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)

TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1785 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions.

Kemano 11 project. Mr. Lea 1785

Federal taxation of northern workers' flight allowances. Mr. Passarell –– 1786

Lookout Emergency Aid Society. Mr. Barnes –– 1786

Pollution control permits. Mr. Skelly –– 1786

Duties of R.G. Chestnut with B.C. Steamship Company. Mr. Barber –– 1786

Queen of Prince Rupert refit. Mr. Barber –– 1787

Female representation by Human Rights Commission. Ms. Sanford –– 1787

Committee of Supply, Premier's Office estimates.

On vote 9.

Mr. Macdonald –– 1787

Mr. Mitchell –– 1789

Mr. Lauk –– 1793

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 1795

Mr. Lauk –– 1798

Mr. Howard –– 1799

Mr. Barrett –– 1802

Mr. Leggatt –– 1805

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1807

Introduction of Bills

Company Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 10). Hon. Mr. Nielsen.

Introduction and first reading –– 1808

Tabling Reports

Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs annual report, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1808

TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. BARRETT:

In the gallery today is a person who was a guest in this House daily

for many years until illness unfortunately struck. Her absence was

noted by all of us. We're extremely pleased to have Mrs. Ruth Johnson

back with us in the gallery today.

I ask the House to welcome Mrs. Pauline Stone and her father, accompanied by Mrs. Mooney.

HON. MR. MAIR:

A couple of months ago I had the distinct honour of speaking with some

Girl Guides in my constituency, at the home of Mr. and Mrs. Dene

Ferguson. I even had the opportunity of identifying for them the Leader

of the Opposition and explaining what he did in this chamber — it

didn't take long, and I was very charitable. I would like the House to

welcome today Mr. Dene Ferguson, Mrs. Wendy Ferguson, Miss Debbie

Ferguson, Miss Christine Ferguson, Master Kevin Ferguson, Master Darren

Ferguson, Mr. Tom Delzell and Mrs. Rene Delzell.

MR. SKELLY:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce a guest in the House today who comes

to us from the constituency of Okanagan North, Mr. Drew Howard. I hope

the House will make him welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to welcome a young man in

the gallery, Mr. Alan Boyce. He has escorted his mother, Alderman Helen

Boyce, to Victoria. She is here to do the business of the city of

Vancouver on behalf of the city council.

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to welcome Alderman Helen Boyce. On

behalf of the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) I would like

to welcome his mother-in-law, Mrs. Edna Nash, and his son, Gregory

Lauk. I would also like to welcome two students from Colwood, Terri

McKinty and her friend Wendy Gough. Finally, I ask the House to join me

in welcoming Ray DuSang and Lydia Bruncke, both of Vancouver.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are four constituents of mine: Mr.

and Mrs. Sam Drossos — Crystal Drossos is my constituency secretary —

and Bill and Carla Drossos, two of the upcoming great skiers of the

Okanagan Valley. I'd like the House to bid them welcome.

MR. SEGARTY:

Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Joe

Pagurut, chairman of the Cranbrook and District Hospital Board, who is

in the members' gallery this afternoon.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

In view of the fact that it's Easter holidays, I'd like the House to

welcome all the kids who are here today from all over the province who

have come to watch this. It's such a beautiful day and they've been

dragged inside. I think we should say thanks to them for coming to

watch.

Oral Questions

KEMANO II PROJECT

MR. LEA:

I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development. Are there any negotiations currently taking place between

the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, or anyone

within his department, and the Aluminum Company of Canada with respect

to Alcan's Kemano completion project, which is probably better known,

or more loosely known, as the Kemano II project?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. My department, as you

know, is negotiating with numerous companies that are interested in

investing in British Columbia. I'll check it out and see if any current

negotiations are going on between officials of my department and the

Aluminum Company of Canada.

MR. LEA: I asked whether

there are any going on currently. I'd like to know also, Mr. Speaker,

of any negotiations that may have been going on since, say, the

beginning of the year — that's this year, 1980 — or in the last six

months of 1979. Have there been any negotiations carried on between

government, or your department, Mr. Minister, or people from your

department, or yourself, with respect to Alcan's Kemano completion

project?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member

for Prince Rupert's question, I believe that Alcan has made some

presentations with regard to negotiations, but that's an entirely

different matter.

MR. LEA: When the minister says there have been presentations made to the government, has the government made any presentation to Alcan?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd have to answer that by saying that it's Alcan that sells aluminum, and we have no aluminum to sell to Alcan.

MR. LEA:

I'd like to ask whether or not during the negotiations that have

already gone on.... As the minister says, there have been negotiations

going on....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't say that.

MR. LEA:

Oh, then I'd like to clarify that before I move on. Have there been any

negotiations between the government of British Columbia and Alcan

surrounding the Kemano II project?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, now he's asking about negotiation between the

government.... I can't speak for the government. I did say that there

could have been presentations made to my ministry because there are a

lot of people who make presentations to my ministry. As you know, the

world is looking to British Columbia to invest. It's the hottest spot

in all of North America for investment, and we have people coming to us

all the time.

MR. LEA: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I realize that there could have been; there could have been a lot of things. What I'm

[ Page 1786 ]

asking

is: Mr. Minister, have there been any negotiations going on between

members of your ministry or yourself and officials of Alcan? Not could

there — have there.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, as I

say, Mr. Speaker, there certainly have probably been some presentations

made by Alcan to my officials with regard to current negotiations. As I

said, I'll have to check that out and see if anybody in my ministry is

carrying on negotiations with Alcan.

MR. LEA: A

supplementary question: has the minister or his ministry laid out in

any way anything that they may require from Alcan in regard to the

Kemano completion project?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well,

Mr. Speaker, I feel that in answering the question I've given the

member as much assistance as I can give him at this time.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question in a similar vein to the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and ask the minister

whether he can say if he or anyone in his ministry is now, or has been,

engaged in any negotiations with the Aluminum Company of Canada with

respect to the Kemano completion project?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, discussions, yes.

MR. HOWARD:

Would the minister be prepared to indicate to the House at some

convenient time in the near future what the course of those discussions

is?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, yes.

MR. HOWARD: Could the minister indicate precisely when he will be able to make that statement?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, no.

FEDERAL TAXATION OF NORTHERN

WORKERS' FLIGHT ALLOWANCES

MR. PASSARELL: Mr.

Speaker, a question to the Minister of Finance. The federal government

has decided to retroactively tax workers in northern British Columbia

for debushing flights and allowances. This amounts to an additional tax

burden of almost $1,000 per family. Has the minister been in touch with

the federal government to strongly protest these retroactive taxes?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member's remarks in and near this chamber

on Friday. I'm sorry that he has not found it possible to elaborate on

them for me in order that I might assist where I can. But it will be

discussed within my ministry in terms of contact with Ottawa.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, that member across the way.... Are you directing the Chair today, Mr. Leader of the Opposition?

Mr.

Speaker, I would certainly be happy to assist the member to the best of

my ability, but he has not made contact with me in this regard.

MR. PASSARELL:

A new question to help out the Minister of Finance. In the interest of

protecting northern residents of this province, and in light of the

fact that every northern job creates two more jobs in the south of this

province, will the minister assure the House that he has decided to

offer short-term loans or some comparable form of assistance to aid

northern British Columbians?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think the question is out of order in that it asks about future policy.

MR. PASSARELL:

Mr. Speaker, as a new member of this House, I thought those decisions

were made through the Speaker and not through a member who stands up.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's not a question. I'll answer any questions.

LOOKOUT EMERGENCY AID SOCIETY

MR. BARNES:

A question to the Minister of Human Resources. Mr. Speaker, the Lookout

Emergency Aid Society in Vancouver is a unique housing and community

facility that handles referrals from the Ministry of Human Resources,

the police and other community social agencies. The program will be

forced to close if the city of Vancouver health department requirements

are not met and a pending sale of their property is not averted. What

steps has the minister taken to ensure the continuation of this

necessary community service?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr.

Speaker, I have asked my ministry to report to me after I had an

inquiry from the organization a few days ago. I will be pleased to

bring a report back to the House or to contact the member on the

ministry's report.

POLLUTION CONTROL PERMITS

MR. SKELLY:

I have a question to the Minister of Environment. In view of the fact

that the B.C. Supreme Court has quashed a pollution control permit in

the Esquimalt Lagoon which was approved by the cabinet appeal

procedure, will the minister advise the House of the status of the

Keremeos pollution control permit which was recently approved by the

same process?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'll take the question as notice.

DUTIES OF R.G. CHESNUT

WITH B.C. STEAMSHIP COMPANY

MR. BARBER: I have a

question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Could you

inform the House precisely of the duties, the responsibilities and the

job description of Mr. R. Glen Chestnut and, in particular, his duties

as they relate in his capacity as an adviser to a member of the board

of B.C. Steamship Company?

MR. SPEAKER: The minister may choose to answer, but it would be a rather lengthy reply.

[ Page 1787 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice.

MR. BARBER:

I have a new question for the same minister on the same subject, which

he may also wish to take as notice. As well as bringing back to this

House as precise a job description as he can of what exactly it is Mr.

Chestnut has been doing there for the last two and a half or three

years, could he also tell us something about Mr. Chestnut's

remuneration and on what basis he has been paid up until the present

time?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question on notice as well.

QUEEN OF PRINCE RUPERT REFIT

MR. BARBER:

I have another question to the same minister on a different topic. On

March 19 in this House I asked questions about the refit drawings for

the proposed refit of the Queen of Prince Rupert .

I was informed on that date: "You'll be informed in due course as to

the status of those drawings and the status of that refit of the ship

itself." I wonder if the minister could now inform the House whether or

not the drawings have been prepared and, if so, by which company and at

what cost. Has a decision now been made in regard to proceeding with

the proposed refit of the Queen of Prince Rupert ?

HON. MR. FRASER: I still haven't got that information.

MR. BARBER:

The problem is that we're informed that neither has the company

supposedly doing the refit. I wonder if the minister might take again

as notice — somewhat more urgently today than he did on March 19 — the

necessity to provide us and those who would do the work on the ship

with the earliest possible advice as to what you propose to do in the

refit and when you propose to have it done. So far, Mr. Speaker, they

have done precisely nothing.

FEMALE REPRESENTATION

BY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

MS. SANFORD: My question

is to the Minister of Labour. Last year some commissioners on the Human

Rights Commission made statements which were clearly inconsistent with

the principles of the Human Rights Code and which prompted the now

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) to call for their removal.

Recently, Mr. Katz of the Human Rights Commission said that female

representation on the commission is not required because the male

members are married and can obtain a woman's point of view from their

wives. Does the minister concur with Mr. Katz's statement?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, I do not concur with Mr. Katz's statement.

MS. SANFORD: I would like to ask then: what action has the minister taken with respect to the commissioner who made those statements?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I will....

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Now, look, stop it. I'm getting all kinds of advice over here, Mr. Speaker.

Hon.

member, I haven't heard of the comments which you have just informed

the House about, and perhaps if you could leave it with me I could make

the appropriate inquiry.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, I'm not going to check with my wife.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am disappointed by the attitude of those

government benches today, with respect to these questions.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you may not during question period, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavour to provide the minister with that

information. I have a further question. With the recent resignation of

Commissioner Mildred Gottfreidson, there is only one woman remaining on

the 12-member board. Can the minister assure the House that a woman

will be appointed to fill that vacancy?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is a matter of future policy, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: No, I'm asking whether or not the minister has decided that he will fill that position with another female member.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: A decision has not yet been made; but I'm well aware of the information which the hon. member has brought to the House.

MS. SANFORD:

Half of the board members' terms expire in August of this year, and I

am wondering if, at this stage, the minister can assure the House that

all or most of those appointed to fill those vacancies will be female.

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 — continued.

MR. MACDONALD: We're making remarkable progress on these estimates.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD:

Yes, we are. Don't look so surprised. I don't know whether you were

listening yesterday, Mr. Chairman, but the Leader of the Opposition

(Mr. Barrett) had five simple questions for the Premier. The Premier

didn't answer them yesterday, but he said: "I will answer them." Then

he amended that to say: "I will answer them in due course." That's

progress! That's leadership over there.

[ Page 1788 ]

The

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) was a little bit

unkind in his leadership speech the other day, as they all got up one

by one. He kept talking about the past five great years of leadership

we've had, but he didn't mention the next five years. I just thought

that was kind of significant. It was progress, anyway.

I'm

not going to make a long, tedious, repetitious speech. Let's have no

more of those crazy speeches from over there. Yesterday on the

Premier's estimates the member for North Vancouver was talking about

the Chrysler bail-out for a while.

I want to ask just a few

simple questions, and if we keep it on that basis I'm sure we will make

more headway with these estimates.

It's a matter of public

morality that we are talking about — and I don't want to make a long

speech about it. I want to ask you, Mr. Premier, when you became aware

of what was said by caucus researchers to the famous seminar at the

Bayshore.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: I

wanted to ask you what the energy policy was today, Mr. Minister. You

began to take the floor. I was waiting until I got the Premier's ear.

This is Tuesday. What's the energy policy today? It's a simple question.

I'm

asking the Premier a series of questions which are simple but serious.

The Premier has never told the people of this province when he became

aware of what was said at the Bayshore seminar about playing dirty and

about the letter-writing campaign. When did he become aware that these

tapes were being mailed throughout the party structure? The seminar,

particularly, was a big party meeting; members were there. I'm asking

the Premier when he became aware of those things. That's question

number one. I hope there will be a forthright answer to that question.

put question number two to the Premier. In his own office he had an

administrative assistant to Mr. David Brown. Mr. David Brown was his

public relations adviser. Mr. Grieg, an employee on the public payroll

who was in the Premier's office, mysteriously resigned, and we've had

no explanation why he resigned. I remember, quite frankly, being

disturbed when I was watching television one night and the press asked

Mr. Grieg a direct question: "Were you implicated in writing what the

Attorney-General agrees in his letter is a forgery?" — that is, a false

signature on a letter.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, it is an accurate statement. We're talking about forgery.

Here's

one of the Premier's own employees, Mr. Ron Grieg, who was asked

directly: "Were you implicated in this forgery?" — particularly the

Townsend letter — and he slammed the door on the person who was asking

the question. He has given no explanation to the public as to whether

or not he was implicated. The Victoria Colonist said that he was, and the Vancouver Province

— it would be libellous, I suppose, if it weren't true — said that he

was the one who could name who had been responsible for some of those

forged letters. Yet we've had no explanation why this public servant

resigned from the Premier's office. So I'm asking the Premier: why did

Grieg resign? If he was cleared of implication in the forged letters

business, he should still be working for the people of the province of

B.C. and for his boss the Premier. If he was implicated, the Premier

owes a statement to the people of this province. The Premier owes a

statement to the people as to when he found out that one of his

employees was engaged in the counselling or the production of forged

letters. I'm asking for an explanation about the Grieg matter.

Now

number three, as I see it, is a more serious matter, and I want to ask

the Premier about the secret trust funds that surrounded his office. We

know about them by accident. They were outside of the party structure

completely. The Premier had secret trust funds. There was one of Adams,

one of Austin Taylor Jr. and one of Tony Tozer himself, and his own

employees included. It's serious, and we found out by accident because

if Tony Tozer had not sort of tried to explain why people on the public

payroll such as Ellen McKay and Kelly and so forth were going over to

what were obviously party seminars of the Social Credit Party, even

though their salaries were paid for by the public.... So Mr. Tozer

volunteered the information: "Oh, we took it out of one of our funds

and paid their expenses." You know, if he hadn't done that, we might

have gone on for years and years in this province, and maybe we're

going on that way today, with a small group of wealthy men buying their

way into the Premier's office. That's what we saw.

I ask the Premier these questions: did he know that Austin Taylor Jr. was collecting money for the Social Credit Party?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD:

No, we're dealing with serious business. The Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Mair) doesn't think a matter of public morality is a serious

business. No, I can't do anything about you on that score, Mr.

Minister. Anything about political ethics is a big joke to that

minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, let us address the Chair.

MR. MACDONALD: Okay, I'll calm down. I'm glad the Premier is listening again. We'll go on, and I'll try to be brief.

I'm

asking the Premier though about the trust funds. I've heard his public

statement that he doesn't want to know about the source of the funds,

but he knew about the trust funds in his office. He knew about Austin

Taylor Jr. of Toronto of McLeod, Young and Weir bringing in money. He

knew that Austin Taylor Jr. of McLeod, Young and Weir had been one of

the two brokerage firms that negotiated the purchase of two of our B.C.

ferries — in other words, doing business with the government. What

other things did Austin Taylor Jr. put in the ear of the Premier? The

repeal of succession duties? I wouldn't doubt that one for a minute.

MR. BARBER: The value of the BCRIC assets.

MR. MACDONALD:

That's right, the value of the BCRIC assets. We know, Mr. Chairman,

that there was another co-signer of the trust funds, the three secret

trust funds — secret to the people but not secret to the Premier, I'm

saying — and I want his frank statement about the matter. We know that

there was another co-signer of those trust funds.

[ Page 1789 ]

Was

that not an employee of the Premier's own office? Was it the Premier

himself? Was it one of his employees? Was it Dan Campbell? Was it

Tozer? Was it Dave Brown?

Another question: the Premier's office outside of the regular electoral

procedure as we understand it.... Direct party election expenditure bills

were sent to the Premier's office. You know there is one for the MLA reports;

there is one for the doorstep literature that was to go to every doorstep in

the province of B.C.; there were even bills that would come in for the printing

of Social Credit membership applications. The bill for these came right to the

Premier's office, addressed to Dave Brown, a public employee. You know,

Mr. Chairman, we've never had such a mixing of private fund-raising and

slush funds with the Premier's office in the history of this province. Never.

I don't think it's ever happened like that before. If you tell me it

happened with Duff Pattullo or Tolmie or Boss Johnson, I would find it very,

very hard to credit, even in those days — and they were kind of gamey days at

times in terms of political morality. So the Premier owes the House an explanation

as to the trust funds and who the co-signers were and what he knew about them.

Then

the next question is: why didn't the Premier do something about this?

It was an obvious breach of the elections act; his own employees

obviously knew all about it and I suggest the Premier must have. He

knew these funds were coming into his office in secrecy, and our

Provincial Elections Act says what? It says that if you want to make

campaign contributions during an election period, they go through the

official agent or they go to the party. And the reason the act says

this is that the official agent and the party have to report the amount

of the receipts and what the expenditures were. Now these secret trust

funds were obviously going along in an election period. The Premier

must have known that right in his own office he was breaking the

Provincial Elections Act through his own direction or that of his

employees. I'd like an explanation. I know the Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. Williams) is going to bring back an answer someday on this

particular question. At least he answers questions. There's a little

bit of a delay occasionally....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD:

Yes, this is a difficult one, as to whether the Premier was breaking

the Provincial Elections Act with these secret trust funds coming in

otherwise than through the official agent or the party. So it's a good

question, Mr. Attorney-General, and I know you'll bring in a forthright

answer. This is April, so today would have been a good day for it.

That's the other question. I think we've really got to know whether the

hookworm of political corruption in the form of secret campaign funds

had invaded the Premier's office in this province, and the Premier's

got to answer with a full explanation of those secret trust funds.

Finally,

I just want to ask one minor question before I sit down. December 4,

1979, was the massacre of the Social Credit caucus research workers.

Just before the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), the chairman of the

caucus, gave the fatal orders for the massacre to begin, he came out of

the Premier's office. So I ask the Premier: did you discuss the firing

of the research workers with the member for Omineca before the

discharges took place? Ordinarily you can't ask that kind of question,

Mr. Chairman, because you can't ask what one cabinet member said to

another. But, regrettably for this province, the member for Omineca has

never made it to the cabinet. He was outside as a caucus person when he

had his meeting with the Premier just before the discharges took place.

So I think we should know whether the Premier was apprised of what was

going to take place, or whether he directed it.

Those are the questions I have at this point.

MR. MITCHELL:

I find it quite interesting standing here and listening to my friends

from the other side of the House. They seem to think that maybe

democracy ends in the middle of that aisle. I feel it is important that

a government that has any credibility should stand and give the answers

that we duly elected members of this parliament have the right and the

responsibility to ask for. When the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal

Opposition asks direct, simple, honest and truthful questions, the

Premier, the leader of this province, has a responsibility to answer

not only to us on this side of the House but to the press and each

member of the gallery sitting here as witness. I listen to the various

people from the other side make fun and ridicule and say that we are

talking negativisms, but I feel we are talking the facts of democracy.

Democracy means that we have a right to demand an answer from our

government. We represent the people as much as the members of the

government. I feel that the responsibility lies on us to protect what

each of us has learned to love and believe in: that is the right of

free speech and the responsibility of each and every one of us as

elected people.

I could go on about the attitude of the

government. At times I feel that somewhere along the line there is a

program of stonewalling. There has been a program right from the end of

the last election of one disaster after another — one type of odd

situation arising. I was going to bring this particular case up to the

Attorney-General's ministry, but I feel that his ministry has, in its

wisdom, decided not to follow the proper investigation of justice and

how it is administered in B.C. So through you, Mr. Chairman, as a

policeman I am calling on the Premier of the province to set up a

commission to study the case commonly known as the Mickey Moran case or

the Michael Ernest Moran case and what happened in the investigation by

the police and in the subsequent court case, and how it developed.

I'm

speaking not only as an elected person but as one who has had 23 years

as a policeman and who over the years has written and prepared many

case

summary reports. Not only have I written them; I have supervised

them. I feel that the case that happened in court will prove, if a

proper investigation is made, that the police, in the writing of their

case

summary report, presented evidence for one case and the case that

appeared in court was another.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order,

please, hon. member. At this juncture I must advise that this

discussion would more appropriately — and singularly — come under the

estimates of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and not the

estimates of the Premier, which are presently before us.

MR. BARRETT:

On a point of order, the Premier entered this debate in terms of his

comments on the floor of this House immediately after the

Attorney-General filed his report. The member is referring this matter

directly to the Premier's statements, in which he said the government

would accept the Attorney-General's report, distinctly separating the

government from the Attorney-General. Speaking for the

[ Page 1790 ]

government,

the Premier made his acceptance. The member is addressing the House's

attention to the Premier's acceptance of this report, and the member is

suggesting why he — the Premier — should reconsider his acceptance in

light of that member's experience as a police officer. It's perfectly

in order, related to the Premier's statement separating himself from

the Attorney-General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, that may be the opinion of the hon. member, but it is not the opinion of the Chair.

MR. LAUK:

If I may assist the Chair on this point of order, the Premier was very

clear after the Attorney-General delivered his report on the Vogel case

that he separated the office of the Attorney-General — which is, in

part, traditional. He rose and said, "On behalf of the government we

have heard the Attorney-General's report and accept it," meaning that

he, as president of the executive council, will take no further action

in directing the Attorney-General in any further investigation. If he

wishes to deny that implication, then he's certainly entitled to do so

in this committee. But the Premier directly adopted the

Attorney-General's report as acceptable to the government. The

tradition in the British parliamentary system is that the one office

that is held aloof in matters of administration of justice is the

Attorney-General's. It was that that I thought the Premier was pointing

to, and I'm sure he was, when he stood up and said: "On behalf of the

government" — in this case separating the government from the

Attorney-General's office — "I accept the report." He could have

remained silent, he could have said, "We'll review the report as the

opposition did," and so on. No, he accepted it. Now I say that he must

answer questions in that regard in this committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Thank you, hon. member. Again, I appreciate the input from hon.

members. Nonetheless, the Chair must rule — and apparently this is the

only way the matter will be resolved — that the matters currently under

debate by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew must be held for the

Ministry of the Attorney-General and are not appropriate under the

debate on the estimates of the Premier.

MR. MITCHELL:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think you missed what I requested

the Premier to do. I asked the Premier to set up a committee to study

this particular case. I would like to outline the reason why I feel the

Premier — the leader of our government — should set up a committee to

study this particular case, which I sincerely feel the

Attorney-General's ministry was negligent in. They brought in the

report without studying the facts of the case that was before the

court, and the transcript and the evidence, and this is what I asked

the Premier to study. I want him to study it, and I'm asking him to set

up a committee to study it. That's my point of order, and that's what I

requested.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate your point of

order, hon. member. Nonetheless, again, the Chair must rule that the

issue that you are discussing be discussed under the Ministry of the

Attorney-General, as it is the Attorney-General that sets up those

judicial inquiries, not the office of the Premier.

MR. MITCHELL:

One more point of order, Mr. Chairman. I asked the Premier of the

province to set up a committee, and I want to go over the reason why I

feel that the Premier should set up the committee to investigate what

was not done. I don't want to go over it and have the Attorney-General

stonewall it; I want an investigation done to protect the police of

this province. I'm telling you, that the way it's going now.... This

evidence that came out was not properly presented and it was not

reviewed by the Attorney-General, and the only person that can set up

that committee is the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon.

member, the Chair has ruled on the matter, and the discussion would be

most appropriate under the estimates of the Attorney-General. But the

ruling we're looking at at this time is that they are not appropriate

under the estimates of the Premier.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr.

Speaker, I'm going to have to challenge the Chair. If I can't ask the

Premier to set up a committee to study something, I'm going to have to

challenge your ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The ruling of

the Chair has been challenged. Hon. members, the motion presently

before us is that the ruling of the Chair be sustained. All those in

favour signify by saying "aye"; opposed, if any.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The ayes have it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A division has been called.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, it would appear that although the challenge was taken in

committee it should be reported to the Speaker, and I will report that

challenge now.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Speaker is in the chair, hon. members; we are no longer in committee.

MR. LAUK: The mace is below the table.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member makes a point about the mace.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, when the Chairman is reporting to the Speaker on a challenge, the mace remains where it was.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the decision of the Chairman has been challenged.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the House in committee while you receive a report from the committee Chairman?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chairman reports without the committee rising; but at this stage we are now in the House.

[ Page 1791 ]

MR. LAUK:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if we are in the House, the point is

that a division was taken in committee and was underway before a report

to the Speaker. There is no way, under the rules of this House or any

other British parliamentary system, you can interrupt a division to

report to the Speaker.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, the division should not initially have been called in

committee. The division should have been called in the House. We are

now in the House. The division has been called, and the question is:

shall the Chairman's ruling be sustained?

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Waterland

Vander Zalm

McGeer

Nielsen

Ritchie

Fraser

Chabot

Brummet

Mair

McClelland

Ree

Kempf

Rogers

Wolfe

Davis

Smith

McCarthy

Strachan

Heinrich

Williams

Segarty

Hewitt

Bennett

Mussallem

Jordan

Curtis

Hyndman

Phillips

NAYS — 23

Macdonald

Nicolson

Lockstead

Barrett

Hall

Brown

Howard

Lorimer

Barnes

King

Leggatt

Barber

Lea

Sanford

Hanson

Lauk

Skelly

Mitchell

Stupich

D'Arcy

Passarell

Dailly

Gabelmann

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee will come to order. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has the floor.

MR. MITCHELL:

Mr. Chairman, there's an old saying: "Might is right." I disagree with

it and always have, but I feel that I am stuck with that might; the

majority that sits on that side for the present time does keep control.

For years I was a member of a group known as the police of the

province, who felt that we were the thin blue line that stood between

democracy and anarchy. All I'm asking is that this House make a

decision. Now if you have ruled, with your overwhelming majority, that

I cannot ask the Premier to set up a committee to study this, I would

like the Premier to give me his opinion on a certain case that appeared

in court. I would like to read from the Vancouver Sun a record

of the transcript of that trial. I would like the Premier to listen to

what I have to read and give me his opinion. Mr. Chairman, can I ask

the Premier for his opinion? Is there anything against asking the

Premier for his opinion? I'm not asking him to do anything else. I'm

just asking him to tell me what he honestly and sincerely feels is

right when we review certain evidence that was presented in court in

the Michael Ernest Moran case.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon.

member, order, please. Again, I must remind all members that under vote

9, the Premier's vote, we are discussing the administrative action for

which that minister is responsible. Again, in reflecting on what has

taken place in the last few moments regarding that decision, I would

ask the member to bear that in mind and narrow his debate more to the

real parameters of vote 9.

The member for Skeena on a point of order.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Chairman, I think you perhaps misunderstand what the hon. gentleman

is trying to do. He is not offending against the decision you made

earlier; he is simply asking the person who from time to time purports

to be the leader of the government his opinion about a very important

matter. We have seen so far in this debate that hon. members,

particularly opposite, have been permitted to discuss all and sundry

items whether they related to the Premier's office or to another level

of government. Witness the member from North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr.

Davis) talking about Chrysler Corporation and the federal government

yesterday. Other hon. members were talking about highways in their

department, and permitted to go full-scale in that direction. But when

we get to a point that is pretty fundamental to the course of justice

in this province, then we're stonewalled.

Mr. Chairman, with

respect, I think what you might well do is listen attentively and

carefully — as I know you always do — to what the hon. gentleman who

has the floor is saying, and you will readily see that he is not

offending against your earlier ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Thank you, hon. member. Again, I would caution all hon. members in

raising points of order, or on whatever point they rise on,

particularly in reference to the Chair. I would ask the member for

Skeena to withdraw the word "stonewalling" by the Chair. I think that

is....

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: The stonewalling, Mr. Chairman, was by the government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's different.

MR. LEGGATT:

On the point of order, if you examine the comments the Premier has made

about his trips around the world, about the great developments that are

taking place in British Columbia, surely it's appropriate for this

member to ask the Premier his opinion about something that is totally

consistent with leadership and his government. Surely it is appropriate

that we ask the Premier his view about the Mickey Moran case. I think

the people in that area of the province would certainly like to know

what his view of the Mickey Moran case is. If we're going to be limited

in the Premier's estimates, Mr. Chairman, then please limit the Premier

of the

[ Page 1792 ]

province in his remarks. If what I've heard and what I've reviewed in Hansard is correct, there isn't much he hasn't touched on except the questions that have been asked.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Thank you, hon. members. Again I ask all hon. members, in the estimates

presently before us, to consider the, administrative responsibilities

of the Premier under vote 9.

MR. BARRETT: On the same

point of order, Mr. Chairman, we're dealing, as you've pointed out,

with the administrative responsibilities of the Premier. I quote the

Premier from Hansard yesterday. He said:

Mr.

Chairman, now to deal with discussion which not only I but a number of

members have tried to introduce into this debate, in which there are

philosophical differences between our party, the government, and the

opposition not only on constitutional matters or international trade,

but matters of the economy....

He's talking about a

constitutional matter in the administration of the law. The Premier

himself defined yesterday what he wanted debated, and here is the

member responding to the Premier's challenge. I think the member should

go on canvassing the opinion of the Premier in a philosophical debate

on the administration of the Premier's office as the Premier defined

the debate himself .

HON. MR. BENNETT: Nonsense!

MR. BARRETT: If the Premier wishes to call his own words nonsense, let that go in Hansard too. I can't define when you're talking nonsense or not. If you tell us that it is nonsense now, tell us what else is nonsense.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, you are now engaged in debate, not a point of order.

Hon.

members, if we were to carry on in this manner, there would be no end

to the scope of debate under the estimate that is presently before us.

Again, I must ask all members to discuss the administrative

responsibilities of the Premier under vote 9.

The first member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Chairman, the opposition is terribly concerned about the

encroachment of the freedom of hon. members in this committee to

canvass with the chief executive officer of the province matters that

we feel quite clearly lie within his administrative responsibility. I

cannot, for the life of me and my experience in this House, understand

how the administration of justice under the current Attorney-General is

not a subject which should be at least superficially canvassed insofar

as requesting the president of the council's views of the report he

accepted on behalf of the government. It's clearly within the realm of

his administrative responsibility to appoint the Attorney-General, and

it was clearly his option to adopt the Attorney-General's report on

behalf of the government, which he did in the House. We have

information for the government; we have information for the public. We

need the Premier's views on that information, and we need them today in

these estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon.

member. Again, traditionally on the Premier's estimates in this House

we have always gone through this particular area that we're canvassing

at this time. If one were to extend the argument at all, then every

ministry of the government could, by these arguments, be canvassed

under the Premier's estimates. While passing reference has always been

in order, the narrowing in on other ministries that can be examined in

detail under other votes.... These must be examined under those further

votes. We must contain ourselves to the administrative responsibilities

of the ministries. As we proceed under further votes, of course, the

other ministries will be even more narrow than the one presently before

us.

MR. LEGGATT: With the greatest respect, Mr.

Chairman, you're missing something that is fundamental. It's true that

we can't ask other ministers for their view of something that is

clearly outside their province in the hands of the leader of the

government. But the leader of the government has a responsibility for

all his ministers. There is a very different responsibility here. An

area which touches upon another ministry, upon which the leader of the

government has already commented, has already stood up in the House and

taken a position on.... It seems to me that is an appropriate question,

because it deals with the question of leadership in the estimates, and

we have never, in my short experience here, been proscribed from asking

questions which surround the function of leadership. Surely that's what

the debate was all about last week. All we're saying in regard to these

particular questions and the leadership function is that it is fair and

appropriate to comment upon the role of other ministers and to comment

upon issues of the day which the people of British Columbia clearly

look to their Premier for an answer on.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Thank you, hon. member. Again, I must remind all hon. members that if

we are to extend that argument, then we in fact cover each and every

ministry under the Premier's estimates. I would ask all hon. members to

bear that in mind in their discussions.

MR. MITCHELL:

Mr. Chairman, I'm hoping that you're keeping my time and not letting

these other people get in there and take some of my thunder.

What

I request, what I ask, what I plead for is that the Premier of the

province of British Columbia show the leadership that we, the members

of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, demand, that he answer questions

that have been put to him by duly elected people. This is all we're

asking. How can I be expected to bring something up to the

Attorney-General's ministry that the Attorney-General has already

studied, has interviewed the various lawyers and prosecutors involved

about, and brought in a report about that missed the major scandal

happening in the criminal justice field of this province? Policemen are

asked to go out and enforce a law; they bring in and study evidence....

The Attorney-General studied this report and made no comment on it,

made no change, no alteration. All I'm asking, Mr. Chairman, is that we

have one type of justice for every person in this province. And I would

ask the Premier for his opinion. Let me go over this and point out the

cases which were flagrantly against justice, against law, against

order. Now the Attorney-General has studied it. All I'm asking is that

the Attorney-General....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Again, you are referring to cases that you have specific reference for.

[ Page 1793 ]

must say once again that the proper place to bring those specifics

before this House would be in the estimates of the Attorney-General,

because you are specifically referring to cases at that time. And

again, I would ask the hon. member to please bear that in mind as he

continues with his debate.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr.

Chairman, if I can't bring the evidence that there should never have

been a charge of dangerous driving before this chamber under these

estimates, then I will give up my place and allow the Premier to stand

up and answer some of the other questions that have been duly put to

him by other duly elected members on this side of the House. I ask the

Premier to make that stand.

Sitting down, Mr. Chairman, I

bow to your wishes, but I disagree with you. I feel that the Premier

must show some type of leadership, he must show some initiative, he

must take hold of his government. Half of his cabinet have left him

now; he must give some leadership instead of being pushed around. Where

are they now? I think that this question is a proper question. The way

justice is administered in this province is the responsibility of the

government, and the Premier leads that government and he should take

that responsibility.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I'm

disappointed that the Premier has not seen fit to even consider

replying to the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, who has been a

policeman with an absolutely flawless record in this community. He is

deeply concerned about the administration of justice in this province

and with the Premier's apparent inability to provide focus and

leadership with respect to the administration of justice.

Likewise,

in the past several days questions were asked of the Premier. I wish to

return to some of those questions now. On Thursday last I brought to

the committee's attention a series of events which lead to the

inescapable conclusion that the Premier's mission to Korea was, in part

at least, designed to promote the production and export to Korea of

uranium. I suggested to the Premier that if that was so, would he

please indicate it. At the time, the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and the Premier shook their

heads. I assume they shook their heads because there was no such

discussion. I ask the Premier to rise and deny that he had

conversations with Korea Electric about the sale of Okanagan uranium to

that country and to that company. He has not yet done so. He has risen

on one or two occasions since and delivered speeches that were

virtually unintelligible, but he has not directly answered those

questions. They go to two aspects: one is credibility, and the other is

a clear policy both for the people of British Columbia about the

production and export of uranium and for foreign customers concerning

all our products — all metals and forest products. There has to be a

clear message to our customers abroad as to what this government's

policy is.

I don't mind saying that I have received

inquiries from many companies that do business with this province. They

say to me that they are puzzled about this government's policies on

export of materials. One of the classic examples is uranium. We have

the Premier and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

travelling to Europe and Korea and discussing uranium export from this

province, and a few months later declaring a moratorium. The question

asked is: "We understand the New Democratic Party's policy is against

uranium mining in this province...."

Interjections.

MR. LAUK:

I'm talking about this province, Do you want to answer for Gerald

Regan? For Pierre Trudeau? For Fabien Roy? For Maurice Duplessis? I'm

sure you can. Do you want to answer for the chairman of the local

chapter of the Ku Klux Klan, which I understand is applying for

affiliation with your party? How will the executive of Social Credit

deal with that application?

The confusion of foreign

customers — who are so important to us because we export 50 percent of

our production, as the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development described last week — is now very much in place. There is

great concern. My concern is not the survival of the Social Credit

administration; we all know that. My concern is for the stability of

our markets in foreign countries and in Canada, as a result of the

inconsistent knee-jerk policies of this government. The Premier cannot

go to Korea and try to sell uranium and go to Europe and try to sell

uranium and a few months later declare a seven-year moratorium and

expect those customers in Europe and Korea to look upon this government

as anything other than a seat-of-the-pants, bush pilot type of

government. They have a knee-jerk reaction to public reaction, adopting

NDP policies only when they figure that the press heat is getting onto

them. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that has got to be

cleared up for the sake of all British Columbians and the business

community which exports 50 percent of its production. You've got to

make it clear, when you change a serious policy such as uranium mining,

with a clear statement from the government and the Premier as leader

telling why that policy decision was changed and what terms of

reference they can count on in the future in dealing with the export of

commodities from British Columbia. The Premier must get up and tell us

now. Did he or did he not discuss with the officials of Korea Electric

and the Minister of Energy and Resources in Korea...? The Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is here.

You can have an opportunity in these estimates to reply. You can reply

here, but I want.... The Premier was there. The Premier had

discussions. Now you shook your head, Mr. Minister. So did the Premier.

Did you double-check when I asked you if you discussed the sale of

uranium products to Korea with officials in Korea when you were there?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK:

You're saying no? Would you say no? You're shaking your head at me. Mr.

Chairman, is the minister shaking his head at the suggestion? Well,

don't shake it too much, Mr. Minister, because it might fall off.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: At least there's something in it.

MR. LAUK: Yes, but it'll still make quite an echo in the chamber.

Mr.

Chairman, there's now widespread controversy about the Premier's

credibility, not only among the people of British Columbia, but with

the vital customers that we have in foreign lands which buy 50 percent

of our production. Now it's all the talk in the Vancouver Club and up

in the Okanagan....

[ Page 1794 ]

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

I shine shoes there. That's where I pick up most of my information.

It's called NDP research — shining shoes at the Vancouver Club.

Mr.

Chairman, in all seriousness, I don't want my good friend from Kamloops

to distract me, which he knows full well he's always been able to do.

I'm going to try and resist it.

The Premier knows the

seriousness of the question. He's heard the feedback that I have heard

about the Premier's credibility. I am very concerned for the province

of British Columbia. He has the opportunity — he's been invited by the

opposition, press editorial comment and by the public generally — to

come clean on the change of policy. Why no uranium exports to foreign

countries? In doing so, he must recontact Korea Electric and the people

in the European economic council and explain to them why he made the

comments he did when he was there, which are totally inconsistent with

the seven-year moratorium. The Premier must comment on that because the

inquiries aren't coming as a brainstorm of the NDP. These are

legitimate inquiries by foreign customers asking what is going on in

B.C.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I have copies of wires here, but I think that what we should do....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Chairman, would they like the copy of the wire I have received with

an attached 50,000-name petition for the government's resignation? Is

that the one they want? That's the one I have here. Or I have another

petition here from the business community, Mr. Chairman, asking....

HON. MR. BENNETT:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, quite often members make reference

to telegrams and letters on which they base their remarks, and the

member for Vancouver Centre has done that. As it is the custom that

they immediately table such documents, I would just ask him to table

them right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the

point of order that was just raised by the Premier, the tabling of

documents cannot be carried out in committee; it must be done in the

House. However, it is customary to do it immediately thereafter.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Chairman, on that point of order, it seems to me it would have been

more appropriate for the Premier to have risen and tabled his answer to

this question posed in the letter from Etienne Reuter. Answer the truth

to that question. That's what he should do.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, order. Again I must caution all hon. members against

seeking the floor on false points of order merely to gain the floor.

MR. LAUK:

Well, Mr. Chairman, the appropriate thing for the Premier to do, the

right thing for him to do, the honourable thing for him to do, is to

simply answer our questions. The purpose of estimates in committee is

to examine the performance of the Premier under this vote with respect

to certain matters that vitally concern the economy, the social and the

political well-being of this province. The Premier has steadfastly

refused to do so.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I see the Chairman has taken on new proportions!

haven't read from any document yet, but it seems clear to me that the

Premier and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips) are not coming clean with this committee. They're

not being honest with the public, and they have an opportunity to do

so. They are playing games with the committee; they are playing games

with the Legislature; and they're playing games with the public. They

think it's cute, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will remind the hon. member that he is bridging on imputations of falsehood, and the Chair has made many comments about that.

MR. LAUK:

I make no imputations of falsehood, Mr. Chairman, but I'm glad to hear

your voice. In this case we have a situation where the Premier and the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development.... Clearly the

Premier is under the false impression that he has to protect his

reputation in the province. Nobody has told him yet that if he keeps on

going in this manner he's not going to have any reputation left to

protect. All we ask is that the Premier simply stand in his place and

give a description of what took place in Korea and in Europe; tell us

honestly and then give a statement about the change of policy with

respect to uranium exports and mining in this province. He knows what

he said, but we have to have it confirmed by the Premier.

repeat again that it's of absolutely vital importance to our foreign

customers. Some of them have been buying our products for a very long

time, and they have made inquiries about the stability of policy with

regard to export of our resources. The New Democratic Party has no

fear, Mr. Chairman, in stating its policy openly and letting the people

judge. But the Premier is deliberately holding back statements on

policy, either because he has a mistaken belief that the people will

not understand them, or he's ashamed of them, or they're irrational.

Which one is it? The Premier must stand in his place and tell the truth

of what happened in Korea and tell the truth of what happened in

Europe. He has not yet done so.

In one case, with respect to

the letter from Mr. Reuter of the European economic council, the

Premier denied discussing the export of uranium products. He has not

yet clarified that in the face of a letter saying that the discussion

did take place; he has not yet explained that inconsistency with his

answer and the letter from Europe. Again, I asked him on Thursday

whether he discussed the export of uranium products to Korea. Now let

me canvass that, Mr. Chairman; it's very important.

The

Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development knew that there

were 1.1 million metric tons of uranium ore available in the Okanagan

area through Noreen, a company involved in that area. They knew back in

June 1979 and they knew the details of that development. With that

knowledge

[ Page 1795 ]

hand they announced a trip to Korea. After a discussion with the

Premier, the head of Korea Electric, the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and their officials in Korea,

in November the signing of an agreement was announced between Noreen

and Korea Electric for the export of 1.1 million metric tons of uranium

ore. Now is that just a coincidence, Mr. Chairman? I say it just cannot

be.

We know perfectly well what must have transpired between

the Premier.... Did he lead them in the wrong direction? Was his policy

set, or was the uranium moratorium a last-minute, knee-jerk reaction

before the Bates commission could report and without an announcement to

Noreen, Korea Electric or any other of our customers abroad?

We've

asked him carefully on several occasions, and he's refused to answer.

So we must conclude, Mr. Chairman, that discussions for the sale of

uranium products took place in Europe and Korea, that a tentative

agreement was made for the export of 1.1 million metric tons to Korea

Electric from Noreen and their development in the Okanagan.

What

was the earth-shattering information, Mr. Chairman, on which the

Premier acted to declare a seven-year moratorium? Could it have just

been a political knee-jerk reaction? Is that why the Premier is

hesitating to stand in the committee and tell the truth? Is that why

he's protecting his position?

It is clear to me, Mr.

Chairman, that the Premier, by his conduct, is allowing the public to

lose faith in the government and, as importantly, our customers, the

people in foreign lands to whom we sell our products, are now losing

faith and are going to start to took elsewhere to purchase their goods.

It's fine to say "no uranium," but not without an explanation, in

contradiction to his trade tours in Korea, Japan and Europe.

MR. KING: What about the waste of money on tours?

MR. LAUK:

That's a good point the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke makes. A

tremendous amount of taxpayers' money was spent on trade missions, and

the Premier comes back and says: "I was only fooling; I was just there

on a lollygag. There's going to be a seven-year moratorium on uranium

export." What's next? With a knee-jerk reaction is he going to cut off

all sales of plywood to Japan? Is that what he's going to do next, Mr.

Chairman? Is he going to arbitrarily destroy export markets because of

purely political considerations?

Oh, I see the minister's

suspenders are too tight over there. What are you frowning at? You'll

have an opportunity to stand up and speak your mind in this debate.

Mr.

Chairman, I want to give every opportunity to the Premier to reply to

these questions. The mail is flowing in and, like so many members on

this side of the House have said, we want to keep him as Premier —

until the next election. We want to keep him as leader of the Social

Credit Party until the next election. He's the best thing the NDP has

got going for it. The saints are with the Premier. There's someone up

there taking care of the Premier, because just as soon as the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) was on the starting blocks, ready

for the leadership, the Vogel affair came about. So somebody up there

is taking good care of the first minister of the land, and all good

grassroots Socreds can sleep quietly in their beds.

Unfortunately, we're deeply concerned about this Premier's survival

in that chair for very long. One of the reasons for this concern is the inconsistencies

in his answers on the uranium export question.

ask him, please, to stop pretending to sign mail that comes out of a

computer, as Marjorie Nichols says. Don't try and fool the troops.

You're listening to every word. Stand up and answer the questions.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I'm extremely happy to have the opportunity to stand in my place and

ask some questions of the Premier, and perhaps have the opportunity for

some meaningful debate here, an opportunity for the people of British

Columbia to get some answers about economic development in this

province. I want to put those questions on the record. I'm sure we'll

get answers to those questions as time goes on.

I want to

say, though, a word or two about a couple of the things the previous

speaker said in this debate. The previous speaker talked about the

responsibility of tabling mail and not answering mail. I think that the

previous speaker should certainly give the undertaking to this House

that he'll table all these letters he says he has received from

individuals all over the world about their concern over our export

policy in British Columbia. I know that that first member for Vancouver

Centre, being an honourable member, will table those just as soon as

the committee rises and the House comes back into session.

MR. LAUK: Table what?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Table all those letters you've had from concerned citizens all over the

world who are concerned about our exports. You don't have one, and you

know it. That's the kind of thing that has been put forward to this

House for the last ten days. That member has stood here and talked

about letters and calls he has had from people all over the world; he

knows he hasn't had any. He knows darned well that nobody would write

him about the business affairs of this province, because they knew he

was once industrial development minister in this province and turned

the economic development of the province into a shambles. The only

reason someone from somewhere might write to him about economic

development affairs in this province is because they remember that he

spirited the files away and hid them down in his basement, and they

might want him to look something up from those past years.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order! I will once again remind all hon. members that we are on vote 9,

the Premier's estimates. This applies to all hon. members.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I wish to talk about the Premier's estimates. I wish as well that this

House could stop playing around with phony little political moves and

get back and do the work of the people of this province. I think it's

about time we all, on both sides of this House, made that undertaking.

I really do get angered. I wouldn't have been speaking today, except

that....

MR. LEA: You're angry.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I did get angry — yes, I did at the holier-than-thou attitude of that

group on the other side of the House in dealing with vote 9, the

Premier's

[ Page 1796 ]

estimates.

They're holding out to us that they are the only people who have any

honesty or any judgment or any morality. They've got some kind of a

99-year lease on morals and truth and honesty. That's the group over

there who when they were government promised British Columbia

leadership. In fact, I remember the previous Premier running on the

issue of leadership. I ask the people of British Columbia to compare

that leadership, and the 1,200 days when the NDP were in power, to the

leadership we've had in this province for the last five years. I've no

doubt — and, as a matter of fact, elections have proved — that that

leadership in those 1,200 days came up seriously wanting, and that the

people of British Columbia will never accept that again. I ask the

people of this province to compare that holier-than-thou group over

there with the kind of good and responsible government we've had in the

past five years.

The previous Premier promised an oil

refinery in the middle of Surrey; a steel mill in Merritt — or was it

the other way around? — a railway carrying oil from some place in the

north. There was a meeting with a janitor in Washington, telling the

janitor that he wished he could see somebody about his way-out railway

— and the Minister of Economic Development of that time was telling all

British Columbia about how the Premier was down in Washington talking

to officials. He met with the janitor; he was official janitor, right.

I'd

like the people of B.C. to compare the leadership they have in this

province now with the leadership they didn't have in those 1,200 days

under NDP. They sit in this Legislature and day after day hold out that

in some magical way they are the purveyors of truth in this province.

Yet, Mr. Chairman, talking about the confidence that our export trading

nations have in this province, how much confidence could our export

trading nations have in a group of people who have delivered the worst

kind of racist slurs about one of our major trading partners? It's not

the first time it's happened; it's happened in this House on other

occasions. Do you think our major trading partners don't read the

newspapers and don't understand when people slur them in a racist way?

Then we come back and ask them to be our partners in trade. It would be

easy to forget it if it hadn't happened before, but it's the second

time that I can recall, and perhaps it's happened more often in this

House.

That group sits there with their holier-than-thou

attitude, talking about truth, talking about justice, talking about

what's the right thing to do. Over and over again they repeat the same

sort of mumbled question as the debate goes on: "All we want to know

is, is the Premier telling the truth?" Well, I'll tell you: yes, the

Premier's telling the truth, and yes, we know the Premier's telling the

truth. You talk about respect for this parliamentary process — respect

for the parliamentary process from a group which when its leader got

defeated paid off another member with $80,000 to get his seat back. Is

that respect for the parliamentary process? You sit there with your

holier-than-thou attitudes — of course you make me angry.

The

Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) brought up in

this debate the question of whether or not those people on the other

side of the House could be trusted to tell the truth when we talked

about whether or not they believed in an independent Quebec as part of

their national policy. There's a group who signed a public document

which called for an independent Quebec as part of the Canadian national

strategy; and the Leader of the Opposition, who signed that document,

tells us in this House the other day that he voted against it — sure,

he signed it, but now he denies it. Yet that document signed by a

number of members on that side of this House today called for an

independent Quebec there's one coming in now who signed that document

at a time when this nation is at a crossroads and this Premier has been

putting forward a united Canada as the policy of this government. Mr.

Chairman, of course they make us angry.

MR. LEA: What about your national leader? He's voting for separation. Your national leader is voting against you.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Members for Victoria stand up in this debate and ask the Premier of this province to answer questions about the Marguerite

and whether this is a responsible situation that exists today in the

province. I'll tell you what responsibility is all about, Mr. Chairman.

The first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) and the second member for

Victoria (Mr. Hanson) and the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead)

stand up here and tell the people of British Columbia that that Premier

should have made a decision to sail the Marguerite on the

Seattle-Victoria run.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Absolutely.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

They're saying it again. Mr. Chairman, let me tell you that just

looking at the minutes of meetings from the B.C. Steamship Company, I

see where the....

MR. LEA: Are you going to file those?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

They're already filed in this House. It's too bad you didn't take the

time to read them. They've been filed in this House, and not one member

on that side of the House has taken the time to read them. I'll file

them again if you want them filed again.

I'd just quote one of them from Mr. Elworthy, who was the general manager of that steamship company. He said if the Princess Marguerite

was to operate in 1980 then he would resign. Mr. Ian Smart, who is a

very well respected naval surveyor, I'm told, also advised that his

firm would not continue to be involved if the Princess Marguerite was to continue in service. We heard from members who had been told that the Princess Marguerite

was unsafe, that it could catch fire, it could break down, its hull was

wearing out, and that if we sailed it we would have to have the

responsibility for the passengers aboard that ship.

As a

responsible government we said: "No way. We won't take the chance." But

that first member for Victoria will take the chance. He'll send people

on that ship, and damn the chances. The second member for Victoria will

take the chance. He'll send people on that ship and damn the chances.

The member for Mackenzie will send people on that ship. Well, this

responsible government won't.

MR. LEGGATT: On a point

of order, I wonder if the member would care to justify his remarks in

accordance with this being the Premier's estimates.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to. We're speaking on vote 9, the

Premier's estimates. This matter has been raised continually by members

on the

[ Page 1797 ]

opposite

side of the House as being demands under the Premier's estimates. I

just want to lay it on the record that this government will not take

the kinds of chances that that government would and still will, as a

matter of fact. They pound their desks when they say "sail the Marguerite .

" It doesn't matter whether she sinks; it doesn't matter whether people

die; it doesn't matter whether women and children are on board that

ship — sink her! You don't care!

The Premier, along with his

responsible ministers, the Minister for Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and the Minister of Transportation and

Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), particularly, are too responsible and too

concerned about the lives of citizens to take that kind of chance. As a

matter of fact, no good government would.

Mr. Chairman, I

want to ask the Premier to consider some questions about the leadership

of this province. I want to ask the Premier if it's true that under his

leadership industrial and commercial growth are at all-time record

levels in British Columbia. I want to ask the Premier to tell us about

tourism in this province, about the kind of attractive climate that has

put tourism as one of, perhaps, two or three major advantages in terms

of creating a stable economy. I want to ensure that the Premier can

tell this House that under his leadership almost all indicators of the

economy are not only up but are at record levels. Compare that to other

parts of Canada where the economy is in less confident shape.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It's not true? B.C. sales top store sales lists. Department store sales....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I wouldn't want to embarrass the opposition by calling them to question

on something they say is not true, that retail sales are not up.

According to Statistics Canada they are up; but according to those

folks they are down. Department store sales are up 15.7 percent from a

year earlier according to Statistics Canada. British Columbia stores,

Mr. Chairman, recorded the highest growth rate in all of the country,

at 29 percent.

MR. LEGGATT: Imagine how much higher it would be if you didn't overtax the public.

MR. LEA: And the highest unemployment.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Now, Mr. Chairman, that bearded member over there calls to me: "the

highest unemployment." I find another item from Statistics Canada that

says the Canadian employment picture is looking a little rosier than

last year, with the brightest spots in Vancouver and the rest of B.C.

B.C. leads the way in the decline in jobless totals, dropping from 8

percent in January to 7.3 percent. It's not the highest it's ever been.

Just look back to what it was when that group was in power. It is not

the highest it's ever been; it's at one of the best levels that it's

ever been, and it's getting better.

Every economic indicator

that we can look at points to continued prosperity in British Columbia,

well ahead of every other part of Canada: 12-month trade figures up;

exports up; balance of payments up; retail sales up; jobless figures

down. Every economic indicator, thanks to the leadership of that

Premier, is better than any other part of Canada.

Now when

are we going to get down to business and talk about the real facts in

this House, instead of playing the kind of phony little games that that

group over there wants to play. We can't help it, Mr. Chairman, if they

went out as a group and spent all this money researching uranium and

then found it was no use to them; that's their stupidity.

Mr.

Chairman, mineral claims are up, industrial growth is up, forestry

income is up, oil and gas revenues are at record levels. I don't want

to dwell too much on times past, but we remember where the oil rigs

were in 1974 and 1975. Well, maybe we don't know where they were; but

we sure know where they weren't — and they weren't in British Columbia.

They were driven out. Now we have record numbers of rigs looking for

oil and gas in the northeast sector of this province, and finding it at

record levels.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They said there was none there.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, the NDP said: "There's no gas up there, you crazy guys. What would you want a pipeline for? There's no gas."

We've

just found, in the deep basin of northeastern British Columbia, one of

the most significant finds that this province will ever have. We're

finding it because there are rigs there, because the confidence is

back, because of the leadership of that Premier.

Mining

revenues are at record levels in this province, Mr. Chairman. I

wouldn't want to embarrass that group by telling you how good they are,

because it would really make them look bad. But we do remember where

the mining activity was in 1974 and '75 — no, I have to correct that

again, we remember where it wasn't; it wasn't in British Columbia. It

was in the Yukon and other parts of the world, but it wasn't in British

Columbia. It is now. It is now at record levels, and the mining

industry in this province is becoming ever more important to the

economy of not only this province, but of Canada as a whole. It's

because of the leadership of that Premier.

MR. LEA: You have to be kidding.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

That member from Prince Rupert, Mr. Chairman, continues to develop his

inane comments, like "you have to be kidding" and "you're not telling

the truth," when he knows we're telling the truth, when he knows we're

not kidding, and when he knows that when he was Minister of Highways

there were no programs, there were no highways, there were no

maintenance programs, and....

AN HON. MEMBER: ...lots of potholes.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

There were lots of potholes. And there were no tourists, Mr. Chairman,

because that member, when he was minister, told the tourists not to

come to British Columbia. I suppose he didn't want them to see his

potholed highways. But they're coming back.

Interjections.

MR. LEA:

On a point of order, the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) has just insulted our biggest trading

partner by calling the Americans "Yankees," and I demand that that

minister withdraw that remark.

[ Page 1798 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair did not hear the Minister of Industry, and Small Business....

MR. LEA: I heard it. I ask that he withdraw that remark.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The member rose on a scurrilous point of order. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources had the floor.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Chairman, I demand that the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development apologize to this House. He called our biggest trading

partners "Yankees." They're Americans, and I want him to withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, you have not been recognized.

MR. LEA: I'm on a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's a scurrilous point of order. The Chair did not hear....

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I challenge your ruling.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There is no ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The member for Prince Rupert is offended by a comment that the Minister

of Industry and Small Business Development apparently made, and the

member for Prince Rupert asks for a withdrawal.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're asking me?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the minister withdraw? The member for Prince Rupert is offended.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'll be quite happy to withdraw anything that offends the member.

MR. HOWARD:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I was sitting here very close to you

— and it may have been my hearing, or it may be Your Honour's

pronunciation that's involved — and I heard you refer on two occasions

to the point of order raised by the member for Prince Rupert as a

"scurrilous" point of order. I wonder if the Chair would want to

reflect upon the use of that word "scurrilous," which, I think, does

not have a proper place in these proceedings. Perhaps the Chair meant

"spurious".

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair reflects on your comments. Thank you very much.

On vote 9, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I just wish to continue discussing vote 9, the Premier's estimates, and

remind the House that the kinds of questions that need to be asked

during the estimates of the Premier are ones like the following. Isn't

it true, Mr. Chairman, that the Ministry of Health in this province has

been given a budget which reflects not only the dynamism of the

province's economic growth but the caring nature of this government for

those people who need health care? The largest percentage of total

budget for health care of any government in Canada, the largest

hospital construction budget in this province's history, the only

government in Canada which has been able to introduce new, dynamic and

innovative health programs at a time when every other government is

cutting back.... Isn't that true, Mr. Chairman? Those are the kinds of

questions we need to be asking.

Isn't it true that under the

leadership of this Premier municipal grants in aid of our lively and

growing municipalities are at record levels and are continuing to grow

at the same pace as our own economic growth for the first time in

history? Isn't that true, Mr. Chairman? Isn't it true that employment

in this province is in a state of stability that it hasn't seen in

years and certainly didn't see in the years of 1972 to 1975? Isn't that

true?

Isn't it true that under the leadership of that

Premier inflation has grown in British Columbia at a lower rate than in

any other part of Canada? Isn't that true, Mr. Chairman? Those are the

kinds of questions the people of B.C. want to get answers for; those

are the kinds of questions that the people of B.C. see as the important

issues of the day before this government and before that opposition.

Isn't it true that under the leadership of that Premier

federal-provincial relations have entered a new era of responsibility

that hasn't been the case for many, many years in this province? Isn't

that true?

Isn't it true that we've gone from a time — and

again that made us all angry — when our Premier during 1972 to 1975 was

considered to be a laughing-stock by those in Ottawa who had to deal

with him? Isn't it a refreshing change today? Isn't it, Mr. Chairman?

Isn't it true that this government was the first, and perhaps one of

the only, to put forward meaningful proposals for constitutional change

that have been adopted by other governments across this country at a

time when, as I've said before, the constitution and the unity of our

country are at a crossroads? Mr. Chairman, those are the kinds of

questions that need to be asked in this debate on vote 9, the Premier's

estimates.

I want to say just one other thing. We should

also be asking ourselves how come these good things are happening in

this province. Is it luck? No, it isn't luck, because if it were just

luck — as I think the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development pointed out some time ago — it would be happening in many

other parts of the world. But it isn't; it's happening here in British

Columbia. It is not luck; it is a carefully planned economic program

designed to bring not only economic stability but economic growth that

will allow us to build the kind of base that will see the social

programs of this province continue to grow. That's not luck; that's

good management by this Premier and by this government.

MR. LAUK:

For the new members of the committee and people in the gallery, on

behalf of the committee I want to apologize to them generally for that

last performance. We'll just leave it at that. Very seldom a minister

of the Crown rises to defend some other minister in his estimates. But

the Premier has to get out and visit somebody in his office, you see,

and that was the purpose of that last speech. But in so doing, the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources was incapable of

making a speech not laced with venom and personal remarks that are most

unfortunate.

[ Page 1799 ]

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. We've had some exciting debate. Perhaps we might retain

some semblance of parliamentary order and recognize the first member

for Vancouver Centre, who is speaking on vote 9.

MR. LAUK:

I always enjoy the minister's speeches. They're filled with that kind

of quality research that we have come to be used to since he was a

member of the opposition and a member of the government: news

clippings, rumours, anonymous telephone calls and so on — like the time

he said a whole group of teenagers had been housed by our

administration in the Empress Hotel. It proved to be quite incorrect.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, one of your members asked a question about that practice in the House just the other day.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order.

MR. LAUK:

Now that the Premier is back I want to return to the important topic of

the estimates and the question of the inconsistency with our foreign

customers in the purchase of uranium supplies. Because of that

inconsistency and lack of credibility, there is great concern among

foreign customers with respect to the policy of the British Columbia

government. I return to the Premier's visit to Korea, Japan and Europe,

and I ask again whether the Premier will now consider making a

statement clarifying the policy of the export of uranium to foreign

customers. Could he now explain why there was the inconsistency between

his reply last week denying that he had discussed the sale of uranium

and the facts as we now know them, and would he please comment...?

Mr.

Chairman, I wonder whether I have the Premier's attention. I know he

has to conduct some government affairs while he's in the House, but

he's had the better part of 30 minutes to do so.

I wonder if

the Premier would not consider now making a statement of policy to

explain the difference between the policy as stated in Europe and Korea

to these prospective customers and the policy which he apparently

enunciated when he declared a seven-year moratorium. It's not just a

question of credibility. That's important enough, but the grave doubts

out there now about this administration's capability to govern on a

rational basis are becoming of great concern to the opposition. The

role of the opposition is, of course, to attack the government — that's

true. But sometimes we become so concerned about the government's

actions that may affect the commonwealth at large that we try to bring

these points home to the government and ask them.... We're pleading

with you. For the sake of this province's credibility in foreign

markets, will the Premier please get up and explain why the shift in

policy — what were the reasons — and explain why he denied discussing

uranium in Europe? This is very important. What does the Premier have

to hide? What's the problem? Why can he not just say, "Well, at that

time we did not have a certain area of information on uranium mining;

now we do," and then tell the committee what that new information was?

what basis did the Premier act? We're all waiting for the other shoe to

drop. Most of all, the Japanese and Korean companies, and the European

companies — but particularly the Japanese and Korean companies — are

wondering why the change in policy and on what new information that you

didn't have when you discussed uranium supply with Korean officials and

with European officials. I wonder if the Premier would fulfill his duty

to this chamber and to the public by answering that question.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Chairman, I regret that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is not here at the moment. I did want

to make a few comments about his performance. It fell into two

categories. One was the standard usual format of the Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources — engaging in inflammatory

innuendo designed primarily not to enlighten anybody in debate, but to

attempt to develop the debate in the House into a shouting match,

hoping thereby, as a diversionary tactic, to distract the committee

into another direction. I am pleased that he did not succeed in doing

that.

The other thing that he did is interesting, Mr.

Chairman, particularly now that you are the person in the chair,

because the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources was

permitted to engage in discussing — that's apart from his innuendo and

slurs on members of the opposition — subject matters which had nothing

whatever to do with the Premier's estimates, showing, I think, very

clearly, that he wants it both ways. He wants one set of rules to apply

to the government and another set of rules to apply to the opposition,

because it wasn't too long ago this afternoon when that same minister

stood up and voted to deny the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr.

Mitchell) an opportunity to examine a very important question in this

House. Then the minister proceeded to engage in exactly the same sort

of thing that he voted to deny us from engaging in. I only want to put

that on the record to say that it puts the committee in a bit of a

quandary at times as to just what can be examined.

Yesterday,

when the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) was engaging in

that campaign speech that he hopes will permit the Liberal Party to

vacuum him back into it again at the provincial level, he was engaging

in discussing quite a number of subject matters, Mr. Chairman. At one

point of the debate, a point of order was raised by my friend the

second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), and Hansard

quotes Mr. Macdonald as saying: "I wonder what in the dickens Walter

Gordon and the Chrysler corporation and the loan to save their

financial backside have got to do with the estimates of the Premier."

The Chairman then said — and with respect, Mr. Chairman, I think it was

you in person who did this, although if I'm in error it doesn't matter

— referring to the second member for Vancouver East: "Mr. Member, the

ruling of the Chair, if you've been listening carefully to the member

for North Vancouver–Seymour, is that the member who has the floor has

been itemizing — and he is now on his last item — a number of questions

which he feels in this debate are relevant."

There we have

an indication of a ruling on one side that it's up to the member to

decide what is relevant, and then earlier today we had an indication

from members on the government side that they don't want to have

certain subject matters examined because they're sensitive about it. I

think perhaps the only course that can be followed by a member of the

committee who wants to engage in examining those

[ Page 1800 ]

questions

is to just proceed right along as if there was no decision made this

afternoon and to seek to examine all items considered to be relevant

and important insofar as the leadership of this government is concerned.

When

it comes to the question of uranium and the matter of the Premier

having gone to Brussels in September 1977, where he advocated before a

commission of the European Economic Community that indeed British

Columbia did have uranium, and indeed it was for sale, I am surprised

that nobody on the government side got up to commend the Premier for

having taken that action. I would have thought that members on the

other side, especially those in the cabinet, would have been pleased

that the Premier did go to Brussels in 1977 and did try to sell

uranium, because it was the policy of the government at that time to do

just that. I thought the government members would have supported the

Premier and would have said: "Right on, Bill. We're glad you did that,

because at that time you were doing what you should have been doing as

the Premier of this province." Instead of that, we find this

stonewalling attempt to deny that that event ever took place. Mr.

Reuter's comments are there, very clearly saying that, yes, the Premier

did underline the concern of his government to find markets for the

province's products and listed, among other things, uranium.

wish the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) was

here too, because with respect to the question of uranium and the

question of finding and developing uranium deposits in this province,

the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing has publicly endorsed that and

said it was a good thing. I wish the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Hewitt) was here to say to the House, as he did, that, yes, he

supported the question of finding and developing uranium deposits in

this province. It isn't just the question of the Premier having had an

interest in it and having gone to Korea at one time and to the European

Economic Community at another time trying to flog the sale of uranium.

He has other ministers apart from the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development. The Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing have both, on different occasions, endorsed

that idea. They exhibited what was the proper interest of the

government at that time.

In the 1977 annual report of the

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources — this was the

official declaration of government at that time — on page 28 we are

told: "Uranium exploration has been increasing from very low levels,

due to significant price increases in the mid 1970s." On another part

of page 28 the minister tells us: "The release of the

federal-provincial Uranium Reconnaissance Program geochemical data in

May 1977" — a few months before the Premier went to Brussels — "had a

significant and immediate effect on the numbers of claims recorded. The

increased activity in grassroots prospecting continued throughout the

year. However, the market increase in drilling indicates that mature

programs are also increasing." It's all talking about uranium, all

talking about the spring of 1977, all leading up to the trip the

Premier made to Brussels to sell the uranium then being found.

page 29 of the report, under the heading "Major Exploration Activity,"

what they mean by "major exploration activity" is defined. I don't

think that is germane to this point, but listed therein are exploration

programs which exceeded the criteria. In other words, they were

excessive; they were beyond what even the government hoped they would

be. Thus identified was Kettle (Tyee Lake Resources Ltd. and Noranda

Exploration Co. Ltd.), a basal-type uranium deposit in tertiary

sedimentary rocks — 6,945 metres of drilling. It goes on in that

nature. If I were an hon. member opposite I would be quoting this and

commending the Premier for doing what his Ministry of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources was doing in promoting exploration work with

respect to uranium — and spending public funds doing it.

page 47 they give a review of the work in 1977. On page 46 they

identify the geological division of the ministry, its objectives and

its organizational structure. The objectives of the geological division

are to provide accurate and current information on the quantity and

distribution of mineral deposits of the province for government and

industry, to provide maps, other data, etc.

The review of

the work in 1977 identifies this: "The geological mapping program, the

core of the division's work, continued unabated in 1977." They say how

much money was spent, the number of projects, the number of geologists,

summer students and so on, who were involved in it. It says, under the

"Review of the Work in 1977" heading: "P.A. Christopher completed

studies of basal-type uranium deposits in the east Okanagan area." I'm

sure that, being in that area, it would not have gone unnoticed by the

Premier, who notes very carefully and very well what goes on in the

Okanagan area. We see that P.A. Christopher is a PhD, a professional

engineer and a geologist, working for the ministry, paid by public

funds to have completed the studies of that uranium project.

see, further that one B.N. Church "studied tertiary stratigraphy and

its relation to uranium deposits in south central British Columbia."

Who is B.N. Church? B.N. Church is a PhD, a professional engineer and a

geologist, working for the ministry, paid by the people of B.C. to go

out and do some mapping work to find uranium, so the Premier could go

over to Europe and flog it, saying: "We found the uranium; we'd like to

sell it." What more logic could there be than that?

V.A.

Preto "studied the Rexspar uranium deposits as a prelude to mapping the

Barriere Lakes area." V.A. Preto is another PhD and professional

engineer employed as a geologist in the geological division of the

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources for the year 1977.

All

of this was taking place, paid for by the general public, aided by the

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, endorsed by the

Premier as mining activity. Yet he expects us to believe, as he blurted

out in the House the other day, that he did not in Europe on December

15, or whatever that day was in 1977, the same year his Ministry of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources had spent quite a few dollars

mapping uranium deposits....

He expects us to believe,

knowing all that, that he didn't go there and say: "Yes, we've got

uranium for sale." What was the Premier doing endorsing the expenditure

of funds to find it, if it wasn't to be put to some use, if it wasn't

to be sold to somebody who may need it or want it? It's a perfectly

logical explanation, and I wonder why members on the other side aren't

taking that kind of stance instead of trying to protect the Premier

from his own stupidity and his own outburst — made inadvertently, made

without regard to the facts, made probably out of forgetfulness. Who

knows?

Whatever the reason, he said: "No, I didn't do it."

Now I know the rules say we are required to accept the word of an hon.

member made in his place in this House. There's an

[ Page 1801 ]

awful

lot of background information here, Mr. Chairman, that indicates that,

perhaps properly, we should be questioning that particular comment of

the Premier. I don't see why he hasn't got the common sense that most

honourable people would have in our society to say: "Yes, I made a

mistake. I blurted it out without thinking. I forgot." But the Premier,

from my assessment of his approach to a great many things, can't take

that step of saying that he made a mistake, can't take that little

extra step and say: "Yes, I goofed." It's been proven, of course, a

number of times over, when the Premier has said something contrary to

the facts and won't back up. Stubborn, insensitive to reality,

insensitive to truth, arrogant, disdainful of anybody else's opinions,

he said, "No, there are no seatbelts in the car," when he knew full

well there were seatbelts in the car. When he was shown that they were

there, did he backtrack? Did he say: " Oh, I apologize. I just wasn't

thinking"? Most people would do that. Most honourable people would do

that.

That type of action, that type of activity, that type

of exhibition on the part of the Premier is what's involved in this

particular debate. Credibility. Honourableness. Trust. Faith. All of

the good qualities of mankind and womankind that we all want to see

exhibited. Embraced within that concept of honourable dealing is the

simple question of admitting that one has made a mistake in saying

something. It's a sad commentary upon the leadership of this province

when the president of the executive council cannot make that admission

as a man of honour, and say: "Yes, I blurted that out. No, I didn't

mean to. I apologize to the House for having said that. I in fact did

go to Europe. I in fact did involve myself in a discussion with the

Commission of the European Communities, and I did in fact say, 'Yes,

we've got uranium and we'd like to sell it.'"

We've been

spending money finding it. Not only did we spend money in 1977, we

spent money in 1978. This is the report of the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), tabled just the

other day in the House. Make a reference or two there, Mr. Chairman.

Throughout they're talking in terms of uranium. Under "Exploration" on

page 24 it says: "Exploration during 1978" — exploration for uranium,

in particular — "progressed to the stage where extensive drilling

occurred." They're still looking for uranium, still drilling for it,

still using public funds to find it — not in 1977, but in 1978. "The

metals" — reading further from this report, under "Metallic Minerals"

on page 25 — "most sought in 1978 appeared to be" — and I read them in

the order in which they appear — "molybdenum, uranium...."

MR. BARRETT: The book's lying.

MR. HOWARD:

No, that's what the book says. I'll table the book. Can I table this

book that I am quoting from, Mr. Chairman, to prove that I am not

misreading it? At the appropriate time, I'll ask to table this book

from which I'm reading.

Going further, "...the most active

metal exploration areas in the province included, from north to south"

— very first listing — "the Surprise Lake–Atlin area — uranium; Fraser

Lake, Vanderhoof and central interior — uranium; southeast

Okanagan–Boundary area — uranium."

Mr. Chairman, I'll get to

another point of this — remember this is the year after the Premier

went to Europe and tried to flog uranium over there. On page 26 it

says: "Government programs to encourage exploration" — public money

spent to encourage exploration — and it goes to say: "Related programs

include reconnaissance geochemical surveys in selected areas,

principally through the three-year, federal-provincial Uranium

Reconnaissance Program called URP.

AN HON. MEMBER: URP?

MR. HOWARD: That's what the Premier should say every time he hears the word uranium: "URP, I forgot what I did in 1977."

These

are government programs to encourage exploration: "Waters are analyzed

for fluorine and uranium, and sediments are analyzed for uranium."

AN HON. MEMBER: He's making that up.

MR. HOWARD:

Oh, no, because we now have on the public records of this House — and I

can't make that up — the 1978 Accelerated Mineral Development Program

funded by $5 million through Bill 5 — not Bill Bennett — "the Revenue

Surplus Appropriation Act for 1976-77...included an accelerated

geochemical survey of two mapped areas in west-central British

Columbia. This program is modelled after the Uranium Reconnaissance

Program." These are public funds to get out there and search for

minerals, even in the year following the year when the Premier said he

didn't try to flog it at Brussels. "Major exploration activity:" — this

is '78 — "Blizzard (Noreen Energy Resources Ltd.) uranium in loosely

consolidated sediments." This is part of a major program. We mapped it

the year before; we spent public funds mapping the uranium deposits in

1977, according to the annual report. In 1978 more exploration and

drilling programs went gone on, while the government says on page 28:

"Two

potentially economic types" — they've got to that point — "of uranium

deposit have been identified in British Columbia. Rexspar is a

vulcanogenic deposit in which uranium minerals, etc. occurred. The

Blizzard, southeast of Kelowna, is a basal or paleol stream channel

deposit in which secondary uranium minerals are contained..." blah,

blah, blah.

That's the following year.

Mr. Chairman, if you go all through this annual report, you will find references

scattered throughout it to the question of uranium exploration, uranium development,

drilling for uranium, public funds put out to search for, find and drill for

uranium; encouragement given to prospectors to find uranium deposits; encouragement

given to mining companies get out there and find uranium. What more logical

connection could there be than to have the government, intent on creating a

climate, as it said, within which trade can take place, to go to these other

countries, as the Premier did to Europe, and say: "Yes, we've got uranium.

We'd like to sell it"? He went to Korea and said: "Yes, we've

got uranium. We'd like to sell it."

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he didn't do that.

MR. HOWARD: If he didn't do that, then he wasn't carrying out his responsibilities as Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't do that either.

[ Page 1802 ]

MR. HOWARD: I know he didn't do that.

He's

been fooling the general public. He's been sucking in the mining

industry, saying: "Come out. We'll give you public funds to get out

there and find uranium, but we don't intend to do anything about it; we

don't intend to see it sold."

I only want to express

wonderment with respect to the logical position of the Premier. And I

have no hesitation in saying — I may run afoul of the Chair in doing

this, Mr. Chairman; I don't know, you see, because I don't know what

way you're going to rule until something happens; I cannot anticipate

what the Chair is likely to do — that when the Premier blurted out

that, no, he did not try to sell uranium in Europe on September 15,

1977, he was not being fully truthful to the House. I have no

hesitation in saying that he made a mistake.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD:

All right. So far as "not being truthful" is concerned, I apologize,

Mr. Chairman. I'll withdraw it certainly — no hesitation at all. It was

a word that slipped out inadvertently that should not have — I admit

that from the beginning.

I have no hesitation in saying I

wonder whether I should be bound by the rules of this House that say I

have to accept the Premier's word when he said no, he did not sell

uranium. Because the letter from Etienne Reuter — which has been

maligned, and the individual has been maligned, by members opposite —

says one thing. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr.

Chabot) has endorsed the idea of searching for uranium in this

province. "Get out there and find it," he said. "That's the way to go;

we'll spend public funds doing it." The Minister of Agriculture (Hon.

Mr. Hewitt) has done the same thing. The government spent public money

going out there to find uranium. The annual reports are larded with

references that I've just quoted from. All that information leads me to

the conclusion that I cannot accept the statement of the Premier that

he did not try to sell uranium in Europe.

It's got nothing

to do with truth or anything else, and I wouldn't want to cast those

aspersions. But it seems to me incumbent upon the Premier, an otherwise

honourable gentleman, an honourable member, a man of honour and a man

of integrity.... He's shaking his head at that. If the Premier wants,

I'll withdraw that reference. But it's my opinion that the Premier is

an honourable man, that he wants to see the proprieties of this House

followed and that he wants to see the feeling that the general public

has about this chamber and should have about it.... The Premier wants

a standard where once again people in this province will say, "Yes, I

have an admiration for the institution of government and the

institution called the Legislature," instead of deriding that

institution. I know the Premier wants those things to happen. He would

lose no points whatever — in fact he would gain them — by simply

saying, although it's taken him a week to do it: "Yes, in a moment when

my attention was not fully riveted upon what I was saying, I did blurt

out an inaccuracy, and I apologize for it. I did go to Europe and I did

attempt to sell uranium."

I say there isn't anything wrong

with the Premier's having done that in Europe. He was only exhibiting

what any government would do: trying to sell the stuff that we'd been

spending money finding. Otherwise what are we looking for it for — just

for the fun of it, or is it a make-work project? Rexspar and Noreen

didn't think so; prospectors didn't think so. But we had those funds

out there doing it, and all the Premier would do would be to endorse

the proper thing that a Premier would have done at that particular

point of time. So long as he remains silent in answering this

particular question when all the evidence piles up on the other side,

so long will the general public have a suspicion that he was not being

truly open and honest with this House, as an honourable gentleman

should be....

MR. BARRETT: I would gladly yield the

floor to the Premier. He hasn't had the opportunity to respond to

questions. Yesterday, unfortunately, after almost three and a half

hours of debate the Premier spoke for only a few minutes and then

adjourned the House. Mr. Chairman, I heard some corridor gossip which

the Premier likes to refer to, and the corridor gossip said that the

Premier was scared yesterday and adjourned the House to get out of

here. I don't like that kind of gossip, so I think the Premier should

get up now and answer some of the questions.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I intend to carry on. I don't wish to disturb the

Premier, so if I speak too loudly, would you call me to order. I know

there are important matters of state being discussed, even though we

are dealing with the Premier's estimates. We've seen a whole week of

the Premier's not answering questions, and I think it intemperate of

some of the opposition members to even expect answers. I would like

your ruling too, Mr. Chairman, on opposition members' quoting from

government documents proving the case against the Premier — perhaps not

telling the whole story in this House. Also, I'd like your ruling on

using documents from international organizations, quoting the minutes,

saying that the Premier talked about uranium. I don't think it's fair

of opposition members to be rude to the Premier of this province and

expect answers when he's very busy, overworked and obviously tired.

How's that, Bill?

Mr. Chairman, I've tried every single

approach I can think of in the last six or seven days simply to get the

Premier to face his responsibility to answer some simple questions in

his estimates, paid for by the taxpayers of the province of British

Columbia — not by Bill Bennett but by the taxpayers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Say please.

MR. BARRETT: I said please. I said pretty please.

We've

seen an incredible display of herding going on not by sentiment, not by

conviction, but by order. Cabinet ministers have been told to get up

and speak and run defence for Bill Bennett, the Premier of the province

of British Columbia — the honourable Premier of the province of British

Columbia. It's interesting to note who has been up to defend him. It's

even more interesting to note who hasn't been up to defend him. Not one

Liberal has been up to defend him so far. We've had some Tories, some

uncoloureds and some other approaches in terms of political shades, but

not one true Liberal has been up yet to defend our Premier. I'm waiting

for the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) to rush to his defence,

that same Attorney-General who authored the document announcing that in

terms of the "infamous

[ Page 1803 ]

dirty

tricks affair" whoever wrote those letters was cowardly, irresponsible

and reprehensible. That's what the Attorney-General said, and my

colleague today got up and asked questions that are yet unanswered

about staff in the Premier's office related to authoring those letters.

The Attorney-General has said that those letters were cowardly,

irresponsible and reprehensible, and the trail leads directly to the

Premier's office. I think it is significant that in these six days the

Attorney-General has not got up and even given a whimper in defence of

the Premier of British Columbia.

Serious questions were

raised by the Attorney-General's report in this House. Mr. Chairman, I

only quote from the report when I say "cowardly, irresponsible and

reprehensible." Those words were authored by perhaps the most careful

person on the government benches. Every word is thought out, every

inflection, every eyebrow is raised appropriately. Everything is in its

place and in order. It was that Attorney-General who laid the trail of

the letters he described as cowardly, irresponsible and reprehensible

directly to that man's office.

Those questions have been on

the public's mind for months. The Premier's been asked directly today

by my colleague the former Attorney-General. It's been three hours

since those questions were asked, and the Premier hasn't budged an

inch. All right, Mr. Chairman, if you hired somebody in your office and

some terrible suspicions came to your attention that somebody had been

forging somebody's name to letters and the person you hired up and

quit, and then you were asked on camera about his quitting, and you

said gee golly whiz, I don't know why the guy quit — do you think the

public in your constituency would be happy with that? Would they

believe it?

MR. KING: Write to Richard Nixon and ask him.

MR. BARRETT: No, leave Dick Nixon out of it.

MR. KING: Tricky Dicky would know.

MR. BARRETT:

No, he's in America. We've got our own style of handling these things,

and yesterday it came out. Yesterday when I asked the Premier a series

of other questions.... Mr. Chairman, please call me to order if I speak

too loudly and interrupt the Premier in his conversation.

I'm

being polite and waiting for the Premier's attention. Mr. Chairman,

would you call that member to order? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think

it would be important so that I don't have to repeat the questions for

the Premier. I know it's impolite to request that when in his own

estimates a minister should listen to what's going on; but even the

appearance of listening would be acceptable.

Mr. Chairman,

yesterday I asked five specific questions of the Premier. He stated in

this House that he would answer them in due course. He has not

addressed himself to any of those questions whatsoever, and we have

been at this now for two days. But he did make a very interesting

statement yesterday.

I want to refresh your memory of the

kind of questions we asked him. I asked him about his statement about

B.C. Hydro, and his suggestion a year and a half ago that B.C. Hydro

should cut its rates because it was going to save money from transit

costs. The taxpayers on the lower mainland now are paying three cents

more a gallon for gas, and property owners are having an increase in

their property taxes to pay for transit services. Because of the

Premier's anticipation of that, he made a public statement saying that

B.C. Hydro should cut its rates. That was one of the questions I asked:

does he still feel that way now?

I also asked yesterday

about the Gloucester properties the land that was taken out of the

agricultural land reserve. That caused a great public debate; it forced

the member for Langley to say publicly that he couldn't understand how

this happened.... Or Central Valley, or whatever it is....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:

I'll write to Friesen and check it out with him, but you're from there

somewhere. You said that you wanted that land back in there.

The

Premier indicated that that land was to be frozen just six months ago.

I asked the Premier yesterday whether he intends to take action to

ensure that land stays in the agricultural land reserve, or to put it

back in there and ensure that it stays there. I asked that yesterday.

asked the Premier about Etienne Reuter's recollection of the minutes,

and I asked a number of other questions. But I want to tell you,

yesterday the Premier made a statement to me that should give Richard

Nixon hope for rebirth. Not to say that the last statement was

inoperative. Do you remember that line when Nixon and Cabal got caught

up in lies? They said: "Oh, that statement's no longer operative. We

have to readjust our approach." This is the line to beat all lines.

This is the classic. I refer yesterday to one of the incompleted

sentences that makes up the Premier's speeches, on tape 35-1 is at 5:24

yesterday. I have to read it slowly, because if you read it quickly it

kind of runs together: "As I said, remarks of mine to do with Hydro,

whether they were made a year or a year and a half or half a year ago,

were appropriate for their time and need no further explanation in this

debate." Now that is a jewel. That is a priceless jewel to be mined out

of all this other gravel that we shove aside to come up with this new

rationalization for dealing with what he said 24 hours ago, a half a

year ago, a year and a half ago.

I was privileged to be in

this House, Mr. Chairman, when some of the greatest rationalization

statements ever coined in British Columbia were coined right here in

this chamber, and the greatest coiner of that particular type of

expression was none other than P.A. Gaglardi, the non-lamented former

member of this chamber. I remember when P.A. Gaglardi was under assault

in this House for not telling the truth — and that was in past

parliaments, Mr. Chairman. The former minister from Kamloops got up in

this House and said: "If I tell a lie, it is only because I think I am

telling the truth."

MR. SKELLY: Give him the benefit of the doubt.

MR. BARRETT:

"Give him the benefit of the doubt," says my colleague. A classic! "If

I tell a lie, it is only because I think I am telling the truth." Thank

goodness we did away with the strap in British Columbia, because if we

had a bunch of children running around emulating the former Minister of

Highways, telling their principal, "If I tell a lie it's only because I

think I'm telling the truth," they'd all be spanked, wouldn't they,

Fred?

Mr. Chairman, this is what the Premier said: "As I said, remarks of mine

to do with Hydro, whether they were made a

[ Page 1804 ]

year or a year and a half or half a year ago, were appropriate for their time and need no further explanation in this debate."

MR. BRUMMET: You're going to get a detention for tedious repetition of debate.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I don't like the principal for North Peace River

announcing what the Premier's penalty is; the House will determine it,

not him. I quote again. "The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources can discuss that." That's it. Once the Premier says that he

wants B.C. Hydro to raise their rates, it's an appropriate statement at

that time. Don't you dare raise it again. That's McClelland's problem

now; we'll hold that one up there to Bob.

We have a number

of areas that