Canadian sales of uranium to

reactor projects in India and in Pakistan might be used for the purpose

of developing, secretly and wrongly, nuclear weapons. Therefore the

Canadian government wisely changed its policy, but didn't pretend that

they never had an old policy. They said that the new policy would

attempt to guarantee that Canadian uranium would not be used in the

promotion of nuclear weapons around the world. At the time, Mr. Trudeau

got a lot of credit for replacing a bad policy with a good one. He

didn't attempt to rewrite history. He didn't attempt to pretend that

the bad policy never existed. He said honestly: "A new situation has

developed, we have evidence that this uranium is being used for the

production of nuclear weapons. We will not tolerate that, as a moral

people. That is an immoral use of our resources. Therefore we're going

to put safeguards on it."

Returning to the quotation, Mr.

Chairman: "'They want it, we've got it,' Bennett said of B.C.'s yet

unmined uranium deposits. He said it was up to the federal government

to decide whether uranium exports should be resumed." To continue from

the

article in Southam News, dateline Brussels, 1977: "Phillips told

top EEC officials in a separate meeting to 'come and be our guests' in

the exploration of British Columbia for uranium. But he warned they

would have to 'take their chances' whether the federal government would

let them take the uranium out."

Until this week there is no

record that the Premier ever disputed the contents of this article.

Until this week there is no record of any statement whatever from the

Premier or the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development that

the facts set out in this

article were untrue. For three years the

facts stated here in this Southam News report were acknowledged by the

silence of that administration as being perfectly correct. It is

credible to conclude that the report is correct, because until this

week it was not politically necessary for the government to pretend

that it wasn't.

Why is the credibility of the Premier being

questioned? It is not because the new policy is a good one; plain and

simply it is a good policy, It is because the Premier wants us to

believe that in 1977 when the 1977 policy was in force he wasn't

attempting to execute the policy after all; somehow he had miraculously

anticipated the 1980 policy. The Premier can't have it both ways.

That's why his credibility is being diminished by his behaviour in this

debate. That's why that sudden "no! " shouted across the aisles makes

him out to be a little less than candid with this House.

Only

this week has the government found it necessary to wonder whether or

not this three-year-old news report was accurate. Only this week are

they now challenging the credibility of Etienne Reuter, the secretary

who took notes and prepared in writing a statement of what the Premier

said in private in 1977. Only this week does the Premier apparently

find it necessary to try the Orwellian rewrite of history that he

should never have attempted. There is no other rational explanation of

the Premier's behaviour; unless of course you are to begin to conclude

that the Premier is an irrational man. But we wouldn't want to do that;

we need him in his current position more than their party does. We over

here need him there more than they'll ever know.

What would

happen in this province if the Premier, whose estimates we are

debating, had the stature to stand up and say: "I've taken a second

look. I agree we were misinformed. I agree we were badly advised. I

agree we have mishandled the issue of the allocation of the Rupert , the Surrey and the Marguerite ."?

A man of real political stature and real political courage would do

that, and the people would admire him for it. The people would give him

credit for it; they would say: "Thank God there is a Premier who is

willing to admit that from time to time, like any other mortal person,

he makes mistakes." With the apparent exception of that cabinet and its

backbenchers who want to be in that cabinet, virtually every person in

greater Victoria knows for a fact that they have mishandled the

Marguerite issue. Everyone knows it, everyone acknowledges it, and

everyone except the Premier is willing to give the Premier's government

a chance to put in a new policy and to allocate the ships where they

correctly belong.

If the Premier had the stature and the

courage to admit that maybe he was misadvised, ill-informed by devils

somewhere or other, who tricked him, he would today receive a lot of

credit. If the Premier today said, "You know, it is credible that in

1977, I was promoting the 1977 policy; it is credible that in 1977, I

was trying to sell uranium, because that was our policy; it is possible

that in 1977 Southam News got the story right out of Brussels; it is

credible that Mr. Reuter has no reason to distort, no reason whatever

to misrepresent the conduct of that meeting; it's credible — why should

you suspect otherwise — that I would support my own government's

policies in 1977, and therefore I was wrong to have blurted out a

sudden 'no' — " if the Premier would do that, this aspect of his

estimates debate would be over. I don't know how you can put it much

more clearly. They've changed their policy; the new one replaces the

old one, and that's a good thing. But for the Premier to attempt to

misrepresent the old policy and his advocacy of it is not fair and not

reasonable.

[ Page 1727 ]

Why

isn't he big enough to admit that what he did in '77, trying to sell

uranium in Europe — consistent with his policy then — is not consistent

with his policy today, and therefore the famous "no" he shouted out was

inappropriate and misleading. If he did that very simple thing, this

part of his estimates would be at an end.

However, I promise

him this: if the Premier is unable or unwilling to clear up this

massive contradiction about the public facts, the public evidence, the

clear reports of his 1977 policy and his advocacy of it, we will be on

this subject for some days to come, because the people of British

Columbia do not want to be led by a Premier who cannot, it appears,

distinguish between — one has to watch one's parliamentary language —

the truth that everyone knows and the rewrite of it that no one will

believe. The Premier can't have it both ways. Old policy replaced by a

new policy — fine; he advocates an old policy three years ago — fine;

he advocates a new policy today — fine. What we resent, what we object

to, what we reject in every way, is any attempt to mislead the people

about his responsibility for the old policy.

Any attempt to

so mislead the people will only do further injury to an already badly

injured Premier and a badly injured Social Credit Party in this

province. And quite why the government doesn't see that, I don't know.

They know they're in political trouble with the electorate of British

Columbia. That trouble will only worsen as long as they continue to

stonewall, to attempt to deceive, to mislead, to misrepresent the facts

regarding their old uranium policy, the Premier's advocacy of it then

and his denial of it now.

It's a simple matter for a big

man, Mr. Chairman. A big man stands up and says: "Yes, you're right. I

shouldn't have shouted out the 'no,' it wasn't right. I do support the

new policy, it is superior to the old, and I trust the opposition does

as well." That would be a fair reply for a fair-minded Premier to make.

Quite why the Premier, now going into the third day, has refused every

opportunity that has been offered him to clear the record, to make a

clear and forthright statement, consistent with the facts surrounding

his 1977 policy, we find hard to comprehend. He's got a simple out;

it's the out all leaders of political courage have; it's the out his

father had: "You're right, we took a second look. You're right, our

previous policy was not adequate. You're right, new information gives a

new policy which is adequate. Here it is."

One of the

reasons his father lasted 20 years as Premier is that the people of

British Columbia admired that kind of candor and that willingness to

take a second look. One of the reasons that that Premier's son is

significantly less in favour with the electorate is that he doesn't

know, it would appear, how fair-minded the people are and how willing

they are to give credit to a man who stands up and says: "I made a

mistake."

There is one precedent that I would draw to the

Premier's attention, one recorded instance where he admitted that a

mistake was made, one occasion only during his entire Premiership where

he was big enough to admit that his government goofed, and goofed

badly, It was the Seaboard Insurance fiasco. Clearly the government

made a stupid mistake. They didn't do it on purpose; they did it by

error. They didn't do it maliciously or malevolently; they didn't plot

to drive a legitimate company out of business. They did it by accident.

That night, toward the end of the debate — you may remember we had

night sittings then, Mr. Chairman — the Premier was man enough to stand

up and say: "I accept responsibility on behalf of my government for

this foolish error." What happened when he was big enough to do that?

Was he embarrassed? Did people attack him for it? Was he humiliated

across the province for having stood up and been responsible for his

government's Seaboard Insurance blunder? Not at all. Rather, the

Premier, in the eyes of people who observed what he said, in the eyes

of the electorate of British Columbia who said: "That's a good thing

that he admits that he is responsible and he was wrong...." I expect

the Premier would find a similarly positive result if he was big enough

today to admit that what he said two days ago was not correct, was not

justified by the facts, and I invite him to take the opportunity to do

so now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the member for Central Fraser Valley, who was on his feet first.

MR. RITCHIE:

It's really disgusting, annoying, very deceiving and frustrating to sit

here and listen to attack, attack, attack, continually — day after day,

attack. I just wonder exactly what we can expect next from that group

over there. Disorganized attack, organized attack, but attack

nevertheless. Mr. Chairman, I find it very difficult to accept their

approach to politics. Disgusting! Personal attacks, experts at

fabrication.... Name it and they will fabricate it. We've heard all

this talk about uranium mining. How about the member for Nelson-Creston

(Mr. Nicolson)? What is his position on uranium mining? What was his

position on uranium mining? You tell me that. Get him in here and get

him to stand up and tell us that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, again, if we would address the Chair in our remarks, it does tend to help the order of debate.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Chairman, I apologize. You will excuse me, but like I said earlier,

sitting here day after day listening to this garbage does nothing but

annoy me and get me frustrated, and I cannot help but bring out my

feelings and express to the people of this province my feelings about

that opposition over there.

We listened a little bit to the

member for Maillardville Coquitlam (Mr. Levi). Well, he talked about a

thousand dollar cheque that was spent by someone in our party. Can you

remember the $100 million mistake? How did that happen? He didn't even

know that it happened.

HON. MR. HEWITT: A bookkeeping error.

MR. RITCHIE: A bookkeeping error of $100 million.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: What about his wife's bank account? Do you remember that?

MR. RITCHIE:

I don't know. Is there something about his wife's bank account? I don't

know anything about that. He made a $100 million mistake, and here he

is wasting the time of this Legislature about a thousand-dollar cheque.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The first member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

MR. LAUK:

The point of order is this: the kind of scurrilous innuendo just

dropped by the member whose reputation is still impugned is most

unacceptable.

[ Page 1728 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. It is extremely difficult for the Chair, when hearing

one point of order, to understand how another matter could be raised

during a point of order which in itself would constitute a point of

order. Nevertheless, again I would remind all members, if I might just

read at this time.... "Good temper and moderation are the

characteristics of parliamentary language. Parliamentary language is

never more desirable than when a member is canvassing the opinions and

conduct of his opponents in debate." I would ask all hon. members to

bear that in mind.

Again, the member for Central Fraser Valley has the floor.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Chairman, I have to consider the source of the comments in respect

to myself, but my record will speak for itself. It has in the past and

it will in the future. I would say that that widget from Vancouver

Centre is going to learn that as time goes along. Let me tell you about

your credibility, Let me tell you about private schools.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The member will take his seat.

The

Chair has an obligation to uphold the rules of this chamber and will

caution members on both sides of the House about those rules and will

ask for the cooperation of those members in upholding those rules. When

that advice is not taken the Chair is left with only one option, which

it is most reluctant to carry out. I would again ask the member for

Central Fraser Valley to continue in good temper and the members on the

other side to respect the fact that he has the floor and keep those

interjections to themselves.

MR. RITCHIE: Thank you,

Mr. Chairman. I apologize, and again I say that it's an expression of

my frustrations over the conduct of the members on the opposite of this

House.

I was merely going on to talk about the credibility

of the opposition party, as they are discussing the credibility of our

Premier. In doing so, I'd like to draw the attention of the House and

the public of British Columbia to the position of that opposition party

whenever we were voting on a question of independent schools. We're

talking about credibility here.

I can recall I joined

another group on a television program in Vancouver and the question of

private schools came up. The opposition party was well represented

there and they were asked: "What is your position?" The member for New

Westminster — I believe he was the member for New Westminster at the

time — very nervously passed the buck to another candidate who they

knew wouldn't have a chance of making it. The candidate said: "Well, we

are opposed to private schools." Yet I had a letter in my possession

from the member for Vancouver Centre stating quite clearly that if they

were re-elected they would support private schools. That's credibility?

MR. LAUK: A letter from me?

MR. RITCHIE: Yes.

MR. LAUK: To you?

MR. RITCHIE: To the private school system.

MR. LAUK: Say so.

MR. RITCHIE: It's in Hansard , dear member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On to vote 9, presently before us, hon. member.

MR. RITCHIE: Yes, on to vote 9, Mr. Chairman.

We're

speaking about the leadership of this government. The member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) talked about expenses. I wonder, if

we really did an accounting of the expenses of that particular member

when he was in office, just how much we would find out.

MR. BARRETT:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. If the member wishes to canvass the

validity of another member's expenses, there are parliamentary methods

of doing that. I would call to your attention that the member should

confine his discussion to the vote that's before the House. I also

would like to caution, through you — perhaps with your advice, Mr.

Chairman — that any aspersions related to expenses of members should be

dealt with by substantive motion rather than offhand accusations that

may be misinterpreted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of

order raised by the Leader of the Opposition is a most valid one in

this circumstance. Again I would ask the member for Central Fraser

Valley to get back onto vote 9, which is the Premier's estimates.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Chairman, this is the second time in this session that I have had

the opportunity and the privilege of responding to the opposition's

attack on our Premier. It makes my job much easier when the opposition

focuses our debate on the issue of leadership. It's not a difficult one

at all to discuss because leadership is just what our Premier has given

this province — sound leadership.

Consider the performance

of the economy under our Premier's leadership. Since his first full

year in office we have seen employment up, the gross provincial product

up, personal income up, wages and salaries up, average weekly earnings

up; and retail sales up. That's leadership! That is the sort of strong

guidance and good management that British Columbia cried out for during

the three years of the NDP government.

The opposition knows

it can't attack our Premier on facts so it stays on this other nonsense

— better known as garbage, in my opinion — just to try and detract from

the real facts of life. It knows it can't attack our Premier on solid

ground, because I have yet to hear any sound debate coming out of the

opposition in respect to the programs of this government. All we hear

is: "It's no good; it's terrible; it won't work"; personal attack; doom

and gloom — you name it, but nothing constructive at all. No, the

opposition has to create non-issues — and I mean non-issues. You know,

you give me the very distinct impression that for months you sat back

and just gloated over the great possibility that we would be forced

into an election soon, and you would sit back and count the spoils, and

become government again. God forbid! Anyway, you leave me with that

impression, because it seems to me you are having to modify, and use in

another way, the research that has been done for you because it

certainly isn't designed to properly debate our Premier's leadership,

his estimates, or

[ Page 1729 ]

even

the budget of this province. Not at all. It seems to me they get

together in caucus each day and dream up the non-issues of the day.

It's terrible. Why don't you stick to the facts and do something

constructive, and let the people out there realize that we do have

constructive opposition that is quite willing to deal with the true

issues of the day and not continue to look for skeletons in closets?

Why not admit that the Premier has succeeded where their leader failed?

Their leader had an opportunity for over three years, and he failed.

The only good decision he made was to call an election, and even then

he didn't have the support of his party.

HON. MR. HEWITT: And he failed again.

MR. RITCHIE:

And he failed again, and he continues to fail. Why he's sitting here

now with very little to say, I don't really know. I'm expecting to see

some fireworks take place any time....

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE:

Well, that could be, because he's got a couple of strong members over

there, with different personalities. The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard)

I think would be a real swinger all right. Mind you, when it comes to

economics, I don't think you could punch your way out of a wet paper

bag.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm afraid of that wild man from Kamloops.

MR. RITCHIE:

That could be. Then of course, we have the legal beaver from

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), who I think gains a great deal of

respect out there. I'm going to tell you, I've been getting messages

lately asking: "Where is the Leader of the Opposition?"

HON. MRS. JORDAN: They haven't got one.

MR. RITCHIE:

Well, they have one, all right. But they're asking me: "Where is he

these days?" All we hear is "Leggatt," and all we hear from is the

member for Skeena. And speaking of their leader, I'm a bit surprised

that the Leader of the Opposition didn't prevent his colleagues from

bringing up this non-issue on our Premier's honesty and integrity. I

can't understand why the Leader of the Opposition has allowed his

members to continue in this vein at all. I'm a bit surprised because

the Leader of the Opposition knows that his own record is tarnished.

Yes, I repeat, the Leader of the Opposition's record is tarnished, just

as he knows how ridiculous the allegations are they throw at our

Premier. Or has the Leader of the Opposition forgotten the case in

which a supreme court justice contradicted a statement made in this

House by the Leader of the Opposition when he was in power? Let me

refresh the hon. members' memories. I quote from the Vancouver Province

of February 4, 1975. The story is headed: "Judge Concludes Barrett

Involved." It reads: "On two days last February, Premier Dave Barrett

rose in the B.C. Legislature and denied that he had intervened on

behalf of the northern egg producers in a quota war with the B.C. Egg

Marketing Board." He denied it. "I wouldn't do anything like that. No,

not me. I'm honest Dave. No way." But: "On Monday, Mr. Justice E.

Hinkson handed down a judgment in the B.C. Supreme Court in which he

concluded that Premier Barrett had intervened in the dispute."

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: What? You're admitting to it? Well, I give you credit.

AN HON. MEMBER: Common ground.

MR. RITCHIE:

Common ground. That, Mr. Chairman, is clear and simple, and quite an

embarrassment to the opposition. I wonder, are you all fully aware of

that? This case involves a clear statement by a supreme court judge.

The nonsense which the opposition has thrown about for two days

involves one flunkey writing to another flunkey. Compare the two cases,

Mr. Chairman.

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

Chairman, I would ask the member to withdraw the word "flunkey." It

does not apply to any civil servant, regardless of where they work in

the province of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member withdraw the term used?

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, where it may apply to a civil servant, I will withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's what was asked, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT:

On a point of order, I want an unequivocal withdrawal of the word

"flunkey" as it relates to any employee or any person working for the

opposition or government.

HON. MR. MAIR: Surely this point of order only applies to members of this chamber or of this committee, not to people outside it.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, the fact of the matter is that, first, the word does not

appear in our list. Secondly, the asking for a withdrawal of a word has

generally not been used by legislators in this assembly against other

legislators, and it would be very difficult for the Chair to make a

firm ruling; however, I would ask the member, in view of the fact that

he has been asked to withdraw a word by another hon. member, that he

give that matter consideration and respond accordingly at this time.

MR. RITCHIE:

Well, Mr. Chairman, I agreed that where it would apply to a civil

servant, I would be very pleased to withdraw it. If in fact it is

making the Leader of the Opposition edgy, and I touched a nerve, then,

okay, I'll withdraw.

MR. BARRETT: On a further point

of order, Mr. Chairman, the rules of procedure in debate do not make

anyone nervous. It is one area of civility left in the House, and when

I asked for an unequivocal withdrawal as an hon. member, I expected it

to be unequivocal. If other behaviour is expected, perhaps he can copy

that of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) in the corridors.

[ Page 1730 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Again, hon. members, I must point out that the Chair has no authority

to insist on the withdrawal of a word that does not refer to another

hon. member. I again ask the member for Central Fraser Valley, in view

of the fact that an hon. member has risen in this chamber and taken

offence at a term used, for an unequivocal withdrawal at this time — if

he would so assist the Chair.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I am now convinced that the opposition party believes in the old saying, "Don't do as we do, do as we say."

will withdraw the remark, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask that the Leader

of the Opposition have a little better control over his members, when

we have them stand up there and suggest that our Premier is lying, and

get away with it. "Don't do as we do, do as we say."

MR. HOWARD:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I want to draw to your attention,

and to that of the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley, that during

the last session of this House, with Mr. Speaker in the chair, a member

on this side of the House inadvertently — and he apologized for it

afterwards — referred to Mr. Helliwell, the president of the B.C.

Resources Investment Corporation, as a flunkey of the government. Mr.

Speaker asked that that be withdrawn, and it was, immediately, without

equivocation. So I think you can find in a precedent ruling by Mr.

Speaker Schroeder, just in the last session, that that word applied to

somebody outside of this chamber was considered to be unparliamentary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. I would point out that the member did withdraw the word.

MR. HOWARD: After a lot of torture.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Chairman, I ask this House to compare the two cases. One involves

the Leader of the Opposition's word against a justice of the Supreme

Court of British Columbia; the other involves a letter written by

someone in a foreign country to some NDP researcher. The people of the

province will know whom to believe; I'm sure they've already made up

their minds.

They know how this Premier brought B.C. back to

prosperity after your term in office. They've seen the budget too, and

they know where leadership lies. Yes, the budget is prime evidence of

the superb leadership we have in British Columbia. This is not just

because it's a good budget, Mr. Chairman — and the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis) gets his share of credit for that. But the steady and

the strong guidance of the Premier is the reason that we have (1) a

commitment to a balanced budget, (2) revenue surpluses from good

management, and (3) a brave and intelligent social program. That's

leadership, Mr. Chairman.

That's why each and every

member of our party is solidly behind our Premier, which is what we all

would have stated earlier in this month, except that we were prevented

from doing so by the opposition. In this debate our support for the

budget is wholehearted; it is wholehearted endorsement of the policies

and plans of our leader. Mr. Chairman, the opposition is doing one good

thing by making the Premier the centre of these debates. The opposition

is letting us put our support for our leader on the record. That must

be bothering them; I'm sure it is. During the debate on the budget, the

Leader of the Opposition — he must not be listening to what goes on

this House — made the amazing suggestion that government members were

not speaking out in support of the Premier. That won a prize for sham.

The opposition cut off the very debate during which every last member

had intended to rise in support of a fine leader and an honourable

gentleman. What happened? They cut us off, and then said we weren't

standing behind our leader. Well, I'm glad to have this second chance

to put the facts before the opposition. Perhaps some day, before the

session ends, we can actually discuss issues with the opposition; I

mean real issues, not all this sham and nonsense. But until they are

ready, government members will have no trouble finding material for

speeches, because it's so easy to get up and respond to the garbage

we've been listening to over the past few weeks.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE:

We'll be glad to talk about leadership and integrity until the cows

come home. My friend, what I'm talking about here would make you look

like a real dunce. You may be a good bar-room brawler, but I'm going to

tell you, brother, when it comes to economics you couldn't punch your

way out of a wet paper bag.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Could we continue to address the Chair, please?

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Chairman, our party has a leader who is a true leader, a leader who

can run a province; that's much more than the opposition can say. He

had his chance. How long did he last? He panicked, called an election,

got what he wanted — defeat — and now, lo and behold, he's trying to

come back again. Heaven help them if the House ever spends as many days

debating the NDP leader as we have spent on the Premier this session.

Even a two-day debate on the NDP leadership would be quite an affair,

indeed. There'd be some great, long, embarrassed silences in, that

debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Prior to recognizing the member

for New Westminster, I wonder if I could point out the fact that we are

on the estimates of the Premier; this is as much for the benefit of

those about to speak as for those who have just spoken.

MR. COCKE:

I noted the thunderous applause for the last speaker, who, I

understand, was speaking on the Leader of the Opposition's estimates,

speaking on the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam's (Mr. Levi'

s) estimates, and, it would strike me, he was speaking under instructions,

and seeking his level. We have suspected for some time what his level

might be. I must confess I'm ashamed to have had to listen to a member

debate in this House, using not only the language that member used, but

also making the charges that member made, with absolutely no foundation

whatsoever.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr.

Chairman, we are speaking on the Premier's estimates. I think that one

of the problems we have with the Premier is the contempt he has shown

for this estimate. He

[ Page 1731 ]

has

insisted that his backbenchers and his cabinet people do the talking.

It reminds me of that telephone book: "Let your fingers do the

walking." I suggest that that Premier isn't taking his place in the

House because of his contempt. Does that surprise me? No, it doesn't

surprise me.

I remember when he first took the Premiership

of this province, sitting in the first Legislature to which he was

responsible for that position. The opposition that day wasn't meeting

his satisfaction. I recall what he said, in a loud stage whisper across

the floor. Do you recall, my good friends and colleagues? I recall

vividly. He said: "It took me two weeks to train my dog." I bought a

little present for the Premier; I had to go as far afield as Toronto to

get it — "How to Train Your Dog in Six Weeks" — and I'm going to send

it to him later. That is the kind of contempt we have seen during this

debate. This is the kind of inspiration that that Premier brings to his

backbenchers, to produce the kind of work we've just seen in the last

few minutes.

I listened very intently to the Minister of

Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan). I listened to the member for Central Fraser

Valley (Mr. Ritchie) being prompted by the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt) to say this, say that, say the other thing. But, Mr.

Chairman, after having listened to all of that, for example the member

talking about fabrication, talking about $100 million overrun in the

face of their $250 million, a record this year....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

My colleague informs me it is $275 million. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I

just want to make one thing perfectly clear, and that is the position

of our party on uranium. I listened to a number of speeches this

afternoon about how we are and how we feel about it. Let me tell you

what we did at our last convention with 1,100 delegates in Vancouver.

Don't tell us about Saskatchewan, Ontario, England or anywhere else.

Let's talk about British Columbia and the Leader of the Opposition, if

that's what you want to talk about. Those 1,100 delegates listened all

afternoon to experts brought in from all over the world, experts on the

whole question of radiation. At the end of that discussion resolutions

were brought up with respect to our position on that. It was totally,

completely and absolutely confirmed that we were violently opposed to

exploration, mining or nuclear power. Period. Amen. Now that has been

our caucus policy for some years, but that was our party policy

produced that day. So I don't like to see these members rushing around

trying to inform us what our policy might be.

But I think

that things are a little bit hot in the House at the present time. We

listened to a speaker who I think needs some time to cool off. We need

to give the Premier time to reflect upon his position with respect to

whether or not he did have discussions in Europe in 1977 around the

whole question of uranium. In order to give him that time, I move that

the Chairman do now leave the chair.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Levi

Lorimer

Leggatt

Skelly

Sanford

Gabelmann

Brown

Lockstead

Bames

Mitchell

Wallace

Hanson

Barber

Passarell

NAYS — 29

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Ree

Brummet

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

Mr. Cocke requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, I reminded the House about an early aside by the Premier

in terms of his contempt for the opposition. At that time he said: "It

took me two weeks to train my dog." I'm going to send this book to the

Premier. It gives him six weeks to learn how to train his dog. This

says a lot, Mr. Chairman, in terms of how I feel as opposition and how

his members must feel with the kind of leadership shown by that kind of

contempt for this particular institution and for the members in it. I

would just like to remind him continually about that crack and remind

him of his contempt for this House, for the members and, unfortunately,

in this situation, for the truth. We could have proceeded with this

debate on the Premier's estimates two and a half days ago if we had had

the answer to a very simple question — a question in conflict, and

that's all it is.

So. Mr. Chairman, I would ask one of the

Pages to take that across to the Premier. Hopefully he'll read it,

every word of it, and hopefully he won't put us through the continual

defence mechanism that seems to have been built up over there, in

having others answer the questions for him.

Mr. Chairman, I

believe that we have a problem in this province over uranium. We have a

problem in terms of an understanding of the whole question. I was in

touch with people who are very much involved with the Bates commission,

and they are so angry, first that it was called off and secondly that

they're only allowed five months to put together what can only be a

report on the present testimony.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Do you ever do research?

MR. COCKE:

Don't you talk to me about research. You're the most uninformed person

that I've ever run into. Fortunately you've got a department working

for you.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr.

Chairman, what are the people saying about this whole question of the

Bates commission? They're saying, first, that most of the testimony

around social impact has not been heard and will not be heard under the

present circumstances; secondly, that most of the testimony around

[ Page 1732 ]

environmental

impact has not been and will not be heard. The technical information

that is in to date leans very heavily in favour of those people

prepared to put it forward early — the mining companies. If the Bates

commission report is to clearly give us an impression of what's right

and what's wrong around uranium development, surely we'd want to hear

all the testimony. I must confess we weren't all that impressed when

you set it up in the first place, because as I have said, the

development of uranium or nuclear power is totally in opposition to our

party. But having done it, and if you're going to....

MR. REE: Which party? The national party?

MR. COCKE:

Our national party. I was at the last convention, and we passed the

identical resolution. What do you know about it, sitting there with

your glasses on the end of your nose, chewing candy? Get informed

before you make cracks like that across the floor. Mr. Chairman, we

have that position, and it's our position here.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Ellen McKay was at that convention. I saw her there drinking our free coffee. I suspected that....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

I didn't know it at the time. I expected that she was on a rather lean

expense account. But as it turned out, we found out that Dan was as

generous as could be; he didn't even ask for receipts.

Mr.

Chairman, let's get on with the debate. Let's hear from the Premier.

Let's give him a chance now. Let him stand up and tell us all he wants

to tell us in terms of his position at that European conference, and

then let's go on to debate his estimates.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for New Westminster says, "It took me two

weeks to train my dog" — alluding to the Premier. He's brought this up

many times in this House, whether or not it was a truthful statement.

But in the context of the time, the vilification and the insults across

the floor, I think it was a very apt statement indeed. I would say to

the hon. member for New Westminster that if he's so fond of that

statement.... [Laughter.] I don't know what's so funny about that.

Don't go away, Mr. Member for New Westminster. If the hat fits, wear

it. It must fit.

I want to ask the hon. members of the

opposition: where are the Coldwells, the Woodsworths and, yes, the

Winches of another day, of that once proud party? What's happened to

the NDP? What's happened to the remnants and ragtag divisions of people

that have lost the parliamentary aspect — and for one word: uranium. We

want the answer to the uranium. Did the minister and the Premier talk

about uranium in Europe? What is the consequence of this statement? I

don't know what it is. I don't understand that.

MR. BARRETT: Sit down and I'll tell you.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Yes, Mr. Leader, you asked to tell me. I'll tell you, too. Because this

opposition made mistakes when they were government is no reason why we

should make them, and we do not. I want to tell you the feelings that I

had, of frustration and of chagrin, when we had the reports in those

three years about the incompetence of that leader and that opposition.

MR. BARRETT: The Marguerite .

MR. MUSSALLEM: I'll just pick two or three of those points out. The Marguerite was a Sunday school class by comparison. There's nothing wrong with the decision on the Marguerite .

In due course you and the people of Victoria will find it was a proper

decision, because we're looking to the future, and not just for today.

want to quote about the hon. leader, who is so smart at quips. Let me

make a few remarks on what he said when he was Premier — not to say we

should do it, but the feeling of regret that we had, this great, proud

province of British Columbia. In Allan Fotheringham's column of April

10, 1975: "One thing an observer finds at yet another of these

Confederation wrangles is that the general attitude for the B.C.

delegation is not what you would call one of great respect." That was

what he said, and he goes on: "Before the recitation had gone very far,

a luminary from the Globe and Mail got up from his seat, walked

over to me and said: 'Your Premier has become a bore.'" I'll tell you

this. They never said that about our Premier, and they couldn't. It

does not allow for comparison. I’m just saying this opposition must be

ashamed of its position.

Let me go a little further, Mr.

Leader who is so good at quips. Let me bring back home some of the

remarks you made, which we have refrained from making. It's no excuse

to say how bad they've been, but I want to show you the regret and the

shame that we held as British Columbians during the three years of the

NDP administration. Marjorie Nichols said on Friday, April 11....

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, listen to this. I want you to hear it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Dewdney has the floor.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

There's no doubt about that, Mr. Chairman, but you have to talk in

between their interruptions. That cyclical sound from the other end

doesn't bother me a bit, but I want to get these words across.

quote from Marjorie Nichols' column of April 11, 1975: "Dave Barrett is

concerned about his image of clown of the nation." Now that wasn't very

high praise. That was a situation this government found when it came

into office in 1975.

We have serious business in this House

today. We have the business of questioning the Premier on his office

for three days. I shouldn't be here speaking. There's no need of it.

The Premier can answer the questions if you would make questions and

would get down to the issue — if you would ask questions on the

constitutional rights of maintaining our resources. Ask questions on

these matters. The Premier works on that.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the minister that question period is another thing. In my 11 years in this House I've

[ Page 1733 ]

never

seen an opposition so absolutely devoid of questions in question

period. They are so happy when the bell rings, it's shameful. They just

wait for that bell, and then they say: " Oh, it's over for another

day!" It's regrettable. Where are the Coldwells, the Woodsworths and

the Winches? Where are they? Certainly not here. It's a matter of deep

regret.

There are so many things we can ask the Premier, so

many things of importance. What about trade in the Pacific Rim? What

about the federal — provincial problems? What about all these things?

What was his presentation? I'll tell the leader, if he wants to hear,

Mr. Chairman, that we were proud of our Premier on two separate

occasions: when he brought to Ottawa the only factual presentation on

the proper association and determination of Canada's future — the only

one of all.

I don't have to praise the Premier; he doesn't

need any praise from me. But we're proud that we have a man who was

reported right across the country, but not as the clown Prince of

British Columbia, as was the leader of this opposition. Our Premier is

a man who showed direction to our province.

These are the

questions they can ask. What about the negative income tax that they're

so fond of talking about? Our Premier has suggested the possibility of

this, if it could be on the national scene. Would they ask that

question? Would they ask how far we can get? Those questions could be

asked. We could be asking questions of the Premier and concluding this

debate, but we do not even reach it — we do not even approach it.

They

talk of credibility. The credibility is on our side; the lack of it is

there. It is time we buried this uranium nonsense, because those are

the nuclear experts. The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) is

the nuclear expert. He has left; he can't take it. The member for

Nelson-Creston is the nuclear expert of this House; he's the one who is

interested in uranium. If I'm correct, we have a moratorium on uranium

exploration and mining. That's not the point; that's not the issue.

It's not the Premier's office. I say that the opposition have shown

very little imagination, have shown no effort, have shown no intention

to interrogate the Premier; they've just sat there and occupied the

time of this House. I'm telling you this, and I'm telling them that,

Mr. Chairman: the public is hearing the story.

They will

take any satisfaction in the so-called polls that would be collected.

As the member for Victoria said: "If we had an election tomorrow, we

would be elected." I'll tell you, that group over there, my honourable

friends, are great wishful thinkers, If there were an election

tomorrow, they would not be elected. Polls are not the issue. The issue

before the House today is the Premier's estimates, and unless you start

asking the questions that are fitting and proper, we're not going to

get anywhere.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke)

returns. All he could talk about, really, was training my dog, And he

sends a book — what nonsense! What shame has this House descended to,

when we're here on serious people's business and we've got to listen to

this playacting. No wonder they refer to this Legislature — and they're

not referring to us, I can tell you — as people in a playpen. That's

where the playpen is.

Let's get serious. Let's ask the

questions. Let's complete this investigation. Let's get through with

the Premier's office — and it can be done this afternoon. You know he's

the greatest Premier this province has ever had. Well, I've got to

modify that — except one, and it's not Barrett. Let us get on! The

business could so easily be done. We're not accomplishing anything. We

could go on with our work. I beg the opposition to get off this silly

attack, and let's get rolling in this Legislature.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Chairman, I'll just make a brief remark on a comment by the member,

who just spoke, who remarked in passing that this was a very serious

business. It is, Mr. Chairman, an extremely serious business. I think

this province should have a Premier who is prepared to stand in his

place and just tell the people of this province that he was wrong.

You

know, for some 10 or 12 years — you're going to miss the good part, Mr.

Premier, don't leave — I used to be a Boy Scout leader, believe it or

not, and I used to tell those little guys: "Tell the truth, and don't

let me catch you smoking." [Laughter.] I am trying to be very serious

here, Mr. Chairman, but I'm really upset about this whole thing. Now I

go back and visit those little fellows and I say: "Remember to always

tell the truth." They say: "But I don't want to tell the truth. I want

to grow up to be Premier someday." Now, is he setting a good example

for the people of this province?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is impugning a member's reputation, Mr. Member. Please, if you could refrain from that type of comment.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I am in no way attempting to impugn any member's reputation, Mr.

Chairman, and I withdraw those words without a big hassle. In any

event, what I'm asking of the Premier, I think, as the chief executive

officer of the government.... He should, in