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)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2007 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling Reports

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, third and fourth reports.

Mr. Strachan –– 2007

Reading and Receiving Petitions

Retroactive taxing of northern community residents.

Clerk-Assistant –– 2007

Ministerial Statement

Housing starts.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2007

Mr. Gabelmann –– 2008

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Housing initiative program. Mr. Gabelmann –– 2008

Administration of Ministry of Tourism. Mr. Hall –– 2009

Containment of juveniles. Ms. Brown –– 2009

Environmental studies on Gambier Island. Mr. Lockstead –– 2010

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office estimates.

On vote 9.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2010

Mr. Barrett –– 2010

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2013

Mr. Macdonald –– 2014

Mr. Mussallern –– 2014

Mr. King –– 2015

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2016

Mr. Cocke –– 2017

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2018

Mr. Lauk –– 2019

Mr. Ritchie –– 2020

Mr. Howard –– 2021

Mr. Barber –– 2024

Mr. Barrett –– 2028

Special Funds Act, 1980 (Bill 7). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 2028

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

I'm very pleased today to be able to welcome three good friends to the

House and to beautiful Victoria. First of all, I would like the House

to welcome Lillian McCracken, who is the vice-president in charge of

administration in the Vancouver Credit Bureau and the past president of

Credit Women International. With Lillian today is Jack Buckley, the

vice-president of collections of the Vancouver Credit Bureau. They are

in Victoria to attend the Canadian conference.

I would ask the House also to welcome Don Schwery, from North Vancouver.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Speaker, I have guests in the Legislature today as well. They are

Mrs. Busby, formerly of Texada Island, Mrs. Corrigall, currently of

Honeymoon Bay, and Mrs. Palmer, who is soon to be a constituent. I ask

the House to join me in welcoming them.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

It is not often, if ever, that I've had my own cheering squad in this

Legislature, but this afternoon is a very special day. In the gallery,

first of all, is Mrs. Gertrude Rogers, a lady who honoured our family

by looking after my husband, children and home while I was in the

Legislature a good deal of the time through the past years. There are

also 48 beautiful senior citizens from the most beautiful part of

British Columbia. They are with Mrs. Eleanor Down, their coordinator. I

would ask the House to welcome them to Victoria and to this afternoon's

exciting debate.

Mr. Chairman, with the indulgence of the

House I would also like to advise the members that a historical

association, the British Columbia Hotels' Association, who have done

much to provide comfortable accommodation and services throughout

British Columbia for many years, are in the gallery in the presence of

their executive under President Rod Verstrate. They are Mr. Tom

Tidball, Louis Valente, Ken Noble, Merle Schreder, Jill Fresen, Larry

Thal and their secretary-manager, Mr. Lloyd Manuel. I would ask the

House again to give them a very wann welcome to British Columbia, and

thanks to them for what they do for our province.

MR. SKELLY:

I hope that the members of the Legislature will add their welcome to a

guest of mine from the Alberni constituency, Mr. Giulius Takacs.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

In addition to the representatives of the different organizations who

are meeting today in Victoria, we may have representatives in the

gallery of the life insurance industry, who are also meeting in

convention in Victoria at this time. I would also like the House to

welcome a former assistant of mine, Mr. Steve Phillips.

MR. HALL: I'd like the House to join me and the first member for

Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) in welcoming to the precincts and to the gallery

some 30 students from Queen Elizabeth Senior Secondary School and their teacher,

Mr. Hodgson. These students are in grade 11, and as part of their social studies

program they are over here visiting the Legislature. The first member and the

second member for Surrey have visited this school many times, talking to students

in that school, and we hope to be able to report back to them at a later date,

Perhaps when we come back from Surrey we'll be able to tell the House what

the students had to say about us.

MR. REE:

Besides Don Schwery from North Vancouver–Capilano being in the gallery

today, I have two very good friends, supporters of Social Credit and

supporters of me. I'd like the House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Sigmund

and Kathleen Agedal.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I have some

more good news from Mrs. Schroeder, who advises the House that the

Speaker is now allowed a limited number of visitors. It is anticipated

that he will be going home from hospital sometime next week. I know we

all continue to wish Speaker Schroeder a speedy recovery.

MR. COCKE: I'd like the House to welcome somebody from New Westminster, Mrs. M. Sproule, and somebody from Vancouver, Mr. R. Lowry.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, perhaps you and members of the House would join with me in

extending our very best wishes to the Premier and Audrey, who are today

celebrating their twenty-fifth wedding anniversary.

Mr.

Strachan, chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders

and Private Bills, tabled the committee's third and fourth reports,

which were taken as read and received.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the rules be suspended and the reports adopted.

Motion approved.

Reading and Receiving Petitions

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Report, Office of the Clerk, April 16, 1980:

"Pursuant

to standing order 73(6), I have to inform the House that the petition

presented on April 15 last with leave of the House by the hon. member

for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) is irregular in the following respects: the

petition is not addressed to the Legislative Assembly of British

Columbia and the petition is without a prayer.

"All of which is respectfully submitted. "I.M. Home, Clerk of the House."

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

HOUSING STARTS

HON. MR. CHABOT:

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has today released its

first-quarter reporl on housing starts in British Columbia, indicating

a dramatic

[ Page 2008 ]

climb

to a record level of 7,097 units under construction. The impetus and

need for this record level of activity has been created by the strong

flow of people into British Columbia. There arc more housing starts in

British Columbia than in the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario,

Manitoba and Saskatchewan combined. Housing units starts for British

Columbia in the first quarter were up 81 percent from the first quarter

of last year, as compared to the housing starts for Canada which were

down by 12 percent.

The major contributing factor to this

tremendous growth has been the effect of the $200 million Housing

Initiative Program, which alone is leading to more than 3,500 starts.

If interest rates are brought down and the incentive feature of capital

cost allowance reintroduced, British Columbia will have no housing

problem. To repeat, Mr. Speaker, our program has demonstrated that with

low-interest capital and incentives, the problems we are experiencing

in British Columbia can be resolved.

I have sent a Telex to

the Hon. Paul Cosgrove, the minister in charge of CMHC, requesting that

he come to British Columbia to discuss the housing situation in this

province. I was informed just a few moments ago that the minister will

be coming later this month to discuss the problems associated with

housing in this province.

MR. GABELMANN: I welcome

the first statement in some years by the minister responsible for

housing. It shows that they are listening to the concern of the public

out there. I'd like to just point out to the members of this House that

one of the reasons housing starts at this time of the year would be up

in this province compared to other provinces is that our weather is a

little better. It's pretty tough in the rest of Canada at this time of

the year — through frozen ground — to construct homes.

May I just very briefly quote...

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. GABELMANN: ...to the members who are interested; the rest can do what they want. A CMHC spokesman said:

"The

record figure for the first quarter must be placed in perspective. It

was a record three-month period for housing starts in B.C. because

housing starts are down almost everywhere else in Canada. In actual

fact, the figures show that B.C. starts are not abnormally high.

Because starts are down in other provinces, the increase in B.C. looks

correspondingly high."

The point of this, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the member for North Island has the floor.

MR. GABELMANN:

I thought that the time of statements, both from the government and

from the opposition, was the time for each to listen to the other; it's

usually been the case, Mr. Speaker.

I want very simply to

say there are some very good reasons for disparities between the

various provinces. The major reason has to do with the fact that you

can build in the longer year in this province.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, would you mind keeping some order in this place?

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. I would ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland) to come to order.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr.

Speaker, let me just say again that the figures are not up; there is

still a housing crisis in British Columbia. There are thousands of

British Columbians who have not been able to collect money under the

$200 million program, because there has not been enough money to go

around. We will soon see, as the year goes by, that our figures will

once again fall back into line with those in the rest of this country.

Oral Questions

HOUSING INITIATIVE PROGRAM

MR. GABELMANN:

Coincidentally, Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing. This question concerns the government's $200

million mortgage program. Will the minister confirm that the program

for new construction is designed only for construction begun after

January 15?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, that's a matter of public knowledge.

MR. GABELMANN:

Does the minister condone the demolition of construction work started

prior to the commencement of this program in order that new

construction can appear to begin following the initiation of the

program and developers can qualify for the 9 3/4 percent program?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Speaker, that strikes me as a strange statement. If the member has

some knowledge of a specific infraction of the administration of these

funds, I'd be p1cased to hear from him.

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Speaker, there is a project in Port Hardy to build 52 rental units

— it's being built by the right-to-work Hartshorne Construction Co.,

which in order to qualify for the the Multiple Unit Residential

Building tax benefits in 1979 completed the required amount of

construction prior to December 31. Then, following the government's

announcement in January, they set into motion an application for money

under the 9 3/4 percent program. Last week the loan was granted by the

Saanich Peninsula Savings Credit Union, $1.6 million at 9 3/4 percent

in a $2.5 million project. Two days ago, on Monday, bulldozers arrived

on the site and destroyed the footings and the foundations; that work

was completed yesterday. The new work will now commence with $1.6

million worth of mortgage money.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question, please, hon. member.

[ Page 2009 ]

MR. GABELMANN:

Does the minister agree that is a proper use of the program when

literally hundreds of North Island residents in particular have been

unable to acquire money for single-family residences because no money

is left?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the allocation

of these funds is administered by the credit union movement in

virtually every community in the province. They know the guidelines

under which funds are allocated. Certainly I will investigate if the

member will give me the specifics I will be glad to investigate, but I

hope he isn't slurring the credit unions responsible for the management

of these funds.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I would

be glad to provide the minister with the information, and I will do so

this afternoon. I would just like him, when he has considered it, to

report back to the House whether he condones the demolition of

construction that started prior to the eligibility period.

ADMINISTRATION OF MINISTRY OF TOURISM

MR. HALL:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Tourism. The report

on the British Columbia travel industry that was commissioned by the

provincial and federal governments states that there is a lack of

skilled employees and operators in the tourist industry in the

province. The report goes on to say this is a serious problem with

which the ministry has failed to deal adequately. What action has the

minister decided to take to remedy the situation?

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Speaker, I would first remind the member that I think he is

referring to a report that would have been done under the TIDSA, which

is within the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister of Industry

and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). It would be a

report, as I understand it, that has not yet been publicly released. It

would be improper, along with the fact that it is not within my

ministry, to comment in detail on any report that hasn't yet been

publicly released. I assume the question emanates from newspaper

reports, which are out of order.

I would just suggest that

if there is a need to train people in the hospitality business in

British Columbia, it is indeed a very good sign that our tourism

industry is healthy and growing. This government already has, and no

doubt will have, an accelerated educational program through a

cooperative effort between the Ministries of Labour, Education, Tourism

and, I'm sure — if that were the case — Industry and Small Business

Development.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, the only person

in the province who seems to know nothing about this report is the

Minister of Tourism. Could the minister undertake, for the members of

this House, to see if she could get a copy of the report and perhaps

table it for use by her ministry and members of the House?

Interjection.

MR. HALL:

I don't think that's presuming a future action of the minister or

future policy. I am just asking whether the minister would undertake to

get a copy of the report and share it with the members of the House.

CONTAINMENT OF JUVENILES

MS. BROWN:

To the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker. On Tuesday last I raised with the

Attorney-General in the House the question of a report on juvenile

containments. Since that time there has been a lot of public discussion

about the report in the media and among the public in general. The

Attorney-General has very kindly responded to some aspects of the

report. However, he has not responded to the findings that 27 percent

of the juveniles sentenced to containment were not represented by legal

counsel. I'd like to ask the Attorney-General what steps are being

taken to remedy this situation.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It

is the policy with respect to juveniles who find themselves in the

courts that if they are not represented by counsel the probation

officers are to discuss with them, and their parents or guardians, the

advisability of being represented, and to assist them in making

application for legal aid, if that is the requirement because the

individual is not able to pay for legal advice otherwise. If neither

the parents, guardians or the juvenile involved is prepared to accept

that advice, the probation officers still make reference to the Legal

Services Society for the provision of a duty counsel who will advise

the individual, if he will take the advice, as to what action he should

take.

The percentage mentioned by the hon. member in her

question is one which I find disturbing. I hope to be able to make a

further statement soon with respect to these matters. One of the

aspects of the Markwart report which has given me concern is the

apparent failure to follow procedures which have been laid down. I am

satisfied that steps are underway within the corrections branch to

ensure that proper procedures are followed in every case, particularly

in those instances when legal counsel is required, because it is with

the assistance of legal counsel and the probation officers that the

courts can be encouraged to consider the range of options available in

the community, and thereby avoid containment altogether.

MS. BROWN:

Maybe when the Attorney-General is considering this issue he will take

into account that the report pointed out that it was the juveniles

outside of the lower mainland who were really being penalized by not

having legal counsel — a right which is available to all adult

criminals but not to juveniles.

I have two more very quick

questions for the Attorney-General. Under

section 40 of the Corrections

Amendment Act, there is a provision for the establishment of a

provincial youth program committee to oversee the containment system in

this province. Two years ago a gentleman by the name of Mr. Tony

Gasconi was approached by a representative of your ministry to head

this committee. In light of the serious inadequacies of the present

containment system raised by the Markwart report, has the government

decided to establish this committee? You have a head for it, but

apparently nobody else. Has a decision been made about his committee?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Yes. A number of names of persons who reside in the various regions of

the province into which the Attorney-General's ministry is divided for

administrative purposes are under consideration by me. In addi-

[ Page 2010 ]

tion,

because of the inter-ministerial nature of the problems that affect

juveniles, those names are being vetted by the inter-ministerial

committee. I believe there's a meeting in the next few days — I can't

give you the exact date — between the Deputy Ministers of Health and

Human Resources and the Deputy Attorney-General. One of the items on

their agenda is to settle upon the nominees for this committee. I think

it's important to recognize that, for administrative purposes in my

ministry, the province is divided into six regions. We will be drawing

people from each of those regions. So the problems to which the member

referred with regard to juveniles in the outlying areas of the province

will be properly addressed.

MS. BROWN: My final

question. There's another disturbing finding in the report to which the

Attorney-General did not respond: the fact that female juveniles are

more likely to be sentenced to containment for a lesser number of

offences than are male juveniles. I wonder whether the Attorney-General

would like to explain that idiosyncrasy in the justice system.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I can't explain that distinction. The sentencing of persons who come

before the courts of the province is the responsibility of the

judiciary, and I, of course, have no control over that. I can assure

you, however, Mr. Speaker — and the member — that the representations

made on behalf of persons in that position by probation officers make

no distinction based upon sex.

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES OF GAMBIER ISLAND

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I have a question to the Minister of Environment. Can the minister

advise us whether he has received copies of two recent environmental

studies respecting Gambier Island, prepared by Tera Environmental

Consultants Ltd. and the Eikos Design Group Ltd.?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I have received some copies. I'm not sure if they are from those groups. I'll take it as notice and let the member know.

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.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I want to elaborate on an area which I was discussing yesterday in my

estimates, which is of great interest to all members of this House.

First, I have a clarification. It has been pointed out that in speaking

about our country in a positive way and our concern about the vote in

Quebec, I left unclear — to some members at least — what I would hope

the citizens of Quebec would do in the coming referendum. I'm advising

them, in rejecting the referendum, to vote yes for Canada. I believe

they can find their future — and a strong future, with fair

representation — in Canada, with some changes, as can the citizens of

British Columbia. That may not have been clear in statements I made

yesterday when I said I hoped the people of Quebec would vote yes in a

positive way to build a stronger country. Yes, they can vote yes — in a

positive way, by rejecting separation.

I'd also like to say

to this House that it is my intention, as the Premier and the leader of

the government, to introduce to the assembly a resolution confirming

our faith in the country, and to allow such debate to take place that

we may clearly indicate to the people of Quebec not only how we feel

about this country and their role in it, and the opportunities for

them, as well as British Columbians, but also the ways in which we see

our country developing, to meet their aspirations and ours. I believe

this resolution would be a timely one, an opportunity for all members

to put on the record their views on Canada, and to offer at this

particular time their encouragement to the citizens of Quebec to reject

separation and, in rejecting it, to work with us as fellow Canadians to

provide ways in which we can build a stronger country. I know all

members on all sides of the House will welcome the introduction of this

resolution, this opportunity for debate, this chance to make a strong

statement, which I hope, after being dealt with by the House, will be

given the widest possible circulation, not only in Quebec, but in the

rest of Canada. It is important at this time that all members stand up

and speak to this important question. That is why I am advising you now

that we are drafting a resolution that will give you that opportunity.

It is an opportunity for all members to make this statement, to make it

individually and as parties, as British Columbians and as Canadians.

saying that, I look forward to that opportunity in the Legislature. And

I wanted to clear up some unclear wording of mine yesterday, dealing

with voting for the country in a very positive way.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) will get his

chance to say something — and I hope he will say it as strongly as I

have many times in the past.

MR. BARRETT: While I

welcome the Premier's statement, I would hope that there would be

consideration given to us dealing with this matter far earlier than

perhaps the recess next week or a few days after that. If we are to

have any impact in the debate — and I hope that we would as Canadians —

I would have thought that it would have been appropriate for the

government today, in light of the newspaper headlines that the

challenge is now in front of the people of Quebec on a specific date,

to go on the record in a joint statement from this House, or at least a

jointly sponsored motion, or at least some contact between the

government and the opposition on this very important question that does

not divide anybody in this House.

Leadership in this matter

requires a statement by not only every single member of this House but

also a united statement by everybody regardless of their role in this

House. To my knowledge there is not one person in this House who is on

record of being opposed to this country staying together as a nation,

and I think that every hour that is lost is an hour that cannot be

recovered in terms of putting us, on behalf of our constituents, on the

record here in the province of British Columbia as to this great debate

that is going on in the province of Quebec.

What are the headlines that have confronted us this morn-

[ Page 2011 ]

ing? The headlines are clearly this: "Opening Shots Fired in a Yes-No Battle" in the Colonist , "Confident Levesque Forecasts a Victory" in the Province .

would have thought — and I hope this will happen within a matter of

hours, certainly before the end of this week — that perhaps a committee

would have been struck up between opposition and government, and a

draft of a motion of debate agreed upon by the government and the

opposition. I tell you very honestly I would be more than happy to

second such a motion on behalf of the people of British Columbia in my

role as Leader of the Opposition. There should be no time lost, and

that means some leadership by the government to bring members of the

House together — certainly informally, if need be — to draft a

statement that would find welcome discussion by all members. This week,

I would think, would be the most appropriate time, and I make that

suggestion very sincerely.

I have not spoken formally on the

issue of the referendum. I have been concerned that the referendum

debate in the Legislature before the wording was set in the House of

Assembly in Quebec was a matter of serious concern and observation by

all Canadians, but now, today, within a matter of hours, when the

people of Quebec are going to be faced to make a decision on May 20, as

they've learned within the last 24 hours, it is important that every

Canadian, regardless of role, be absolutely specific and clear about

what they want the people of Quebec to do, in terms of sharing their

opinions, and what they hope the people of Quebec will do in face of

that referendum.

First of all, there has been a clever use

of words in the framing of the referendum. The confusion that some

people may put unfairly to the Premier's statement is confusion that

will be shared by a lot of voters in Quebec. Voting for yes, they think

they're voting for a continuation of something that is good; voting no,

they think they're voting against separation itself. I think it has

been a clever, manipulative political device by the government of

Quebec and I urge caution in understanding what people are voting for

and against. I for one am pleased that the Premier clarified his

statement today.

There is no suggestion that the Premier

intended to leave the impression that voting yes was what the province

of British Columbia wanted, and I hope that in broadcasting the

Premier's statement there is a clear-cut definition of exactly what the

Premier meant by that statement, as I understood it.

What is

the time-frame that we're dealing in? We're dealing in the time-frame

of a debate that may be the most important in Canadian history. There

are more things that bind this country together than divide it.

Included in the things that bind us together is a commitment to the

nation as a whole in terms of what we can achieve as a whole, rather

than separate vulcanized states. I am concerned that people may somehow

overlook in the Premier's statements the fact that, although we may

have different approaches within Confederation, there is no question

that there is a basic commitment to Confederation by all of us,

regardless of political philosophy, regardless of....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What a hypocrite.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), who was suffering from an absence of truth

last night, is carrying over his feelings today. If he wishes to absent himself

from a very serious debate that involves all Canadians, I understand. But that

kind of comment does nothing to serve this chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please take your seat, hon. member.

Hon.

members, one of the words on our list is the word used by the hon.

Minister of Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources. I have no alternative

but to ask the minister to withdraw the word which the Chair finds

offensive.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'm sorry, Mr.

Chairman, but when I listen to a man who signed a document calling for

Quebec separation and making a speech like this....

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I withdraw unconditionally.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, for some people it is difficult on occasion to separate

themselves from partisan politics just for a few minutes. Nonetheless,

it is necessary on occasion, and if some members do not feel

comfortable with that, then perhaps they don't understand a higher duty

to this country that is beyond our narrow political

definitions that

may be ours for electoral success within Confederation. The Premier's

statement is clear, and in terms of being in opposition to the

proposition facing the people of Quebec, it is one which needs

understanding and support.

The next few weeks are serious in

this country. The next few weeks not only call for quiet thought and

consideration by all Canadians about what is taking place in a founding

province of this nation, but it is also incumbent upon all Canadians to

understand that they have an individual role and an individual

responsibility, not only in witnessing the debate, but in participating

as well.

The British North Xmerica Act, in my opinion, has

served this nation very well. 1, for one, if I had my druthers, would

have hoped that the British North America Act would have never been

challenged and could survive for at least another 100 years. Not having

that possibility, Mr. Chairman, it is tragic that most of us

native-born Canadians have really not had the opportunity to understand

the impact of the BNA. As a consequence, the great debate that is

taking place in the province of Quebec does not find that much popular

interest on a day-to-day basis.

I would hope that in any

discussion of a constitutional change that must take place in this

country there would be very little deviation from the basic

understanding of a federal commitment and provincial rights under the

British North America Act.

I just want to make a few

statements today. I feel that as a Canadian who has participated in

public life in this province, and hopefully to some extent in other

provinces, I want to make my statement and my position early in this

debate, if indeed such a debate will take place. I speak on behalf of

my colleagues and, yes, on behalf of my party, and I make a heartfelt

appeal to the people of Quebec for the sake of not just the people of

Quebec, but for our sakes too here in the province of British Columbia.

I publicly appeal to you to vote no in that referendum.

As I

have participated in public life in this province, I had the

opportunity at one time to represent the province of British Columbia,

making statements on behalf of the pro-

[ Page 2012 ]

vince and making positions clear that for that period of time were indeed the official policy of British Columbia.

May 1973 — some seven years ago — I had the opportunity and the honour

of being present at a federalprovincial conference dealing with some

specific matters of British Columbia interest and, yes, all-Canadian

interest. Mr. Chairman, at that time the question was a matter of moves

by the federal government to change structures of two areas that I felt

were of importance to federal control, federal participation and

federal cooperation. At that time, in an attempt to appease one or two

provinces, including, I think with a misunderstanding, British Columbia

as well, there was an attempt by the federal government to give block

funding to the health-care programs in this country on the basis, it

was argued, to ensure that the wealthier provinces got a better share

of the funding that took place.

I'm proud to say, Mr.

Chairman, that the province of British Columbia took the public

position at that time that socialized medicine — now more politically

acceptable, known as medicare — was a hard-fought battle for every

single Canadian citizen to enjoy, regardless of language, culture or

religious conviction. We had made a commitment as a nation to provide

socialized health care for every citizen, and in 1973 — under the

pressure of some provinces — there was an attempt to move the block

funding to ease political tax pressures. I was proud then to take the

position on behalf of British Columbia, and proud again to reiterate

today, that under no circumstances are we prepared to abandon fair

share in programs, regardless of the wealth of any province. That must

always remain.

I want to read from a statement that appears

to be somewhat appropriate in my frame of reference in this debate, Mr.

Chairman. I want to quote what was said in 1973. On page 7:

"The

continuation of the present program of health care and hospital care on

a Canada-wide basis is essential to the well-being of all Canadians and

to Canadian unity. To allow these services to be eroded would add fuel

to the fires of those who would seek to divide Canada.

"We

recognize the importance of a national program with national standards.

Accordingly, one of British Columbia's major concerns, aside from

maintaining a level of its own service, is to avoid taking a position

or agreeing to an arrangement that might balkanize the country. We are

concerned about taxsharing proposals or financing methods which may

result in the undermining of the standards that are now, with minor

variations, the best in North America and Canada-wide in scope."

What

I was saying then, Mr. Chairman, and repeat today, is that it is my

firm belief that there is not one single British Columbian who would

support extra tax dollars from Ottawa on this program that would indeed

beef up temporarily our services but endanger one of the strengths of

Canadian unity. I oppose any chauvinism at the provincial level that

for a few tax dollars would throw away the nation for which we have

struggled so hard.

If an appeal is made to the people of

Quebec, then simple examples of cooperation must be given. No more

clear-cut, simple examination of cooperation can be shown to the people

of Quebec than our commitment as a nation to ensure that every child,

every adult and every senior citizen in this country receives a

standard of health care and medical care, simply because we are members

of Confederation. It is a national program, and sovereignty-association

is not to be negotiated on any basis, but particularly on that kind of

achievement.

In passing, as a personal matter in terms of

the Premier's estimates, I want to get on the record too, Mr. Chairman,

that there are some unsung heros in that particular program, when it

was struggled through the federal House of Commons, who should be

spoken of with some respect and recognition of their commitment. I

don't mean just here. Woodrow Lloyd, T.C. Douglas and Hon. W.A.C.

Bennett, in their own ways, were ahead of the move to develop a

national health scheme. I particularly want to mention Hon. Judy

LaMarsh, who was the federal cabinet minister who pioneered this

program. If ever there was any evidence of commitment of the west, per

se, or of politicians in central Canada toward good, needed and

essential programs for all Canadians, the names of the people I have

mentioned serve as an historical reminder to every Quebec citizen. They

should clearly understand that the prayer issued by Rev. J.S.

Woodsworth, the founder of our party, was as appropriate then as it is

appropriate now: "What we wish for ourselves, we desire for all." That

means all the people of Quebec.

What are we faced with? We

are faced with the proposition of a group of citizens who are full,

beneficial and responsible participants in this wonderful nation of

Canada being told by some political leaders that we can negotiate a

sovereignty-association within a nation of which we are already full

members. That, I submit, is an illogical argument — to be charitable.

You cannot negotiate something you've already achieved. Negotiations

based on separation from this country with some kind of selective

association mean a loss for all Canadians but particularly a threatened

loss of these programs we enjoy for all Quebec citizens.

want to suggest to all citizens, regardless of what language they

speak: the strength of the programs we have developed, through people

who have served this country up to this point, is not eroded by the

language within which those programs are enshrined, be it French,

achievement we have achieved as a nation through the hard work of

people of all political parties who do have and have had a shared goal

of building Canada rather than separating it. It is true that there

have been intense political debates within the framework of Canada

about how we should go about building a better Canada. It is true that

there are intense regional differences within that debate. But let us

never confuse small political, regional differences as any great reason

for an argument to separate any part of this country from the whole

that makes Canada.

Time is a-wasting. Time is now of the

essence. Time becomes the primary factor in terms of how we and the

rest of Canada respond. Within the responsibility which has been placed

in front of us is the fact that a decision has been made by a

democratically elected government in the province of Quebec, and every

hour that is wasted without getting our position on record may be an

hour lost in helping to keep this country together.

This was

the first statement that I had the honour of making when speaking on

behalf of the people of the province of British Columbia. For me, at

least, it's worth putting on the record again. I want to read it. It is

my opening statement, made some seven years ago, at my first

federal-provincial conference. Little did I predict or anticipate, nor

do I enjoy the fact that I must now recall these words some

[ Page 2013 ]

seven years later I would have hoped we would not have been confronted with the crisis we now have.

"This

would seem to be a fitting occasion for me to assure you that the

government of British Columbia is firmly committed to the concept of a

united Canada and to the principles of Canadian Confederation: Canada,

one nation stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, comprised of

diverse units, each with its own particular strengths and weaknesses,

brought together by common bonds to form a whole greater than its parts.

"That

is not to say that we should strive to make Canada a homogeneous entity

in which the unique character of its various regions and their peoples

are sacrificed on the altar of uniformity. For in many respects the

strength of this nation lies in this diversity — political diversity as

well. Problems of culture, climate, geography or unequal economic

opportunity are part of differing degrees of importance and are more

pressing to some parts of Canada than to others.

"Our

strength as a nation lies in meeting the collective challenges that

these factors bring. Although it may be trite to restate it again,

unity, but, not uniformity, should be the goal to which we all obtain."

I further quote from the statement I made in 1973:

"To

be more specific, British Columbia has its unique problems which

require recognition and action by the national government. One can

trace back through British Columbia's history to the time of our entry

into Confederation and find that there has been an almost constant

state of misunderstanding and lack of appreciation at the federal level

of British Columbia's needs and aspirations. Perhaps geography and the

distance from the national capital has generated a feeling of

remoteness and, therefore, lack of importance, which has been reflected

in federal decision-making. Similarly, the relative closeness to the

national capital of certain other provinces may have had the opposite

effect."

What I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that what I said

then was, yes, we will have differences, but at the outset, what must

be said and clearly understood is that nothing can replace the form of

dealing with our problems or, in my opinion, the problems of the people

of any other province and the people of Quebec, than resolving those

problems within Confederation.

In making the decision to

speak out today I have been reflecting on the mixed feelings that I

have about this debate. Sometimes a debate such as this, which has been

raging through the country for lo, these last 11 or 12 years, may lead

to self-fulfilling prophesies. Nonetheless, none of us have any choice

now in the matter. Those of us who have mixed feelings about involving

ourselves in a debate and escalating it to the point of potentially

psychologically becoming a self-fulfilling philosophy have to

understand that the hour is here whether we like it or not. The hour is

here whether we like it or not! The sooner all of us, as Canadians,

deal specifically with this problem, the better it will be for all

Canadians to understand exactly where we stand, regardless of

differences of political or regional opinion.

Mr. Chairman,

I sat in my office during the half hour before I came in the House

making this decision to make this statement today. I had hoped — very

honestly — that we would be given a very good frame of reference and a

timetable for the debate to take place. I had hoped that when the

Premier got up today he was going to give that time frame. Through you,

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Premier of the province of British

Columbia for making a commitment to set aside time for this whole House

to debate this very important issue, but I urge the government that

there should be no time lost. There should be something drafted

together, and we should be debating this together for the few brief

hours when we can set aside our small and narrow political differences

for the betterment of stating an opinion, which all of us endorse, for

all British Columbians and all Canadians to understand.

for one, am prepared to go on the record to serve on an informal House

committee. There is no need to put a motion through the House; a chat

over a cup of coffee with two, three, four or five members from both

sides of the House to prepare a statement and move us into a formal

debate would be a welcome shift and would be deeply appreciated, I

think, by all British Columbians.

Before I quote from the

kind of thing.... I want just a couple of minutes for a personal

statement. I am the beneficiary of the hard work, dedication and love

of two fine parents, one of whom was native-born and one of whom was an

immigrant. Both parents strove to provide their three children with the

best possible education and the best possible opportunity in a country

of their choice and a country of their birth. I don't think that my

parents had in mind anything better for me than most Canadian parents

have in mind for their children. I am sure that neither of my parents

would want their wishes, which are the general wishes of all parents,

diminished, damaged or hampered in any way that would allow the

atmosphere, the legal rights and the opportunity which exists in all of

Canada to be diminished by any one province or any group of politicians

who misunderstand what this great nation is all about. I urge this

House to quickly go on the record.

I want to conclude by

suggesting a motion which I think may be acceptable to all members of

the House — or something similar to it. I would like to suggest — moved

by Hon. William Richards Bennett, seconded by myself, David Barrett —

that it be resolved that the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

express its faith in the future of Canada as a nation founded upon

respect for the diversity of its regions, peoples and cultures; the

uniqueness of the provinces, and in particular the province of Quebec;

the participation of the provinces and the federal government in

long-overdue constitutional reform; and with a central government

having power to provide for the essential well-being of Canadians in

those matters where the provinces cannot so provide.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, had that speech come from anyone else in this House I

would have appreciated that phony, Disneylandesque standing ovation —

showbiz at its best. But coming from that member.... I know that there

are certain words I can't use in this House about that Leader of the

Opposition, but I'd be happy to use them out in the hall, where I don't

have the protection of the House.

But I'll tell you that

that member, the member sitting next to him, the member sitting behind

him, the member for Burnaby, Mr. Lorimer, and several other members on

that side of the House signed a document in the early 1970s which

called for — as the principal platform of that document, the

[ Page 2014 ]

Waffle

Manifesto — the separation of Quebec. Let that Leader of the Opposition

deny that he put his name to that document; he cannot do it. For him to

stand in this House and shout pious platitudes about holding this

country together, when he's one of the people responsible for it

perhaps coming apart, I suggest, is hypocrisy of the very worst kind.

That same member, the Leader of the Opposition, went to Halifax shortly

after he was defeated as Premier of this province, and he made a speech

to a group of social workers; he said that British Columbia was having

difficulty and that it made him very happy. For that kind of speech to

come from that kind of member, I suggest, is the worst kind of

hypocrisy that this province could put up with.

That member

signed his name to a document which, clearly and simply, calls for the

separation of Quebec as a principle of the New Democratic Party. The

party itself had more sense than to accept it. The party rejected it,

but the Leader of the Opposition supported it; the second member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) supported it; Mr. Lorimer, the member

for Burnaby-Willingdon, supported it; Mrs. Dailly, the member for

Burnaby North, supported it. That group over there, by its very

actions, supports the division of Canada. The public knows better than

to accept that kind of show-business stand that the Leader of the

Opposition just attempted to make.

MR. MACDONALD: I

think the speech of the hon. minister was a disgrace to this House. I

am going to reply very briefly. I think we have had an excellent

statement from the Leader of the Opposition, and I hope we will have

good statements — I'm sure we will — from other members on the other

side of this House.

We have a crisis in terms of the nation;

we have a crisis in terms of the world. The nationalist-separation

thing is not just confined to Canada; it is a worldwide phenomenon.

Having the nearly 300 nations in the world today convert themselves, as

they easily could, into say 1,200 or 1,500 nations founded upon narrow

racial or religious bases would be, I think, a step back for mankind

which we would long rue in this world.

I will make some

reply, but I regret that the minister who has taken his place has

chosen to be supercilious about this very important matter. I would

like to make the statement that I have never signed any document or

uttered any words in my political career leading to the breakup of

Canada or the separation of any of its parts.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD:

I will repeat that statement. I have never spoken any words or signed

any document suggesting the breakup of Canada or the separation of any

of its parts in my whole life. I repeated that statement for the

benefit of the minister. Nor will 1.

I'm not going to repeat what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition,

particularly in the regrettable absence of the Premier, on his estimates. I

hope that the government does show the leadership that a government should in

the province of British Columbia, by bringing forward a motion. We're not

hung up on the particular terms of the motion that has been proposed to this

House by the Leader of the Opposition. We do believe, however, that if British

Columbia is to show leadership, this Legislature, speaking for all of our people,

should be the forum in which a resolution is moved — and, we hope, unanimously

adopted — in this time of great crisis as far as our country of Canada is concerned.

have so much to be proud of in Canada. Sure, there are the diversities

of peoples and cultures and languages and customs, but there is a

richness about those diversities that makes me proud to be a Canadian.

Quite frankly, I think to live in that kind of country, with the

different cultures, the different languages, and attempt to preserve

those languages — particularly the French language, which should be

preserved as one of the great cultured languages of mankind in this

country of Canada, and any language that can be preserved stemming from

the mainsprings of the Canadian nation.... We should try to preserve

those cultural roots, be proud of our diversity, and at the same time

have that strength of unity which will enable Canada to be one of the

great countries of the next 100 years.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

It was most delightful to hear the remarks of the hon. Leader of the

Opposition, my friend, the first member for Vancouver East. I'm sure

that all of us in this House wish only one thing, and that is the unity

of Canada. There's no place here for division of any kind. I bring to

the attention of this House that the Premier, on every occasion,

whenever possible during this session, has brought before this House

the importance of the unity of Canada and how much this government was

totally committed to use every way and every ploy within its ability to

engender and to encourage this process. That is the wish of the

government and I am sure no less the wish of the opposition.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

However,

I can understand the feeling of the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), when he spoke with such

vehemence. What I am concerned with also, a little — and I hope it

doesn't develop — is the changing attitude of the socialist opposition,

who will move with the wind. That's what concerned the Minister of

Energy, because I know that during the great debate on the Waffle

Manifesto in 1969.... I'm not making charges, but I'm saying that at

that time it was popular to talk for the division of Canada. Clause 17

in that manifesto required and stated that "there shall be two

Canadas." That was debated with vehemence at their convention. I don't

say they shouldn't do it, except to say this: what will they change

when the new winds blow? I hope when they made their statement today

they were not preparing for the next convention, when situations seem

different, where they will bring up the division of Canada again.

The

hon. member for Vancouver East states that he never put his name as a

signatory; I have it here, Mr. Member. The names of those on that

document, in which his name.... I will not read them at this time, but

five of them are in this House, and the Hon. Gordon Dowding who was the

Speaker of the House is not here. You debated this issue and you were

there for the division of Canada only a few years ago. I'm glad to see

your heart has changed. But can we be assured that it will remain

changed? That is the issue; that is my concern. That's the only thing

I'll say, and not facetiously, because anything so important as the

unity of this nation must be beyond politics, must be above debate.

I'm

glad to see that the Leader of the Opposition made an impassioned plea

and that he followed the Premier in much the same vein. But saying "me

too" is not enough. What

[ Page 2015 ]

must

be stated here is: "We, the loyal opposition, will not change our

stand. We completely divorce ourselves from the statement made in the

Waffle Manifesto, and we're sorry that we were signatories to this

document. We're sorry that we spoke for and demanded the division of

Canada, sorry that our convention supported the FLQ." This confession

at this time before this House would be valuable for both sides. We'll

say that here we've got an opposition that's solidly committed and will

not change with the changing wind. They have changed with the changing

wind; they've changed 180 degrees. Here they are for the unity of

Canada. Can we be assured that next year they will still be for the

unity of Canada? Can we have a statement now that they will not go

back? Can we have a statement now that they will not recant? We must be

undivided. The issue is too great for party politics, for playing to

the media or to the gallery. The issue is one that we must adhere to

without question.

I think, when I have before me a document

of this kind, signed by five ministers of that government of that day,

that they must say to us that they have recanted totally, that they

made a grave error and that they are here to support Canadian unity

without question. If you read this document, if you read what it says —

and I have it here — you'll say: "How can anybody turn 180 degrees in

so short a time?" I say to you that it is something that we must

consider, it's a matter this opposition must consider and a matter that

must not be taken lightly. I will assure you, Mr. Chairman, that every

member of the government side — and, I hope, every member of theirs —

stands for the unity of Canada in every possible way, as the Premier

has stated on many, many occasions. Every opportunity has been brought

forward. But can we be assured from the loyal opposition — can we be

assured conclusively, without question — that there will not be another

180-degree turn when the winds of policy change, when the winds of

chance are favourable in the other direction? Will it be possible then,

when we have a new wind blowing, that they will join another direction?

Will they be loyal to the last? Well, if I read this I question it. The

hon. Leader of the Opposition was a signatory, so I question it very

much. If we're going to believe — and we must believe them — we must

have unity, and I appeal for their unity. But before we can believe it,

Mr. Chairman, we have to have their admission that we'll not have

another turn. I want total unity here, around the House.

MR. KING:

We are discussing the Premier's estimates this afternoon, and I want to

get back to the Premier's estimates, which is the business before the

House. Before I do, I want to make a few remarks about the speech made

by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

McClelland) and my colleague the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem).

The

member for Dewdney said he would like to see my party change their

position and not respond to political whims. I know that hon.

gentleman, who is a senior member of this House, would not want to

mislead anybody. I know that he wouldn't want to deliberately leave the

impression that an NDP convention passed what was referred to as the

Waffle Manifesto, because that is patently untrue. The Waffle Manifesto

was developed by a group that was identified as "the Waffle group"

within the NDP. This is some years ago. They brought forward a policy

which some members of the party — some elected, some not — agreed to

sign to get before the convention for debate. That Waffle Manifesto

came before the convention for debate and was roundly defeated. Indeed,

those people who formed the Waffle group are no longer members of our

party. That was their choice. In the interests of honesty, we've had

some embarrassing resolutions come before all party conventions,

including Social Credit. I mentioned one during my election campaign

when this very Waffle Manifesto was waved again. I mentioned that a

certain group within the Social Credit Party brought in a resolution

recommending the circumcision, of all things, of rapists.

MS. BROWN: And castration.

MR. KING:

And castration. Logical people would conclude that those kinds of

operations would not have the desired effect for the particular crime.

Rather stupid, eh?

Now it would be just as valid for me to

come in here and say, simply because some fringe in the party brought

it before the convention: "That's Social Credit policy. Will you

recant?" I would consider myself untruthful if I did that, Mr.

Chairman; I would consider that less than honest. How does the old

gentleman from Dewdney feel? Was he honest? Was he indeed honest when

he said the New Democratic Party should recant and change the position?

Indeed,

it's a matter of public record that my colleague the first member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett), the leader of the New Democratic Party in

the province of British Columbia, has always been a strong federalist —

and a monarchist, incidentally. Sadly, Mr. Chairman, even had his

position changed, which it has not, what would be the benefit of

raising this kind of division today in British Columbia on a debate

affecting the destiny of Canada? I am prepared to accept as a Canadian

and a British Columbian that we are all dedicated to Canada as a nation

in this House, despite our philosophical political differences. What is

the advantage of raising that kind of dirt? It's divisive. Surely it

diminishes the opportunity for getting some kind of high-level debate

on something that transcends the importance of the British Columbia

Legislature, the Social Credit Party or indeed the provincial NDP.

member of our party — either provincially or federally — has

recommended a vote for separation. The only person that I am familiar

with who recommended or indicated that he might vote for the separation

of Quebec was the former national leader — or the current one, I'm not

sure — of the Social Credit Party, Fabien Roy. If you want to disown

him, fine, fair enough. I don't even think that's very significant in

terms of what we're debating here today; we're debating what we as

British Columbians can do in trying to have some positive impact on all

of Canada in terms of holding this great country together. And I submit

that that's a worthwhile function that should not be diverted by rather

cheap partisan politics, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I want

to get back to the Premier's estimates. I regret the Premier is not

here. His estimates are before the House. He is seeking the approval of

this Legislature at this moment to have funds extended to him, payment

for his office functions and for his salary. This is the customary time

under the British parliamentary system when every minister of the Crown

gives an account of his stewardship and responds to the legitimate

questions of the opposition and to the public interest of the province.

Simply put, it's a time of accountability. Well, my question is: how

can the Premier of the province be accountable when he doesn't even

deign to

[ Page 2016 ]

sit

in the Legislature with us during the consideration of his estimates? I

don't know where he's gone. I would think he'd be here; I would hope, I

would respectfully request, that the Premier be ready today to answer a

number of questions which I have raised for the last two days, I

believe.

First, I wanted to know who the signing authority

was for the Social Credit Party campaign funds which were administered

and dispensed from the Premier's office. Normally the disposition of

party funds would have nothing to do with the Premier, but in light of

public information and public admission by his staff member that these

funds were indeed dispensed from his office, I think it is incumbent

upon the Premier to answer the question. Who was the signing authority,

and were the signing officers, of whom I understand there were two, on

the public payroll when they were performing this party function?

The

other question I asked the Premier was with respect to his involvement

in the police investigation of the Social Credit caucus research staff.

The Premier made a statement that the police had come to his office and

wanted to interview the secretaries working for the research staff. He

indicated at that time it was necessary for him to alert or notify the

secretaries in advance that the police wished to speak to them, so that

the secretaries and the staff people would not be unduly upset at being

interrogated by the police. That concerned me a little bit. I do not

believe that it is a normal function of the Premier of the province or

any minister of the Crown to intrude into the police and justice system

of the province. It's clear to me that every other citizen involved

with the police does not receive the benefit of advance notice or

having the interrogation conducted in the Premier's office. Citizens

out there are on their own unless they want to retain a lawyer for

themselves. I think the implications of the Premier's admission that he

intervened in this way are a matter of some concern. I think they're

particularly a matter of concern in view of the other allegations that

have been abroad — and some have not been satisfactorily answered yet —

that there has been interference by the government with the system of

justice in the province.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would hope

that the Premier would return to the House and start dealing in a

frank, candid and open way with some of these questions which have been

posed to him. Unless he's prepared to do that, we're involved here in a

completely meaningless exercise. He is the one person who can answer

for his office. It's his pay — his administrative costs — which we're

debating. No one else can answer for him. So unless the Premier is

prepared to come back and answer, perhaps we should go on to some other

business. Is the Premier coming back?

Interjection.

MR. KING: He went for what? He's been gone for 20 minutes now.

Interjection.

MR. KING: All right, I'll rest my case and await his return. I certainly have more questions for him.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say again that we recognize this as an

important time in the history of our country. We are facing a most

serious crossroad, and I think for that reason it is a time when we

need to know exactly where everybody on both sides of the House stands.

I suggest that we don't know where everybody stands in this matter of

national unity, which the Premier so eloquently placed before this

House in his statement today. He intends to carry forward with more

tangible demonstrations of the government's response to the

announcement of a date for the referendum in Quebec.

What

the people really want — and the Premier's estimates offer a good

opportunity — is to be sure that the things said in this House about

matters as important as Canadian sovereignty are the truth, and that

what people say is what people mean. It is very difficult for us to

understand that when we have conflicting evidence.

I was

interested in the response by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald) to the comments I made earlier and the comments that the

Premier made in the opening of his estimate debate today regarding the

matter of Quebec self-determination, which is the subject of the

referendum. I have a feeling that perhaps I didn't make myself as clear

as I would have liked to in my opening comments about the so-called

Waffle Manifesto, because there seems to be some doubt about what that

manifesto says and who supported it.

I'd just like to say

that the second item in the preliminary introduction of that manifesto,

dated 1969 and entitled "For An Independent Socialist Canada," says

this: "The New Democratic Party supports the right of the people of

Quebec to national self-determination up to and including the right to

form an independent Quebec state." Now I didn't say that, Mr. Chairman.

That was said by a group in the New Democratic Party who called

themselves and were called by others "the Waffle group." I accept the

comments from the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King). In fact, I

said myself when I spoke earlier that the NDP rejected that. But the

important thing for the people of British Columbia is not who rejected

that stand, but who supported that stand. That's what the people of

British Columbia wish to know about.

The publisher of the

so-called Waffle Manifesto, in introducing a number of items including

the total text of the manifesto, said this:

"In B.C. NDP federal MP for Vancouver East, Paddy Neale,

sponsored this document, as did six members of the NDP government elected in

1972: Hon. David Barrett, Premier and Minister of Finance; Hon. Alex Macdonald,

Attorney-General; Hon. James Lorimer, Minister of Municipal Affairs; Hon. Eileen

Dailly, Deputy Premier and Minister of Education; Hon. Norman Levi, Minister

of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement; Hon. Gordon Dowding, Speaker of the

House."

He went on to say:

"This

is not a complete list of sponsors, but it is enough to show that

people who hold responsible positions in Canada also gave their

signatures of support. It is the responsibility of all Canadians to

find out what people stand for and, therefore, the purpose of

publishing this document. This is the document the people listed above

helped sponsor by signing."

Now, Mr. Chairman, for the

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke to say before this House that the first

member for Vancouver East, the Leader of the Opposition, simply signed

this document in order that it could get on the floor of the convention

for full debate is patent nonsense. If you, Mr.

[ Page 2017 ]

Chairman,

were asked to sign a document for any purpose that said as one of its

principal tenets that the New Democratic Party, the Social Credit

Party, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party or any other party

supported the right of the people of Quebec to form an independent

Quebec state, I submit that you would say to the person who asked you:

"You are out of your cotton-picking mind, and I wouldn't sign it under

any circumstances. In fact, go away, and don't ever come back and

bother me again."

Mr. Chairman, that document was signed by several members sitting in this House

in support of a different position from that which was taken by the Leader of

the Opposition and other speakers on that side of the House today. I submit

that the people of this province have a right to know. As the member for Dewdney

(Mr. Mussallem) said: "Have you changed your mind?" It's okay

to change your mind; people change their mind all the time. By god, Mr. Chairman,

if you change your mind in this instance, we'll cheer you for it, if you

can tell us that it's the truth and you really have changed your mind.

Mr.

Chairman, if they've changed their mind let them say they are sorry

they signed this document. Don't say: "Well, I only signed it because I

wanted to get it on the floor of the Legislature." You know if you had

any responsibility at all you would refuse to sign such garbage. Don't

say, as the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) said:

"Well, I don't remember signing anything like that." Let me tell you,

if he signed that document without reading that it called for the

separation of Quebec, then that's even worse. Let them say they're

sorry. Let them say that they have now changed their mind and are for

the support of a united Canada, and let them convince the people of

Canada of that. But right now, Mr. Chairman, I'm not convinced of that.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, I am not really surprised to see an abuse of the House

like we have seen from that minister twice this afternoon. That

minister knows that that is a debate that is in the future. There is a

resolution on the order paper, by a minion on the back bench of the

Social Credit Party, hoping some day to have it debated. Therefore the

subject of this debate is totally out of order, and has been out of

order right from the time that minister stood up.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

We showed courage, because we said to ourselves, let him spout off and

show his true nature. And, Mr. Chairman, that's precisely what he has

done.

I shall take a little poetic licence myself. Mr.

Chairman, until I am out of order, I would just like to say one or two

words about the

interpretation, for example, of a document that was

circulated among a number of politicians. The request was made that

this document should see the light of day at a convention. And I saw

the very people that signed that document, asking that it be brought to

the convention — and I was at a number of the federal conventions where

these articles were discussed — working and debating against a number

of the points within that document. It's a completely empty argument

that this party is coming up with. You've got it on the order paper;

you had it in your last election. When are you going to kill the poor

old dog? It's just a fallacious, specious argument that you bring up in

order to try to confuse people, and it has absolutely no relevance here.

The

Leader of the Opposition has been a federalist and a monarchist ever

since I have known him — and I have known him a lot longer than this

document has existed.

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't say he was a socialist.

MR. COCKE:

He's a social-democrat, as I am, and proud of it. And, as far as I'm

concerned, we don't go around calling others, who are very reactionary,

fascists. But if you wish to get into those kinds of discussions, then

let's meet some time when we're not taking up the people's time.

Mr.

Chairman, we have as a party, federally and provincially, been totally

consistent on federalism; we have totally supported the concept of a

good, strong, federal Canada in order that we should all be enriched.

That's what the Leader of the Opposition was talking about today. Yet

what did we hear in reply? A fallacious, stupid, silly speech from a

minister who stood in this House last night and indicated that while he

was Minister of Health there were four or five of my colleagues who had

never been in touch with him about problems in their constituencies.

One of my colleagues — he's going to hear plenty about this later —

looked through his files last evening and found five specific letters.

Now I wouldn't call the minister a prevaricator. The only problem was

that each of the people that he named came up with exactly that same

kind of thing. We're supposed to believe a minister who stands in this

House and tries to put forward his attitude and his ideas around a

document that's so old, so antiquated, and has gone the way of all

documents at NDP conventions.

What the Leader of the

Opposition and what the second member for Vancouver Centre were talking

about today is the most important question that's on the minds of all

Canadians. And that is: where is Canada going? It's only got one month

and four days to decide. That's a very important issue. Not one member

from the government has stood up and discussed that issue. The Leader

of the Opposition suggested that the other side and our side should get

together, and he read out his suggested resolution. What was the reply

to that? No reply whatsoever. The Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources got up and started making fallacious charges

instead of replying to a very serious question. What is the rest of

Canada thinking about us in this place today? Where have we been? Our

heads have been in the sand.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

And that Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who has lost his

other important portfolios — thank heaven for the province, and it

would be good for the farmers if he lost that one — says "knee-jerk. "

Mr.

Chairman, this is an important subject, and it should be replied to by

the ministers of the Crown. Instead of that the first minister, whose

vote we're to be debating right now, walked out of the House before the

Leader of the Opposition had an opportunity to read his resolution —

didn't even pay attention to it, didn't give it the time of day,

wandered out of the House. I have never seen such a display of

arrogance in all the time I've been here. W.A.C. Bennett was always

given a sort of a label as being relatively arrogant, but, do you know,

he's been put to shame by his son. He used to sit here by the hour

through his estimates. Oh, yes, he'd turn his back; oh, yes, he'd

pretend not to be listening; but he'd be in this House during his

estimates. But that first minister has hardly been in here all

afternoon. What would be the point?

[ Page 2018 ]

The

Leader of the Opposition made a very important statement in this House,

and this is the kind of behaviour we get from the government of the day

— a government that cannot give one word of response, in over two

hours, to a very important question concerning every citizen in this

country. I'll be hanged.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The member says he'd like to see it. They've tried for a long time — your folks — and it hasn't worked.

And

the minister of logs, lumber and sawdust over there adds his usual

contribution, sitting in the far comer, mouthing off and not really

saying anything important. Why don't you get up and talk about your

policy with respect to this country and its future?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I wasn't going to rise in this debate. I thought that the comments made

by the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) and the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) were sufficient.

However, after the comments by the member for New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke), I felt that I should get up.

I used to ask him a

question, probably the question that was raised by the Minister of

Energy. It seems to me that when the content of the Waffle Manifesto

was read, the

preamble was there, and it stated that the members who

signed the document supported it. You can't hide behind the fact that

you were just going to sign it to put it on the floor of the convention

for debate. It's an endorsement, and I just make that point....

MR. COCKE:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I bring your attention to Motion 2

on the order paper. We have been most patient this afternoon, but

surely now is the time that the Chair should rule on whether or not

this debate is in order and whether or not the minister is in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The member for New Westminster's points are well taken. It is normally

not customary to discuss an item on the order paper, and if it is

brought to the Chair's attention then the Chair must caution the

minister.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I

guess I could say my comments were in correction to the member for New

Westminster, who has debated for the past ten minutes or so the matter

of the Waffle Manifesto. Take my remarks as correcting him, Mr.

Chairman.

I want to comment on the fact that in his

estimates the Premier has made comments about Canadian unity — several

times, as I recall. In the past 14 days or so — I'm not sure how many

days we've spent in this House listening to the opposition — he has

made those comments. He has said to the opposition: "Give us your input

on Canadian unity." He got silence — absolutely no response.

The

Premier came into this House at 2 o'clock today and at the first

opportunity he stood up and made a statement to this House. As I

recall, Mr. Member for New Westminster, he was making a statement

concerning Canadian unity. He was going to put a motion before the

House to allow debate on the most important issue of Canadian unity.

Who came first, Mr. Chairman? It seemed to me that the Premier of this province

stood up, made that statement....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I am responding to a certain extent to the member for New Westminster,

who talks about the great speech that was made and the motion that was

put by the Leader of the Opposition — after a statement was made by the

Premier of the province stating that a motion would come forward to

this House. It seems to me that the comments made by the Leader of the

Opposition.... Let me just go through this. I think he said:

"...building a better Canada." He draws from his files his 1973 speech

and talks about building a better Canada. But when this Premier was

first elected in 1975, who went to the constitutional conferences in

Ottawa and laid out a plan for a united Canada with regional

representation? It was British Columbia and this Premier.

This

provincial government has shown leadership to the rest of the provinces

in Canada. Where has the opposition been? What kind of constructive

comments have they made in the past 14 days or so that we have been

dealing with the Premier's estimates? Absolutely none. They have dealt

with personal attacks on members of the government. They have been

repetitious and to a certain extent, I would suggest, they have been

poorly researched.

All of a sudden, after the Premier makes

a statement to members of this House that a motion is going to come

forward to this House so we can debate the issue of Canadian unity, the

Leader of the Opposition becomes a statesman. He digs out his speech

from 1973, makes his comments and proposes a motion, only in response

to a statement made by the Premier that the issue of Canadian unity is

important, saying he wishes everybody in this House to have the

opportunity to debate it.

I have to say that the Leader of

the Opposition wants stage centre and he will get it whenever he can

for his personal benefit. He doesn't concern himself with the rest of

his colleagues who don't have the opportunity to drag out a speech from

1973. He doesn't consider the fact that all members on both sides

should have the opportunity to gather their thoughts, prepare their

debate, come into this House and deal with this most important issue.

No, he doesn't consider that. He jumps up and deals with this 1973

speech and the position he took at that time.

The

unfortunate reaction that concerns me most of all was that after his

performance, after failing to be a gentleman statesman who recognizes

the time for debate of an issue like this is when the motion is put to

this House, all the sheep jumped up and applauded a great show. I

suggest to them that it would be much better if we all had the

opportunity to gather our thoughts and develop our positions and

comments on the issue of Canadian unity, rather than use it for a

performance in this House. I welcome the opportunity to gather my

thoughts and to put together my position and my comments.

AN HON. MEMBER: It won't take long.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're not being nice.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you gather all of theirs it won't take you any longer.

[ Page 2019 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: If I gathered theirs I'd just gather wool. And if we had wool we could make a blanket.

Mr.

Chairman, I am disappointed, though, because I think in all fairness

and in all seriousness we all should have that opportunity to prepare

ourselves for a constructive debate in this House and come forward with

a united position to the other provinces of Canada — to say British

Columbia is showing that leadership and making an all-out effort to

show all Canadians, those people in other provinces and in the province

of Quebec, that we want a unified Canada for all time.

I'm

disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition took this opportunity to

do his usual grandstanding. I can only say that when the motion comes

to the House I'm sure that all members on both sides of the House will

welcome the opportunity to debate the issue of Canadian unity.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition

on his speech this afternoon. I think it's a demonstration of his and

this party's concern about national unity. His call for the unity of

this country, but also for the unity of this House on that issue, was

not unsubtle. His speech called for cooperation by the government

members from the point of view of expressing to our fellow citizens in

the province of Quebec our deep concern during this important time in

their history and our history.

The response by the Minister

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

described as nothing more than squalid. I don't think that it would be

appropriate to carry on describing the revulsion that most British

Columbians feel and will feel at that kind of response to a call for

unity.

The minister who has just spoken has asked the

members of the opposition to be constructive in their criticisms of the

government. On many occasions when we have done so, as today, we have

been spurned and rejected on the most narrow partisan basis.

The

Premier has just walked into the chamber with a bag of mushrooms, Mr.

Chairman: a symbol of the Social Credit members kept in the dark and

fed fertilizer.

Their only response to a sincere effort to

join together as true Canadians is to reject and spurn that sincerely

made offer. Well, the people of this province will judge that

performance. We are accused of personal attacks, of being sheep, of not

having come first; we're accused of all those things when we make the

sincere effort to be positive and constructive in this chamber. Let the

record show that the government's call for positive criticism from the

New Democratic Party is two-faced and insincere.

Mr.

Chairman, with respect to the Premier's estimates, it occurs to me that

there are many questions of grave concern to the public of British

Columbia that have gone unanswered. The Premier has had ample

opportunity to respond. He has chosen not to. He has given an excuse,

however, which should be analyzed. The excuse on one occasion is that

the matters raised, for example, on the administration of justice do

not concern his ministry. Other examples raised by members of the

opposition requiring answers are best answered, he said, by other

ministers.

His second excuse is that the questions are silly. And all the questions we

have asked to this day have been in an attempt by the opposition to bring to

public light the secret decisions, negotiations and meetings concerning the

Premier's office. They were questions concerning the administration of justice,

We have many issues facing the province. The most important issues are economic,

including employment, economic, development, our future and the tremendous impact

of inflation and high interest rates.

There

is also another issue nagging at the public consciousness: the issue of

equality in the administration of justice in the province of British

Columbia. It is clear that the Premier has not put his attention to

that issue. Every day from my constituency and around the province

people are expressing their lack of confidence in the equality of

justice in the province of British Columbia. We want to be

constructive. We have called for public inquiries. We have called for a

judicial inquiry into the issues facing the administration of justice

in this province, and such constructive proposals have received

back-of-the-hand treatment from the first minister. He advised his

Attorney-General that under no circumstances will public inquiries be

launched.

There have been no answers given. There is a

precision in the use of language, to the extent that the public is

frustrated in its right to know. We contend that all these issues are

positive. As I've said before, I believe that the government's

accusation that the questions are silly and negative comes from their

view that if we don't agree with them, the questions are silly and

negative. Their approach is that we are destructive if we don't support

government policy. It is our job to point out to the public the

weaknesses and the inadequacies of government policy. It is also our

job to point out where improvement is needed.

Right now the

only way to dispel the cloud over the administration of justice in this

province is by a full, open and fair public inquiry into the question

of the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), the question of

the Deputy Attorney-General, the question of campaign funds, and the

question of the Eckardt commission. All of these major questions

involving judicial or quasi-judicial issues should be before an

impartial judge, with a full public hearing and report. We suggest that

only in that way can confidence be rebuilt in the system of justice in

this province, so that no citizen can be heard to say that there's a

law for the rich and a law for the poor or that there's a law for the

friends of government and a law for the rest of us. Now there is no

citizen who can honestly make that statement. There is no citizen in

this province, of whatever political stripe, who can honestly say that

there's a fair system of justice in the province of British Columbia.

The only way to solve that is by a full and fair public inquiry.

Perhaps out of that inquiry would come recommendations for changes in

procedures — however long they've been employed — which will assure the

public that the complaints made in recent months about decisions

concerning the administration of justice and the policy of law

enforcement will never arise again.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Certainly

if there's a full and fair public inquiry into the question of campaign

funds, then maybe we can have as a recommendation proposed legislation

which will ensure that the secrecy of political party slush funds does

not act as a destructive monster in the background. It's a monster that

threatens to destroy the free political system. Secrecy of the source

and application of campaign funds undermines confidence in the free

political system. Citizens in this province today cannot be sure who is

running their province — the people they have democratically elected or

the people who

[ Page 2020 ]

have

signed a cheque, secretly, or passed a satchel of thousand-dollar bills

from one member of the Social Credit Party to the next. Who is running

the government of this province?

A full public disclosure of

the source and application of campaign funds is another question we

have been asking the Premier. He has defended himself on some details,

but he has not stood and said as the first minister of this province

that he can assure us that steps are being taken to protect the public

from the erosion of the political system caused by the secrecy of the

source and application of campaign funds. It's his responsibility and

we call upon him to do so, to stand in this place in this committee and

say: "Here's what the government has decided, to rectify this problem."

He has not done so. We are waiting for him to do so, and the people of

the province are waiting for him to do so.

If it's positive

criticism the Premier wants, he has merely to open his ears. What's

blocking his hearing, Mr. Chairman, is a narrow partisanship — a very

narrow view of the political system in this province. It takes a big

man to accept positive criticism, and it takes a big man to hear it.

MR. RITCHIE:

For over three weeks now all we have listened to is repetition,

personal attacks, negative nonsense, and how lazy the members on this

side of the House are. It has been three weeks of wasted time. Our

Premier tried to encourage the opposition here a few weeks ago to get

into some constructive debate, but to no avail. They have continued

with their personal attacks, with innuendo, allegations, false

allegations, and all of that garbage that goes on. I think it's about

time that you were really shown up for what you are. I resent some of

the remarks made this morning by your leader when he talked about a

united Canada. I'm not a native-born Canadian; I'm an immigrant to this

great country. I resent the type of talk that went on there,

particularly when I know of some of the other background material that

your party represents.

But now it would seem to me that what

they want to do is change their image. They've taken on a new approach

and now they want to change their image. Let me tell you, you may be

able to change your approach, but you won't be able to change your

image.

The leader, in his opening remarks, said that he

invited the back bench to respond to his remarks concerning a united

Canada. I'd be glad to do that. I hope that I will be permitted to do

so now.

I have to say that those remarks were hypocritical.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. One member today has already been cautioned

about the use of that word, and I would ask the member speaking to

withdraw the implication or the word that he just used. Would the

member withdraw it.

MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I

repeat: I'm an immigrant to this country and I know the value of a

united country. I also know what your philosophy can do to a country. I

know also what your philosophy can do to people.

On the

question of a united Canada, yes, I support a united Canada. If I may,

I wish to quote from a document that will prove that what we heard this

morning is really only window-dressing and playing politics. May I read

from this article, the NDP Waffle Manifesto:

Canadians and Quebec socialists. Towards that end, be it therefore resolved

that the New Democratic Party will continue to struggle against the War Measures

Act, the Public Order Act, and all similar substitute legislation. We demand

the immediate release of all persons arrested under such legislation.

"The

New Democratic Party supports the right of the people of Quebec to

national self-determination, up to and including the right to form an

independent state.

"The lasting solution to

the relations of our two peoples can only be determined when popular

representatives from both sides sit down and negotiate on the basis of

Quebec."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Nelson-Creston on a point of order. Would the member for Central Fraser Valley take his place.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Chairman, I think that the rule of anticipation is a very serious

one, and it's obviously being flouted. In spite of members bringing it

to the attention of the Chair and the Chair bringing it to the

attention of members, certain members seem to be persisting in

anticipating debate on the order paper — I think it's Motion 1 or 2,

standing in the name of the hon. second member for Vancouver South (Mr.

Hyndman).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Again

I would advise the member for Central Fraser Valley that while passing

reference is in order, detailed discussion is out of order.

MR. HYNDMAN:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, perhaps the Chair would consider

giving us a little more guidance on this topic in the near future. It

seems to me the one point of view on anticipation is correct; but on

the other hand, the document in question, being a broad document,

surely may have some of its content referred to or quoted from by a

member in debate on a different point. If the member opposite proposed

to debate the issue raised on the order paper, obviously the rule of

anticipation would apply; but surely that rule cannot go so far as to

preclude in a different discussion any reference to that document or an

extract from it. Perhaps in due course we could have some guidance from

the Chair on where the dividing line is.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Thank you, hon. member. As always, those lines are very difficult to

specifically define. Again, general discussion appears to be very much

in order, but specific and detailed discussion would be very much out

of order in those circumstances. Again, it is a most difficult line to

formally draw in the way of a binding decision on this committee, and I

think members will have to use discretion and good judgment on their

own. The Chair will do its best to see that those discussions and

observations are kept somewhere within the realm of order for the

discussion at hand.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I hope

that the House will recognize the fact that I am responding to an

invitation from the Leader of the Opposition concerning his remarks, at

the opening of this sitting, on the vote in Quebec — the united Canada.

That's what he talked about. He invited us to

[ Page 2021 ]

speak,

and I will be very pleased to sit down and rise again if I have the

opportunity to pursue this. But I prepared myself very quickly to

respond to his invitation only because it disturbed me greatly to hear

the things he said, considering the fact that he signed the documents

that I am now referring to. Not only did he sign them, but other

members over there also signed the documents. I would challenge anyone

over there who did not sign the documents to say so. We know the ones

who keep quiet are the ones who signed them.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. If the member for Central Fraser Valley would address the Chair....

MR. RITCHIE:

Fine, Mr. Chairman. It's typical, but if they have the courage to stand

up and say they did not sign the document, then I would welcome that. I

wish to continue reading from that particular document.

"Socialists

establishment but the paramount power of the American empire. For both

peoples, national self-determination and socialism are inter-related

goals, neither of which can be achieved without the other."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Nelson-Creston on a point of order.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very serious precedent which is being

set here, if we're going to disregard the rule of anticipation in this

Legislature. I think there should be some ruling. Are you ruling that

that line of debate is in order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon.

member, the Chair has said that while broad discussion would be in

order, we are not going to allow or permit a detailed discussion. The

member for Central Fraser Valley has been cautioned. You rise on a

point of order. I subsequently caution the member for Central Fraser

Valley once again that detailed discussion is not permitted at this

point. With that, I ask the member for Central Fraser Valley to

continue.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I would like

your guidance here. As I indicated, I am responding directly to the

invitation of the Leader of the Opposition with respect to the question

of a united Canada. If I am not permitted to continue with my remarks —

which I have prepared myself for — then I will be glad to take my seat

and do so at another time. But, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you give

me that direction. This material is all documented; it's available, and

it very directly associates itself with the remarks of the Leader of

the Opposition. It's only because of the remarks that he made this

morning that I went to the files and dug this up. Had it not been for

that, I suppose we'd have had the usual type of debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Prince Rupert on a point of order.

MR. LEA: A solution, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Prince Rupert offers a solution.

MR. LEA:

If the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) would ask for

leave of the House to withdraw his resolution on the order paper, then

we could dispense with that and the member for Central Fraser Valley

could then indeed carry on with his speech. I think that would be a

solution that the House could accept.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

It possibly may be a solution, but it is not a point of order, hon.

member. Again, the member for Central Fraser Valley continues on vote 9.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, does that mean that I am not free to respond directly to the invitation of the Leader of the Opposition that...?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, the Chair has indicated the parameters, of which it

advises the member who is presently speaking, and can do no more than

caution the member, as it has done, that the debate in detail on the

point that the member is currently canvassing is not in order. It may

very well be that at a future time, on a future motion, in a

wide-ranging debate such comment could be in order, but at this time,

under vote 9 — notwithstanding the comments of the Leader of the

Opposition — the member speaking must adhere to the rules that bind us

in Committee of Supply.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: Would you care to repeat that? It sounds just about your calibre. Why don't you speak up? Say it again.

Mr.

Chairman, I take it that I'm not permitted to take the Leader of the

Opposition up on his invitation to respond to his remarks in reference

to the vote in Quebec — the question of a united Canada. I'm not

permitted.... I'm new in this House, Mr. Chairman, and I require your

direction, so if I'm not permitted to do so at this time, I will be

glad to take my seat and continue with this at another opportunity.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, the Chair is not advising the member not to reply to any

speech made in this House. The Chair is simply advising the member, at

this time, what is and what is not in order under vote 9, and what is

currently in the orders of the day presently before the House. There is

still wide scope for debate in the Premier's estimates, as has been

determined, but not on the matter standing as Motion 2 on the order

paper.

MR. RITCHIE: Well, with that then, Mr.

Chairman, I will be glad to take my seat and pursue this matter further

when the opportunity arises. Thank you very much.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the member who has just taken his seat, the

member for Central Fraser Valley, talk about something called "changing

an image." It struck me when I heard that that the only person in this

chamber who desires and needs to change an image is that member

himself. Every time he makes that attempt, he just confirms what is a

fact in the first place. Having run into difficulty with the Chair with

respect to the content of his debate, he had to sit down, indicating

that he wasn't prepared

[ Page 2022 ]

and not interested in advancing something positive about Canadian unity.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Protect me from that wild man from Kamloops, please, Mr. Chairman. His face is getting red already.

The

first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), speaking a while ago,

said that there were — and proved that there were — two systems of

justice prevalent in the province. He used the age-old phrase that

there's a law for the rich and a law for the poor, or justice for the

rich and justice for the poor — something of that nature. Many of us

have known that for a long period of time, and I don't wish to embark

in that direction of debate here, although I feel the content of what

the first member for Vancouver Centre was saying is right on the mark.

There are two systems of justice, I know it. I'm sure you, Mr.

Chairman, know it from your personal involvement outside this chamber

in the vocation and profession that you follow. I discovered it from

the vocation I followed in a different field of endeavour, in the trade

union movement. But we know that.

I think what has been

proven this afternoon is that there are two systems of justice within

the conception of the Social Credit government — two different ideas as

to how debate should be developed. Let me advance that. Last evening,

when we listened to the Premier make a few remarks before moving that

the committee rise, thus ending the debate for the day, he did make a

statement that sounded as if he was advocating that people in Quebec

vote yes in the referendum. I went this morning to look at the Blues to

see whether I had heard him correctly, and when I read the full context

of what the Premier said, it was obvious from that that he was not

advocating that people vote yes; it was a slip of the tongue on his

part, an inappropriate phrase about the referendum that's to take place

in Quebec. I was pleased that the Premier dealt with that this

afternoon and corrected what might have been an erroneous impression. I

was pleased to hear the Premier do that and clear the record, because

1, like other members in this House, wish to see this country, within

which I was born.... And that's neither here nor there, just a simple

fact of life. I had no choice in that matter; it happened.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: A long time ago.

MR. HOWARD:

The only thing that's a long time ago is the mentality of the

small-business minister over there who keeps interrupting. If you, Mr.

Chairman, were as assiduous in enforcing the rules about interruptions

of that nature from the government side as you have been for members on

our side, we'd have a much better system here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HOWARD: What I'm getting to, Mr. Chairman, is that it's neither here nor there where one was born — one resides here, one is here.

But

I was pleased that the Premier made that correction, because by making

that correction and by making it clear, he did advance the interests of

all of us who want to see Canada remain intact as a country. I was

pleased too with the statements he made following that, because the

Premier was talking about Canadian unity. I was also pleased with the

remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, whose position in this matter,

as it has been enunciated by others, has never altered over the years —

an impassioned speech from the heart about his feeling for what is

Canada and what we should try to do about it in maintaining it together.

was pleased, as other members on this side of the House were, with the

prospect before us of having a unanimous view expressed by this

chamber, by this Legislature, of having a unified declaration made

representing all of our views in concert, one with the other, about the

need to maintain Canada together. I had the feeling — and I'm sure

other hon. members did too — that when the Leader of the Opposition sat

down, we would be embarking upon one of those rare events in this

chamber: speaking in a single voice. What a rude shock we got when the

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

McClelland), the bile building up in his gut and spewing out with that

kind of degrading partisan speech, indicated that he for one is not

interested in developing a unified voice within this Legislature about

Canadian unity, but is interested in causing hard feelings, carrying on

an attack of a personal nature, an attack based upon absolutely

inaccurate information, repeating over and over again something which

is false, and by that repetition hoping to make it true. He thus pulls

down the level of debate that we might have expected to have about this

very fundamental question of Canadian unity and maintaining Canada in

its current form and looking countless years into the future to see it

develop for ourselves and our children.

When the motion with

respect to this subject matter comes up for debate, I'm sure there will

be no difficulty on this side of the chamber about having a respectful,

considerate and thoughtful contribution to make to that debate. I would

hope that the Premier would have a discussion with his Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and his Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who repeated the same thing, and other ministers on

that side, and lay down the law and say: "Look, we're seeking unity in

this chamber about this subject matter. Put aside your partisan

differences. Here's one issue, one item when we want to be together,

united, and exhibit to all of Canada the fact that we all in British

Columbia are vitally concerned about keeping this country together."

have two systems of justice. We have two systems of dealing with debate

as far as government is concerned, apparently. We have two ideas as to

questions asked and proposals put forward. One idea is that of the

government, advanced yesterday by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Wolfe), who said he would like to write out the questions that we in

the opposition should ask — that we should clear them, basically.

That's a type of approach. The other approach is the one that we want

to put forward, which says no, we're not interested in government

advancing to us the subject matter as to what should be asked and what

should be dealt with. The only thing the government is interested in,

in terms of what it identifies as something called constructive

criticism, is something that will endorse whatever government's doing.

If we go in that direction, they say that's fine. If we are critical,

we must be, because there are thousands of people in this province who

are also critical and who want and need to have the matters raised and

dealt with.

I want to make a preliminary remark, if I might,

Mr. Chairman, about something that I raised earlier and that the

Premier responded to during these estimates. It relates to the

agreement that the Premier signed on behalf of the province,

[ Page 2023 ]

also

1977, relating to the ferry system and coastal transportation. The

Premier said that that was a good deal. He identified it as getting

onto first base. He used phrases like: "We didn't bat a home run this

time, but we got onto first base and we're there." Using that analogy,

the only reason the Premier got on first base — if he did get on first

base — was that he got hit in the head by a bean ball thrown by Otto

Lang, a curve ball that caught him. It looks like he'll be on first

base for the rest of his tenure of office.

Here's the

document. This is what was signed. Let's read what the Premier signed

away. First, "the agreement shall be for a five-year period," from

1977. And "it shall be reviewed on the fifth anniversary of its

execution." That's 1982. Now, if I were the Premier, or if the Premier

would do this by himself.... One, having admitted that he got taken by

the feds; and two, recognizing that Otto Lang, that sharpie from

Saskatchewan, is no longer there as a negotiator, realizing that the

federal government wants desperately to build its forces in this

province, I think the Premier should go back to the federal government

right now, if he hasn't already, and say: "Look, can we reopen that

agreement? It's a bad deal." Admit that he made a mistake when he

signed it — that's what I think the Premier should do. Maybe he's done

it already. Maybe he has already realized the error of his ways and has

already communicated with the federal government asking them to reopen

the agreement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Never. Bill would never do that; he's too stubborn.

MR. HOWARD:

Well, he might. He might, because it's not a very good agreement for

British Columbia. In the first place it's subject to review in the

fifth year. What's subject to review in the fifth year, Mr. Chairman?

The whole agreement? No, just "the appropriateness of the index used as

a basis for calculating adjustments to the annual subsidy." That's all.

Now what's the index that they use? The index is a mileage index

comprising the mileage across the Strait of Georgia between the lower

mainland and Vancouver Island and the mileage between Port Hardy and

Prince Rupert. For these purposes they compute that to be 337 statute

miles.

Here's another thing the Premier signed away: that

that 337 statute miles can only be revised downwards, not upwards. If

B.C. Ferries decides to make the northern terminus of that route to the

north coast, say, Stewart instead of Prince Rupert, is there any

provision in this agreement to revise that index upwards? No. The

Premier signed it all away. It said: "It is further understood and

agreed that the statute miles herein stated shall constitute the

maximum mileage and that there may be downward adjustments." Never

upwards. That's what he did.

It also said: "The province

shall assume sole responsibility for the subsidizations that may be

required of the ferry, coastal freight and passenger services in those

waters of British Columbia." Then they enumerate where the federal

subsidy is to be and talk about the cancellation of the subsidy to

Northland and the like.

Clause 2 of

part 4, which is what the Premier committed himself to, said: "The

province agrees" — remember, this is the B.C. Ferry Corporation — "with

the federal government that it will assure reasonable and adequate service and

appropriate supervision thereof." What happened to that "reasonable

and adequate service" on the north coast of British Columbia right now?

What happened in January with that "reasonable and adequate service"

which the Premier put his name to? It's gone — all for the purposes of satisfying

Boeing corporation and the jetfoil, all for the purposes of satisfying Sam Bawlf

and one of his dreams, all for the purposes of manipulating ferry service to

give an advantage to certain vested interests here in the lower part of Vancouver

Island and in Seattle. As a consequence, we don't have any ferry service

into Prince Rupert right now. I don't know when we'll have it. But the

Premier signed that document saying that it will assure "reasonable and

adequate service and appropriate supervision thereof."

That's

what his signature means on a document: he'll break it at the first

opportunity when it suits the convenience of anybody else. He's also,

in this agreement, signed away, Mr. Chairman, forever, by this phrase —

"that Canada shall be relieved of any and all obligations for the

provision of subsidy or other financial assistance over and above the

subsidy provided in this agreemen...." Written away and signed away

forever! Is that what the Premier calls a good deal?

He did

say, as well, once having gotten his foot on first base: "Oh, yes, we

didn't get as much money as they get on the east coast; we didn't do as

well as they do on the east coast about this, but we got to first

base." What happens on the east coast with respect to subventions and

subsidies from the federal government to services there? Just take what

they call the CN marine transportation system. There are seven services

out there subsidized. The total amount of the subsidy, Mr. Chairman, is

$118 million to one company on the east coast. The total cost to CN of

providing that particular service is $150 million, and of that total

cost the federal government provides a subsidy of $118 million — a far

cry from the $18 million the Premier was so anxious to grab when that

agreement was waved in front of his nose.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

There

is another $12 million on top of that to what they call "local

operators" on smaller runs, feeder runs and that sort of thing. Things

like that were provided in the agreement that the Premier signed.

There's a subsidy to the Nootka Sound Service Ltd., the Kyuquot Freight

Services Ltd., the Ahousat Freight Services Ltd. and smaller routes,

smaller operators. On the east coast small operators like that get a

$12 million subsidy to keep their ships in operation and provide a

service to those people. Mr. Chairman, it's not a question of trying to

rewrite history, as the accusation of the Premier indicated. It's a

question of trying to represent the views of people in Stewart,

Kincolith, in Kitkatla and people in coastal communities all up and

down the north coast who lost a shipping service.

The

Premier guaranteed that they will lose it forever by signing that

sellout agreement. If I were him, I would certainly hang my head in

shame about that, and I would go back to Ottawa — if he hasn't done it

already — and say: "Look, we blew it. We made a mistake. How about

revising this so we can get a fair shake out of you guys before the

five years are up?" Those five years are up in 1982, Mr. Chairman, a

couple of years from now. It may well be that we'll be in the midst of

or through a provincial election by that time, in which case the

present Premier won't have the opportunity to go back and represent

British Columbia in trying to revise that agreement. Somebody else will

have the opportunity to

[ Page 2024 ]

it, and no matter who it is, they'll make a better deal than he did.

Somebody who may not even be in the cabinet could go back, somebody

brand new to politics with no sense about negotiations at all could

look a deal straight in the face and realize it's possible to make a

better deal than the one the Premier made.

Mr. Chairman, he

may decide to reply to that and he may not. That's neither here nor

there. We know that the Premier picks and chooses the questions he

wants to answer and discards the ones he doesn't want to answer. Every

time he puts to one side a valid question that's in order and refuses

to answer it, it it leaves our sense of responsible government and

democracy a little bit lessened thereby. It's a little bit less than it

was the day before.

He refused to answer with respect to

uranium in Europe. He refused to answer with respect to the

communication from Etienne Reuter concerning what took place at a

particular meeting. He refused to answer a series of questions about

the jetfoil. He refused to answer questions posed by the second member

for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) about justice matters. He refused to

answer questions relating to the operation of the Social Credit

campaign fund structure out of the Premier's office. Where else do we

go in terms of refusal to answer questions? Even if the Premier would

stand up, Mr. Chairman, and say, "I can't tell you the answer to that,"

or, "I'm not going to tell you the answer to that," or even if he would

hide behind the rules of the House which say that a minister does not

have to answer. That would be better than sitting in dumb silence and

refusing to even acknowledge the fact that legitimate questions exist.

Maybe that's his style and his manner.

It doesn't help the

course of debate; it doesn't help the progress with respect to the

estimates of the Premier's office. It certainly doesn't help the sense

of responsible government that has been struggled for and fought for

for decades and, indeed, centuries, commencing in England and then

inherited by those of us in this country and developed over decades in

this country. It doesn't help that understanding of responsible

government and what it means. It demeans the process. It demeans the

concept of responsible government to ignore legitimate, proper

questions.

There's one question I need to repeat. The

Premier may not remember it from yesterday, busy as he is with very

important matters of state, but it had to do with the disclosure by a

person working in his office, paid by the general public, paid by the

taxpayers whether voluntarily or involuntarily — it doesn't matter; he

was employed. He was chosen by the Premier, hired by the Premier, and

paid out of funds voted by this Legislature. He was a public servant

who disclosed that there was at least one secret bank account belonging

to the Social Credit Party. It did not belong to the Premier's office.

It was not public business; it was private business. At the moment that

became public knowledge, at the moment that this public servant in the

Premier's office disclosed that he was running two functions — that he

was operating public business on one side and political party business

on the other — the Premier had an obligation to examine what was taking

place within his office.

AN HON. MEMBER: Unless he already knew.

MR. HOWARD:

I would give the Premier the benefit of the doubt, that he did not know

what was going on in his office prior to that time. There's very little

concern now what goes on there. But I give him the benefit of the

doubt, that he did not know what was going on prior to Mr. Tozer

disclosing that secret campaign funds were being handled through the

Premier's office.

Once it was disclosed, once the Premier

heard about it, any responsible officer of government, any responsible

minister — especially the first minister — would have said to the

people working in his office: "What's going on here? Tell me about

this. What do you mean, a secret fund, that you, Mr. Tozer, have

authority over? Where is the secret fund? Where did it come from?

What's it used for? Who were the signing officers?" Any responsible

person would have done that. Did the Premier do that? Did he go to Mr.

Tozer and say: "Mr. Tozer...."? Maybe they were on informal terms;

maybe he called him by his first name, Tony. Maybe he said: "Look,

Tony, you and I have known each other for a long time. What's going on

here? What's this business about these secret funds?" Did the Premier

do something like that?

While Hansard

cannot visually record what's taking place, I think the written record

should perhaps show that the Premier is ignoring the whole thing; he is

talking with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) — obviously

about something important, but he's completely ignoring the question.

By ignoring the question he's in effect saying: "It ain't none of your

business." Now he can say that to me as a person — that's fine. We're

here as peers, although being a peer of the Premier becomes a bit

revolting at times in consciousness. But we are here as peers; he

doesn't have to reply to me.

It just happens that, because

of the parliamentary process that we have, people cast ballots and

elect a number of MLAs to be their representatives and to try to voice

the questions for which the people back home want answers. So the

Premier can tell me that it's none of my business, and I'll accept

that. But when he ignores this basic question, as he is now doing, he's

telling people all over this province that it's none of their business

that he had a man working in his office whose salary was paid for by

the taxpayer, and that that man was mixing together private and party

business. The Premier is telling the general public that that

particular subject matter is none of their business. Did the Premier

inquire how long those funds had been in existence, and how much money

had come in and gone out and for what purpose? I think the record in

Hansard needs to show that the Premier is again ignoring that question;

he's in conversation — laughingly now — with the Minister of Finance

and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) — obviously about very

important business, but this is important business too. By ignoring

that particular question, the Premier is again telling the people of

B.C. that it isn't any of their business. "Sure, you, the general

public," the Premier is saying, "paid for Mr. Tozer's salary, but it's

none of your business what he was doing while he was in my office."

see, Mr. Chairman, that you're drawing my attention to the fact that my

time has expired. Perhaps I'll have an opport