1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1665 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions.

Telephone rates.

Mr. Mitchell – 1665

Tabling Reports

Workers' Compensation Board annual report as at December 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich — 1667

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office estimates. On vote 9.

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1667

Mr. Barrett — 1670

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1674

Mr. Barrett — 1674

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1675

Mr. Barrett — 1678

Mr. Davis — 1680

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1681

Mr. Macdonald — 1684

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1685

Mr. Lea — 1687

Mr. Levi — 1687

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1689

Tabling Reports

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

Mr. Strachan –– 1689

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon in the gallery

there is a group of gentlemen from the Clover Point Men's Club, which

endeavours to attend question period every day. Tomorrow is their first

annual luncheon, at which I have the pleasure of being the guest

speaker. I would ask the members to make them welcome.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the first member for

Surrey, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), and

myself, I'd like to welcome to the galleries today students from Queen

Elizabeth Senior Secondary School visiting Victoria under the auspices

of the Crown Zellerbach program, and students from Len Shepherd Junior

Secondary School with student visitors on an exchange program from

Japan. I hope the House will welcome both of those groups of students.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased today to welcome

to our caucus meeting the executive committee of the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture. They may or may not be in the galleries now. We had the

president Don Knoerr, a cattleman from Smithers; the vice-president

George Aylard, a dairyman from Sidney; directors Oscar Austring, a

blueberry grower; John Savage, a vegetable grower; Ernie Malen, a fruit

grower; Jack Reams, a hog producer; Harold Allison, a cattleman from

Princeton; and the general manager, Jack Wessel. Would the House please

welcome them.

MR. BARNES: I would like to ask the House to join me and my

colleague, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), in

welcoming 29 senior citizens, along with their chairman, Mr. Jim

Sturgeon. They are here from the Canadian Legion, Branch No. 177, in

the Mount Pleasant area. They are on a tour and are visiting during the

question period. I ask the House to join in making them welcome.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, also in the gallery is Mrs. Chrissie

Scherdahl from Burnaby-Edmonds, accompanied by her friend, Mrs. Hall.

Would the House join me in bidding them both welcome.

Oral Questions

TELEPHONE RATES

MR. MITCHELL: I have a question for the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications. B.C. Tel has applied to the

CRTC for a general rate increase on both private and business lines.

There is solid evidence that this increase is desired by the company

not for rising costs but in order to finance its acquisition of a

substandard manufacturing company called Automatic Electric. Has the

government decided to intervene and oppose B.C. Tel's application to

the CRTC?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of

assertions in that particular question which cannot be accepted. The

government will have to consider whether or not an intervention before

the CRTC would be appropriate. I might say that the government of

British Columbia has appeared on many previous occasions before the

CRTC, but whether or not it's appropriate that a federal jurisdiction

should be setting policy for a British Columbia telephone company is a

political matter which, I think, needs to be considered by the

province. So, Mr. Speaker, no firm policy has been taken on this matter.

MR. LAUK: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, in the past, as

the minister has indicated, interventions have been made by the British

Columbia government, which is a powerful agency, on behalf of the

ordinary telephone user in the province. That intervention in the past

has met with some success. Can the minister indicate why the government

is now rolling over and playing dead when telephone users are paying

ever-increasing costs for telephones, and most of the profits of B.C.

Tel are going to Connecticut?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, a number of assertions have

been made on that particular question which are simply untrue. The

problem, as I outlined in answer to the previous question, is that the

prior interventions of the B.C. government before the CRTC have

signally failed to achieve the proper objective: to have a B.C. utility

under provincial and not federal jurisdiction.

MR. LAUK: Has the government of British Columbia reached

agreement with the federal government with respect to transferring the

regulatory power of that utility to the province?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Speaker, and that's precisely the problem.

MR. LAUK: It's precisely the problem that the rate increase

is liable to occur before such agreement is reached. Will the minister

now decide and give some assurances to the House that there will be

government intervention to protect the people of British Columbia from

this price gouging?

HON. MR. McGEER: Again, the member, as he frequently does in

this House, whether in raising questions or in debate, has made wild

assertions. As I said, Mr. Speaker, how to deal with this problem has

not been decided by the government. I only say that the routes taken in

the past, which have been there to solve an immediate problem, have

signally failed in solving the larger question. It's the solution to

the larger question which will serve the interests of the people of

British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: It is clear that in the last seven and a half years

B.C. Telephone Co. has made over $230 million profit. Of late a

considerable portion of that, 56 percent, has been going to

Connecticut. Has the government decided to take any action to prevent

the outflow of compensation to foreign shareholders at the expense of

telephone users in the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. McGEER: If these allegations are correct and, Mr.

Speaker, based on history, I have no confidence at all in that member's

ability to bring accurate facts before this House — then the blame must

be laid squarely before the

[ Page 1666 ]

CRTC and the federal government. The difficulty we

face in the province of British Columbia is that we do not have

jurisdiction over the B.C. Telephone Co., and therefore the member

opposite should be strongly in favour of the efforts that the British

Columbia government will make to solve the important question of

obtaining jurisdiction over our own telephone company.

MR. LAUK: Some time ago the Premier of this province

intervened quite strenuously, from the ski slopes, to prevent the

takeover of MacMillan Bloedel by the CPR, a national corporation over

which there was little jurisdiction of this government. Will the

minister assure the House that such action will be taken — that is to

say, as strenuous — in preventing the increase proposed by B.C.

Telephone?

MR. LEVI: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs. Last November I sent a telegram complaining on

behalf of boatowners about an announced increase in rates for marine

telephone equipment. At that time I was told that because it was not a

tariff increase there would be no public hearings; however, if someone

requested such hearings they would consider it. On December 1 the CRTC

announced that the rates that were to go into effect on that day would

in fact not go into effect, and that they would be happy to receive

briefs and interventions in respect to this matter, with a view to

evaluating whether there should be public hearings. The closing date

for receipt of briefs was February 15. As the minister responsible for

protecting the consumer, has the minister, or have his officials,

submitted a brief to the CRTC in respect of this very important matter?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: There's no brief that I'm aware of.

MR. LEVI: I have a supplementary question. Can the minister

inform the House why a brief on this very important matter has not been

submitted?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We cannot hear the question, hon. members.

MR. LEVI: Could the minister explain to the House why his

ministry has not submitted a brief on this matter? The interests of the

consumers of the province will not be before the CRTC. In the job that

he holds he can lend his weight to the question of having public

hearings.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, Mr. Speaker, action or the lack of

action would be determined by the benefit to the people of the

province, and in such a case it would have been determined that such

action would not necessarily be that beneficial. Other action may have

been taken with respect to the announced increase and the rollback of

that increase, because we were in communication with some of the people

responsible for that proposed rate hike. Whether representation by way

of intervention was the only method, or the most acceptable method, was

reviewed by ministry officials, and it was not determined that that

intervention need be the only route to go.

MR. LEVI: Could the minister tell us what other routes there

are, apart from discussing the matter with the federal minister, that

are as effective as having representation at the public hearing?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I think perhaps the member answered his own question. It is the effect rather than the appearance that we are seeking.

MR. LEVI: The CRTC is in the process of making up its mind

whether, in fact, it will have public hearings. It is in the interests

of the consumers of the province, Mr. Speaker, to have such public

hearings; they are not called for. Surely the minister must know that

the position of his office is so powerful that he should make these

representations. Now let me ask the minister this: has he had

discussions with the federal minister in respect of this matter?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, I have not had discussions with the federal minister in respect of this matter.

MR. LEVI: On a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, has he had

discussions with the chairman or the vicechairman of the CRTC on this

matter?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No.

MR. LEVI: In other words, Mr. Speaker, the minister has done absolutely nothing.

MR. LAUK: I have a question to the Minister of Finance with

respect to the shareholding held by the government, either directly or

indirectly, in B.C. Telephone. Has the government decided to exercise

its rights, as one of the largest minority shareholders in B.C. Tel, to

influence that company to withdraw its application for a rate increase?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member,

it was in yesterday's mail, I believe, that I received the full

submission with respect to the requested rate increase by British

Columbia Telephone. It was addressed to me as Minister of Finance. I

intend to make my colleagues aware of the details of that submission at

the earliest opportunity.

MR. LAUK: On a supplementary to the Premier, could the

Premier advise us on the policy of the government with respect to

interventions with the CRTC on behalf of telephone users in the

province of British Columbia? It is obvious the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications is of one mind and the

Minister of Finance another.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, there is no difference of

opinion between the members of this government. The information will be

assessed by the various ministries. Should intervention be recommended,

then the government would consider that recommendation. What we have

now, though, is a government that is concerned with a B.C. utility

being responsive to a B.C. agency.

Members will be asked at this sitting of the Legislature to consider

legislation for a public utilities commission which will, for the first

time, have an agency in place in which rate hearings concerning British

Columbia Telephone could be heard, because up until now we've only had

rhetoric from many people. The agency will be in place which will give

validity to our requests to the federal government that power

[ Page 1667 ]

taken under the Declaratory Powers Act to put B.C.

Telephone under the federal jurisdiction should be undeclared in the

interests of the citizens of British Columbia.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Premier's statement.

Will he now instruct that there will be no increase in B.C. Hydro rates

until such a commission is in place to review them and to straighten

out the confusion that exists in the cabinet?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, it would be foolhardy for this

government to anticipate how quickly some members of this Legislature

will allow the passage of the public's business to be concluded and

proposed legislation to be carried out.

Mr. Speaker, for the first time we are setting up from this House —

hopefully with the support of the opposition — a public utilities

commission that can conduct such hearings where the citizens of British

Columbia can appeal both telephone and energy increases proposed by

utilities — fair opportunity for British Columbians to be heard by a

B.C. agency to do with B.C. utilities. Now that is something that is

being brought in, has been indicated in the throne speech, and will be

forthcoming for members to consider at this sitting of the Legislature.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Do we wish to hear the answer?

HON. MR. BENNETT: All business of this Legislature will be

introduced in its proper time, and all members will be given an

opportunity. The first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) is now from his

seat putting his own priorities on what order this legislation should

be introduced in. Let me tell that member: you'll have ample

opportunity...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...and all the time you need to discuss and

debate in this Legislature positive government programs. Any delay can

only be caused by your own lack of consideration for the results that

we want to achieve for the people of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The bell terminates question period. Order, please.

Hon. members, I think we need to remind ourselves again of the scope

of question period. The Chair is doing everything in its power to keep

the questions in order, and the Chair must also do everything in its

power to keep the answers within the scope of the questions asked. I

would ask all hon. members to hear the answer and assist me in

determining its scope.

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

MR. LAUK: In answers to questions the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) made certain

references to me and the accuracy of my information. I did not want to

take the time of the question period to raise a point of order, but I

consider his remarks most unparliamentary. I won't ask him to withdraw

them, but I state for the record that if the hon. minister has any

support for that allegation, he should bring it before the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if it's a matter of an unparliamentary statement, it is required to be withdrawn immediately.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich tabled the sixty-third annual report of the Workers' Compensation Board for the year ending December 31, 1979.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, in making a few introductory

remarks on my estimates, I would like to pay a compliment to the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) on his budget, not only for the

content but for providing for the first time the type of background

material and information that is useful in forecasting the economy of

the province. Certainly this information not only is useful to all

members of this Legislature, but also gives us a very clear picture

about where the province of British Columbia is going in a statistical

sense. It is in future debate that the ministers in their estimates,

Mr. Chairman, will be able to put a picture upon those statistics and

paint a picture upon which the thrust of their various ministries will

be going. I leave that for later in the estimates, but I would like to

say that the background information and the budget itself indeed paint

a very positive economic picture for the people of British Columbia.

That economic picture can give the people of this province — the

people in all parts of this province — some cause for optimism over

their future and that of their children. It means that there is

opportunity in British Columbia in the years ahead; in fact we can

stride into the 1980s with confidence in this province. One only need

look at the projections and on the actions having been taken by a

number of ministries to recognize that economic activity will forge

ahead in all areas of the province; it won't just be confined to the

resource areas of the north and the central interior, but economic

activity will in fact take place in the urban areas of greater

Vancouver, greater Victoria and Vancouver Island. Our people indeed

have reason to be optimistic.

While there are some problems inherent that can be resolved in the

provincial economy, the problems that show up within the forecasts not

only of the provincial economy but of the Canadian economy as well

should give all British Columbians, and particularly those in this

Legislature, some reason to pause and reflect on the problems that will

impact on us in British Columbia because of policies of the government

or because of problems with the economy that are different in British

Columbia and are not yet being attended to by the policy of the federal

government.

We should also look with some concern to the political

[ Page 1668 ]

problems that face our country which can impact

back into the province of British Columbia. Mr. Chairman, we all should

be aware that our country is under the stresses and strains of regional

concerns which may be expressed differently and in different ways. The

people of Quebec are concerned about their place in Confederation.

Those problems are different, but the concerns of the people of the

Atlantic region of our country are no less. The problems are different

for the people of the Prairies; and here in the British Columbia

region, the Pacific region of our country, are a number of problems

concert with other provincial and regional concerned governments.

That's the only way in which we can meet the type of rosy economic

forecast that I would like to make for British Columbia.

While I say we have a number of positive things here in British

Columbia, there are things that must be resolved in cooperation with

degree. Some are economic and some political. Today I don't think that

any member of this House would disagree that the number one economic

problem in this country is that of high interest rates. I don't think

anyone in this House would disagree that high interest rates imposed by

the Bank of Canada — apparently separate from federal government

policy, and tied now to some new measure relating to the sale of

Treasury Board notes — are one of the detrimental factors that will

affect our country generally, and particular groups of people and

particular economic areas in a very harmful, if not disastrous, way.

Housing and accommodation are a problem for many people in this

country. Those who have it are fortunate. For those who have not yet

had an opportunity to purchase their own homes, today's high interest

rates, impacting out into the marketplace, prevent them from making

that major decision in their lives — to purchase their own homes. I

think personal home ownership is not only a desirable social goal, but

is probably the personal goal of every Canadian. Certainly I would want

to see that it can be attained by every British Columbian. Yet, today,

unitary action by the Bank of Canada has impacted back out into the

financial institutions, making mortgage money unaffordable to the

people of the country. But it is impacting not only for those who do

not yet have accommodation; that decision of the Bank of Canada without

the meaningful consultation with the provincial governments, and

provincial and federal governments developing a national economic

policy, is also starting to hurt, and will hurt in great measure, many

people who already own homes and must refinance because the term of

mortgage lending has decreased markedly in the last few years as

uncertainty over the cost of money in money markets has heightened.

Mr. Chairman, a large number of people in our country, and here in our province,

of our provincial government and others for a meeting to resolve this situation.

It is apparent now that the high interest rates imposed by the Bank of Canada

are not part of any other policy and are there for only one reason: capital

retention in the country. All analysis would lead us to conclude that they

are not there for curtailing expansion, because expansion is needed. They are

not there to curtail an overheated economy, because that is not the case. It

is merely a preoccupation with the Bank of Canada — their concern for holding capital within this country.

What then are the opportunities for an answer? Many people know the

question and many people have spoken out against high interest rates.

But we must realize that high interest rates can only be resolved in

one way, and that is by the Bank of Canada taking action in concert

with the federal and provincial governments in a number of measures

that will encourage capital not only to stay in Canada, but to continue

to come into this country. There is some reason to believe that this

can be done if governments rethink many of their major financial

positions.

There has been a preoccupation in this country for many years with

the idea that governments must tax and must deal only with people as

money-lenders or money-borrowers, and governments have not taken the

opportunity to encourage our people to harness capital for equity

investment.

So, Mr. Chairman, what I would suggest as just one of the measures

as an economic policy is that, in lowering interest rates and lowering

the costs to our people, they provide the incentives from the federal

government — and the provincial governments may have to cooperate in

their own law — to encourage our people to take that capital that was

being lent on short or long term, at high interest rates, to the

financial institutions, and harness it in purchasing equities in our

country, developing new business and new industry — not as

money-lenders, but as people with an ownership stake in the business

and industry of Canada and, particularly, of British Columbia.

That measure alone would not only give our people some opportunity

to participate in ownership but would free capital, Mr. Chairman — make

capital available on the other side of the market at affordable prices.

Interest rates must come down, but measures must be taken to ensure

that capital stays in the country.

Amongst other things, then, governments must lower the tax regime on

individual Canadians in order to leave more capital in their hands to

undertake this equity investment. Not only those governments who talk

about big government, government ownership, and government collecting

more and more from the private sector in order to carry out their

schemes, but many governments who pay lip service to the private sector

have been guilty of imposing a greater and greater tax regime on our

people, leaving them less with which to undertake investment and

ownership in this country. One can only see that governments have been

self-defeating for the people of our country and our province, when we

take away tax on their dollars and then keep challenging the private

sector to respond with new investment when we have left them with very

little.

This government, Mr. Chairman, has reduced taxes in the years we

have been government. We have left more money in the hands of

individual citizens. More and more of the social benefits of government

are being paid for out of revenue from an expanding resource, an

industrial sector. That record is evident for all to see. It's evident

in the forecast, it's evident in the figures of the budget that tell us

where we are going and where we have been, and it's evident when you

compare British Columbia's individual tax rates with the other

provinces of this country.

In those figures and the tax measures taken to leave more money in

the hands of people, you can also see that this government is in fact

providing a model for all other governments, inasmuch as we are not

plunging the people of this province into debt for current account.

We're not leaving

[ Page 1669 ]

future generations with a pile of dead-weight debt,

paying dead-weight interest charges for those services that we would

ask for and that in fact our people need today. But when we look at the

rest of the country and see the position it's in, particularly the

followed in that jurisdiction play a large

part in creating the problem

we face today.

High interest rates didn't just happen. They happened because

successive federal governments responded to the wishes of the people to

give them everything they wanted; or, in the case of governments being

put in the minority position, they were held up to some sort of

political blackmail by minority parties to spend and spend an even

greater part of the gross national product. They have had to borrow to

pay for those things. They have incurred a debt on the people of this

country that must be faced. If it wasn't evident before to the people

what that cost would mean, let them look again today, Mr. Chairman, as

the federal government, caught in its own lack of economic planning,

has to refinance federal debt incurred years ago at rates of 5.5

percent, 6 percent and 7 percent at rates in double-digit figures,

double the rates we were paying in interest before. No new services, no

new programs — a debt, though, paying an even greater penalty on the

taxpayer and the economy of today. That is the legacy of governments

which will not, and cannot — and, Mr. Chairman, shouldn't and must not

— respond to the temptation of spending today to buy favour with the

voters, leaving this type of economic chaos behind for others to clear

up. The chickens are coming home to roost.

Those who have advocated the free-spending, freewheeling policies of

incurring public debt, those whose practised it in the only opportunity

they had to be government in this province, and those who practised it

on the federal level and in other parts of the country have not served

the people well. They may have bought short-term political relief, but

history will not treat them well, nor will those who follow, who have

to pick up the bill and pay the tab. It's time, then, for a

rationalization of our economic strategy in this country.

British Columbia has tried to play a cooperative, leadership role in

this area, at economic conferences, at First Ministers' conferences and

Finance ministers' conferences. We have presented to those conferences

detailed papers on ways in which we think this country can resolve the

critical financial problems we face and provide a guide to all future

governments in a cooperative effort to prevent the situation from

getting worse and to prevent what we have today from happening again to

such a degree. It's all right to cry out against the problems we have

today — high interest rates and others — but let us be perfectly clear

as to how those problems were caused. The answers are very, very clear.

Today we live with problems resulting from the actions of earlier

governments. We must then resolve the way in which governments spend

public money and the amount of debt governments are allowed to incur.

There are guidelines that can be imposed to prevent us from this type

of irresponsible action.

However, we must address ourselves to the problem of resolution;

that is, today we must reduce the interest rates imposed by the Bank of

Canada. Again I say that it can be done only if it's accompanied by

capital retention measures that stress the positive, equity investment

and equity opportunities that, with a number of other measures

provincial governments can take, will help lower this cost imposed on

our society for no other reason than for capital retention. It will

help us then to move on to a number of other incentives to deal with

the specific economic sectors of housing and rental accommodation.

Certainly one of the ways in which government can move is not with

penalties, as many who arrive at government would do, but by imposing

government restrictions, imposing the full weight of government and

inhibiting the private sector. Rather, governments should use

incentives to encourage the construction of rental accommodation. The

MURB program, which was cancelled, and capital cost allowance…. That is

the way Canadians and British Columbians have traditionally done

things. They have done it when the opportunity was there, and they have

done it when the encouragement was there.

But when government becomes part of the problem, either through its

own heavy-handed action or inaction or lack of appreciation of what

could be done to encourage them, then the number one problem in this

country becomes government itself. I think that the people of our

country and of our province are well aware of the problems. They've had

a strong dose of negativism from many. Those who dwell on the negative,

those who keep restating the problem…. I think what they want from this

chamber and our national parliament and the chamber in every government

in this country are solutions. They're well aware of the problems. In

our provincial jurisdiction this government has offered solutions. When

willingly played a leadership role in making suggestions and offering

cooperation. We have talked about some of those suggestions. The fact

that they have not been agreed to is not the fault of British Columbia.

We've gone to those conferences willing to try to develop solutions

that will help give us a stronger country.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Now that some members have participated in

their usual practice in this chamber, perhaps we could get back to the

serious problems of the people of this province and of this country.

There are also political problems in this country, not of a partisan

nature, but problems of the regions. As I mentioned briefly earlier,

one has only to look at the regional stresses and strains on

Confederation to recognize that all is not well. Those problems are not

just economic. In some cases the problem is a feeling of a lack of

participation in the decision-making at the centre of this country. In

some cases those concerns are valid. There would be no such label as

"western alienation," which has been with us for a number of years, if

there wasn't a problem and if the people didn't feel they didn't have a

say in the policies of this country. There wouldn't be such things as

the problem of dissatisfaction and the search for sovereignty

association of the people of Quebec if there weren't the seeds of a

problem and they felt they were a part of this country.

The answer, Mr. Chairman, is not in decentralizing the country to

the extent that we destroy the federal government. Some are for that;

that's not the answer. If we are to have a country at all, we must have

a government that can act and bring some equity and equality to

citizens and regions of this country. But in the name of central

government, they shouldn't use their power to keep on addressing the

weaknesses and supporting the weaknesses of the country while

inhibiting the stronger parts from making a better contribu-

[ Page 1670 ]

tion to their own regions and to the country

itself. There are ways in which we believe the regions can make a

stronger contribution and feel a part of the directions this country is

taking. As I say, we do not say the answer is decentralization. In

fact, British Columbia's proposals to first ministers' conferences on

the constitution have stressed the opportunity to give us more say in

the central decision-making boards and commissions rather than less

being developed on provincial governments. There are a number of boards

and commissions that make decisions every day that affect all parts of

the country.

Yet we know all parts of the country aren't feeling the same

problem. The very fact that there is not a housing or rental crisis in

some parts of the country doesn't mean you should cancel the MURB

program; as was proposed in the budget of the previous government,

because there is a very real problem of rental accommodation in this

province. We're living with our own successes in this province, because

our success is in attracting people and building an economy where other

Canadians want to come and participate. Migration within the country is

one of the rights of a free people in a free country — to come and seek

their opportunities here in British Columbia. They also leave

accommodation behind, and that doesn't create a problem of lack of

accommodation. But in-migration to British Columbia that is setting

record levels has turned around the situation of a few years ago when,

migration statistics show, more people were leaving than were coming.

That very success of building an economy where all Canadians feel

they can participate has created some of our problems. That means that

you need a national policy and you need representation from all

regions, so that the policy can be tailored to respond to the needs of

each of the regions. It cannot be developed, with blinkers or blinders

on, just for central Canada. It must respond to people in all parts of

the country. That point can be made about needs in every part of this

country at various times. That is the type of policy and that is the

type of recommendation we took to first ministers' conferences on the

constitution.

It's not just a matter of tinkering with the constitution for the

sake of tinkering. What we really need is a modernization of the

government structure in this country, both regionally and federally, in

order to meet the needs of people. We didn't arrive at these

suggestions easily. We took the opportunity to study other federal

systems: Switzerland, the federal republic of West Germany, Australia.

We looked at the relationship of the Lander governments with the

federal government in Germany. We saw how they provided regional

representation that could provide a regional voice, as well as the

voice of representation by population in their parliament and their

government; and it's working well.

In a country such as Canada, then, with such a large land mass, with

distinct economic regions, and yet a very small population, there is a

need for this type of regional representation at the centre. Yes, our

provincial governments have a strong voice; and, yes, our federal

government, in theory, should be able to legislate for all the people.

But at times the regional stresses and strains demand that regional

input be given in order to come to really effective national policies

that can work for the equal benefit of all Canadians, without penalty

to certain parts of the country. That, in effect, is what has happened

from time to time in this country.

With all good intention, national policy, unilaterally imposed by

the federal government, has dramatically hurt certain parts of the

country. In fact, national policy has not kept pace with modern needs.

There has been a preoccupation with throwing a crutch to the weak

rather than encouraging them to walk. Whether it is people or regions

or governments, the answer has always been to throw a crutch. Yet the

best answer is to go to the root of the ailment and effect a cure that

allows them to walk — effect a cure that allows them to run. But the

answer has been in the past — whether it be to provincial governments

or people — to throw them a crutch; throw them a second crutch; never

give them the opportunity to stand; never give them the opportunity to

walk and then run. That's what we need in this country: some

opportunity for our provincial governments to be allowed to continue to

develop their provincial economies.

Look at British Columbia. Look at western Canada. Governments have

been aggressive in developing their economies. Today we not only make a

contribution to this country in very real economic terms in large

amounts of cash transfers for equalization payments, but we also supply

economies in which people from other parts of the country come to get

employment, to build a home, as people have in the past. Those are the

type of policies that our government has taken in the past to the

I announce that to this assembly, and during my estimates and those

of my colleagues I shall look for positive suggestions from all sides

of the House that will aid us in our cause, because there is no sense

in us taking back negative solutions — we want to take back positive

solutions to this country.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I have been subjected to listening

to the Premier attempt to articulate the government's position on a

number of matters on a number of occasions. I would have hoped that

perhaps a little more preparation would have gone into the continuity

of what the Premier was attempting to get across, because in his

rambling comments he has become somewhat of a transparent critic of his

own earlier positions. We do have serious problems in this country, and

quoting the Premier with such brilliant flashes of wit as, "the

chickens have come home to roost," "we have to be responsible," and

"there are problems," the Premier then comes back to what he said were

his solutions or his approaches.

I always understood clearly that the responsibility of a free

citizen in a free society was to participate in the democratic

political process, and that includes voting. We sit here in this House

and hear the clichés and the rhetoric about the federal government, the

trouble with the political system, and the lack of participation and

decision-making, and the complaints about the lack of participation and

decision-making — it's hardly any example for the people of this

province to have a Premier absent himself from the political process

and say at the time: "My vote won't make any difference anyway." That's

not leadership; that's not a demonstration of concern about the serious

problems of this country.

We would have hoped that the Premier, during a federal election, if

he didn't want to state what he wanted to happen federally, would have

kept his mouth shut and at least voted. To not take a position at all

on federal issues in terms of indicating to those citizens who expect

political leadership from people who are in political leadership

positions and who expect articulate debate on those decision-making

processes

[ Page 1671 ]

and the various points of view that make up the

fabric of democratic participation in this society, to absent oneself

from the debate and then, once absenting oneself, to debase the whole

system by saying, "It's beyond me, there's no use in my even voting,"

and to come to this House today and make the rhetorical statements that

I can hardly fathom in terms of other than clichés — something about

the lack of participation and decision-making.... The lack of

participation and decision-making was made as a conscious decision by

the Premier of this province, who refused to participate even to the

extent of voting in the last federal election.

Now we come to the next question, to deal with the Premier's

ramblings today. I can understand why it's necessary for the Premier to

recycle the same speech he's been giving — sometimes more coherently

than today — over the last five years, with the same clichés about home

ownership, no government interference, and how a government has no

place in the economic arena in terms of overtaxing the people. Why, he

even went on to say that he had given detailed economic positions to

Ottawa. He had, and I'm going to refer to some of his own words in

those detailed positions.

But first of all I want to deal with the serious problems that exist

in this country. Indeed it's true that we have just gone through

another federal election, just as cataclysmic or as happy as the

federal elections this country has gone through over a hundred years.

There is no imminent danger of western alienation, Mr. Chairman. There

have always been kooks, screwballs and nitwits who have talked about

positions different than keeping this country together as a nation, and

they should be labelled as screwballs, nitwits, and people outside the

mainstream of a commitment to keeping this country together as a

nation. Beating the old rhetorical drums about "unfair federal

policies, yet we have to keep this country together," without being

specific hardly serves the purpose of keeping this country together.

The first responsibility of any citizen in Canada is to participate in

the political system, and the second is to have responsibility to this

country as a nation. That's what citizenship is all about.

Mr. Chairman, I want to remind you above all people — because you

are eminently fair and unbiased in this debate of some words that the

budget speech, which the Premier referred to, contained regarding

federal-provincial relations. This is from a government led by a man

who wouldn't vote in the federal election. I read to you for your

attention: "The next few years will see important decisions made at the

national level and it will be of utmost importance to ensure that the

interests and concerns of British Columbians are appropriately

reflected." The way to do that is to say publicly what your position

is, especially during an election campaign.

The speech then goes on to say: "The federal election results could

make this more difficult, and the government of British Columbia will

therefore have to pursue intergovernmental affairs with increased

vigour." Is he saying that he's unhappy the Liberals were elected? Is

he saying that he's unhappy the Conservatives weren't elected? What

interpretation of the federal election is he particularly referring to

in this statement? What exactly is the position of the government of

British Columbia on the federal election results, and what will be its

response in political terms? This is from a man who won't vote in the

federal election.

I don't want to embarrass the Premier, but I do have to refer to

this. The Premier said in his speech that they had presented many

detailed economic strategy proposals to the federal government. I think

that's what I heard, Mr. Chairman; if I'm incorrect, I know you will

correct me. Amongst the ramblings was there not a statement that the

government of British Columbia has a stated position on economic

strategy? Well, that's correct. It certainly does. And then there was a

plaintive complaint, as I wrote it down, that they don't pay attention

to us, in effect. The fact that they haven't been adhered to by Ottawa

is a matter of concern by the Premier. In other words, they have not

taken his government's proposals too seriously. But would you, Mr.

Chairman, if you were told — not told, lectured; not lectured, but

almost ordered — to behave based on the pattern outlined by the leader

of the government of British Columbia — to do such and such and so and

so, and to do it exactly and precisely, only to find that that little

slap on the wrist was only meant as a joke outside of British Columbia,

because the government of British Columbia never followed its own

formulas or policies? Somebody in Ottawa probably read what the Premier

said and then probably tried to find out what he was doing, and found

out that the Premier of British Columbia had expounded two policies:

one for public pronouncement with rhetorical flourish in this chamber

or in Ottawa, and another for practice.

I have to quote what our leader of government has said as he

lectured us again today about the government not listening to his

proposals. I quote to you from a statement read by the Premier-perhaps

not written by him-in February 1978: "Towards an Economic Strategy for

Canada." This is advice to all the governments of Canada from Bill

Bennett. It has his name right on it, and he says: "Boys, do what I am

telling you to do."

MR. LEA: Who signed it?

MR. BARRETT: Bill signed it.

MR. LEA: Do we know for sure?

MR. BARRETT: There are some other things, and we don't know

who signed them, but we'll come to that later. I want to read to you

what he's telling the boys to do: "For a period of three years all

governments should restrain spending growth to a rate of at least one

percentage point below the growth rate in the economy — rate of growth

of gross domestic product for the federal government and rate of growth

of provincial domestic product for each province. By way of example, if

provincial economic growth ran at 10 percent, unadjusted for inflation,

then government spending would grow at not more than 9 percent,

unadjusted for inflation."

AN HON. MEMBER: When did he say that?

MR. BARRETT: That is part and parcel of the lecture that was

given in 1978, 1979, and again today in 1980, because the Premier

thinks that, like himself, no one else reads. The Premier thinks that

if he says one thing one place, it doesn't really matter what he says

another place. Then he comes and cries in here that Ottawa won't listen

to his proposals.

[ Page 1672 ]

MR. KING: Jack Davis thought he meant it.

MR. BARRETT: Well, one member thought he meant it, and look what happened to him.

Let's examine exactly what the delivery of this theory has brought.

The theory is simple; even the Premier understands it; he espoused it.

This is what it is. You take the unadjusted percentage of the growth of

the provincial product and limit your budget to 1 percent below that.

Has everybody got it? New Social Credit economics, lectured to the

federal government.

The budget of 1977-78, delivered at the same time this theory was

delivered, was as follows. The gross provincial product growth was up

12 percent, the provincial budget was up 11 percent. Formula on. It's

got nothing to do with the fact that the formula was declared at the

time knowledge was available of what the budget would be and what the

increase would be.

Number two year. Remember this is a three-year program. The

provincial leader of this government is attempting to tell us that

Ottawa should follow this, and they haven't been listening to him, and

this is a clear-cut economic policy — as he said this afternoon — which

must be followed by governments in order to deal with the problems of

high interest rates and high inflation, and to give people tax money

back. Did you hear that one? To give people tax money back. This is

what he did in 1978-79.

The gross provincial product growth was up again by 10 percent in

1979-80. By the Premier's formula, the increase in provincial

government budget spending and return of taxation should limit the

budget to a 9 percent increase. By his own stated policy formula,

announced in Ottawa, lecturing federal politicians and other

governments what to do, it should have been up 9 percent. Guess what

happened. It was up 19 percent; his own policy was double-crossed in

the first year.

Not to be outdone, we got the same speeches, the same rhetoric. Once

the Premier's mind is lock-set in rhetoric and rambling nothings about

economic process, once that mindset is locked in, it doesn't adjust to

reality. And what do we find? The same speech today, in the face of the

evidence that he was denying his own theories. And what are we faced

with?

It was the Premier who brought this budget up, Mr. Chairman. Far be

it from me to bring it up; I don't want to be out of order. But since

he brought it up, I'm going to respond by telling you.... And I

wouldn't like it to go out of this chamber, because it will ruin the

kind of after-dinner speeches that he gives on the rubber chicken

circuit, with the same clichés about his economic policies and warning

everybody to follow them except himself. How do you expect them to pay

any attention to you, Mr. Premier, when you don't even follow your own

economic statements? Try to peddle that stuff again today; it's great.

It's good for a joke, but you're not kidding anybody.

In today's budget that we're dealing with, the gross provincial product growth

is up by 10 percent. By your own formula the expenditures should be limited

to 9 percent. The expenditures this year are up 19 percent-double what your

theory says. For three years you've been peddling this gobbledegook; for three

years you've been lamenting all over that Ottawa won't pay any attention to

you; and for two of the three years you've broken your own economic theories

and you have been taking more tax out of the people of British Columbia, and

keeping money out of the pockets of the people of British Columbia.

I know why the former Minister of Finance was removed. It's all part

of the policy of not having any kind of consistent delivery of service

in this province. It's part and parcel of a system of the Premier going

on in some kind of airy-fairy economic theories that he tells Ottawa to

behave in one way, and can't follow in another. He lectures us about

good Canadian citizenship and the "Perils of Pauline" episodes of what

he thinks is wrong with this country. He won't even vote in federal

elections, he doesn't even follow his own economic policies, and he's

got the gall to come in today and spout that same old junk.

What have you done? Well, you've learned to be an ad hocker. Out of

panic, the ad hockery of this government has increased at a dramatic

rate. You tell me how you can administer a province, Mr. Chairman — and

you know this better than anyone else, because as an impartial chairman

you don't have any aspirations to go beyond the very onerous tasks of

governing this House during estimates.

Let's take a look at cabinet appointments. Mr. Chairman, there have been 63 different portfolio changes in four years.

AN HON. MEMBER: And no improvements.

MR. BARRETT: There have been no improvements. Some of the

ministers who have some visible skills — based only on the litmus test

of comparison to others, which is a base standard to begin with — are

left in the job of clean-up men. The member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr.

Mair) has got the biggest task of clean-up man of anybody in cabinet.

He is the guy with the biggest broom and the biggest shovel who follows

the parade, cleaning up after various cabinet posts.

MR. LEA: He'll get Energy next.

MR. BARRETT: Probably. He's now busy cleaning up the Heroin Treatment Program that was to cure all the problems of heroin addicts.

Mr. Chairman, 63 portfolio changes in four years is an average of

one change every four weeks. How would you feel if you were a

backbencher and there were 63 cabinet changes, one every four weeks,

and you were elected in 1975 and didn't make it to the cabinet with

those odds? How do the backbenchers feel, those who have been there

since '75, with that kind of whirling-dervish musical-chair approach

the government...?

Well, Mr. Chairman, let's just take a look. There have been four

Ministers of Energy and umpteen energy policies. The four Ministers of

Energy were Mr. Davis, Mr. Bill Bennett, Mr. Jim Hewitt and Mr. Bob

McClelland. There have been four Communications ministers: Mr. Jack

Davis, Mr. Bill Bennett, Mr. Alex Fraser and Dr. Pat. There have been

four Travel Industry and Tourism ministers: Mrs. McCarthy, Mr. Veitch,

Mr. Don Phillips and Mrs. Pat Jordan. There have been four Mines and

Petroleum Resources ministers: Mr. Tom Waterland, Mr. Jim Chabot, Mr.

Jim Hewitt and Bob McClelland. There have been four Ministers of

Agriculture: Mr. Don Phillips, Mr. Jim Hewitt, Mr. Cyril Shelford and

Mr. Jim Hewitt II. There have been four Ministers of Recreation: Mrs.

Grace McCarthy, Sam Bawlf — now tunnelling — Hugh Curtis and Evan

Wolfe. On and on goes this administrative tangled web of nightmarish

shuffling of ministries, and then they try to tell the people of this

[ Page 1673 ]

province and Ottawa how to run their affairs, when

we can't even have a minister in his seat long enough to know where the

washroom is. That's why they built so many washrooms in cabinet

ministers' suites; at least they know where that convenience is, beyond

the rest of the problems that they have.

Here are the cabinet changes, pages and pages of them, in the

Bennett administration. Yet, Mr. Chairman, after four years the crucial

change that should have been made at that time has never altered at

all; and that is the leader of this government, who says one thing and

spouts something else. Lecturing is one thing, chastizing is another

and high-flown grounds for statesmanship are something else. But

examining the record of the leader of this government leads one to

believe that the record was stuck in a speech that was programmed in

1974. Events have passed him by; when all else fails, get up and

filibuster.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to your attention some other

problems. I outlined the double-talk about economic strategy. I've

outlined the fact that the Premier's commitment to federal

participation doesn't go to that dangerous point of voting. Let's look

at the consequences of this kind of drift, the lack of credibility that

the Premier has forced on himself because of the drift and the deep

concern people have about this government as it comes to its epitasis.

Look at the Hydro rates. We had a lovely example today in question

period. The Minister of Universities, Science and Technology — and

outer space — was in trouble. He got a whisper in the ear on how to

answer the question on B.C. Telephone. Then the Premier got up to throw

confusion into his own answer. He said: "We're just waiting for the

introduction of this regulatory body that will permit us to have some

control over these utilities." That sounds very good.

MR. BARBER: Bring it on tomorrow.

MR. BARRETT: "Bring it on tomorrow," says my good friend and

colleague for Victoria. I want to remind you of something again that

the Premier seems to forget. There are nasty reporters around. I don't

wish to attack the media. I'll leave that to the Premier. This is what

the media reported the Premier said in the Province of October 13,

1978, about B.C. Hydro: "While B.C. Hydro is warning customers

unofficially to brace themselves for a steep increase in natural gas

and electricity rates next year, Premier Bennett says he expects Hydro

to lower its rates."

MR. BARBER: What year was that?

MR. BARRETT: That was 1978. Did he bring in the legislation

that you are blocking — that you, personally, the member for Victoria,

are blocking? Did he bring it in before? You blocked it for a year and

a half.

The Premier said in Victoria Thursday that he expects Hydro to be

able to reduce rates, because it will save $60 million annually once

its losses in the transit division are transferred to the Urban Transit

Authority.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was he telling the truth?

MR. BARRETT: Well, no. Never ask the question: is the Premier

telling the truth or telling a fib? No, no, never ask that question.

Just examine what he says from one month to another and find out if he

knows the difference.

He stands up today and tells us about his economic policies. He

slaps wrists about nasty Ottawa and doesn't even vote himself. He

stands up in question period and says we are stopping him from handling

Hydro, which is a new problem, when he himself said Hydro should have

been cutting rates two years ago. What else?

Let's go to Gloucester estates in Langley. Let's deal with that in

terms of continuity in government and faith in the judgment and the

application of law. Whether we like it or not a decision which aroused

a great deal of controversy was made to remove land out of the

agricultural land reserve by way of an appeal to cabinet. I didn't like

that. I didn't like that land being removed, but it was according to

the law of the land; if you want to change the law of the land, you

involve yourself in politics and get elected to office. The land was

removed, and a public outcry was heard. Lo and behold, the chief

officer of the government of this province announced that he didn't

want the land removed. Well, I'm glad to hear he didn't want the land

removed. Why didn't he say so before the land was removed? What did he

do about it once he decided that the land shouldn't be removed? He

attempted to circumvent the law as it existed, without ever indicating

that he was going to bring amendments into this House to prevent that

from ever happening again in the province of British Columbia.

The Premier is on record, Mr. Chairman, as being against that land

being removed. I won't go through all of the details of the exchange.

They are a matter of public record between the people involved, both

pro and con. But at the present time there are proceedings leading to a

court case by Gloucester to have that land excluded. I don't think it's

fair to Gloucester to have on the public record that the Premier wants

that land in the land reserve without him coming in here and placing a

law in front of us to prevent it and save Gloucester and the community

the turmoil of going through a legal process that the Premier has

already indicated that he would fudge anyway.

You want to save that land? You want it in the land reserve? We've

been here for three weeks. Do something about it instead of putting any

citizen, regardless of where they sit on this issue, through the hoops

of a court hearing. If you've already made up your mind and if you

don't want the land removed, then say so. But people aren't believing

you any more, Mr. Premier. Your statements are contradictory, they're

ad hoc, they're knee-jerk, and there is no consistency in terms of

policy.

My friend the member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) has dealt with the Marguerite . The Premier, as I understand it, was on television yesterday admitting: "Perhaps we handled that one badly."

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, perhaps. I'll wait until the red light

goes on. I'll have a couple of minutes after that. I know, Mr.

Chairman, that you impose the rules fairly. When the red light goes on,

that means we keep talking for a little while.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier said yesterday that they might have fudged up the Marguerite a

little bit, and that they'd handled that one badly. You didn't handle

that one badly. You blew it! You forced the poor old member for Cariboo

(Hon. Mr. Fraser), who has never had any naval experience beyond being

on a row-boat in a high wind on Lac la Hache, into being responsible

for determining whether or not the Marguerite is safe. We have experts all over the

[ Page 1674 ]

world, including Lloyd's of London, who say that

the ship is safe. We have people saying they're the ones who will be

sued if their word isn't taken. All of a sudden, the poor member for

Cariboo is forced to carry the can again. One of the most popular

members in this House has his reputation dragged down because of the

Premier's actions. I have so many other examples, but I now want to

come to the Bates commission on uranium.

The Premier had a position of peddling uranium. He went over to

Europe and said: "Boys, come and buy B.C. uranium. The only thing

stopping it is federal legislation." The Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) was even clearer. The Premier

left the clear statement: "Boys, come and buy uranium. It's going to be

available. The only block is from the federal government." As he

travelled throughout the European community he left the impression that

British Columbia would be in the marketplace to sell uranium. Then he

set up the Bates commission, saying he wanted to make sure his position

was correct.

Under the Public Inquiries Act you delegate authority from this

Legislature to take certain actions as defined by law. But I have never

heard that once you define certain actions under a public inquiry there

is a

summary execution; I think it's against the law. I don't think

that the Premier, who is surrounded by sycophantic ministers, has the

right to announce: "I now have decided to terminate the Bates

commission." I think Dr. Bates has been most charitable in negotiating

an additional five months to save face for this government. I welcome

the latter-day conversion of the Premier against radioactive material.

I'll leave it at that, but there's a lot more that has to be said about

the inconsistencies of the Premier and his gobbledegook mindset speech

that hasn't changed in three years, in the face of the facts and in his

own behaviour.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon the leader of

the official opposition made some sense. Today he made some sense,

particularly when he talked about people who are against people keeping

Canada together. He called them kooks — "right on," he says — and he

called them nitwits and he called them screwballs. This is the day of

true confession. This is the day of true confession, for today the

leader of the official opposition levelled in this House. He indicated

just exactly what the socialists are in this province and what they

believe in and, indeed, how critically dangerous their policies are and

how menacing those policies are to the continuance of this country as

we know it. Yet the leader of the official opposition today labels

those people who support such policies and who endorse them as

screwballs, as nitwits and as kooks. But who indeed did not ferment, if

not spawn, those ideas? I'll tell you. "For an Independent Socialist

Canada: resolutions prepared by the Waffle movement in the New

Democratic Party for the consideration of riding associations,

affiliated union locals and youth clubs for the federal convention of

the New Democratic Party, Ottawa, April, 1971." This is what they think

about keeping our country together.

"As New Democrats, we see the recognition of Quebec

nationhood as essential to the building of an independent socialist

Canada.... The whole history of French Canada since the conquest of

1759 is ample testimony to the existence of a Quebec nation. Many

historical events, such as the rebellion of 1837, the response in

Quebec to the hanging of Riel in 1885, conscription crises in both

world wars, and the political ferment of the past, make it clear that

French Canada is an embattled nation that has been denied full

expression of its national existence."

This is what they say. And this is what this self-defined.... I

won't use those words, Mr. Chairman, because they'd probably be

considered unparliamentary — he called himself that. He says this:

"We must give up any vision of Canada which sees

Quebec as a province like the others. As long as we insist on Quebec

behaving like the other provinces, this will not be possible. The

people of Quebec will not go along with any other form of federal

government. We must seek a solution which allows both nations to pursue

the creation of a planned socialist economy, without this causing

problems for nationalization."

Here are their resolutions:

"Be it resolved:

(2) The New Democratic Party supports

the right of the people of Quebec to national self-determination up to

and including the right to form an independent Quebec state. A lasting,

solution to the relations of our two peoples can only be determined

when popular representatives from both sides sit down and negotiate on

Canada and Quebec. We believe that full national equality can be

Mr. Chairman, this is the man who stood in the House today and

labelled these people as being "screwballs, nitwits and kooks." Yet he

endorsed those premises, as did the former Attorney-General, as did the

former Minister of Municipal Affairs, as did the hon. lady member, and

as did the former Speaker. Now how could you possibly sign a document

like that, which, in the back of it, is the self-destruction of our

country?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, we have been given a delightful

treat today. After three months in the position of Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations, he has now evidenced the amount of

research he has done on national affairs on behalf of this government.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Are you going to renounce this?

MR. BARRETT: You renounced the Liberal Party.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Will you renounce this? Yes or no.

MR. BARRETT: Will you shut up? Will you promise me that you'll get Bill to vote?

Mr. Chairman, everybody is responsible for democratic participation in every resolution, in every party, and we don't

[ Page 1675 ]

control what documents come to our party. We vote against them, as I did and will continue to do.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Why did you endorse it?

MR. BARRETT: Because I wanted it discussed, as this country should have been discussing it.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, go back and find your hidden cops. It's so nice to have the member from Vancouver–Little Mountain here, finger and all.

Mr. Chairman, there is a serious debate going on in this country,

and that debate must be addressed by all politicians. I have never

taken, and never will take, the position that any part of Canada should

separate. And I made that very clear.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Do you renounce it and all it stands for?

MR. BARRETT: Do you deal with affidavits or don't you?

The fact is that I have always participated in every federal

election that I've been able to; I've voted in every federal election;

and I've stated publicly that I endorse those policies that keep this

country together. I have never run away from the ballot box or my

position on any federal issue.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Was that the work of a kook?

MR. BARRETT: What, the reading of it? It certainly was. Mr.

Chairman, he has been much happier since he's no longer burdened with

that portfolio.

I want to go on to finish my remarks about a government that has

been operating ad hoc with the Premier interfering in decisions. I

listed some of those decisions beyond the cabinet changes — the Hydro

rates, the Marguerite and the Bates commission. It was a dramatic

switch in position by the Premier of this province, who was in Europe

flogging uranium sales from British Columbia, using the only barrier at

that time that the federal government had. The ultimate answer!

Mr. Chairman, we also have to deal in this province with the three

evils that the Premier has not specifically addressed himself to. One

is the high interest rates. You're against them? Then give people some

of their tax money back, and allow them to use their own money instead

of having to borrow money to buy means of transportation to get to work

and fill your tax coffers. Unemployment. Give people some of their own

tax money back so that businessmen are allowed to reinvest their own

tax money and create jobs here in the province of British Columbia

instead of....

Where is the vision in terms of capital investment in this province?

Where is the vision that W.A.C. Bennett had about this province? Where

is the vision and leadership that was always part and parcel of a major

debate under the Premier's estimates about different philosophical

approaches to that vision? There always was that annual debate. There

was talk of the great railway right through to Alaska. There was talk

of industrial projects. There was talk of reinvestment and joint

venturing on the basis of a government that was led by a man who at

least had a vision and an understanding of this province from border to

border. We had the debate of coastal shipping. We always had the

philosophical agreement in this House that we would never sell out to

Ottawa and its subsidies — buying out the subsidies so that we're stuck

with coastal shipping while the maritime provinces get a far better

deal. Who was it that sold out but the Premier of this province?

Mr. Chairman, where are the plans for a steel mill in this province

that were aborted by this government? What about the destruction of

Railwest, only to have the machinery from that Railwest plant sold to

the Americans, who are now using that very machinery to sell railcar

plants and railcars into the Canadian market? Where's our oil refinery?

There is no vision. There is no leadership.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Last but not least, the member for Vancouver Centre talked about

legislation passed in this House in 1975 that even the Socreds voted

for — the Savings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia. There were

statements made by those members in support of this legislation under

the New Democratic Party. They agreed that this vehicle could be used

to finance housing, help small businessmen and assist co-ops in this

province. Nary a vote against it from the Socreds. Our report was

prepared by a joint committee of the Finance department and by the

British Columbia Central Credit Union. That report was given to this

government in February 1976 to implement the program that they

endorsed. That report has been kept secret by Social Credit ever since.

Where is that report, Mr. Premier? Give us an opportunity to examine a

real blueprint as an alternative. You voted for it in this House. It

was an attempt to deal with high unemployment, high inflation and high

interest rates. Why are you keeping the report secret? As you

tinker-toy around with economic theories that you have abandoned

yourself, we have on the floor of this House legislation that can get

to work to allow people to use their own money, not by a crutch, as the

Premier wants to say, but use their own money to deal with the economic

problems we have in this province. It is the epitasis. It was a

pathetic but welcome bit of comic relief from the former

Attorney-General to defend a Premier who finds it very difficult to

defend himself, especially over these last six months.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I always enjoy the Leader of the

Opposition, and I wish him continued success in that role. He was

incorrect in a large number of things. I'll deal specifically with the

uranium question in Europe. Number one, this government did not go to

Europe selling uranium. The government was not actively concerned about

developing B.C.'s uranium resources, but when you go to Europe you go

as a Canadian, not just a British Columbian. I was asked at a general

meeting about Canadian uranium, and I said that policy was the federal

government's, which it is. They said our party is the one party in this

House that has been entirely consistent on uranium mining. We've been

entirely consistent.

I remember when I saw the document. The Minister of Energy, Mines

and Petroleum Resources, Mr. Hewitt, phoned me during the last election

about a document that dealt specifically with.... He phoned me on a

TV show and told me about a document that was there, signed when the

last government was in power, authorizing a company to undertake

uranium mining. Normally in this province, Mr. Chairman, one only has

to get a free miner's licence to search

[ Page 1676 ]

for anything. The minister told me, on television, that this

document dealt with it specifically. I think that was the position of

that party as government.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We have not. Uranium exploration was

underway and this government has taken a look at it. We've had the

Bates commission and, yes, it will provide a fund of information for

the people of this province. When the seven-year moratorium is over,

Dr. Bates or his successor can conduct, with the accumulation of

additional technical information developed in the next seven years, the

type of research and hearings that will give the British Columbia

government of that day the opportunity to make their statement on

uranium mining. The information from the Bates commission is not a

waste. It will be valuable public information because it deals with

some of the myths.

But we made a decision. The decision was this — that there be a

moratorium on uranium mining for seven years. The economic climate and

the mining climate is such in this province now that it can stand a

government to stand up and say this particular resource will not be

mined, because the people have a concern — the people, not the

political flipfloppers who do one thing as government and another when

they're out, not those who choose to ride on the coat-tails of their

successful counterparts in Saskatchewan when it suits their purpose,

and run away because Saskatchewan, under the NDP, is undertaking major

uranium exploration and mining to ride on the coat-tails of their

national leader, Mr. Broadbent, who believes in uranium mining. No, I

think the public knows where the inconsistencies lie and they know that

this government, as government, has taken action to provide that

security and peace of mind to British Columbians in that during the

next seven years no uranium exploration or mining will take place.

That's what this government has done.

Others in this chamber who have been government and have undertaken

other action, with which they apparently disagree now, or who publicly

wish to condemn their colleagues in other provincial governments, and

their national leader.... That's a private party matter and I don't

think we need to dwell on it in this Legislature. What we need to dwell

on is that uranium mining or exploration will not take place for the

next seven years in this province. The government of British Columbia

did not, nor did I, go to Europe on a uranium selling expedition, as

was incorrectly stated, amongst other things, by the Leader of the

Opposition. That's totally untrue.

MR. BARRETT: You didn't talk to them about selling uranium from B.C.?

HON. MR. BENNETT: If the Leader of the Opposition would

listen, Mr. Chairman, I was there also as a Canadian. One thing the

Leader of the Opposition, with his limited exposure to international

affairs, doesn't realize is that when you're there they treat you, and

expect you to respond, as a Canadian. They don't care that your mind

might be preoccupied with some small piece of the country. They ask us

questions on Canadian affairs. They ask us questions on government of

Canada policy. In that case the question was to do with the government

of Canada and the question of the export of uranium. We responded that

I was there as a provincial government Premier and as a Canadian, and

twist a question that happened there into your own, because.... Mr.

Chairman, I was hoping we could….

MR. BARRETT: You didn't discuss B.C. uranium?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, that was the question, and that was the answer I gave.

I'm quite aware that this debate on my estimates may wander, as

there are those who see and say what they wish to see and say, using as

the basis for their research any newspaper report that forms the basis

of any conclusion they wish to reach. I tell them that that mission was

there. The purposes and aims of that mission were clearly identified in

the material made public before the mission left, and it did not

identify that as an area. But when we, as Canadians, are travelling,

questions about Canada, and we respond when the authorities lie....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No. How many times...? I want to tell

you, that question of British Columbia.... Nobody knew that when

you were government you had those secret little orders allowing uranium

exploration. Even I didn't know then that while you were government you

had signed little agreements that specifically dealt with uranium

exploration. We didn't know that.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal, positively of course, with our

economic policy, because we have taken positive recommendations to

first ministers' conferences. There has not always been agreement with

the B.C. position. The B.C. position, and any economic strategy,

requires the agreement of all provincial governments. I want to say

that one of those governments is the province of Saskatchewan. The

things they advocate at those conferences and whether we agree or

whether we adjust to changing economic situations....

We have not yet received all the agreements which would be required

to implement a national policy such as we have talked about. That means

that we will be dealing from time to time with policies that are not as

precise as they could be if we had such agreement. That such agreement

has not yet been reached is no fault of the various governments; it

reflects the various philosophies of many of the governments that go to

those conferences. Many of them separate capital account from current

account; many of them have different economic policies; some of them,

Mr. Chairman, even believe that government ownership is the only answer

in this country. Some of them believe it even though it has not worked

when tried in this country, and in other countries it has been changed

and aborted as they seek a more comfortable public image, and the name

"socialism" is replaced by the words "social democrats"; so we see

changes in what they wish to be or wish to appear to be.

No, Mr. Chairman, our goals haven't changed; our goals haven't

changed this government. What we have tried to do is to provide a

destination or goal which this government wishes to achieve. The

results of our stewardship of the public economy are well known;

they're printed there for the people to see the record of performance

of government. That goes beyond the innuendo, beyond the twisting and

beyond

[ Page 1677 ]

the sometimes whining histrionics that some people would use in

place of discussions of ways we can improve this province and this

country.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let me deal with a couple of other areas in this province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Leader of the Opposition can get up; there is going to be ample time for him to perform for all of us.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to talk about one of the things that make up

this country which is important to us — and perhaps the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) will pay attention — that is, the

basis of the country, the multicultural policy that our province has

been searching for and helping the intercultural and multicultural

society to develop, reinforcing the roots of the people who make up

this province. In a number of conferences we have encouraged

participation, and indeed a publicly sponsored conference in

conjunction with various groups will lead to the development of a

multicultural policy for our province, recognizing the contribution of

the various people who have come to help us build a country, the

contribution they have made in the past and can make in the future

without losing their identities, because of the very strength they

bring to this country, a strength we want to preserve. Their culture

can be a part of the Canadian and British Columbia culture. That

requires that all of us broaden our understanding of those strengths

that they bring them.

Later this year, hopefully, the multicultural policy, as a result of

these meetings that took place in the major conference in concurrence

with the intercultural multicultural group, will be a permanent part of

government policy in British Columbia. It would be more than a

strengthening, then, of the support of the festivals, observance of

national days and preservation of their customs. It will also be

physical ways in which we can help in the development of their cultural

centres, such as we've done with the Chinese cultural centre and other

groups, not only in greater Vancouver but in areas such as my own

constituency, where we have been able to help provide a senior

citizens' home sponsored by the Japanese-Canadian society there, which

has played a long and historic

part in developing Kelowna and the

Okanagan area itself. The facilities, then, need not just be those

meeting places for culture, such as their cultural halls and societies,

but in fact their ability as societies to provide these types of

facilities that meet a public need as well — nursing home care, senior

citizen care and others.... They have a strong role to continue to

play, both in our province and our country.

One of the strengths is also one of the solutions for the

continuation of the country, and that is an understanding of the

differences in background of many of the people that built the country,

whether they be French-Canadians, Anglo-Canadians or those from other

countries of the world. There shouldn't be a concern today that somehow

a flood of people is going to come in and take the jobs of Canadians,

because this country has always provided a home for many who desire

hope in the world. I see the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) pounding

his desk; he chose to make this his country and his province, and

indeed has been a large part of the building of this province and of

the Kootenay region. That's important, because we can talk balance

sheets, and you can talk bottom line, but the bottom line in this

province and in this country is really people. You serve them well when

you manage their money well, but you serve them well when you recognize

them as individuals, recognize what they have to offer in this country,

and recognize that their differences don't necessarily hurt but may

help this country.

With that type of background that's going to help our country and

our province as we assert ourselves into international trade, because

it's more evident than ever that the country cannot be propped up by

the walls of high tariffs holding the outer reaches of Canada as

captive markets for central Canadian manufacturing........ That hasn't

served the development of our industrial base, and it certainly hasn't

helped central Canada, in which the very industry that's been protected

has become weak in some cases, inefficient and non-competitive on the

international market.

A lot of our future in meeting our aspirations in developing more

than resources, getting more value added in our industry and more

process in refining, will be the ability, to look at world markets and

develop an industry of scale that can compete on world markets. That's

why it's been important that the country has moved, as British Columbia

has pressed for for many years, to a lowering of our high tariff

barriers which, in protecting a market of less than 25 million people,

have denied us market access in the hundreds of millions to other

countries in the world who put up their barriers in retaliation.

We now see a growing opportunity for Canada, but it's manifest here

in British Columbia where we are Canada's western window. We are the

window to the Pacific Rim — a window that has great promise because the

countries of the Pacific Rim are emerging countries. Their industrial

success and their growth also give them the type of economy and

personal income that makes them consumers. They then can become

customers as well as sellers. We have an opportunity for expanded trade

which will help Canada with its balance of payments, will help

strengthen not only the British Columbia economy but the Canadian

economy as well.

These are things that we are pleased that Canada has been moving to

and is moving to because of the recent GATT negotiations, in which the

Premiers' conference and the Western Premiers' Conference have had a

united position. British Columbia has played an aggressive role in

encouraging the lowering of tariff barriers that deny us access to many

growing markets of the world. If British Columbia is to have industry

with a small population we cannot build up the type of industry of

scale, with our own population as consumers, sizeable enough to

compete. It has to start with at least the logical parts of the world

as its market base in order to get our products to market, to employ

our people in higher technological positions, to provide the additional

value added.

There's always been a lot of rhetoric about getting more jobs and

more industry. This government didn't cancel, as someone said, a steel

mill for British Columbia. There was no steel mill. At a time when

world steel markets were falling apart and at a time when the capacity

of the steel industry was declining — I think it dropped to between 60

percent and 70 percent of capacity — the Japanese were eager to find

somebody else to help pay for a study they didn't have to use. They

were pleased because they knew that normally they would have to pay the

whole cost of the study. That very study was held out as an

expectation. We've seen what the steel market has been like. Try to

count the number of new steel facilities initiated and developed in the

last number of years when

[ Page 1678 ]

existing facilities are having financial problems. We see the

problem of North American steel on the west coast. One only has to look

at Kaiser Steel in the U.S.

The statement that this government cancelled a steel mill is untrue;

it's false; it's incorrect. No one would make that statement except

someone who knew it was incorrect and was trying to gain political

advantage; I see no other reason. To continually hold out false

expectations to the people when most of them know better.... They

read the international magazines. You're not dealing with a public that

somehow has no access to knowledge. They know that the steel industry

has been under capacity for a number of years. They know the problem of

west coast North American steel. To continually hold out the hope of

something of which there is no expectation to justify paying half the

cost of a study for a Japanese company is certainly not considering the

solution and placing the economic facts squarely before the people of

this province.

In the future in this province there will be some opportunity for

more refining and more processing. It will be a decision government

will make about utilizing our energy. In many countries which now have

aluminum smelters and other facilities, the key component is a secure

supply of energy. Governments will have to consider dealing with such

proposals and looking at energy requirements and sources and the best

use of that energy and whether it can develop additional value-added

processing and industry in our province. That opportunity is real. It's

being able to calculate whether that's the best use of the energy and

whether they can negotiate additional processing of that product that

will employ the people of British Columbia. Certainly a country like

Japan, which imports energy, is a successful trading nation.

The other day one member of the Legislature, who was wrong again,

cited West Germany as the most outstanding example of growth of gross

national product and lower interest rates, and as the greatest

industrial success in the world. Again he's wrong. I'm sure it happens

to be Japan. Their real growth rate will be the largest of what are

considered to be the major powers in the industrialized world. Japan

has done this even though they are a country that's had to face the

impact of being almost totally reliant upon imported energy. What's

happened to supplies and prices, as a result of the actions of the OPEC

countries in 1973.... Part of the reason for the economic mission

to Japan last fall was to reinforce B.C.'s position that perhaps as

trading partners we could take a look at their changing position; that

it was in their interest to complement B.C.'s industrial position, a

position held since we became government, to get more processing,

refining and manufacturing in this province; that perhaps it was

short-sighted of them to continue industrial manufacturing that

consumed high levels of energy; that a good future trading relationship

would provide more manufacturing or more processing in British

Columbia; that it would create more opportunities not just for our

people but for the increasing number of other Canadians who are coming

to British Columbia as part of what is the Canadian birthright of

opportunity and free movement of people.

As I said earlier, part of the problem we face in British Columbia

today is, because of our success, to see ourselves as others see us.

Perhaps there are those in this chamber who have become so negative and

so critical that that's all they can do. Perhaps they're not the best

observers of what other Canadians and people in other countries think

about British Columbia and its opportunities. I say a useful thing

would be to ask the people who are coming to British Columbia: "Why are

you coming?" They're coming because they can see the opportunities. You

see, their whole life isn't built around being negative. They're not

seeking some sort of advantage they think may do them some personal

good by being negative. They see very real opportunities here. That's

why they're coming.

There are people from other countries who want to come to Canada for

the very same reasons. When they get to Canada it doesn't take them

long to realize that British Columbia and the west are where the

opportunities lie. These are the people who can make a reasonable and

valued judgment. They haven't tied their whole life into bitterness and

criticism so that they can no longer get a useful perspective. They're

willing to make a contribution, as I hope we all are. British Columbia

has, as I said, some very real reasons to be confident about the future.

I also pointed out that we have some very real challenges on the

national level. I say that not in the spirit of rethrashing old straw,

but in a very real attempt to say that some time we've got to come to

grips with the issue and, perhaps, be united in British Columbia. I

think the people are united in support of our attempts to do something

positive about it. It doesn't mean we have to abandon firm positions

that we believe are important to preserving our province. It doesn't

mean that our party would have to abandon our position of preserving

the ownership and control of provincial resources. It doesn't mean

advantage now reached by British Columbians who have lacked other

advantages in the past. It means trading it when it becomes of value.

We won't abandon that position, and it's a provincial ownership right

that's worth fighting for. The fight could be more than

electorally.... It's worth fighting for, that ownership right of

our resources in our province.

Mr. Chairman, we might disagree on some things in this chamber, but

we can agree on the general aims. I think we can also agree on some of

the approaches that may help us achieve some success. Oh, there's

plenty of opportunity to disagree and fight and be bitter and try to

rehash the last election, but I think one of the areas in which the

public don't want to see the pettiness of that type of action is in the

national arena, as we attempt to do something about our country.

I would hope that all members, if they wish, would get up and say

something positive about our country and our province and say what we

can do about it during my estimates. We've got a lot to be positive

about.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, one of the most positive things

the Premier could do is to explain to us why he didn't vote in the

federal election. If the Premier is sincere about his appeal to all of

us to deal with these issues and avoid pettiness, tell us why he didn't

vote in the election. If there is no valid reason, apologize, and then

we can go from there. But you can't say one thing in the House here and

do another thing outside. The Premier wishes to ramble on, so I have to

come back to specific questions. Estimates deal with specific

questions. I appreciate the Premier not wanting to address himself to

these things. He might find them embarrassing, but I'm patient. We

might get around to some answers.

The Premier promised to go to Ocean Falls. He never kept that

promise. The Premier promised to go to Squamish before they closed

Railwest. He never kept that promise. The

[ Page 1679 ]

Gloucester estate, Mr. Premier. Do you intend to amend the

legislation to ensure that that property goes into the agricultural

land reserve? Do you intend to do that? Do you intend to keep your word

saying that you want that land preserved? I hate to appear to be so

nasty as to even ask a question, Mr. Chairman, but I'm just simply

asking a question. Does the Premier intend to see that that land, as he

said publicly, goes back to the agricultural land reserve? Yes or no.

Does the Premier intend to continue his position against B.C. Hydro

raising rates? Yes or no. Does the Premier wish to continue his

position on his explanation of the Bates commission? What about his

position on whether or not he advocated the sale of British Columbia

uranium? You said no, Mr. Premier. You say that press reports are

incorrect. I'll read the press report, and perhaps you can indicate to

me that this is wrong. I quote from the Vancouver Province of

September 16, 1977: "'They want it, we've got it,' Bennett said of

B.C.'s yet unmined uranium deposits." Now did I understand you clearly?

You said that you did not raise the possible sale of uranium from

British Columbia. No, I'm not going to go through another 40-minute

filibuster. I got your answer. You said no, you did not. You tell me

right across the floor. Yes or no.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: He shouted "no" across the floor. We heard your

answer. Is this newspaper report incorrect? Mr. Chairman, the newspaper

report...and I know what reporters are like; they're always wrong,

according to the Premier. "They want it, we've got it," says Bill. Now,

Mr. Chairman, you heard the Premier yell that he did not push the sale

of B.C. uranium. I heard the Premier yell "no." The member for

Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) heard him yell "no." The Premier even heard

himself yell "no." Now was he speaking as the lawyer or the deputy? Was

he speaking as the Premier or the leader? Was he speaking as a Canadian

or as a British Columbian? Well, I understand that he was saying to all

of us in this House that as the Premier of British Columbia, over there

on a Canadian mission as well as a British Columbian mission, he did

not advocate or discuss the sale of uranium from British Columbia at

all. He yelled "no." He said my newspaper research is wrong. Nasty

newspapers! Don't you ever publish this stuff again!

MR. MACDONALD: He's going to take back his answer.

MR. BARRETT: He'll take back his answer? I won't rip up the

paper. Having been the victim of bad reporting in the past, having had

my own words put on a tape and then denied that it is my voice, having

signed letters and denied that it's my signature, I would do like the

Premier does in that frame and say: "No." And he said no.

So what I did, as Leader of the Opposition, is I phoned to Europe. I

had my staff phone the secretary to President Jenkins of the Commission

of European Communities. President Jenkins was present in the room with

Premier Bill Bennett. The secretary to the commission was present in

the room with Bill Bennett. The name of the secretary was Etienne

Reuter, and he transcribed the minutes of the meeting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: The Vancouver Province wasn't there. The Vancouver Sun

wasn't there. Bill Bennett was. Jack Webster wasn't there. Marjorie

Nichols wasn't there. All of those backbenchers weren't there. Jack

Davis wasn't there. But Etienne was there.

Now what did Etienne say when we phoned him? Somebody give the

Premier some advice. I want to read to you what Etienne Reuter said

took place at that meeting where he recorded the minutes, when Bill

Bennett was present, along with Roy Jenkins — not the newspaper, not a

tape, but the secretary who recorded the minutes, recalling that when

we asked the Premier a number of times.... My colleague, the second

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), said: "Did you advocate

selling B.C. uranium?" "No," he yelled. Well, here's what Etienne

Reuter has to say about the Premier and his word — not the newspaper

research, but the man who was there and took the minutes:

"Brussels,

December 6, 1979.

Mr. John Mika,

Office of the Leader of the Opposition,

Parliament

Buildings,

Victoria, British Columbia,

V8V 1X4, Canada.

"Dear Mr. Mika:

"I refer to your telephone conversation of last

week relating to Prime Minister Bennett's visit to the commission on

September 15, 1977. During the conversation between President Jenkins

and Mr. Bennett, which was mainly devoted to Canada's constitutional

problem" — the Premier seemed to remember that — "and the political

situation in Quebec" — oh, the Premier seemed to remember that — "the

Prime Minister underlined the concern of his government to find markets

for the province's products and listed, among others, uranium."

"In reply to a question put by President Jenkins,

he explained that natural resources were under provincial jurisdiction,

but that the federal minister for mines and resources was exercising

export control over uranium."

That

part is correct.

What the Premier neglected to tell this House in his emphasized

statement of "no" is that, according to. the minutes of this meeting,

the Premier was talking to Roy Jenkins about buying B.C. uranium and

other products from this province. The next line says: "I hope this

information will be of some use to you." I doubt if it'll be of any use

to me or anybody in this province. We know how the Premier tailors his

answers to the situation that he finds himself in, even in this House.

"Do not hesitate to contact me again if you need further clarification."

I'll read the line again. In direct response to a question from my

colleague across the floor of this House — "Did you attempt to sell

uranium from British Columbia?" — you yelled "no," in a fit of anger.

In relation to that specific through you, Mr. Chairman — I quote again:

"During the conversation between President Jenkins and Mr. Bennett, which was mainly devoted

[ Page 1680 ]

to Canada's constitutional problems and the

political situation in Quebec, the Prime Minister underlined the

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

and listed, among others, uranium. "

Who's wrong, Bill? This poor little clerk who took the minutes, or

you? Why would we bother to write and double check? We've learned in

the opposition that it's necessary to double-check the Premier's

statements and his positions and, if necessary, to go to the source to

find out what the situation is. We know that all of the press gallery

is wrong, as announced by the Premier at the last Social Credit

convention. We know that he never said, as quoted in the Vancouver Province ,

that Hydro should cut their rates. You know that he never said on

electronic tape: "I will go up to Squamish and talk to the railcar

plant employees." You know that he never said that he knew anything

about the dirty tricks or the letters. We know all of those things.

MR. BARNES: Try seatbelts.

MR. BARRETT: We also know about the seatbelts, then he said,

"there's no seatbelt in the car," but the dirty cameraman went and

took a picture of the seatbelt in the car — the seat that he just left.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the record of the leader of this

government is one of vacillation, one of avoidance of answering

questions, but once provoked into answering a question that may unnerve

him or embarrass him, inevitably the answer is one at conflict with the

facts.

As far as I am concerned, the Premier can get up and take another 40

minutes and go ahead and do another flowery encounter.... We'll

have a group encounter session here, and old Jack and the boys can hit

outer space and understand what he's talking about. The rest of us who

are not astronauts are still trying to figure out what space the

Premier's in, but when it comes to dealing with the facts, don't stand

up in this House and give us claptrap and double-talk when the facts

are entirely different on your position on uranium.

MR. DAVIS: As an astronaut from outer space, I have been

endeavouring to sort out in my own mind what clearly is the position of

the opposition on several important issues. I think, though, looking

back over speeches not only from today but in recent years, there are

several lines which can be drawn — several differences which are obvious

to those who take a long view of things.

One difference is in respect to resource development. Resource

development is very important in a resource-rich province like this.

The difference is remarkable. The party opposite — certainly the Leader

of the Opposition — appears to believe really in a closed society, in a

province that can perhaps do everything on its own. He talks about

keeping interest rates down; really he would be involving us in a

tremendous belt-tightening, saving program if we were to try and

develop our own resources as rapidly as he would like us to do.

This party on this side of the House believes in partnership, in working with

others and, through foreign trade — and,

for a time at least, through foreign investments — supporting our own investment,

harnessing our resources in an effective way. I think the difference is one

of a very closed, narrow approach to resource development and a much more worldly,

outlooking free trade approach to resource development. The results are there

for all to see in terms of revenues paid to this province by our resource industries

in the 1970s. The resource industries certainly produced less revenue in '75

than in '74. The resource revenue was dropping sharply. Industries like forestry

and gas production and so on were generating less revenue. We've had a remarkable

increase in resource revenue in the last five years. In the last year we've

had — what's been called, at least — a windfall of revenue. As a

result we've been able to decrease the proportion of revenue coming from people

from 60 percent to 50 percent. This has been possible because resource revenues

have increased, and they've increased as a result of investors' confidence

in the resource industries in this province.

In this latest budget, roughly half of this increase in revenue is

going into a stabilization fund, a sort of heritage fund. We can't

count on resource revenues increasing as rapidly in the next few years

as they have done in the last two or three years. Nevertheless, for the

long pull, with this party in power we have a much greater likelihood

of resource income giving the people of this province the standard of

living, the standard of services to which they are really entitled.

The resources of this province belong to this province. The

resources of Alberta belong to Alberta. The Premier of Saskatchewan has

argued eloquently that the resources of Saskatchewan belong to

Saskatchewan. This is a belief in all of the provinces. And in our

future constitution, as it's changed, I hope that that particular

matter is dealt with effectively, and that resource revenues will

remain with the provinces. This has to be an

article of faith,

particularly in provinces which are resource rich, which have

relatively few people, and which have a tremendous potential both in

renewable and non-renewable resources.

Perhaps the hon. Leader of the Opposition didn't mean it, but when

he was in Ottawa at a federal-provincial conference in 1975, he rather

generously said — and repeated — that if the federal government would

nationalize the oil and gas industries of Canada, he would happily sign

over the oil and gas resources of this province to the nation. Now I

rather think he was carried away at the time; it was more a matter of

party doctrine, even socialistic doctrine, than clear thinking. He was

certainly not thinking in terms of the best interests of the people of

British Columbia.

I don't personally believe that ministers in Ottawa, certainly

bureaucrats in Ottawa, can administer resources in this province better

than the people of British Columbia here at home. I believe, for

example, in the administration of resources — the renewable ones at

least — on a perpetual basis: forest resources, fisheries and so on. And

that can best be accomplished by people who are as close as possible to

the scene, as close as possible to the soil and nature of this province

— those who appreciate it most and can protect the environment as well

as make the most from an income point of view of the exploitation of

those resources.

This offer to turn over at least the oil and gas resources of this

province to the national government, if they would socialize the

industry, is a strange stand for a Premier of this province, and a

strange continuing stand for a leader of the official opposition who

aspires again to be the Premier of this

[ Page 1681 ]

province. I would doubt that if during an election campaign the

Leader of the Opposition espoused that policy in an outspoken way

throughout the campaign, the people of British Columbia would buy it.

And I doubt, therefore, if he'd say very much about it.

The Leader of the Opposition has done other things in strange ways.

Perhaps you'll remember, Mr. Chairman, the glossy document entitled

"The Way Out." It certainly was way out. There was an idea that the

Premier had — imported, incidentally, from eastern Canada — to build a

railway down from Alaska to carry Alaskan oil to the continental United

States. I agree with him that it would have been better if some manner

of carrying oil down across Canada such as a pipeline had been adopted.

But it's interesting to note that in that document the railway stopped

at the B.C.-Yukon border, and it was a pipeline the rest of the way.

The rail line was an idea spawned at Queen's University as a result of

a contract with the CPR. The CPR wondered about oil coming from the

north. The Queen's University economists said it might be possible, and

they pointed out that the environmental impact, for example, would be

much worse than that of a pipeline. But that didn't seem to bother the

former Premier. Indeed, he didn't require any engineering studies, any

environmental studies, or environmental protection investigation,

certainly no hearings, and he went to Washington, D.C., to announce it.

He didn't discuss it in Ottawa; he didn't discuss it with anyone before

he aired it in the United States. So that's another strange action and,

I believe — having regard to the long view of resource development in

this province — an irresponsible one.

From time to time the Leader of the Opposition has shown concern

about British Columbians getting their fair share of the pie, if I can

put it that way. I believe he did the right thing when he took a tough

line on natural gas prices and the export of natural gas. The price had

been negotiated on a 25-year basis at 22 cents; it's now over $5. He

had to break a contract — and I think breaking a contract is a serious

thing — but in the nature of the situation, with rising oil prices

after the Middle East crisis, that had to happen.

But the former Premier has gone on to say other things which, if he

were the head of the government, would frighten investors away, not

simply foreign capital but Canadian investors, even investors from

British Columbia. For example, with regard to a future pipeline across

this province, be it oil or natural gas, he said that this province

would get its pound of flesh. Well, I think it's important for a

province to behave responsibly, to lay out well in advance what that

price would be, and then live with it and therefore encourage

investment in other areas.

In foreign investment, and especially foreign investment relating to

trade, we have to have partners. It takes two to tango in respect to

trade: it takes a buyer, an importer abroad, as well as an export

industry in this province. We therefore have to develop an atmosphere

of trust between our trading partners and ourselves. I think that is

very important. This government, with its predictable policies with

respect to resource development, has a much greater opportunity to

attract capital than the party opposite could possibly do.

I know that pricing for exports is important. I know also that we

must concern ourselves with Canadians, certainly British Columbians,

knowing that they have a major share of the action. I think the BCRIC

experiment was a resounding success, and it indicates that there are

many British Columbians who are prepared to invest in our industries,

particularly in our resource industries — to take a chance and in the

long run know that they have had a share of the action in this province.

I agree with the opposition that foreign ownership is a tough

problem. It's a political problem that all parties in this country,

whether federal or provincial, have to deal with. Our people have to

know that they have a share in the action. It's only the manner of

approach that's at issue here. Can we do it all by ourselves, or must

we share this with the private sector, and with foreign investors to a

degree? I don't think we can do it all alone at this stage. That's

really what the opposition is saying.

When the Premier said that interest rates were the biggest single

problem facing us today, I heard a number of members of the opposition

agree. Yes, interest rates are important. Interest rates reflect

inflation. We've got to control inflation, and then we'll control

interest rates.

A government which works with the private sector and, given the

right kind of rules, encourages foreign investment as well as domestic

investment, has a better chance of attracting money and getting

development going in our resource industries — without excessive

inflation or an excessive increase in interest rates — than a

government which would try to do it alone and would try to do it on the

backs of our own people right now by requiring them to save, forcing

them to save, driving interest rates up in the process or running big

deficits and having to borrow, thereby driving interest rates up.

So I think that basically this government is on the right track. If

interest rates are the test, it's following the right course. I believe

the opposition would do the opposite.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with a number

of things, but I wouldn't want the Leader of the Opposition to be able

with his words to put a position on me and this government that is

incorrect. Our government did not go to Europe to sell uranium. With me

were a number of ministers and others from this province who most

likely will want to deal with the question later.

There is no doubt that political members from Europe's many

countries were concerned with uranium. Yes, they would ask questions.

Mr. Jenkins, a former major figure of the British Labour Party, would

be willing to want to know about uranium. If he asked what all the

products that British Columbia had in its treasure trove of wealth

were, he could get a list, because British Columbia went well briefed.

We had briefing books that gave all of the things we had in British

Columbia. Did we try to sell uranium? Not at all, but I think the

letter indicates that he, as a member of the Labour Party, was

interested. Here's the strange thing: there were no attempts to sell

uranium. We certainly did try to sell our coal, forest products and

other products. You know, those things come back and give you….

Although you don't talk to everyone, you talk to people in France,

Germany and other countries. They have responded, because British

Columbia is not only developing its links with the Pacific Rim

countries but with Europe as well — yes, energy-starved Europe at that

time.

As politicians they were concerned with Canada's uranium policy and

whether there was uranium, and they got the answer. The Canadian

government controls the sale of uranium. What products does British

Columbia have in the ground? We have lots of things, but we're here to

sell coal

[ Page 1682 ]

and forest products. That's the truth, and that's exactly why we were there.

Those who would attempt to divert the attention of this debate with

that type of silliness are losing their opportunity to prove themselves

to be positive. I think the public enjoy some of the allegations that

are hurled along with the innuendo in the circus. Then they send

questions saying: "When are the people going to get positive?" Well, my

statements have been clear on this issue. What's more, what speaks

louder than words are the actions of government. Our government has

gotten results, and we've taken action in uranium. We saw the only

action you took on uranium, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, when you were

government. That document exists; maybe you wish it would go away. Our

actions speak for this government. No amount of twisting can ever

change that. This government has had an aggressive policy of helping

our private sector market forest products and coal and opening up a

host of opportunities for industrial products. When we represent our

province and our country, we're not ashamed of the things that are

here, but we know our strengths and we know the things we're there to

sell. Our documents and our research are complete when we go to travel.

It isn't just a camera trip with friends to China.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, we recall a trip when your colleague from Vancouver Centre went to China. We recall that. There were great slides of it.

What we've tried to do is achieve results. People can see it with

the results that have been achieved with British Columbia companies in

countries of Europe. They can see it in the results of the Pacific Rim.

They can see it in expanded trade with Japan and the opening up of a

new forest company mill geared to Japanese dimensions and sizes as we

decrease our dependency on the U.S. market and expand our markets.

MR. LAUK: We've been hearing that for years. Where's the action?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm glad the first member for Vancouver

Centre said: "Where's the action?" Perhaps he isn't aware of the

dramatic increases in B.C. forest products being shipped to Japan as

they have adopted North American building standards. I wonder if he's

not aware that because of that, we now have the first major mill in

British Columbia in Nanaimo. You're sitting next to the member for

Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who knows that Mayo Forest Products is geared

primarily for the dimension and product for the Japanese market. Now,

Mr. Member for Nanaimo, will you please tell your seatmate the great

things that are going on in British Columbia right now?

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: There again, Mr. Chairman, actions speak

louder than words. The member for Vancouver Centre has embarrassed his

colleague, who left the House after he attributed a statement to him

that he may or may not have made.

Mr. Chairman, this province is international in nature in regards to

trade. It's true we've needed an aggressive marketing stance; but that

has been on acceptable and developable B.C. products.

The actions the government has taken are specific actions that the

public can feel and see. They see the expansion in the forest industry,

they see the moratorium on uranium mining, they see the development of

new mines; they see there, Mr. Chairman, as concrete proof of what is

happening. They don't need the silliness of some of the people who are

here under the pretence of conducting the public's business. They don't

need that silliness, because they can see and they can feel the

positive results of actions the government has taken. It's not the

action of a government which believes that all the answers will be

found in government, but of a government that is prepared to help and

assist and encourage the private sector.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), in his few

remarks, addressed that problem and embraced that as the concept that

probably divides us to the greatest degree in this House. We may have

other issues of debate and it may be that that party in opposition has

changed its position since it was government. I think the public, and

perhaps we ourselves, would be very interested in hearing what they're

advocating now, rather than what they're against, and what they would

do to build this province, rather than those people and persons and

things they would attempt to tear down. I think the public can only

enjoy and be titillated by that type of juvenile debate for a very

short period of time. After a while they say: "Let's get on with the

job, and let's assist the people who are doing the job."

There's a growing appreciation and awareness of what's been

accomplished in British Columbia in the last four years. This isn't a

government that survives on rhetoric and speeches; it's a government

that gets things done. That's an old slogan with our party. It's a

slogan that should perhaps be our very motto, because that's what we've

always counted on: performance. It's a government that gets things done

and allows people to get things done. I think the people have had

enough of people who make wild statements, great-sounding speeches and

great entertainment, without the substance of accomplishment — the

accomplishment that people can see and feel around this province.

In Stewart they see a mine reopening; they know about the work the

ministers have done to encourage the new process and to get that mine

reopened. They know the work that this government did — the visible tax

changes that were made to encourage the mining sector that had been

driven out of this province. They were here when the mining industry

was driven out, and they've been here as they've come back. They've

come back with fair taxation, and they've come back having to accept

some measure of responsibility when they do business in British

Columbia. Mr. Chairman, they can see it and they can feel it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I hear a whine from the other side. I don't

know which member it is, Mr. Chairman, but it keeps saying