1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2031 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Declare the Rights of Children in British Columbia (Bill M206). Mr.

Lauk.

Introduction and first reading –– 2031

An Act to Amend the Capital Commission Act (Bill M207). Mr. Barber.

Introduction and first reading –– 2031

Oral Questions.

Alleged asbestos contamination of Queen of Prince Rupert. Mr. Mitchell –– 2032

Pollution of Penticton Beach. Hon. Mr. Rogers replies –– 2032

Environmental studies of Gambier Island. Hon. Mr. Rogers replies –– 2032

Penticton sewage system. Mr. Skelly –– 2032

Environmental studies of Gambier Island. Mr. Lockstead –– 2032

Information files on teachers. Mr. Lauk –– 2033

Files on public service employees. Mr. Hanson –– 2033

Committee of Supply: Premier's Office estimates.

On vote 9.

Mrs. Wallace –– 2034

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2035

Division on the motion that the committee rise –– 2039

Division that the member for Cowichan-Malahat now be heard –– 2039

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 2040

Mr. Howard –– 2041

Mr. Davis –– 2044

Mr. Lea –– 2047

Mr. Brummet –– 2049

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2050

Mr. King –– 2053

THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, we in British Columbia can be justly proud of a very fine

Dutch-Canadian community, and the Dutch-Canadian community is well

represented here today through a group which carries forth a very

important tradition throughout Holland, namely carnival. We have in our

members' gallery the council of 11 for the Dutch-Canadian community.

They are Mr. Arnold Mauriks, the grandmaster, and his wife Willie; Mr.

John Roescher and his wife Els; Hennie Bouwhuis and his wife Hennie;

Mr. Bert Konings and his wife Yvonne; Mr. Theo Rathonyi-Reuss and his

wife Wilhelmina; Mr. Hans Konings and his wife Jooke; Mr. Tom Vermeulen

and his wife Millie; Mr. Ad Van Haaften and his wife Carla; Mr. Bill

Kok and his wife Ria; and Mr. Case Laan and his wife Lucy. I would ask

the House to bid them a great welcome.

MR. MACDONALD:

I just want to briefly join in the welcome to the Hollanders that has

been expressed, because actually the Scots got the Protestant work

ethic years ago from Holland.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: The hon. member didn't say where they got their Scotch from, though.

This

humble member has been very much honoured this week. First of all she

was asked some questions in question period for the first time;

secondly, the member had 48 cheering senior citizens in the gallery

yesterday. Today it is an equal pleasure to have the president of the

Okanagan North Constituency Association of Social Credit, Mr. Russell

Shortt, in Victoria and in your gallery, Mr. Speaker. It is one of the

first times that he's been in our Legislature, and I would ask the

House to give him a very warm welcome.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

We have in the gallery today a trustee from School District 47 in

Powell River, Mrs. Ruth Miller, and I ask the House to join me in

welcoming her.

MR. GABELMANN: Today in the gallery is

a young fellow from Campbell River who was very helpful to me in the

past election campaign. I'd like the House to welcome Alec Connelly.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I just could not avoid an opportunity to mention that the people whom

the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has just

introduced are certainly a people apart. They had a party in Maple

Ridge at which the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs was a prince

thereof. I'm telling you, there was never such a party and there was

never such a prince. I can assure you he was much different from the

Minister of Municipal Affairs.

However, Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place to introduce the largest group of

high-school students that has every graced these magnificent halls: 182 students.

Young men and women from the Maple Ridge Senior Secondary School are here in

force — well-behaved, honourable young men and women. We can be proud of every

one of them. When we speak of young men and women with any concern it certainly

is not these; they are the best. They're here today taking their places

50 at a time to hear your excellent and considered deliberations. They're

there and they're listening to you.

want to tell you who are in charge of this group: Mr. G. Fry; Mr. K.

Williams; Mr. H. Bugler; Mr. R. Withers; Mrs. S. MacDonald; Mr. M.

Embrey; Mr. M. Munroe; and the whole group is under the direction of

the trip coordinator, Mr. Gordon Edmonds. I ask you to make them

welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would

like to have the House welcome a good friend from Vancouver, Miss Jean

Wright. She is here with her mother, Mrs. Beth Wright.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, I know that all members of the House will agree that to a

large extent we are successful and competent MLAs because of the very

great efforts made on our part by our constituency secretaries. I have

allowed my constituency secretary out for one day to visit this House.

I would like us all to say hello to Diana Matheson.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO DECLARE THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN

IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

On a motion by Mr. Lauk, Bill M206, An

Act to Declare the Rights of Children in British Columbia, introduced,

read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, under standing orders it is required

that every member attend the service of the House. I wonder whether we

can know when the inner cabinet meeting will be over. You see, the next

order of business is question period. When the Premier and his front

bench are not here, the opposition has a very difficult time in asking

questions. So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the House adjourn or

recess, Would the Speaker agree to recess until the Premier returns?

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, question period has yet to be called. We are still at the

introduction of bills. I believe there is another bill to be presented.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE CAPITAL COMMISSION

ACT

MR. BARBER: I ask leave to introduce

an act

intituled

An Act to Amend the Capital Commission Act, which I know the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) will support.

Leave granted.

a motion by Mr. Barber, Bill M207,

An Act to Amend the Capital

Commission Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed

on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

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

[ Page 2032 ]

MR. LAUK: Well, not on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, but I....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: For what purpose does the member rise?

MR. LAUK: To move a motion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. LAUK: I move that the House do now adjourn.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

The motion is not in order unless the member has proper possession of

the floor. The member does not, at this time, have proper possession of

the floor.

Oral Questions

ALLEGED ASBESTOS CONTAMINATION OF

QUEEN OF PRINCE RUPERT

MR. MITCHELL: My question is to the Minister of Labour. There have

been a lot of unnecessary and extensive renovations to the Queen of Prince Rupert

for service on the Victoria-Seattle run, and this renovation has caused extensive

asbestos dust throughout the ship. There is also a report that the contamination

of the air circulation system has caused great alarm among the workers concerning

their health. I am asking the Minister of Labour: has the minister initiated

an investigation to ensure that these workers are working in safe conditions?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I was advised of the problem to which the hon. member refers the day

before yesterday. I understand the problem has also been inspected by

the Workers' Compensation Board, and I am presently awaiting a report.

I can give no further information at this time. However, I will take

the question as notice and provide further details to the member as

soon as further information arrives.

MR. MITCHELL:

Will the minister refer this serious matter to the committee which he

has set up lately on asbestos in public places, under his ministry, to

ensure that the public health will be assured when the Rupert resumes

operation?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I will take that particular matter as notice, as well, and have it incorporated into any reply which I bring to the House.

MR. MITCHELL:

Have you investigated the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

standards in the U.S. for ocean tour ships operating in U.S. waters?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer is no, I have not.

MR. MITCHELL: Will you when you bring in your report?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I will take that matter under consideration.

MR. BARRETT: The Minister of Health is aware that there may indeed be a health problem caused by asbestos dust on the vessel the Queen of Prince Rupert .

Will he undertake action to assure us that before the vessel is put in

service his department has cleared it for health safety factors before

tourists are allowed on the ship?

HON. MR. MAIR: I will take the concerns of the member opposite under advisement and I will take his question as notice.

POLLUTION OF PENTICTON BEACH

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Yesterday I was asked a question by the member for Alberni (Mr.

Skelly). "What action has been taken by the ministry to locate the

source of pollution in order to correct the situation and remedy the

appalling and dangerous development?" This is to do with Penticton. The

source of pollution, hon. member, is ducks and to a lesser extent

geese. That is to do with the fecal coliform count in the lake and also

some drain-pipes which are not of the sewage variety but of storm-sewer

variety. I'm informed that Dr. Clark and his staff are carrying out

daily tests and will continue to have these tests done until the

beaches are declared to be safe and open in June. In conjunction with

the health board, my ministry and the chamber of commerce they are

examining the source of the bacteria.

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES OF GAMBIER ISLAND

HON. MR. ROGERS: The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) asked me a question, and the answer is yes.

PENTICTON SEWAGE SYSTEM

MR. SKELLY: Thank you for the answer.

have another supplementary question. Two ministers ago the government

vetoed the city of Penticton's proposals to increase their sewage

effluent discharge into the Okanagan River channel in Skaha Lake. I

think they were increasing it from 1.8 million gallons to 5 million

gallons per day. The ministry offered assistance to look into a land

disposal system. I also understand that some weeks ago the city of

Penticton presented a number of alternatives to the ministry for land

disposal of sewage. What decision has been made by your ministry with

respect to land disposal of sewage in the Penticton area?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

We met with the people from the city of Penticton and there were four

alternatives put forward; one of them was not acceptable to the

ministry and the other three, I think, were. There were some technical

questions which have yet to be resolved. One involves pumping the

effluent some 17 miles for disposal, and another involves using Indian

lands for aeration of dry bench lands now. That's subject to agreement

with the local Indian band. So that's where the subject is at the

present time.

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES OF GAMBIER ISLAND

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for answering my question of

yesterday. I have a short supplementary, which is: has the minister

decided to table those studies in this House?

HON. MR. ROGERS: They've been public information for over a month, Mr. Speaker. I can make a copy available to the member, if he would like it.

[ Page 2033 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I've had it for two months, Mr. Speaker.

INFORMATION FILES ON TEACHERS

MR. LAUK:

I have a question to the Minister of Education. Can the minister assure

the House and members of the teaching profession that information of a

personal and confidential nature that is not relevant to certification

procedures for teachers will be taken out of the records and destroyed?

HON. MR. SMITH:

The simple answer to the question is yes, and I have done so. I might

tell the House that, being concerned about this matter and the exact

state of these files, I went into the records of my ministry today and

pulled the file of my father, who is now deceased; it contains no

odious information. I also pulled about ten other files at random

without examining the names and looked through the material in these

files — some of them are on microfiche, and the more recent ones, the

last two years, are still in paper form — and I found no information of

any disparaging kind kept in those files regarding teachers. Of course,

that doesn't mean to say that there aren't files there that contain it.

So I'm aware of the teachers' concern, and we will implement very

strict guidelines to ensure that this kind of material that they're

complaining about is removed from files.

I might say that my

predecessor, the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), when she was

minister tried to bring about the same thing. I don't think that her

wishes were always carried out in this regard. I want to ensure that

mine are carried out. So I will be ensuring that there is a policy not

to keep credit inquiries, anonymous letters or anything else in

teachers' files, which have no business being collected by government,

in my view.

MR. LAUK: The letter was sent to the

minister from Mr. Pat Barron, a school trustee. The outline of the

conversation he had with a ministry official gave the clear indication

that the practice of keeping material on file was still going on. On

the other hand, yesterday the minister gave the impression that it had

not been going on. Could the minister clarify?

HON. MR. SMITH:

I thought I had clarified it. I was concerned enough, hon. member, to

go and look at the files today and to make direct inquiries. While I

said that I didn't find any files with such material, I'm still

concerned enough about it to ensure that this material, if it does

exist, is removed from files so that there can be no doubt.

MR. LAUK: Can the minister guarantee that teachers will have freedom of access to their own individual files in the ministry?

HON. MR. SMITH:

The policy is that, in general terms, they do. If teachers wish to see

their files, that will provide a chance for a further review of that

file. If, of course, there is material that shouldn't be in there, it

will be removed immediately and destroyed. I see absolutely no reason

why the file containing only teaching information, credentials,

evaluations — which the teachers have seen; the only sort of thing that

should be in there — shouldn't be available to them as well.

MR. LAUK:

With respect, can the minister guarantee that all teachers, if they so

wish, will have access to their files not just to specific information

in the file but the total file?

HON. MR. SMITH: Let's

assume for a moment that his fears and mine might be correct for a

particular file, that there might be a file in there with some credit

information that shouldn't be there; let's suppose that teacher appears

and wants to inspect his file, Then it's my view that that material

which shouldn't be in the file should be removed and destroyed; and the

teacher should be able to inspect it because it will be the file

without that material in it then or ever. In other words, when these

files are purged of any material that shouldn't be in there, they, will

be open to inspection by teachers, yes.

MR. LAUK: How

can the minister assure teachers that although on a request by a

teacher to see his file the information is then purged, ministry

actions have not been taken against that teacher as a result of the

purged information, unless the teacher sees the purged information in

the file that he requests?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, Mr.

Speaker, we could carry on this debate forever. If there is material in

files which shouldn't be there, it's not going to improve the situation

to give that material to the teacher to take action against some third

party who wrote many years ago. What we want to ensure is that the

material isn't being kept and used in any way against a teacher, and I

will certainly give that assurance. In the future. we will embark, I

hope, on a policy of gradually checking and pruning all these files on

our own initiative.

MR. LAUK: Can the minister assure

the House and all teachers that no action has been taken with respect

to so called purged or purgeable material?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, I certainly can during my own term as minister. In response to question 7(

c) the answer is, as far as I'm concerned. yes.

FILES ON PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

MR. HANSON:

I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. As the minister

responsible for the public service in British Columbia, would the

minister advise the House if there are in existence any official or

unofficial files, other than the ministry personnel file in the Public

Service Commission file, on any employee working for the public service

which may contain confidential information, Do you understand my

question? Are there any files in existence — official or unofficial —

which may contain confidential information on any public employee?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I presume the member is referring to files on employees, their

applications for employment. and the considerations that are given to

reviews of employment. Yes, those files are in existence. But if you

are referring to the same matter raised by the earlier question

relating to teachers, I'm not aware of derogatory information of that

nature held in files.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to request that

[ Page 2034 ]

the

Provincial Secretary take this question on notice and come back to the

House with information, after reviewing each ministry, on the range of

the kinds of files which are kept on provincial government employees.

I'd be happy to have you take that on notice.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I think, rather than my taking the question on notice — it's a very

comprehensive question which asks for substantial information — I would

respectfully suggest that he place it on the order paper. I'd be happy

to oblige.

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.

MRS. WALLACE:

I have sat quietly for some days now in this debate, Mr. Chairman, and

I have been listening with a great deal of interest to what has been

happening in the House. I spoke earlier and expressed my concern at the

credibility gap that had occurred in relation to the questions related

to uranium. As I have sat through the continuing days of debate I have

become more and more amazed at what is happening in this Legislature. I

have become more and more amazed that the man who has been elected to

lead this province in government has so little respect for legislative

procedures that he has refused to answer any of the questions put to

him. Well, he has answered one or two.

On Tuesday, when we

came back after the long weekend, it looked like we were going to start

off with a fresh start. The Premier gave us a couple of comments. There

was a little bit of give and take and flow back and forth of

information. But unfortunately that ceased. I have lost track of the

number of questions that have been asked. They have gone on and on.

There have been questions that concern me very gravely about election

procedures, about things that happened within that minister's office

relative to the financing of election campaigns.

I have been

even more concerned recently about questions that have been placed

about a meeting that that minister arranged with certain business

people. The minister has not denied — so I can only assume that it is

correct — that this government has advanced, to an American company,

something like $3.5 million to provide a jetfoil service between here

and Seattle. He hasn't denied that accusation, so I can only assume

that that is correct. An American company with American employees,

flying an American flag, is eligible for $3.5 million of taxpayers'

money. Yet, Mr. Chairman, we are today in this province faced with a

situation where 135 British Columbian citizens are going to be out of

work as of tomorrow, because this government cannot make up its mind

whether or not that particular Canadian company is eligible for some

assistance.

The Premier looks puzzled. I sometimes wonder if

the members of that cabinet ever talk to each other. I wonder if the

Premier is aware that his cabinet took a stand relative to the purchase

of Maplewood Poultry Processors by Cargill. I'm wondering whether the

Chairman is aware whether or not the government took such a stand. It

was a cabinet decision, I am sure, and the Premier, as a member of the

cabinet, must be aware....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order,

please. Hon. member, again, while wide latitude is always allowed under

vote 9, we are now really canvassing specific agricultural estimates. I

must ask the member to more closely relate to vote 9 in her debate. By

extending the argument that it was a cabinet decision, we could canvass

the entire cabinet. I appreciate the member's concern; nonetheless I

must ask that we return to vote 9, the Premier's specific strict

estimates.

MRS. WALLACE: Vote 9 gives the Premier his

salary, Mr. Chairman, and in order to earn that salary he must be

responsible for certain actions that the government takes. There is no

such thing as having authority and no responsibility. Any minister who

has the authority to announce the building of B.C. Place or the

building of a bridge, or any other such items, has to take

responsibility as well for those items.

Mr. Chairman, I

suggest to you that perhaps the Premier is not as well informed as he

should be about some of the things that are going on in his cabinet. As

Premier he has a right to know those things, and I intend to bring them

to his attention, because I do not think he can do a job and earn his

salary if he doesn't know some of those things I wish to bring to his

attention. In that way I am relating these items to vote 9.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I regret that the member has taken the tack that has been taken. The

Chairman's advice to the member is that under vote 9 we cannot discuss

matters that are equally capable of being discussed under, for example,

a separate vote — much more appropriate under a separate vote.

MRS. WALLACE:

I believe the Premier has to take some action, and I believe the

Premier has to take action today. That is why I believe these items

must be brought before the Premier in his estimates. Because how can he

act, how can he take any

part in what's going on in that government, if

he doesn't know what's going on? He has to be aware, Mr. Chairman. I

realize that I must relate these things to his participation in

government, and that's exactly what I intend to do. I intend to ask the

minister whether or not he is prepared to provide the same kind of

audience to the people who are interested in purchasing the Maplewood

Poultry plant as he was to provide to the people who wanted to start

the jetfoil system. Surely, Mr. Chairman, those items are related.

Surely, Mr. Chairman, if there is $3.5 million available for a jetfoil,

and if, in fact, we are in a position where jobs are going to be lost,

where plants are going to be closing.... It's even worse than just 135

people....

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

Again, I must caution the member that, with all due respect, you must

return to vote 9. What you are doing at this point is, in fact, arguing

with the Chair. If we are to retain any semblance of order.... I

appreciate the member's concern, but nonetheless the subject matter

currently being discussed by the member is, unfortunately, not in order

under this specific vote.

[ Page 2035 ]

MRS. WALLACE:

Well, can I then, Mr. Chairman, ask the Premier whether or not he is

prepared to meet with representatives of the Pacific Poultry Producers'

Cooperative Association to discuss financing with them for the purchase

of the Maplewood Poultry processing plant? Is he prepared to meet with

those people? I'm not asking anything about any other estimate. I'm

asking the Premier if he, as Premier of this province, is prepared to

meet with those people. Because there is a very grave concern within

this province that there is an industry in this province that is going

to be completely decimated if the Premier does not meet with this group.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member defer to the Premier?

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I have more questions, but if he's prepared to answer that one, yes.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Anyone can arrange a meeting with the Premier of the province. They

don't have to wait to have a member raise it in estimates. All they

have to do is make an appointment through my office. I would certainly

be glad to see anyone — including those mentioned.

MRS. WALLACE:

I am very pleased to hear that the Premier is prepared to meet with

this group of people to discuss financing. I'm sure that they will be

made aware of this. I would certainly hope that that meeting can be

arranged in very short order. I would hope that what happens at that

meeting would be public information, and that it happens very soon.

Because, Mr. Chairman, there is more than just Maplewood involved here.

This government's decision to sell Panco Poultry....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I regret again having to interrupt the member. I appreciate the

member's concern. Nonetheless, hon. member, I have mentioned two or

three or four times that continued debate on the particular issue the

member is now canvassing is not in order under vote 9. I must ask the

member to move to a different area or to narrow the discussion.

MR. COCKE:

I rise on a point of order. The member was just getting into a decision

obviously made by the Premier of this province. That was the decision

by which Panco Poultry, which was held by the government of British

Columbia, was sold to Cargill. That's the point she's making now. She's

off the other point. This, certainly, was a decision made at the top

end of the cabinet. It certainly wasn't made by that lacklustre

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt).

HON. MR. BENNETT:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. As of the other day, during

estimates, each minister has an opportunity to deal with questions

related to their ministry.

MR. COCKE: You sold to Cargill.

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: People will think you have bad manners, Mr. Member — through you, Mr. Chairman.

The

point is that it is presumed all ministers, in making decisions for

their ministries for which they are accountable, are also expressing

government policy. That has been the history of estimates in this

House. If it is their choice, as members of the opposition have

indicated by exhausting — at least before they got to the House —

legitimate questions under this vote, to debate all the estimates of

government, I wouldn't mind if we put all the votes on the table under

my estimates and I dealt with them in blanket form for all the

ministers. But I would think it more appropriate to get into detail in

each ministry, and give each minister an opportunity not only to

respond but to talk about initiatives that are coming.

MR. LEA: On the same point of order, it seems that the Premier wants to do a little double-talk.

Interjections.

MR. LEA:

The point of order is — and I'd like to have some clarification from

the Chair — that the Premier got up and said: "Where is the opposition?

Why don't you talk to me about the economy?"

HON. MR. WATERLAND: What's your point of order?

MR. LEA: Listen for a minute and you'll get it.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: You wouldn't understand it if it were out in anything, including....

Interjections.

MR. LEA: I cannot make my point of order with the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) yapping like a banshee.

I'd

like to know the ruling from the Chair. We've asked the Premier

specific questions which he has refused to answer. Instead he has asked

us to ask him questions about the economy — interest rates,

unemployment and all these other areas. He has asked us to do that, but

at the same time he says he won't talk about the other ministers'

estimates. He can't have it both ways. I'd like to ask right now: is it

permissible, under the Premier's estimates, to ask him about the

economy, unemployment and interest rates, which he has asked us to do?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Thank you, hon. member. As hon. members can appreciate, it is virtually

impossible for the Chair to give that kind of advice on a question,

although I do appreciate the member's concern and inquiries. It would

place the Chair in a very awkward position, as the hon. member knows.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Chairman, the Premier has indicated that he would be willing to

meet with a group which is very concerned about the future of an

industry in this province. It will have a very drastic effect on the

economy if this industry goes under. I believe that falls within the

purview of the Premier of this province. He has asked for questions

about the economy. He has asked us to express concerns. He has asked

for some constructive criticism. That is what I would like to give him

today; I would like to give him some

[ Page 2036 ]

constructive suggestions as to what can be done to aid a sector of the economy of British Columbia.

We have a poultry processing plant that is closing its doors on Friday.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, again, as all members know, we cannot do by one means what

we cannot do by another. The member is now attempting to canvass one

area that has already been deemed to be uncanvassable under this

particular vote. Again, while I appreciate the member's very real

concern, I must advise that those discussions have another vote under

which they would be more appropriate. The Chair is very reluctant to

make a ruling on the issue. I hope the member will return to vote 9.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Chairman, I am trying very hard to deal with vote 9. I am trying to

deal with some of the questions the Premier has indicated he would like

to have discussed on the floor of this Legislature. I am trying to deal

with a problem that is going to put 135 people out of work immediately,

another 125 people within three months, and close down a whole industry

within this province. That's the economy, and that's what the Premier

wants us to talk about, and that certainly is the Premier's

responsibility.

The minister has agreed that he is

sufficiently interested to meet with a group in an effort to avert this

kind of disaster happening in one sector of our economy. I think that

in order to intelligently carry out such a meeting, he should be privy

to some of the information relative to this. That is what I would like

to discuss with the Premier today.

I would like to discuss

with the Premier some of his government policies that have been carried

out during the past year. I would like to discuss with the Premier the

pros and cons of giving $3.5 million to an American company to provide

a jetfoil service. Does the Premier feel that that is more important

than keeping a local agricultural industry going in the province of

British Columbia? If there is money like that available for that kind

of a concern, why then, Mr. Chairman, is there not money available to

keep a local industry operative, and to ensure that not just the 125

jobs that are going down the tube today or tomorrow are protected, but

also that the 125 jobs that will be phased out within the next three

months are protected? Is that Premier not concerned with the

possibility of one industry in our province having no processing

facility whatsoever, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think that you have indicated to

this member that she's out of order, and that there is a proper vote

for her to discuss the issue which she is raising now under the

Premier's vote. She's been abusing the rules of this House. If there is

some anxiety on the part of the opposition, which has been dragging its

feet here for the last three or four weeks, then they can pass this

vote, vote 9, and go on to the Minister of Agriculture and discuss this

issue where it's more appropriately discussed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. On the same point of order, the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD:

On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, the member for

Cowichan-Malahat is talking about the economy, about employment, about

jobs — a subject matter which the Premier wanted to talk about and

talked about on a number of occasions when he has risen to debate these

particular estimates himself, saying that's the subject matter of his

interest. The member for Cowichan-Malahat is taking a specific aspect

of that, a specific aspect that is crucial. The Premier knew a week ago

that this was going to close down, and no action whatever was taken.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, we must not use points of order for extended debate.

MR. HOWARD: I'm not extending the debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate your concern, but can we just...?

MR. HOWARD:

I certainly would not extend the debate. I'm talking on the point of

order about a procedural matter. The Premier himself said a moment ago

that, yes, he will meet with anybody. All they have to do is come into

his office, phone up and make an appointment. If they do that, then the

subject matter of that meeting becomes in order, but if they don't do

that it's not in order.

Mr. Chairman, I want to advance

another thought to you, that the difficulty the committee is getting

into this afternoon is because at the commencement of the discussion of

the Premier's estimates the Premier didn't think it was worthwhile to

talk about it and kept talking to you about "order," silently from his

seat, creating an area of intimidation upon the Chair because he didn't

want the subject talked about. I think if the Chair had not listened to

that across-the-floor chatter from the Premier and told the Premier

that if he had a point of order he should stand up as a member should,

and outline the reasons for his point of order, we wouldn't have gotten

into the difficulty that we got into today so far.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Thank you again, hon. member. If any intimidation has been forthcoming

in the last while, it has just been forthcoming, with all due respect,

from the member for Skeena with those remarks. I really must caution

against that kind of reference to the Chair.

The Chair is at

all times bound to enforce the rules of this House, notwithstanding the

desire of members and the urgency which they may or may not feel to

discuss a certain subject. Again, hon. member, I must state that the

discussion presently being pursued and the arguments being advanced

are, with all due respect — and I'm sure the hon. member can see this —

much more appropriate under another vote than currently under vote 9,

notwithstanding the arguments that have been advanced. We cannot do by

one means what we cannot do by another. I must ask the hon. member at

this time to get on the subject matter of vote 9 and, with all due

respect, to discontinue the present argument that he is pursuing on

that particular subject. The member for Cowichan-Malahat continues.

MRS. WALLACE:

I would like to ask the Premier whether or not he is aware that Mr.

David Radler and Mr. Herb Doman are both directors of the B.C.

Development Corporation. I'm also wondering if the Premier is aware

that Mr. Radler is the president of a corporation which owns the

Slumber Lodge development. Is the Premier also aware that the Slumber

Lodge in Terrace last year received a grant — no, it was a

non-interest-bearing forgivable loan — of $50,000, plus a $200,000 loan

at half the prime interest rate?

[ Page

2037 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is Slumber Lodge owned by?

MRS. WALLACE:

Well, it seems to be owned by a company whose president is Mr. David

Radler, who sits on the board of directors of B.C. Development

Corporation. It seems to me the company is named Argus.

would like to ask the Premier whether or not he is aware that the Duke

Point development near Nanaimo, according to the report of the Ministry

of Industry and Small Business Development, awarded contracts of over

$10 million for the clearing and site development of 350 acres near

Nanaimo. In their report are some other things they did. They carried

out the preparation of a 90-acre site for a sawmill and a proposed

thermal mechanical pulp mill. It was begun and the site preparation and

clearing was undertaken by the Ministry of Industry and Small Business

Development. I'm wondering if the Premier is aware of this.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

On a point of order, I'm trying to wait and catch the thread of what

the member was talking about. It appears to relate to a transaction

carried out by the B.C. Development Corporation, which is under the

direction of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips). Certainly those questions can be posed to the

minister when his estimates come up.

Again, it might be

useful for the opposition members to be issued with not only a list of

ministers and their ministries but also those Crown agencies which come

under their purview, in helping them to ask questions at the

appropriate time.

MR. LEA: I suppose the Premier is

right, because he wanted to talk about interest rates, and Slumber

Lodge isn't being charged an interest rate — that's just a little gift.

Speaking on this point of order, the Premier cannot have it both ways.

He can't ask us to talk about the economy and interest rates, and every

time we do jump to his feet and say: "I object, I don't want to talk

about that." Madam Member, let's get back to his office and who's

getting paid in there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Hon. members, clearly it is an abuse of the rules of the House if we

use points of order for the purpose of making speeches, however brief

they may be, and in fact relate....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On both sides of the House, hon. member.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, my point of order is as follows. The president of the

executive council is the presiding officer of cabinet. He signs

orders-in-council appointing people like Herb Doman to BCDC and people

like the others mentioned to these development corporations. When

certain things look out of order then it would strike me that the

president of the council should answer questions, because he's taken

responsibility for their appointment. That's purely it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: If that point of order is taken to its logical conclusion,

I'd appoint the cabinet too, and then there would be no need to have their

estimates....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

They're named by order-in-council — for the member for Prince Rupert

(Mr. Lea), who may have been there such a long time ago and been so

excited by the heady heights he'd reached that he wasn't aware of how

he got there. Many people feel the same way; many people are wondering

the same thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, it is

incumbent upon all members to try whenever possible to observe our

standing orders and the rules that govern the actions of all of us in

this Legislature. On that, I would ask the member for Cowichan-Malahat,

who still has the floor, to continue, bearing in mind that we're on

vote 9.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well,

your ruling makes me very limited. Obviously the Premier is not obliged

to answer questions relative to what could be conflict of interest as a

result of appointments which he has approved. The Premier is not

obliged, according to your ruling, to answer questions relative to

grants which are made to companies which are owned by directors which

he has appointed to the B.C. Development Corporation. Is the Premier

not responsible for those? I am told that I cannot discuss matters

relative to agriculture, and I suppose that's because I'm the

agricultural critic and it's assumed that anything I might have to do

with agriculture can only be dealt with during the estimates of the

Minister of Agriculture — a minister who has been changing his mind.

According to Cargill he's changed it three times in the last three

months, relative to whether or not FIRA should allow or disallow

Cargill's takeover of Maplewood.

Mr. Chairman. are we not

allowed to discuss in this Legislature, under the Premier's estimates,

the question of whether or not 125 workers will be out of work during

the next three months at Panco Poultry? Are we not allowed to discuss

whether 135 workers working at Maplewood will be laid off on Friday?

Are those not matters of economic concern in this province'?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Again, hon. member, while the Chair appreciates your

very real concern, your Chair has an obligation to uphold the rules of

this House. The Chair is bound to enforce those rules. I must, I hope

for the last time, caution the hon. member that the debate on which she

is currently embarked is not in order under vote 9.

The first point of order was the Minister of Health, followed by.... On a point of order, the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD:

I'll accommodate you, Mr. Chairman, if you like. Do I understand your

ruling, as you have just made it — it seems to be fairly clear, but I

want to have my own impression of it — to be that we are not entitled

at this moment to inquire of the Premier what he and his government are

going to do about the fact that tomorrow Maplewood Poultry Processors

Ltd. will close down and 135 workers will lose their jobs unless some

action is taken by the government? Is it your ruling that we cannot

examine that question or ask the Premier those questions?

[ Page 2038 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, there may be — in fact, there likely are — more

appropriate forms. But as I have already outlined, your Chair is bound

to enforce the rules of this House. As has been pointed out many times

in the course of debate, particularly over these last few days, by

extending the Premier's estimates to cover the various items, we would

in fact be covering the entire executive council. We are therefore

restricted to some degree in our discussion under the present vote

before us, vote 9. While casual reference is never that much out of

order, specific and continued reference is very much out of order. The

Chair has not made a ruling at this point in time and is reluctant to

make rulings at any time, because the Chair believes in the discretion

of members to follow the rules of this House. And I so ask again, in

reference to the member for Cowichan-Malahat, who is currently the

member recognized by the Chair.

On a point of order, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Chairman, the member for Cowichan-Malahat has expressed some

anxiety and some concern about the loss of jobs associated with

agriculture. All I say to her, if she's as genuinely concerned as she

indicates she is, is that she pass vote 9. The very next vote is vote

10, where she would be in order if she was debating this issue, which

is agriculturally oriented.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, hon.

member, it is always difficult for the Chair to identify points of

order when in fact they're at best skimpy. The member for Skeena on a

point of order.

MR. HOWARD: If it is your ruling that

we cannot inquire of the Premier about the shutdown tomorrow of

Maplewood Poultry Processors Ltd., and the loss of 135 jobs, plus other

things that flow from that, I wonder if I could pose a question,

through you, to the government, which I know is anxious to deal with

this particular question in public. Would the Premier and the

government grant leave to suspend the rules for this particular subject

matter in order that we may debate it?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, it is very difficult to recognize that as a point of order

at this stage, but there would certainly be nothing wrong with

recognizing the member taking his place in debate and making that....

But I could not recognize the member for that undertaking on a point of

order.

MR. HOWARD: Posing that particular question

seems to have got a negative response from government — that we cannot

discuss it, that they are not interested in discussing it. We have no

alternative, this being the case, Mr. Chairman, but to appeal your

ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For the past little time I have

avoided making a hard and fast rule. I find that if the member is

asking the Chair to make a ruling which can be challenged, the rules

exist. But I have not, to my knowledge, made a fixed rule. I have only

advised the member repeatedly on his course of action. To the best of

my knowledge, hon. member, I have not made a hard and fast ruling. It

will, I hope, be our intention to carry on this way.

MR. HOWARD:

I take your advice properly; but I asked a specific question as to what

you were ruling. I took it from what you were saying that you were

ruling we could not discuss this particular matter. But you have not

done that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have advised hon. members

of the rules of the House, and I can only ask hon. members to give

these rules the consideration they certainly deserve from all members.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman....

HON. MR. MAIR: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the member for Cowichan-Malahat yielded the floor.

MRS. WALLACE: On points of order, yes, only on points of order.

HON. MR. MAIR: Certainly she yielded the floor.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR:

Please hear me out. She yielded the floor. I was recognized, and then a

point of order was recognized in advance of me, which was perfectly

correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To clear up the confusion —

and possibly it is the Chair's fault that some confusion did arise —

there was no question in the Chair's mind that the member for

Cowichan-Malahat retained the floor, and it was my understanding that

the member was about to rise on a point of order, as several other

members had. I apologize for that confusion, but at no time did I

formally relinquish the member's position in debate.

HON. MR. MAIR: I cheerfully accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's refreshing.

MRS. WALLACE:

I was interested in the Premier's remarks, during the back-and-forth

discussion, that he was responsible.... He "was the one" — I think his

words were — who appointed the cabinet.

It would seem that

the Premier is going to leave us; we have a new Premier. That was a

quick promotion. It's rather interesting that the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) should be sitting in the Premier's chair

at this particular point in time.

The Premier indicated that

he was the man who was responsible, that he was the man who appointed

the members of the cabinet — I think those were his words. When we have

a situation in which members of that cabinet are carrying out their

responsibilities in such a way as to bring nothing but discord and even

chaos into an economic situation within this province, then surely the

Premier should be advised that such is the case. That is what I am

attempting to do, Mr. Chairman.

I think that the Premier has

to be made aware of the sort of Family Compact mentality that is

occurring relative to grants of taxpayers' money for so-called economic

reasons in this province. It would seem that if you are a member of the

board of directors of the B.C. Development Corporation, and if you

[ Page 2039 ]

are

a president of a company doing business with that corporation or with

other sectors of the government loan program, you are eligible for

grants, loans and reduced interest rates. These things affect the

economy and employment.

The Duke Point development at

Nanaimo, which received $$30 million from Small Business Development,

created 100 short-term jobs. I am trying to bring to the Premier's

attention the 135 jobs which are going to disappear because, once more,

the Minister of Agriculture can't make up his mind.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: No, I'm not changing my tune, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. members. The member for Cowichan-Malahat has the

floor. The interjections in no way help to carry on the debate

presently before us, particularly when the member is very diligently

trying to stay within the bounds of vote 9.

MRS. WALLACE:

I am having some difficulty dealing with the Premier's estimates. I am

speaking to two ministers, one of whom is sitting in the Premier's

chair while he isn't here.

I have no choice but to move that the committee rise....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we usually allow a period of about five or six minutes........

MRS. WALLACE:

Well, you can rule me out of order if you like, Mr. Chairman, but I'm

going to move that the committee report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 24

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS 29

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

Mr. Lea requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Cowichan-Malahat. On a point of order, the Minister of Health.

HON. MR. MAIR:

On a point of order, the member yields when she asks for the committee

to rise and report progress and asks leave to sit again. Surely she

can't want to say anything more.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The

Minister of Health makes a good and an accurate point — customarily we

alternate. I now recognize the Minister of Health, and I thank him for

that observation.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order,

we are now in committee, and the Chair recognizes the person first on

his or her feet, and clearly recognized the member for

Cowichan-Malahat. There has been an intervening vote, but it's not a

matter where a member has moved adjournment of a debate in second

reading, in which case, if the vote is lost, the member loses his or

her seat.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The Minister of Health on the same point of order.

HON. MR. MAIR:

I think, in all fairness, the Chair recognized or realized that I

wished to speak in the debate before the motion was made. I knew, of

course, that the member for Cowichan-Malahat had lost her position in

debate, so I was in no great hurry to rise. I certainly rose about the

same time she did and it seems only fair that I now should be

recognized.

MR. LAUK: In accordance with our standing orders, Mr. Chairman, I move that the member for Cowichan-Malahat be now heard,

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no debate on the motion.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 29

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

[ Page 2040 ]

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I would ask that when the Chair reports the committee's

activities to the Speaker he notify the Speaker that a division took

place and request that it be recorded that the vote this afternoon was

against the ERA.

MRS. WALLACE: On a point of order, I

wonder if I could have the Premier's assurance that when next I have

the floor he will be in the Legislature?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order, hon. member.

HON. MR. MAIR:

I'm always, of course, gratified by the great enthusiasm by which my

speeches are greeted in this House and the readiness with which people

yield the floor to me, and I am indeed grateful to the member for

Cowichan-Malahat, who took less time than the Leader of the Opposition

did last time in letting me say one or two words.

Just

before I get involved in my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I must say that I'm

appreciative of the protection that you're giving all members of this

House, because I'm constantly being challenged to physical combat by,

of course, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the member for Prince

Rupert (Mr. Lea). They know full well from challenging me in the past

that I'm scared stiff to fight with them. However, that is not going to

prevent me from saying what I feel is necessary to be said in here. I

look forward to the next combat with the member for Skeena, because

next time, rather than take a chance, I think I'll just run right from

the beginning.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

listened yesterday, Mr. Chairman, with some interest to the debate, and

I saw the difficulty which you and your Deputy Chairman had in keeping

the House in order while talking about something called the Waffle

Manifesto. I know that that is out of order, Mr. Chairman, because

that's something that's on the order paper and it must be discussed

later and I'm not going to anticipate it.

I listened to —

and what I didn't hear I read in the Blues — the speeches of some of

the members opposite, and I'm afraid, Mr. Premier and members of this

chamber — and I know that you'll read this in the Blues later — that

some very questionable advice was offered yesterday. I would like to

talk to the Premier, in his capacity as head of government — not head

of state, as has been quite property pointed out, but head of

government — under the British North America Act, about the obligations

he has thereunder. One of the duties devolving upon the Premier of this

province under the constitution of this country is, of course, to see

that the British North America Act is upheld and that the contract that

we all entered into at one time or another is maintained; and that

means, of course, that the country is kept whole. That being the case,

I am very much afraid that the Premier might infer from some of the

remarks of members opposite yesterday that he should call upon his

colleagues — some of us, in any event — to cause some motion to be

placed before the convention of our party, which, if passed, might call

for the breakup of the country. I want to tell the Premier that if he

were, along with, say, myself and perhaps the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. Heinrich), the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), the

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), to sign such a motion calling

for division of this country, calling for a resolution to allow one or

other part to break away, that that would not only be unfortunate; it

would be an abdication of all of olur responsibilities.

Yet

we have offered yesterday to the Premier of this province in his

estimates under vote 9, as the head of our government, that very

suggestion by the members opposite. At least I think that is a

reasonable inference to be drawn from the words that were used. This is

how the members opposite conduct themselves, and I assume that they

would wish us to follow their example. They get prominent members of

their party, including somebody who was later to become Premier, four

members who were later to become cabinet ministers, and one who was

later to become the Speaker of this House, to put a resolution before

the floor of their convention, which, if passed, would have called for

the breaking up of the country.

Now we know from past

debates in here and from things that have been said outside this

chamber that the NDP is one great big happy family and that what

happens at their national conventions and what happens at their

provincial conventions is all happening to the New Democratic Party in

the interests of socialism. So we know that when these prominent

members, who are either now or certainly were members of this chamber,

called upon their national convention to hear a resolution which if

passed would allow for the breakup of the country, they must have been

speaking for the New Democratic Party. We also know that in debating

this freely yesterday — the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King)

debated it; I think the member for Skeena debated it, but I'm not

certain; certainly the Leader of the Opposition debated it — they must

have been offering that to us as an example of how we can enhance

national unity through our party and through its convention.

want to say to them that I know there isn't a single solitary member on

this side of the House or of our political party that would tolerate

such a resolution being put before our convention. I know, as was

pointed out yesterday by one or two of the members opposite, that from

time to time some unusual resolutions appear before party conventions;

there's no question about that. I guess it's sort of like beauty: it's

in the eye of the beholder as to whether or not a resolution is

peculiar or odd, or whether it's one that runs against what most people

are thinking — perhaps we could use the phrase, what "right-thinking

people" are thinking. I'm sure that the, members opposite have had some

rather peculiar resolutions at their conventions; and I'm prepared to

admit that we've had the odd funny one at ours. But I can tell you, Mr.

Chairman and anyone else who cares to hear, never has our party debated

a motion which if passed would allow for the breakup of our country;

nor indeed can I foresee the day that such a resolution would be

tolerated.

What if we did follow the example of the members

opposite, and placed before our convention such a motion? What if the

Premier, myself and the rest of my colleagues were to be signatories to

that motion? I wonder what questions we would hear then from the

members opposite about our signing such a motion. Would we then be able

to say: "Oh, well, we only signed that so we could get it on the table.

[ Page 2041 ]

and have it debated."? Sure, I can hear it now from the members opposite.

I can see the Leader of the Opposition looking up at the gallery and saying:

"Would you believe that?" I'm going to tell you, I wouldn't

believe it either; and I don't believe it when they say it. You know, it's

so silly, because if you want to debate a motion such as national unity, you

don't go to the people in a convention and put forward a motion that would

break up the country; you put your good name to a motion that will keep the

country together, and you let those who would tear it apart stand up and identify

themselves in debate. You would not tear yourselves apart by identifying yourselves

as putting the motion forward.

think that the advice I see inferred from the argument yesterday....

There's no argument more calculated to tear this country down than to

follow that advice. If we were to follow the example of the NDP at

their convention in 1969 and put forward a resolution carrying the

apparent approbation of senior members of this party, then we would be

doing a great disservice to our country, and we would be open to the

most severe criticism, and that criticism would be amply justified. So

I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I'm not prepared to accept any

advice which would call upon our party to debate a motion which would

allow the country to be broken up.

I would say that anybody,

whether it be the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), the

member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer), the member for Burnaby

North (Mrs. Dailly), the Leader of the Opposition, the former Speaker

of the House, or the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi)....

I don't accept their suggestion, advice or excuse that it's okay to be

signatory to a resolution calling for the breakup of the country

because all you're trying to do is get it before a convention. That is

hollow. It calls for a better explanation before we start debating the

issue of national unity in this country. It calls for a better

explanation than simply: "We did it to get it before the convention."

If they thought it was a good idea at that time — 1969 was a long time

ago — I think we'd be prepared to hear from them now that they've

changed their minds and that they're prepared to engage in this debate,

on the side of unity. But if they're prepared to continue with what can

only be considered the weak excuse — made only because they've been

called to account — that they signed it to get it before the

convention, I would say it requires a complete turnaround before the

people of British Columbia will accept anything they have to say on the

issues of national unity.

MR. HOWARD: I can certainly

see why the gentleman from Kamloops, the Minister of Health, is not

very affectionately known in his home town as the "split-tongue

smoothie, " because that's precisely what we heard.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Will the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) and all

hon. members remember that courtesy in debate is always appreciated in

the House. The member for Skeena continues.

MR. HOWARD:

I think I enjoy and appreciate your protection even more now than I did

earlier. There are two people I need to be protected from. One is the

wild man from Kamloops, and now I see the Minister of Tourism as well.

Mr. Chairman, Maplewood Poultry Processors Ltd. — from advice given a week

ago when there was a desire expressed to have an emergency debate in this House,

which didn't succeed — are going to close down tomorrow. Notices of layoffs

have been given and 135 employees in that operation will be out of work. That's

a subject matter close to home and close to the hearts of an awful lot of people

in this province. The government and the president of the executive council,

who is not here at the moment.... Hansard can't see that in pictorial

form so we have to put it on the record that he is absent again during debate

of his estimates and during a period of time when he is required by our constitution,

by the British North America Act, which, as the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Mair) pointed out, the president of the executive council has the obligation

to enforce. One of the unwritten portions in our constitution is responsible

government. The president of the executive council, because we are debating

his estimates and examining his conduct as the president, is absent. He is abdicating,

therefore, that prime aspect of responsible government and responsibility to

the Legislature.

knew two things a week ago. Firstly, he knew that Maplewood Poultry

Processors Ltd. was going to close effectively tomorrow. Secondly, he

knew that there was a 90 percent or more chance that the Foreign

Investment Review Agency of the federal government would turn down the

application by Cargill Grain to buy Maplewood. He knew that. The

government knew that and, in fact, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon.

Mr. Hewitt) expressed that by saying that historically when a

provincial government has registered a negative position in matters

like this, the federal authorities have not permitted it to proceed.

Well, the Minister of Agriculture and the government knew at the time

they made the representations — and I think proper ones — to the

Foreign Investment Review Agency that those representations would be

listened to and Cargill would be stopped in its bid to acquire

Maplewood Poultry Processors Ltd. They knew sometime before that, that

being the case and there being no local British Columbia-based company

able to finance the acquisition of Maplewood Poultry Processors Ltd.,

that it would close. One would have expected that something would have

been laid on as a contingency plan from a government that prides itself

on being able to project its thoughts into the future about what will

happen, plan for them and protect injury to people.

Knowing

nearly 100 percent or being fairly sure that the Foreign Investment

Review Agency would agree with the position of the provincial

government — namely that Cargill not be allowed this takeover — and

knowing also that there would be no other firm locally which would be

able to acquire the operation.... As they knew these things and as they

did not make any contingency plans to preserve Maplewood Poultry

Processors Ltd., its operations and 135 jobs, I think the government

and the president of the executive council stand only to be condemned

for that lack of activity and lack of action with respect to this

subject matter.

Maybe they don't think 135 jobs are very

important in the total scheme of things when they talk about

employment, the economy and jobs in the totality of our province.

Maybe, from that point of view of government, it isn't very important,

as a percentage of the total. But it is very, very important to 135

people who, effective tomorrow, are going to be out of work. The

government knew they would be out of work. The fact that the government

took no steps to obviate that possibility — knowing that it was going

to occur —

[ Page 2042 ]

leaves

it open, I think, to the accusation of a careless, callous, very unkind

approach to a group of people who tomorrow will be out of jobs.

The

government has said, through the Minister of Agriculture, that it

hasn't ruled out the possibility of providing some financial assistance

to another company in B.C., perhaps to acquire the assets of Maplewood.

That contingency plan, I submit — even though I know the government's

reluctance to involve itself in these matters — should have been laid

out and developed before. The workers got the notice of layoff a week

ago. Knowing a week ago that it was going out of business tomorrow, the

company should have been approached on a contingency plan basis by

government, which should have said: "We don't want to see this happen.

We fully expect that FIRA is going to turn Cargill's bid down. That

means you go under. We want to prevent that. Let's sit down and examine

the ways and means of doing that." There was no hesitation on the

Premier's part to take that course of action with respect to supporting

Boeing and the jetfoil; no hesitation to advance the idea that

taxpayers' money should be provided to employ American sailors to

operate an American jetfoil between Seattle and here; no hesitation to

use Canadian taxpayers' money to protect jobs in the United States. Why

then the hesitation to use provincial government moneys — taxpayers'

moneys — to protect jobs for British Columbians in the poultry

industry? It doesn't stack up as being a respectful approach for the

Premier — the president of the executive council — to take to workers

in this province.

That's only part of the story. Going back

a while ago, as we know history tells us, the government moved to get

rid of Panco Poultry — a viable operation, a money-maker. It didn't

want to have its purity as a government tainted with the idea of being

associated with anything that the NDP conceived as worthwhile. So they

sold it to an American firm. In three months that foreign corporation

will shut down, I am advised, a portion of Panco Poultry, which the

government sold to them, and another 125 jobs in the poultry processing

industry in British Columbia will be lost. The result, again I am

advised, is that there will be no turkey processing operations in B.C.

Where will they go — out of the country?

Is that what this

government is all about — prepared to put up the taxpayers' dough to

support jobs in the United States or wherever else in the world, and to

deny British Columbians the same protection, the same consideration and

the same concern? On the face of it, that's what it looks like. And on

the face of it, that's disgraceful. It's injurious. It's government

thumbing its nose in the face of the workers and in their families'

faces. It's government saying, "We don't care about you," just as the

Premier has said to this House that it's none of the public's business

about the particular questions being asked during his estimates. It's

the same sort of narrow stubbornness, the same sort of arrogance that

one would expect under an authoritarian dictatorship government, but

not under a democracy. Yet we have it. It is an insult to the whole

provincial structure and what we hope to see developed in this province.

move to a question that I raised yesterday. Having wondered about it

since raising it, I think I would like to have the Premier give the

House some information with respect to the agreement he signed on the

18th day of April in 1977 with the federal government regarding coastal

transportation and so on. I also ask the Premier whether he has taken

any steps recently, or since the signing of that agreement, to approach

the federal government and ask the federal government if they will

review that agreement earlier than its fifth anniversary date — whether

the Premier has communicated to the federal government his desire or

the desire of the government of British Columbia to review that

particular agreement earlier. I leave that specific question and, of

course, the question about Maplewood Poultry as to what action the

government has decided to take with respect to Maplewood Poultry

Processors and the loss of 135 jobs from workers in that particular

plant.

Much has been said about the involvement of the

Premier's office and the B.C. Development Corporation and the jetfoil

service. There were no answers from the president of the executive

council that he did anything or met with anybody. In effect he said to

the general public: what happened in his office with respect to that

particular deal is none of their business.

I'm prompted to

ask something else, again with respect to the activities of the

president of the executive council. In order to do this I need to make

some reference in a preliminary way, Mr. Chairman, without, running

afoul of what the rules might or might not be — and I gather they're

very flexible — to the fifth annual report of the B.C. Development

Corporation. Its 1979 report talks about, among other things, Duke

Point Development Ltd. in the Nanaimo area having contracts of over $10

million for clearing and site development, etc., of some 350 acres in

the Nanaimo area. Specifically it says this in the B.C. Development

Corporation annual report, without identifying who it is that's

involved: "Preparation of 90 acres for a sawmill and proposed

thermo-mechanical pulp mill was begun, as were clearing and site

preparation of a back-up 120-acre industrial park. Sales are being

negotiated on all portions. "

Now I don't know about the

particular land in question; I know that the relationship between

government and the B.C. Development Corporation is for the government

from time to time to provide Crown grants in fee simple to the B.C.

Development Corporation — in other words, to give B.C. Development

Corporation Crown land and say to B.C. Development Corporation: "Here

is the land. We give it to you for nothing. The people own it, but

we'll give it to you, B.C. Development Corporation, for you to go ahead

and do with it whatever you desire to do with it."

I don't

know if that 90 acres for a sawmill and a proposed thermo-mechanical

pulpmill at Duke Point and the back-up 120-acre industrial park was

acquired in that fashion, but we do know that B.C. Development

Corporation is using public funds to prepare that 90 acres for a

sawmill and a proposed thermo-mechanical pulpmill — and I might say

that's fine. That advances industry; that provides jobs. If B.C.

Development Corporation or the president of the executive council had a

similar kind of interest with respect to Maplewood Poultry Processors,

things would be just beautiful. But they appear to want to ignore the

agricultural segment of our economy, see it gobbled up by foreign

corporations or go out of business, and deal with other industrial

activities in a much more friendly way. So they're spending public

money, Mr. Chairman, preparing this 90 acres for this proposed

thermo-mechanical pulpmill.

I have also here the annual

report of a private corporation called Doman Industries Ltd. This is

the annual report for 1979. It's the same year as the B.C. Development

Corporation annual report. Whether the precise fiscal year ends are the

same, I'm not sure, but it is for the 1979 period.

[ Page 2043 ]

the president's report to the shareholders — the president of Doman

Industries — he says this: "In sawmilling, a major step was taken on

July 26, 1979, when the first concrete footings were poured at the

Nanaimo, B.C., sawmill development." That is the same 90 acres, I would

think — the president of the executive council can clear this up very

easily if it isn't the same — that B.C. Development Corporation was

preparing for a sawmill site. And Doman Industries say they acquired it

and poured the footings for it on July 26, 1979.

Further in

the president's report to the shareholders, Doman Industries says this:

"We have secured a site at Nanaimo for our proposed thermo-mechanical

pulpmill. B.C. Development Corporation is preparing 90 acres,

presumably, of initially public land, Crown land, for a thermo

mechanical pulpmill. Then Doman Industries tells us they have acquired

that. That is nothing more than a straight, outright gift to Doman

Industries by the people of B.C. — through the B.C. Development

Corporation. It was a secondary step towards it, kind of hidden from

public view, but it's there.

Here is the annual report, Mr.

Chairman, as you can see. Here is a picture of the president of Doman

Industries. Maybe if the Premier looked at the picture he would

recognize the gentleman who is the president of Doman Industries. No,

the Premier doesn't want to took at that. That's in the annual report

of B.C. Development.... Did I say B.C. Development Corporation? I mean

Doman Industries, I'm sorry. I get the two mixed up. I get them mixed

up because I take the annual report of the B.C. Development Corporation

and show Mr. Premier that the same guy whose picture is shown as the

president of Doman Industries is shown in the annual report of the B.C.

Development Corporation. He's sitting there with a big, toothsome smile

and is identified as a director. His name: Harbans S. Doman, president,

Doman Industries Ltd. That's a pretty cosy arrangement, Mr. Chairman,

wouldn't you think?

I am sure that Mr. Doman, a gentleman

respectful of conflicts of interest, absented himself from that

particular meeting of B.C. Development Corporation that voted to give

him the land site at Duke Point so he could build a thermo-mechanical

pulpmill. I'm sure he absented himself from the vote in BCDC that

transferred the 90 acres for the sawmill and the thermo-mechanical

pulpmill. I'm sure Mr. Doman would do that. But that does not hide the

fact that this president of this executive council put Mr. Doman on the

board of directors of B.C. Development Corporation knowing that he was

also the president of Doman Industries.

I am sure that Mr.

Doman, sitting as the president of one and the director of the other,

knew what was going on, was fully cognizant of what was taking place,

was fully supportive of what was taking place in the B.C. Development

Corporation, and was rubbing his hands with glee at being able to get

his hands in the public till in the form of land and in the form of

public money to develop a sawmill and thermo-mechanical site for him. I

am sure he knew and enjoyed the fact that it was happening. Whether he

was absent from the particular vote or excused himself from the vote on

that board really is beside the point.

MR. LEA: Does the Premier own any of Doman?

MR. HOWARD: I don't know who has shares in Doman Industries.

MR. LEA: Maybe we could ask him.

MR. HOWARD:

No. I wouldn't want to ask the Premier whether he has shares in Doman

Industries. He, an hon. member as all of us are hon. members, is

required by law to file a statement — I understand it is semi-annually

— disclosing to the public what shareholdings we have, what debts we

have, what land we own and all these sorts of things. The Premier will

have done that. If that information is there on record, that is public

information, the same as what shares I may hold is a matter for public

view. If anybody is interested in examining who owns Doman Industries

shares, so far as this House is concerned, all he has to do is go down

to the Clerks' office and leaf through the reports that we filed. He

will find out who owns it and whether it's in trust or what.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, he said the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) owned shares.

MR. HOWARD:

Oh, maybe; I don't know. But if the member for Nanaimo has shares in

Doman Industries, the one thing I do know is that the member for

Nanaimo never appointed Harbans Doman to the board of directors of the

B.C. Development Corporation. That was a cozy deal between the

president of the executive council and Doman Industries. Who owns

shares in it is immaterial. The fact is there was a deal made. The fact

is the president of the executive council was involved in the deal, or

knew it might transpire. I'm sure he didn't sit in on the meeting — as

he did with a group of businessmen from Victoria — and make a deal with

them. I'm sure he didn't sit in on the board of directors' meeting, nor

did he go to the annual meeting of the board of directors of Doman

Industries or the B.C. Development Corporation meetings and say: "Look,

I'd like you to do this." No. he doesn't need to do that. Just set the

machinery up by appointing the guy — the president of Doman Industries

— to the B.C. Development Corporation, and let nature take its course.

Mr. Chairman, that's the way the free enterprise system works. You

appoint your friends to public boards and to Crown corporations, and

let nature take its course.

I do wish that the Premier, the

president of the executive council, would have as much appreciation and

concern for the 135 workers at Maplewood Poultry as he does for Herb

Doman. I do wish he would treat the workers there and their families

with the same kind of kindness that he gives his buddies. But that's

the mark of this government's activities, Mr. Chairman. Be cozy to your

friends, pay off your friends — whether they're American or whatever

they are in terms of ownership of corporations — and never mind the

workers and the average people in B.C. Because the workers and the

average people in B.C. are required, under the philosophy of the

president of the executive council, this Premier, which he's enunciated

dozens of different times, to pay the taxes so the deals can be made

with big-business friends. That's why. That's why he pays no attention

to working class people. That's why he's not really interested in 135

workers being laid off. Mr. Chairman, they are just suffering as a

result of the normal course of events in the free enterprise system.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

In the Premier's philosophy, what he is really saying is

[ Page 2044 ]

free

enterprise for the poor and socialism for the rich — government

handouts to his buddies. Who knows? Maybe he even sleeps in the

condominiums of one of his buddies in some far-off land when he goes

there — as I gather other members of cabinet are wont to do. Very cozy

relationships. Maybe he does. I don't know; I really don't care,

because that's his business. But it's the public's business, Mr.

Premier, when you sit there signing letters, ignoring the plight of 135

people who are going to be out of work tomorrow. That's the public's

business.

The deals you make with your friends are also the

public's business, whether it's in the closet of your office — away

from public view, so that you can refuse to answer questions about it

in this House and tell the public it's none of their business — or

whether it's open and above board as it is in the two annual reports

that I just quoted from. They also need some explanation, because the

B.C. Development Corporation report doesn't identify Doman Industries

as the recipient of this government's generosity. But Herb Doman is a

straight-up man, and he tells the board of directors: "Oh, yes, we

acquired it." He doesn't say where he acquired it from, just that he

acquired it. You put those two together. That's public knowledge.

You've got to do some ferreting to find it out, but the president of

the executive council, otherwise called the Premier, has to respond to

the general public about his management — or perhaps I should say

mismanagement, in these circumstances — of certain aspects of our

economy.

MR. DAVIS: Yesterday the Premier said that

this House should pass a resolution confirming our faith in Canada as a

nation. I agree with him; I'm sure all members of the House agree with

him. We should do it this week. We should do it tomorrow at the latest.

agree also with the hon. Leader of the Opposition when he says that

this resolution should make reference to the diversity of our nation,

saying that the provinces too have an important role to play in

Confederation. However, he added a phrase that I don't like. He used

the words, as I recall them, "and in particular the province of

Quebec." Quebec may be special. Indeed it is special in many ways; so

is each of the other nine provinces. But when it comes to

federal-provincial relations, in my view they should all be treated the

same; they should all be seen the same in the eyes of our constitution.

In other words, I'm against special status for Quebec. Our federation

may change and certain powers may shift from the centre to the

provinces, but those powers must move to all ten provinces

simultaneously. They mustn't be given to one province, for example

Quebec, and denied to the rest.

I know that the NDP has had

a problem with the special status issue. Special status for Quebec was

an integral part of the federal NDP's platform for a number of years,

but this stand hurt the NDP nationally — it certainly hurt them outside

Quebec — so we've not heard a great deal about special status for

Quebec recently. We've heard little if anything from federal NDP

candidates on this issue in the last two federal elections, and in my

view they're right to play it down. It isn't on, insofar as the great

majority of Canadians are concerned, either inside or outside Quebec.

That's really why I was surprised to hear the Leader of the Opposition

use the words "and particularly in Quebec" in his suggested text for a

unanimous resolution for this House.

We all know that the

western Premiers will be meeting in Lethbridge, Alberta, next week.

They'll undoubtedly be discussing federal-provincial relations. I know

western alienation concerns them all, and nothing could be more

damaging to the cause of national unity than the extension of the

federal export tax to western-produced commodities like natural gas and

hydroelectric power. We already have a federal export tax on western

oil. It's highly discriminatory; it penalizes the producer, the

producing area, the producing province. It doesn't apply in all parts

of the country, so it can truly be said to be a tax aimed exclusively

at western Canada, since only western provinces produce oil.

Ottawa is serious about its efforts to restructure Confederation, this

is the first tax to go. An export tax is the worst kind of tax, because

it comes right off the top. It comes ahead of salaries and wages,

materials costs and capital costs. It's the cream, not the skimmed

milk. It's a sales tax with a vengeance. In the case of prairie oil

it's now a 100 percent sales tax, imposed by the federal government on

a non-renewable resource which is the property of the source provinces

in the first place.

Yes, we all know that Ottawa is in

difficulties on the financial front; it's running a large budget

deficit now. In order to close this yawning 20 percent gap it needs

more revenue. I am told studies are now underway with a view to

diverting at least some of the revenue which our western provincial

governments and their provincially owned government utilities now

receive from natural gas and electricity to the federal treasury by

extending an export tax to those commodities — to natural gas and to

hydro power. Ottawa could pick up another half a billion dollars a year

by doing this, but it would be half a billion dollars a year diverted

from western Canada — dollars which we could be spending on people

programs like education, health and human resources.

I'm

against a tax of this type also because it's a tax on resources.

Natural resources belong to the provinces under our constitution, the

British North America Act, so the revenue obtained from their sales

should accrue to the province or provinces of origin. An export tax

cuts directly into this revenue, revenue which should and must belong

to the provinces. It reduces the value of the resource. It discourages

exploration and development. It will also lead, inevitably and in the

long run, to the high grading of these resources as well.

I'm

certainly against two-price systems. I'm against an internal price and

a higher world price, with the export tax making up the difference. I'm

opposed to outlying areas of the country subsidizing our larger centres

of population and industry in Canada. Many of those industries are

already protected from foreign competition by import tariffs. Now, with

the advent of a federal export tax, they're being subsidized. Those

manufacturing industries are being subsidized by our resource-producing

provinces as well. Western Canada's traditional beef has been that it

pays higher than world prices for manufactured goods originating mainly

in southern Ontario and Quebec. Now it's got a second beef as far as

energy is concerned. It's being forced to sell a non-renewable resource

like oil at less than world prices in order to give the same

manufacturing industries in central Canada a further cost advantage

over their competitors in other parts of the world.

Let us

focus particularly on oil for a moment. We have an export tax on

western Canadian crude, and the result is that the Alberta wellhead

price is half the world price for the same quality of oil. In other

words, Canadians pay our foreign

[ Page 2045 ]

suppliers

in the Middle East twice as much as we pay our own producers in western

Canada. Less money flows back to Alberta, Saskatchewan and British

Columbia and less money is invested in finding and producing new

Canadian supplies. Therefore Canadian reserves are falling and imports,

necessarily, are on the increase. This doesn't make sense at all,

either in western Canada or in eastern Canada.

The rot

really set in in the fall of 1973, when the OPEC countries, the Middle

Eastern countries, formed a cartel and held the importing nations up to

ransom. Canada then was self-sufficient in oil, so we decided — rightly

or wrongly — to go our own way. We cut ourselves off from world oil

prices and pandered to the so-called needs of Canadian consumers. We

gave them low-priced gasoline when the rest of the civilized world was

paying prices often several times those we paid at home. As Canadian

reserves declined, we bought more and more foreign oil using taxpayers'

money. That's a subsidy which has been hidden from our people for far

too long.

I noticed today, Mr. Chairman, that the Hon. Marc

Lalonde, Energy minister in the federal government at Ottawa, came out

with a figure. He said, were Quebec to separate, would Quebecers pay

the world price for oil? Were they no longer to be subdisized, directly

and indirectly, by the western provinces and through income tax, they

would pay $1,250 more per family for oil. That's the kind of subsidy

which has been developing in this country. It's the kind of subsidy

which is being paid across the nation, but exclusively by westerners

when it comes to the export tax.

There has to be an end to

this nonsense. No other country on the face of the earth subsidizes oil

consumption as we do. Most of them charged world oil prices all along.

The United States, which for some years had a protected internal price

for oil, is now taking off all controls. Within the next few months it

will be paying the world oil price. More than that, President Carter

has stated that he will shortly introduce an import duty on foreign

oil. We're charging an export duty. Clearly, our policies and those of

the other western countries, including the United States, now have

departed markedly from one another.

Ottawa's oil export tax

has been bad news particularly for Alberta and Saskatchewan. It's cost

those two provinces some $20 billion in lost revenue — that's both

government and industry — since 1973. That's an amount which is four

times our present provincial government budget. It's a loss which is

comparable to the total provincial budget of our largest province,

Ontario. That's a lot of money, especially when you remember that the

western oil which has been produced in the intervening years is gone

forever. Natural gas may be next. Again, a federal export tax, a

two-price system, a draining off of non-renewable resources with the

benefits going, in large part at least, to the consuming provinces,

Ontario and Quebec, is wrong. Again we will be selling this energy at

twice the price to our neighbours in the U.S.A., and again we'll be

giving up something which is limited in amount. It's being badly

underpriced here at home already, and once it is gone we'll have to pay

much higher prices for the energy which will take its place.

much for oil and natural gas, but the list doesn't necessarily end

there. The Department of Finance in Ottawa is looking at electricity.

It's thinking of an export tax on water power. Not only will this

produce more revenue for the federal treasury, but it will also

establish a regime in which power, like the liquid petroleum fuels,

will be cheaper in Canada than it is elsewhere. This may appeal to the

protectionist element in our nation, but it will be bad news for the

source provinces, British Columbia included. If Ottawa imposes an

export tax on B.C. hydro, we'll have less revenue with which to pay

wages and build new plants in this province.

Faced with

rising costs, the utility will have to raise its rates prematurely. So

ultimately we as consumers will really have to pay the bill. We'll pay

it in increased rates, and those increased payments will go to Ottawa

in the form of an export tax. Again, this is a transfer of wealth to

the consuming provinces. We've had enough experience of this kind of

thing already.

Manitoba now exports large blocks of power to

the U.S. midwest. It would lose out. Plans to export thermal power

based on Alberta coal would also be affected. Any ideas we may have in

British Columbia which include the utilization of coal wastes for the

production of power and its sale in the U.S. Pacific Northwest would

also be abandoned, certainly jeopardized. So export taxes can hurt in

several ways. Not only will they result in lower prices for our raw

materials, but they can also prevent us from doing more processing in

this country. Not only would the original value of our main products

decline, but the value added by their further manufacture would also be

jeopardized. This doesn't make sense from anyone's point of view,

central Canada included. This is why I believe that our western

Premiers should come out categorically against export taxes. They

should insist that the export tax on oil be lifted as soon as possible.

And they should say that export taxes on natural gas and electricity

are not only discriminatory insofar as western Canada's concerned, but

also offend the basic tenets of free enterprise and freer trade.

There

is an important constitutional point to be made here. Our resources are

provincial. They're described as provincial in clause 109 of the

original British North America Act. Those in British Columbia remained

with the province when it entered Confederation in 1871. Those on the

prairies were transferred explicitly to Alberta, Saskatchewan and

Manitoba in the early 1930s. They're ours, in other words,

constitutionally, to do with as we will. We can develop them or we can

set them aside for posterity. We can say when they are developed, how

they are developed, and who shall develop them. That's a provincial

responsibility and one that bears repeating in an age when national

government — at least in this country — are interfering increasingly in

provincial affairs.

I agree that trade, once a commodity

moves across a boundary — be it interprovincial or international — is a

federal matter. So export taxes are federal; they're not provincial. My

only point here is that they are wasteful, they're divisive, they're

anti-developmental, and they can hurt national unity. By adding to

costs they can result in the high-grading of our resources.

Economically, therefore, export taxes are counter-productive. They

certainly are in the long run. We have to hammer these points

continuously in Ottawa; otherwise we're going to have two price systems

in one resource category after another. Heaven help us if it reaches

also to forest products — lumber, pulp and paper. Western Canada, as

the nation's most important raw- and

semi-manufactured-material-producing region, can't stand for that.

Mr. Chairman, there are two other topics which I want to touch on briefly before sitting down. One has to do with

[ Page 2046 ]

transportation

charges; the other is the new Trudeau government's so-called

made-in-Canada oil-pricing proposal. Both are arbitrary. Neither one

makes sense from a long-term, resource development point of view.

First,

as to transportation, some federal systems are user pay. Certainly the

pipelines are, and long-distance airlines tend to operate on a user-pay

basis. Others are subsidized heavily by the Canadian taxpayer through

the federal treasury. Those that are required to pay for themselves —

user pay — generally speaking are in western Canada. Those which get a

lot of financial help from the federal government are, with a few

exceptions, in Quebec and the other Atlantic provinces. So we tend to

lose out in two ways: we don't always get the full market price for our

product, and we pay more to move our goods to market. This has to stop.

Either Canada's resource industries should pay compensatory — that is,

user-pay — rates in all ten provinces, or they should be subsidized to

the same extent regardless of their province of origin.

Mr.

Chairman, I'll give you two examples to prove my point. Recently the

federal Minister of Transport, the Hon. Jean-Luc Pépin, said the new

multipurpose, bulk, offloading terminal at Ridley Island near Prince

Rupert would have to be self-liquidating — at least over the life of

the project. That's apparently the policy for western Canada. It's the

policy relative, in this case, to a $50 million terminal which falls

within the ambit of the National Habours Board out here on the west

coast.

But what do I read in our eastern Canadian papers? I

see that a new $300 million iron-ore and grain terminal is to be built,

largely with federal funds, at Gros Cacouna on the Gaspé coast, about

100 miles downstream from Quebec City. We see outright grants for an

eastern Canadian province which is talking, perhaps seriously, about

separatism, and no grants at all for a grain- and coal-handling port in

northwestern British Columbia. There can be no other name for it: it's

rank discrimination. Not only does it reduce the value of our raw

materials at their source, but it gets a lot of people upset. It's

another reason why many westerners are hoping that Quebec will secede

from Canada. It's another reason why many of us are convinced that we

really have two Canadas today: one in the east, that is on the inside

track as far as Ottawa is concerned, and the other out west that has to

pay its own way and then some.

The Trudeau government's new

oil-pricing system is something else again. It's government

interference, in my view, at its worst. It's government regulation with

a vengeance. It can only be enforced by using an army of accountants

and federal bureaucrats which is unprecedented in size in our history.

This new oil-pricing system," and I am quoting from the recent federal

Speech from the Throne: "must be based upon Canadian conditions and

circumstances, and not upon the vagaries of a turbulent and

unpredictable world market." Each new Canadian oil development. In

other words, will be costed out. The producer in each case will be able

to recover its costs, Those costs include "a reasonable profit or rate

of return." No one, few if any, are going to be allowed to fail. The

government will guarantee a reasonable profit, even if their costs are

out of sight. Meanwhile an operation which would be seen as highly

successful under present market conditions would only reap a nominal

reward — a "regulated rate of return," but no more. With this "made in

Canada" pricing system in place, risk-taking will disappear. Everyone

in the oil industry, regardless of who owns the development in

question, will survive. No one will make large windfall profits, but no

one — few, in any case — will go broke either. Rewards, such as they

are, will go both to the efficient and the inefficient. They will go to

firms of all sizes, firms in the industry regardless of ownership.

Canadian companies and foreign corporations presumably will be treated

alike. Big or small, each concern will be treated like a public utility

in the future. They may find more oil or they may not, but one thing we

can be sure of is there will be full employment in the federal

Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in Ottawa.

There's

another aspect to this "made in Canada" pricing. It bears in on the

revenues to the provinces. If a development is genuinely economic — if

it's a large, well-located oil pool or a substantial reserve of coal

that's easily mined — it would under normal circumstances make a good

profit, but it will only receive a regulated price. The profit will be

the allowed profit. The price will be less than it would otherwise be

if there was one market price for that product — be it oil or coal —

and the revenue, the dividend, the yield to the people of the province

would automatically be reduced. In other words, if we have fine

deposits — if we have an abundance of oil in a particular location, or

excellent reserves of coal — we will not receive the full dividend

provincially from their development under this "made in Canada" pricing

system.

This certainly is big government at the centre. It's

leading that way. In the long term it's bound to drive up the cost of

not only oil but other forms of energy, and I suggest it'll put the

federal government more and more in the oil and gas producing business

— perhaps even coal — as time goes by. Perhaps this is what the

socialists really want. They want government — and especially the

federal government — to take over the oil and gas industry in this

country one way or another. This "made in Canada" oil-pricing system

certainly is leading us in that direction. The socialists, I suggest,

are not really concerned with the fact that the provinces own the

resources now. They'll take them over by bureaucratizing the industry,

and they'll use federal tax dollars, including proceeds from export

taxes, to nationalize the private sector certainly to regulate the

private sector — in this way.

This week's federal Speech

from the Throne, in the view of many observers, marks a shift to the

left. It points to more government involvement in industry — certainly

not less. That's not all. It indicates that more power is being

concentrated at the centre. Ottawa is looming even larger in our

Canadian constitutional scheme of things. It's on the verge of

declaring our best energy resource industries "work for the general

advantage of Canada" — perhaps it doesn't have to do so explicitly, but

it's doing so by regulation. Those federal laws and a host of federal

regulations, which are contemplated in the "made in Canada" oil pricing

formula, will bring about nationalization, and these industries will be

nationalized, presumably for the advantages of Canadians from coast to

coast, and the bulk of our population that live in Ontario and Quebec.

Now

I believe this kind of thing has to stop. To begin with, no more export

taxes, no more two-price systems which penalize the producing provinces

and favour the consuming provinces. If transportation services must be

paid for in full, then have them paid in full from one end of the

country to the other. And if we're worried about foreign ownership —

foreign ownership and the control of our resource industries — then let

the provinces, which actually

[ Page 2047 ]

own those resources, deal with the ownership question themselves.

Some

provinces, like Saskatchewan, may believe in government ownership as a

matter of principle. Others, like Alberta, may welcome capital from all

over the world. We in British Columbia can have a mixed system, if we

wish — encourage government and industry partnerships or take out a

"provincial dividend" in the form of royalty payments and other taxes.

But leave it to the provinces to decide. In a free market system we

will all have a better idea what is really going on. And our regional

tensions, I suggest, will subside.

This is the kind of

Canada, Mr. Chairman, which I believe we must work for in the future.

It's a nation with certain powers at the centre. But the rest of the

powers — the majority of the powers — should rest with the provinces,

the producers and the people. That's the kind of democracy which I

believe in. It will create the kind of unity with diversity which we

need in this country, certainly which is a prerequisite to keeping the

country together.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to

get back to vote 9 and deal with how some of the money was spent last

year in the Premier's office on, for instance, phone calls. I'd like to

know whether the Premier last year ever spoke on the phone to the

president of Slumber Lodge about a grant in Terrace through TIDSA — a

forgivable interest-free loan. Of course, Slumber Lodge is owned by

Argus. I guess what we had to do was just sort of give Conrad Black a

push over the top. He and Argus were almost in the poorhouse and so

this province had to pay some taxpayers' money to Slumber Lodge, owned

by Argus, to make sure that they could survive in the mean, hard world

of free enterprise. I'd like to know whether the Premier ever

personally, on behalf of his government, talked to the president of

Slumber Lodge about this particular deal, on the telephone in his

office.

I'd also like to know whether the Premier ever used

any of the money that has been given to him to spend in his office to

discuss the tunnel that the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has put forward, or the bridge to the

mainland that the same minister has put forward. Because it seems

strange to me, Mr. Chairman, that this government and this Premier

would have no qualms about spending taxpayers' money to help out poor

Argus and Slumber Lodge in this hard, cruel world of free enterprise,

but they sure seem to have some qualms about spending money to help

Maplewood Poultry Processors continue in this province.

What's

wrong? Doesn't anyone from the poultry industry sit on the board of

BCDC? Isn't there a farmer who's a particular friend of the Premier and

his government? Because if there was, he or she would be getting

special favours from this government. Is there no farmer who couldn't

claim somehow that he's an American, so they could go directly to the

Premier's office and get some money for this turkey processing plant?

Isn't there any way that these people can get some money from this

Premier by dealing directly with him in his office? Can't they claim

they're American? Can't they claim they're going to spend the money in

America for American crews? Can't they promise that if they get the

money they'll give it directly to Cargill, out of this country, so

they've got some chance of getting some money from the Premier?

Interjection.

MR. LEA:

Maybe Boeing. Couldn't one of these farmers go and ask somebody in

Boeing to come and see the Premier in his office so possibly they can

get some money from the British Columbia taxpayers to help out in their

free enterprise venture?

What a double standard we see

coming out of that Premier’s office! At the beginning of the Premier's

estimates, we said: "Here are some things we'd like to know about your

office. 'We'd like to know whether or not you knew about the slush

funds going through your office. Were there people on the public

payroll who spent some of their time dealing with the slush fund? Who

signed the cheques for the slush fund?" The Premier said: "Look, I

don't want to talk about that, so I'm not going to answer." We said:

"Well, what about the jetfoil? What about giving this money to BCDCT?"

He said: "Look. we want to talk about that, but you've got the wrong

guy. You'll have to speak to the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). You people over there are

being darned irresponsible, because you're not talking about

unemployment, you're not talking about the economy, and you're not

talking about interest rates." We said: "Do you know what we'd like to

talk about? We'd like to talk about unemployment, we'd like to talk

about the economy and we'd like to talk about interest rates.'' The

Premier says, out of the side of his mouth: "Order, Mr. Chairman,

order." He kept saying it over and over. Three or four times he said:

"I'd like to speak on a point of order. I don't want to talk about the

economy. I don't want to talk about unemployment. I don't want to talk

about the interest rates. It has nothing to do with me: I'm only the

president of the executive council. I'm the Premier. I only want to

talk about those things that are under vote 9."

What he'd

like to talk about. I guess, is why his office staff went from nine to

17. I guess he'd like to talk about why salaries in his office last

year went from $168,813 to S411,612. That's talking about economics,

that's talking about employment. not unemployment. Does he want to talk

about why his travel expense allowance was $33,775 last year and

$55,000 this year! Should we pay the Premier that kind of money to

travel around and give our money to Americans so that they can have

American jobs on American boats? Is that why he wants that additional

money for his office?

But he doesn't want to talk about

unemployment today he doesn't want to talk about the economy today.

"Order, Mr. Speaker. order." he says out of the side of his mouth. —

'Order. I don't want to talk about that today. It was yesterday when I

wanted to talk about it. It was two weeks ago when I wanted to talk

about it. It was two weeks ago and yesterday when I kept asking the

opposition: 'Why don't you talk about unemployment? Why don't you talk

about inflation? Why don't yon talk about the economy? "Today we'd like

to talk to the Premier about the economy. "Order. Mr. Chairman, order.

I don't want to talk about that." But, Mr. Premier. you wanted to talk

about it. Why don't you talk about it today''

Why don't you

talk about what your government is going to do about the 135 jobs going

down the drain tomorrow? You know. you may not realize it. but to them

that is the economy — whether they can meet their home payments at the

end of the month. whether they can afford to buy clothes for their

children, whether they can afford a nutritional diet for their

families, whether they can afford to keep their cars. To be out of work

and have to face possibly higher interest

[ Page 2048 ]

rates

for their mortgage — for them that is interest rates. To walk out of

that plant tomorrow and not return — that is unemployment for them.

But

the Premier doesn't want to talk about specifics; he wants to talk in

clichés. He's the clichéd Premier. He likes to talk about big problems,

problems that don't deal with individuals but with things in wholesale,

cliché terms. No, he doesn't want to talk about those 125 people who

won't have jobs tomorrow. If you say it's not within the rules, give us

leave of the House so we can talk to the first minister about 125

people who are going to be out of work tomorrow, and who will probably

be facing higher interest rates on their homes. Let's talk about their

economy, their unemployment, and their problem with interest rates. But

that's beneath the Premier. He wants to talk about more grandiose plans.

What

does he want to talk about — his success selling uranium? Even though

he now says he didn't try, we know he did try — and he failed; he

couldn't even sell it. Did he come back with a contract when he was

over there trying to sell uranium? He's failed at almost everything

that he's attempted to do while he's been the Premier. The only thing

he may manage to do is to get a tunnel with no light at either end.

seems amazing to me. We ask questions day after day, which are in

order, about the way the money in vote 9 was being spent in his office.

He couldn't answer one of them — or maybe better still, wouldn't answer

one of them. He wouldn't tell us who was the co-signer of those slush

funds that were being gathered from Toronto, and probably the United

States and other places in the world. He didn't want to talk about

those big chunks of money that were coming into the Premier's office,

not even going to the Social Credit Party. It was all perfectly in

order, but he didn't want to talk about it.

But if we ask

about the jetfoil, "You're out of order, " he says. He said: "Talk to

the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development about that."

AN HON. MEMBER: But he didn't call the meeting.

MR. LEA:

Right, he didn't call the meeting. It was the Premier who called the

meeting, but he said: "You'll have ample opportunity to talk about that

in other votes." The Premier seems to have a selective desire. He wants

to talk about one thing one day and not talk about it at all the next

day. This is the Premier's chance, Mr. Chairman. This is the Premier's

chance to get into a debate with the opposition about the economy,

unemployment and interest rates.

Why don't we start off with

the Maplewood Poultry plant. Let's talk about the economy there. Let's

talk about unemployment. Let's talk about the individuals who are not

going to be working after tomorrow, who now work at the Maplewood

Poultry plant. It's not good enough to say to the federal government,

through its agency, FIRA: "We don't want Cargill to come in here. " I

don't think there's a person in this Legislature who wants Cargill to

expand any further into our economy.

AN HON. MEMBER: We didn't want them in the first place.

MR. LEA: We don't want them; we didn't want them in the first place. We didn't want them when the government sold them Panco Poultry.

But

if you're not going to allow Cargill to come in and purchase Maplewood

Poultry, then what are you going to do? You can't take one step without

taking the next. The government refuses to take the next step because

philosophically, ideologically, they don't agree with it. First of all,

it's a co-op that wants to take it over and, you know, co-ops somehow

just don't smack of free enterprise. Although we put up with them and

we put up with credit unions, the government says: "We don't really

like them." If Boeing wanted to take over, they might get the grant;

they seem to like Boeing.

AN HON. MEMBER: They'd rather have Boeing than Cargill.

MR. LEA:

They'd rather have Boeing than Cargill. Boeing does nicer business;

they've been over to Japan and done a little business there. Probably

they've done business with this government before, but it probably came

in the form of slush funds into the Premier's office.

This

is the Premier's opportunity to stand in this House and to talk about

economics, unemployment and high interest rates, because whoever goes

out to get some money to keep Maplewood alive is going to have to pay

some interest rates. Why doesn't the government offer them a little

relief, as they've offered Slumber Lodge? Why not offer these people,

these Canadians, who want to get in and take over Maplewood, an

interest-free loan? Why not offer them an interest-free, forgivable

loan? That's what they gave to Slumber Lodge, owned by Argus and Conrad

Black. Why not have a special little meeting called by the Premier to

give them some taxpayers' money out of BCDC — right into that co-op, so

that they can afford to take over Maplewood? The Premier's not against

doing that sort of thing; he's already done it for Boeing. Why not put

off this silly feasibility study on the tunnel and the bridge? Why not

put it off and make that money that they're thinking about making

available, available, interest-free and forgivable, to the producers

who want to have Maplewood continue to be a viable business in this

province? Why does the Premier not at least take his place in this

debate during his estimates and talk about it?

Why is the

Premier afraid to talk about this? For two weeks he wanted to talk

about economics, unemployment and interest rates. This is his chance,

and he's afraid to. The bunker Premier is hiding again. The bunker

Premier is again running away from the problems in this province,

because he's afraid to take his place in this debate and talk about the

problems. That's what he's afraid to do. He's so embroiled in his own

mess, protecting his back against those who want to get him — inside

the cabinet, outside the cabinet, in his own party and outside the

party — that he can't think straight. He gets up and rambles in

clichés. But boy, when it comes to specifics he hasn't got much to say

about economics. When it comes to specifics he doesn't have anything to

say about 125 people who are going to lose their jobs. When it comes to

specifics on interest rates, he can give specific little gifts to

Argus, Slumber Lodge and Boeing, but no deals for the farmers and the

producers in this province who produce poultry — no relief for them.

Interjection.

MR. LEA:

Maybe you could pick up some spare parts for your cabinet. That's the

very least you could get out of it. Mr. Chairman, if it weren't so

serious it would be laughable.

[ Page 2049 ]

You

know, of those in the families represented by those 125 people who are

going to be out of work tomorrow are, as Social Credit likes to say,

individuals. They're not statistics. They have individual and family

needs. Doesn't that strike somewhere at the hearts of those Socred

benches? Isn't there one of you who will take your place, stand up and

say: "For God's sake, Mr. Premier, deal with it. Talk to the

opposition. Talk to the people of this province about these 125 people

who are in need of help and are looking towards their government for

help." No help is forthcoming.

If it were possible to wear

out paper with your eyeballs, he'd have had that worn out two days ago.

He's read the same pieces of paper over and over and over again. Keep

the eyes turned away. Don't look at them. Pretend you're reading. Maybe

they'll go away.

AN HON. MEMBER: We know when he's really reading; he moves his lips.

MR. LEA: That's right, among other things.

Interjection.

MR. LEA:

You were a little better yesterday yourself, Mr. Minister. His face

turned red when you told him off. You'll be moving down with Rafe —

almost out. You've only just gotten in. Careful, don't get uppity.

Mr.

Chairman, I know that if you could you'd tell us why all of a sudden

the Premier's lost his taste for economics, why he's lost his hunger to

speak about unemployment and why he somehow has lost his appetite to

speak about interest rates. Because now he can't speak in clichés. He

has to talk specifically about what his government is going to do about

Maplewood, about the people who work there, and the kind of interest

rates that are going to hurt these people out of work, more than any

time they've ever hurt them while they had work. He's going to have to

talk about it, if he talks at all. In fact, over these past three weeks

I've contemplated whether this Legislature should have vote 9 1/2: one

for a speech therapist. Maybe the Premier's forgotten how to talk. But

I think that for petty politics, for the fact that he thinks he's going

to show the opposition that he's mister tough guy, mister stubborn guy

— not talk to them — for just a little while during his estimates he

could get up, bite the bullet, and talk about what he and his

government are going to do for these 125 individual people and their

families and the trouble they'll be facing tomorrow because of a

decision made by government.

We agree with the decision made

by government that Cargill shouldn't come in. But this government made

the decision; now what are they going to do? Leave them to the vagaries

of the big wide terrible world of free enterprise that these people

talk about? They sure didn't leave Slumber Lodge and Argus up in the

air.

It would be interesting to get a financial report. I

think I have a financial report, as a matter of fact. I'll bring it in

next week just to show the other members that they're not really in

trouble, that the money they got was a gift from the taxpayers through

the Premier. It would be nice to bring in the financial report of

Boeing to show that they got a gift from the Premier. They had a little

gift from the Premier of our money, the taxpayers' money. If the

Premier wants to talk about interest rates, economics and unemployment,

now is his chance. I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut he won't talk.

MR. BRUMMET:

Mr. Chairman, the member who just spoke has again put on a performance.

He is the great pretender. It would seem the tactic is to use any

problem