1980 Legislative Session: 2nd

Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The

following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY,

MARCH 26, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 1691 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling Reports

Public Accounts for 1978-79, printer's

manuscript of volume 2.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1691

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions.

Ferries. Mr. Barber –– 1691

Pharmacare. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy replies –– 1692

Ferries. Mr. Barber –– 1692

Administration of justice. Mr. Macdonald

–– 1693

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office,

estimates.

On vote 9.

Mr. Lea –– 1694

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 1697

Mr. King –– 1699

Mr. Ritchie –– 1700

Mr. Cocke –– 1701

Mr. Hyndman –– 1702

Mr. Howard –– 1704

Mr. Lea –– 1706

Division on the motion that the committee

rise –– 1708

Mr. Lea –– 1708

Mr. Brummet –– 1709

Mr. Nicolson –– 1710

Mr. Strachan –– 1710

Ms. Brown –– 1711

Mr. Segarty –– 1711

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1712

Tabling Reports

Judge McCarthy hearings for the Ministry

of Recreation and Conservation, second, third and final reports.

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 1714

Study of British Columbia Ski Areas and

their Potential Market.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1714

Appendix –– 1714

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker,

since 1897 the Vancouver YWCA, as a community agency, has provided

programs for women in a social, cultural, educational and recreational

environment. In spite of the fact that they are 83 years old in

experience, they are a vibrant, youthful and forceful organization in

their approach to today's challenges and services to women. Therefore I

would like to ask this House to give a particularly warm welcome to

Mary MacDonald, who is the past president of the YWCA; Louise Donovan;

Susan Witter, the president elect; and Cleta Herman, the executive

director.

In addition, I would like to ask the House to

welcome some friends in the gallery today: Mr. Fred Tristane, Mr. Ed

Hawkes and Mr. Trevor Neate.

MR. BARNES: My

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

would like to associate ourselves with the remarks of the previous

speaker.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker and hon.

members, I would like to introduce to the House today and request it

give a very warm welcome to a most distinguished visitor, Mr. Gian

Bettarnio, who is the secretary-general of the European People's Party

in the European parliament. Señor Bettiamo is visiting Canada under the

auspices of the Department of External Affairs, and he is meeting with

representatives of political parties, senior civil servants and

academics throughout the country. I say to him: Buon giorno; we're

delighted you are here, and do come again.

MR. LORIMER:

I take pleasure today in introducing two guests, Joan and Don Jantzen.

They are oldtimers in these precincts. Many members across the way know

them well.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: There are a number of

people in the galleries today whom I would like the House to recognize

— one individual and a group: Mr. Ian Falconer, chairman of the board

of theVancouver Stock Exchange, who is with the firm of Midland

Doherty, and ten ladies from the Salvation Army Home League of

Richmond; among them is Mrs. Eva Poproski.

MR. RITCHIE:

Today I'm very pleased to introduce to the House two very good friends

of mine from the Central Fraser Valley: Mr. Greg Goritsas; and a good

friend to the poultry industry in British Columbia, a retired

gentleman, Mr. Bill Wood, who was the poultry commissioner for British

Columbia for a number of years. Would the House please welcome them.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

May I ask the House to welcome four guests from the constituency of

Dewdney: Mr. and Mrs. Patrick Lowen, Mr. Arthur Cochrane and Mrs.

Stella Jorgenson.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I

seldom introduce anything other than groups of school children, but my

past is catching up to me. An old Air Force buddy whom I haven'tseen

for over 38 years, Bud Boyd, now from Regina, is visiting us today. I

would ask the members to welcome him.

MR. DAVIDSON:

In the gallery this afternoon visiting us is my sister, Mrs. Donna

Mackey, and her friend Mrs. Dora Tysoe. Further, Mr. Speaker, visiting

us is Alderman Lois Jackson and her husband Allan from Delta. I would

ask the House to extend a warm welcome to them.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the printer's manuscript of the 1978-79

Public Accounts ,

four books comprising volume 2.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Would you permit me, Mr. Speaker, while it may be somewhat out of the

ordinary, to indicate that limited copies of the printer's manuscript

are available. The final document is at the Queen's Printer, and we

expect to have it within the next several working days.

Oral Questions

FERRIES

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transportation and

Highways. Is it true that in approximately the fall of 1979 the vessel Queen of Surrey was

promised to the B.C. Steamship Company for use on the 1980

Victoria-to-Seattle run?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, not by me.

MR. BARBER:

To the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, the same

question: did the minister, or anyone acting for him, make a commitment

to Mr. Arthur Elworthy or anyone representing him that the vessel Queen of Surrey

would be made available for the 1980 Victoria-to-Seattle run?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member asked that question, because I had a

lot of negotiations last summer with Mr. Elworthy while he was running

the Princess Marguerite .

We took that Princess

Marguerite

from a loss position on the Victoria-Seattle run and did something with

it. I had a lot of negotiations and discussions with Mr. Elworthy.

MR. BARBER: I don't think the minister

heard the question. Was the vessel Queen

of Surrey

promised by your administration to the B.C. Steamship Company for its

use on the 1980 Victoria- to-Seattle run? Yes or no will do quite

nicely.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I don't think my

administration had any discussions with Mr. Elworthy.

MR. BARBER:

What did you just say? Did you all hear that? You just told us you

spent the summer negotiating with Mr. Elworthy. Now you say....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I recognize the

Minister of Human Resources.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm

responding to a verbal request....

[ Page 1692 ]

MR. BARBER: What is this? I have a

supplementary question.

MR. SPEAKER:

When I recognized the minister there were no other members on their

feet. If we wish to change the way in which the House is run I think

that would be very welcome. However, it would need to be done by a

substantive motion. Other than that I don't believe there should be any

debate.

The Leader of the Opposition rises on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT:

It is customary, Mr. Speaker, as I understand it from your previous

rulings, that when a member is on his feet asking a supplementary he's

allowed to continue the thread.... Obviously the member is still on a

supplementary and was on his feet.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon.

members, the vantage point here gives the Chair a distinct advantage of

seeing what is happening in the room. Clearly, when I recognized the

Minister of Human Resources, no other person was on his or her feet.

Following this I did hear some debate, but certainly no suggestion that

there was a supplementary question. I recognize the Minister of Human

Resources.

PHARMACARE

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to respond to a question regarding

Pharmacare last week from the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt).

March 31 has been the deadline for acceptance of Universal Pharmacare

claims from the previous year since the inception of this program in

1977. In 1978 and 1979 the ministry arranged for announcements on radio

and television to publicize the March 31 deadline and the application

process and benefits of Universal Pharmacare. As well, information

cards and brochures on the program were placed in all pharmacies

throughout the province. In 1979 advertising for that campaign cost

$100,000 to make that information known to our citizens of the

province. A well-established distribution method for Pharmacare

information has been developed with the cooperation of British Columbia

pharmacists.

Pharmacies throughout the province are used as

distributors of Pharmacare information. Claim forms are available in

every pharmacy, and pharmacists routinely refer clients to the claim

forms as prescriptions are filled. As well, pharmacies display ministry

brochures outlining the benefits available through the Universal

Pharmacare Program. Information about the Pharmacare deadline is also

distributed through the private insurance carriers. About 50 percent of

Universal Pharmacare claimants are also covered by private prescription

plans. The CU&C and the MSA claim forms carry a paragraph

reminding

claimants to submit their Universal Pharmacare claims by March 31.

This

year, Mr. Speaker, the ministry undertook a study to determine the

effectiveness of the advertising campaigns of the previous two years.

Comparisons were done on the number of claims received in the first

three months of 1978 and 1979, and on the number of claims received in

January 1980. The analysis showed that while the 1978 pattern of claims

showed an increase with the airing of the commercials, the 1979 claim

pattern was not affected by the advertising campaign. This was seen to

indicate that those with high prescription drug costs who claim under

the Universal Pharmacare Program were aware of the claim period and the

March 31 deadline last year. The two largest private insurance carriers

were also consulted and confirmed that the advertising campaigns show

no significant change in the number of claims received.

decision was made, therefore, not to proceed with another advertising

campaign for this particular program in 1980. The omission of the

campaign this year does not seem to have adversely affected the number

of claims in January and February. In fact, figures on claims for 1980

show an increase in the number of claims received in January and

February over those received in the same period in 1979. This, Mr.

Speaker, has confirmed my ministry's decision not to spend a further

$100,000 on the information campaign for 1980 for this very great

program.

FERRIES

MR. BARBER:

I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Transportation and

Highways. Is it true that B.C. Steamship Company has spent funds on

refit drawings for the proposed use of the Queen of Surrey on

the Victoria-to-Seattle run?

HON. MR. FRASER: You have to come with that

question again, please. I don't understand the question.

MR. BARBER: Is the minister aware that the

B.C. Steamship Company has spent funds on refit drawings of the Queen of Surrey for

its proposed use on the Seattle-to-Victoria run?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware

of that.

MR. BARBER:

It's of some value to know whether or not the minister is in charge of

that corporation. I wonder if it's true that the minister or his

colleague, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips), are aware that the firm of Marine Design

Associates Ltd., 493 Garbally Road in Victoria, was awarded in a

confidential letter dated September 26, 1979, a contract to provide all

necessary ship drawings to refit the vessel Queen of Surrey for

the Victoria-to-Seattle run. Were you aware that decision was taken by

the corporation on whose board of directors you sit?

HON. MR. FRASER: I had no responsibility

whatsoever for the B.C. Steamship Company on the date you referred to.

MR. BARBER:

I would ordinarily put it to his colleague, but I know what happens

with those questions. Let me continue with another question to the same

minister. This secretly awarded job is listed as number 3939 in B.C.

Steamship Company accounts. Marine Design Associates Ltd. submitted

invoice A5563 for its October 1979 work on the Queen of Surrey .

The claimed amount of $24,656 was then paid. Is the minister aware, or

has he been made aware since joining the board in December 1979, that

some $24,000 was thereby spent — or, if you will, wasted — to redesign

a vessel the corporation never used?

[ Page 1693 ]

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware at all, and I haven't been advised since I

joined the B.C. Steamship Company on, I believe, November 30, 1979. The

annual statement for 1979 has been filed in the Legislature as well.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Speaker, I will shortly be tabling these invoices that the minister

seems unaware of. The same invoice lists the name of nine Marine Design

Associates employees who worked on this secret little job. The invoice

records a claim of fringe benefits of some 25 percent and a further

noted — in their own language — markup of 220 percent on that contract

for the October 1979 work. Is the minister aware that the board on

which he sits pays contracts which call for a markup of 222 percent?

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, Mr. Speaker, it goes

back before my time, and I'm not at all aware of the statements that

have been made.

MR. BARBER:

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

Development. Marine Design Associates, by invoice number A5582,

subsequently submitted a bill for its November work on the vessel Queen of Surrey .

This bill, for a ship never used, was also paid — specifically, in the

amount of $30,078. Can the minister, who sits on the board and sat on

it at the time the confidential letter was sent to Marine Design

Associates, inform the House why B.C. Steamships would have found it

necessary to spend a further $30,000 to redraw a ship it was not

permitted to use?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What's your question?

MR. BARBER: They spent a further $30,000...

MR. SPEAKER: A further question?

MR. BARBER: I have to restate it: he didn't

seem to comprehend.

...to

redesign a ship they were never permitted to use. Can the minister tell

us why the board, on which he sat — and sits — would have made such a

decision when, apparently, they were never given the Surrey in the first

place?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll take that question

as notice.

MR. BARBER:

To the current Minister of Transportation and Highways, has the board

of B.C. Steamships made any attempt to recover from the government the

money it wasted on these contracts to redraw the Surrey, because the

government — I don't want to say misled — misinformed them about a

commitment that they might have the Queen of Surrey

for 1980? Has the corporation made any attempt to recover the $54,000,

at least, from the government, which made the obvious mistake?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to

get that information. I can't answer the question at this time.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney-General. On Monday

last, the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) asked the

Attorney-General for a list of the people, other than those named in

his statement, whom he interviewed personally. Has the minister got

that list of the other people interviewed in the miscalled Vogel affair?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You know the rules. I'll

answer when....

MR. MACDONALD: I'm asking if you have the

list now.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm not getting anywhere,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is in order.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The answer is no, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, one Greg Cran reported that he had advised the Boundary

justice council to lie low and not rock the boat with respect to the

case of Mickey Moran, with which the Attorney-General is familiar. May

I ask the Attorney-General: did he or anyone from his ministry

interview Greg Cran in connection with this affair?

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

MR. MACDONALD: On a supplementary, will the

minister check and assure the House? He just said: "To the best of my

knowledge, no."

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I said no.

MR. MACDONALD: You're saying no — all right.

My next question is: is Greg Cran now employed by the

Attorney-General's ministry, and if so, in what capacity and since when?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The answer to the question is yes, Mr. Cran is still employed by the

Attorney-General's ministry. As to when he became employed, I can't

give that information. He is occupying the same position now as he

occupied at the time in question.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon.

members, in phrasing or in constructing questions, I would caution all

members that they must at least review

section 171(

l) of Beauchesne's

fourth edition, in which it is stated that questions which are in order

in the House are questions which are not constructed in such a way as

to bring information to the House for purposes of argumentation. I did

not wish to interrupt question period itself, but I trust that all

members will take that advice.

MR. BARRETT: I think

it's appropriate, if I recall that particular passage in Beauchesne,

that it applies to answers as well, such as the answer read by the

Minister of Human Resources today.

MR. SPEAKER: That

section of Beauchesne

refers to questions.

[ Page 1694 ]

The minister seeks the floor on a point of order. Please state

your point of order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I think it's fair that

I should respond to the Leader of the Opposition, who has made a

suggestion regarding my answer.

MR. BARRETT: That's not a point of order.

I'm referring to Beauchesne.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have your advice. I take it that when a

question is asked in this House orally, it should be responded to in

the same manner as I did in response to the member for Coquitlam-Moody.

If members on the opposite side, however, wish to commit a question to

the order paper, I take it that we answer through the order paper

system.

MR. SPEAKER: The practice of the House is

this; I'll review it for you: questions are asked in question period;

from time to time questions are taken on notice; it is acceptable

during subsequent question periods to answer questions taken on notice;

if the question requires a lengthy answer, it is the option of the

minister to ask for leave to answer the question at a time other than

question period, but this is only a courtesy and is at the option of

the minister. If the question is of such a nature that it requires a

lengthy answer, perhaps the best way of a return is to have the answer

on the order paper itself, as though the question had been a written

question.

On a point of order, the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK:

In dealing with question period, Mr. Speaker, I would also ask your

view with respect to answering questions of members who are not present

at the time the answer is given. It seems to me that a courtesy could

be extended to wait until the member is...if the matter is not so

urgent. The question was asked over ten days ago. This is the first day

the member for Coquitlam-Moody has not been in the House. I wonder if

the ministers couldn't extend the courtesy to answer questions when

members are in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: In responding

to the point of order, it would be delightful if the Chair had such

powers. The fact of the matter is that it is incumbent upon every

member to be in attendance in the House; as a result, it would have to

be a courtesy that would be acknowledged only by the members and not by

the Chair.

The first member for Victoria seeks the floor on a....

MR. BARBER:

I ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to table certain documents: one of them,

signed by Mr. Arthur Elworthy, dated September 26, marked

"confidential," directed to Marine Design Associates of Victoria;

another, an invoice from Marine Design Associates dated November 20,

1979; and the final, another invoice from Marine Design Associates

dated December 6, 1979. I ask leave to table these documents in the

House.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

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

MR. LEA:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take some time with the committee today

to review some of the remarks that were made yesterday. I'll be

referring to the Blues

from

yesterday afternoon, dealing with the question raised by the Leader of

the Opposition in yesterday's debate as to whether or not the Minister

of Industry and Small Business Development, the member for South Peace

River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) ; the Premier, the member for Okanagan South;

and the former Minister of Finance, the Provincial Secretary and second

member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), when they

travelled to Europe on a trade mission — whether or not the government,

through those three ministers and members of this Legislature,

endeavoured to sell uranium to the European countries or the European

communities. During the debate yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition

put it to this committee that the Premier and his delegation, while

visiting the office of the president of the Commission of the European

Communities, did, in fact, tout and push the sale of uranium.

I'd like to go through some remarks surrounding that

conversation yesterday, that debate in the House.

After

the Leader of the Opposition queried the Premier and the government as

to whether they had indeed tried to peddle uranium, to sell uranium in

Europe.... I'd like to take you to page 846-2 in the Blues

of yesterday afternoon. At the bottom of the page where it indicates

the Hon. Mr. Bennett, he began his remarks, after being queried as to

whether or not he tried to sell uranium while in Europe, by saying:

always enjoy the Leader of the Opposition and I wish him continued

success in tha trole. He" — Mr. Bermett was referring to the Leader of

the Opposition — "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 concemed about developing B.C.'s uranium resources."

I'd

like now to refer you, Mr. Chairman, to a letter addressed to Mr. John

Mika, Office of the Leader of the Opposition, Parliament Buildings,

Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, signed by the Secretary to the

Commission of European Communities, a Mr. Reuter, and I'd like to read

the letter. It says:

"Dear Mr. Mika,

refer to our telephone conversation of last week relating to Prime

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

During the conversation between President Jenkins and Mr. Bennett,

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

political situation in Quebec...."

I'd like to break here

for a moment and take us back to 1977 when the Premier, before going to

Europe, said that they were going over there to try to sell commodities

that we produced in British Columbia. The Premier has been quoted in

1977 as saying they were going to Europe to sell British Columbia

commodities in Europe. Strange that when he got there all he could talk

about was Quebec and Canada's

[ Page 1695 ]

constitutional

proberns. And it makes you wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether the

conversation around those constitutional problems didn't surround the

issue of Canada's ban on uranium, or else why speak about

constitutional problems with Mr. Jenkins?

Now I get back to the letter:

"The

Prime Minister" — that's Bill Bennett — "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" — Bennett — "explained that natural resources were under provincial

jurisdiction but that the federal Minister for Mines and Resources was

exercising export control on uranium."

Why would Mr. Jenkins

ask the question about Canada's ban on uranium exports if it hadn't

been raised by the British Columbia delegation, as indeed Mr. Reuter

points out in his letter to Mr. Mika?

And I'd like to say, once again, Mr. Chairman, it says: "The

Prime Minister" — that's Mr. Bennett — "underlined

the concern of his government...." He didn't just mention it, he

"underlined the concern of his government to find markets for the

province's products and listed, among others, uranium." Now I see no

reason, Mr. Chairman, for Mr. Reuter to lie in a letter to Mr. Mika. I

think we can assume Mr. Reuter did not lie. The Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Mair) laughs, insinuating, I suppose, that Mr. Reuter did

lie. Now let's go back to the Blues

from yesterday.

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 govemment did not go to Europe selling uranium.

Weight that against Mr. Reuter's letter to Mr. Mika.

We go on in yesterday afternoon's Blues where Mr.

Barrett said to the Premier: "You didn't talk to them about selling

uranium from B.C.?" Mr. Bennett answered:

the Leader of the Opposition would listen, Mr. Chairman, I was there

also as a Canadian and 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.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the

Premier was there as the Premier of British Columbia and he went with a

selling list, according to Mr. Reuter. On that selling list was the

product uranium, according to Mr. Reuter. The Premier was there trying

to sell uranium.

Also yesterday afternoon there was an interjection in the

debate by Mr. Macdonald, where he asked: "Did you sell uranium? Were

you trying to sell uranium in Europe?" And the Premier yelled: "No, I

was not trying to sell uranium in Europe." Mr. Reuter's letter states

categorically that the Premier and his delegation, Mr. Phillips and Mr.

Wolfe, were there trying to sell uranium. The Premier yesterday denied

even discussing uranium, denied it in this House, to this Legislature,

and therefore to the province of British Columbia. Either Mr. Reuter

has lied to Mr. Mika or the Premier has not got a very good memory —

one or the other. Did Mr. Reuter lie to Mr. Mika, or does the Premier

not have total recall? We could suggest otherwise, but I know it would

be unparliamentary. We have to assume that the Premier would not lie to

this House, and that he only has a poor memory and possibly can't now

remember being in Europe, I would also like to refer to yesterday's Blues , when Mr.

Phillips jumped to his feet to defend the Premier. The Premier had said

that no, he did not try to sell uranium in Europe. He says he didn't

even discuss it. That's what he told the House. Then Mr. Phillips

jumped up and said, "I happened to be with the Premier on that trip to

Europe," and insinuated that because he was on that trip he might have

some idea of what was said on that trip. On page 862-2 of yesterday's Blues , Mr. Phillips

says:

Mr. Chairman, it is no wonder that

politicians in British Columbia are ill thought of, and no wonder this

Legislature is receiving very little report in the press — just because

of the type of thing that has been going on here this afternoon.

doesn't make it clear if he's referring to the Premier's remarks or to

the Leader of the Opposition's, but I have to assume that he was

referring to the Leader of the Opposition, where the opposition had

said to the Premier, "You were over in Europe trying to sell uranium,"

and the Premier denied it. So I have to assume that Mr. Phillips was

referring to the Leader of the Opposition, accusing the Leader of the

Opposition of not doing his job in the House.

We then have, from the Vancouver Province ,

Friday, September 16, 1977, Mr. Phillips being quoted: "Mr. Phillips

says that he told EEC officials in a separate meeting...." Now we know

that in the first meeting — or at least maybe not the first, but in the

meeting where the Premier was there — that the Premier put forward his

selling list to the European Economic Community. We know that for sure,

because we have Mr. Reuter's letter saying that the Premier of this

province was over there trying to sell uranium — denied in the House

yesterday afternoon by the Premier. We then have Mr. Phillips jumping

up to defend the Premier, saying that he was there, and that they

didn't try to sell uranium. Again, we have Mr. Reuter's letter saying

that the delegation made up of Mr. Wolfe, Mr. Bennett and Mr. Phillips

was in that room trying to sell uranium. Now we have both the Minister

of Industry and Small Business Development and the Premier denying in

this House that they were trying to sell uranium.

Mr.

Chairman, I can't help but think that a number of things have to happen

now. Either the Premier has to deny the facts of Mr. Reuter's letter —

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

Let me go over this letter just one more time. We now have

ascertained from the Blues

that the Premier and the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development denied trying to sell uranium in Europe in 1977. We have

Mr. Reuter, in a letter to Mr. Mika, saying that they did try to sell

uranium when they were in Europe. Mr. Chairman, somebody is lying.

think what we have to do is examine the evidence and ask: "Who would

have a reason to lie?" Would Mr. Reuter have a reason to lie? We have

to examine that and ask what possible reason Mr. Reuter would have for

lying to Mr. Mika in his letter dated December 6, 1979, sent from

Brussels. What happened is that Mr. Mika, on request from the Leader of

the Opposition, phoned Brussels to find out whether or not the Premier

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

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Mr. Mika made the phone call, Mr.

Minister, and out of that phone call Mr. Mika received a letter from

[ Page 1696 ]

Brussels dated December 6, 1979. It

says:

"Dear Mr. Mika:

"I refer to our 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

problems and the political situation in Quebec, the Prime Minister" —

that's Bennett — "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

on uranium.

"I hope that this information will

be of some use to you. Do not hesitate to contact me again if you need

further clarifications. "

It is signed by Etienne Reuter, the secretary to the

Commission of the European Communities.

Mr. Chairman, somebody is lying — either Mr. Reuter or the

Premier and Mr. Phillips.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. member, there is no way that that kind of remark is

at all parliamentary, and I would ask you to withdraw any imputation of

lying by any hon. member in this House. Would the hon. member please

withdraw the remark.

MR. LEA: I did not make the

charge that someone was lying, Mr. Chairman. I said that someone is

lying; it could be Mr. Reuter, and Mr. Reuter is not a member of this

House. Now if Mr. Reuter is not lying, the question then is: who is?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. member please

withdraw any imputation that any hon. member of this House was lying.

MR. LEA: I haven't made that charge, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. LAUK: Do you mean we have to assume

that he has never lied in his whole life?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm asking the hon. member to

withdraw any imputation that any member of this House was lying.

MR. LEA:

Yes, I withdraw that. It could have been Mr. Reuter who was lying to

Mr. Mika in his letter dated December 6, 1979. But it's for sure, Mr.

Chairman, somebody's lying. I think this Legislature and the province

deserve an apology from the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development and from the Premier.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Well, either Mr. Reuter lied or

somebody else did. You can't have it both ways, Mr. Minister of Health.

HON. MR. MAIR: I didn't say a word.

MR. LEA: It must have been the member for

Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie). Somebody over there on the

government side....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for

Prince Rupert has the floor.

MR. LEA:

If either the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development or

the Premier has something to say to this Legislature now, I will

relinquish the floor. They have to do one of two things: they have to

call Mr. Reuter a liar or they owe this House an apology — both of

them. You can't have it both ways. That is the cold, hard fact: either

Mr. Reuter lied, or this House deserves an apology from the Premier and

from the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. Which way

is it? Is the House going to get its apology — and, therefore, the

people of this province?

I suppose the Leader of the

Opposition is responsible for trickery, because previous to making this

letter available he asked the Premier whether the Premier had tried to

sell uranium, and the Premier said no. Now the letter says differently.

The Leader of the Opposition didn't make this letter available until

after the Premier had answered the question, that he hadn't tried to

sell uranium. The Leader of the Opposition didn't make this available

until after the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development got

up and defended the Premier and said they hadn't tried to sell uranium

in Europe.

The official opposition requests that the Premier

and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development apologize

to this House, or that they call Mr. Reuter a liar. Which way is it

going to be? It's a matter of conscience, I suppose. But it's not going

to rest here, because in the last paragraph of Mr. Reuter's letter, he

says: "I hope this information will be of some use to you. Don't

hesitate to contact me again if you need further clarification."

noticed yesterday, when most of this conversation was going on during

the debate, that there weren't many people from the media to listen to

it. But if we don't receive an apology from the Minister of Industry

and Small Business Development or from the Premier, I would be

encouraged if I found out that the media were to get in touch with Mr.

Reuter in Europe to see whether Mr. Reuter lied or whether this House

deserves an apology from the Premier and from the minister. We cannot

have it both ways. Either Mr. Reuter lied, or we get an apology from

those two ministers for contradicting Mr. Reuter in this House. Of

course, that was before they knew they were going to contradict Mr.

Reuter; that was when they were denying being in Europe selling

uranium. We now know that what those two ministers told us is not the

truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, again I draw to

your attention that that type of inference in debate not only is not

parliamentary, but is not allowed in this chamber. Again I would ask

you to withdraw the words "not the truth."

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, either Mr. Reuter is

lying or we didn't hear the truth in this House yesterday.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, I have asked you to withdraw. If the hon. member will come

to order for a moment, I will quote Sir Erskine May's eighteenth

edition:

"The right to claim courteous treatment

in debate

[ Page 1697 ]

is due alike between both Houses

Parliament, and abusive language and imputations of falsehood uttered

by members of the House against members of the House have been met by

the immediate intervention of the Chair to compel the withdrawal of the

offensive words or, in default, by the punishment of suspension."

I would ask the hon. member to withdraw any imputation made in

this debate.

MR. LEA:

I certainly do withdraw and I am not implying that the minister has

lied. I am saying that either Mr. Reuter lied or we are not getting the

truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, again, to state

what has already been stated in another manner is, alike, not

acceptable in this chamber. I would caution the member, please....

MR. LEA:

Mr. Chairman, I of course withdraw. It could have been Mr. Reuter. What

I am asking is for the two ministers to take their places in this House

and clear it up. Was Mr. Reuter lying? Did they indeed try to sell

uranium when they were in Europe? The fact that they denied....

have to know the truth. Did Mr. Reuter lie to Mr. Mika? If he did not,

then this House deserves an apology from the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) for his speech yesterday

and from the Premier for his speech yesterday. Because either Mr.

Reuter lied or this House deserves an apology from both the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development and the Premier, Mr. Chairman.

And if we don't get it, we will know who lied.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Health.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, how's your health today?

HON. MR. MAIR: Thank you very much, Mr.

Chairman. My health has never been better. I am very grateful to the

member opposite for inquiring.

note that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has not chosen this to

be the moment that he is ejected from the chamber to draw the

television cameras and attention to himself and to his fictitious

issue. No doubt we will be seeing that in due course.

would like, if I may, to deal with the question of leadership, because

that's what the Premier's estimates are all about. I'd like to make

something clear to this chamber that does not need any clarification to

my colleagues or to the Premier. That's that he has my complete and

absolute dedication and loyalty, and that his leadership is the

leadership that every British Columbian follows, I think, with pride. I

want to talk for a few moments about some of the reasons that the

people of British Columbia do have pride in our Premier's leadership. I

want to talk about something where our Premier has taken leadership

that no one else in Canada has taken, and leadership for which the rest

of this country will have every reason to be grateful in the months and

years to come.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that this

country is in the midst of a constitutional crisis. I don't want

anybody to misjudge that. I notice that the second member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Macdonald) — the member who came up from a life of privileged

private schools and college fraternities and now clucks his tongue

about privilege from his safe perch in Point Grey — doesn't concern

himself with the constitutional crisis which does indeed beset our

country.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that when you

have a country of which one-half geographically and one-third

economically and population-wise is disfranchised by reason of choices

they made in a federal election, when you have a country of which the

largest province geographically and the second largest in terms of

population and economics — at least in terms of its governing party —

wishes to withdraw from the country, when you have a situation where

political leaders from as lofty a position as the Leader of the

Opposition in Saskatchewan and one of his colleagues wish to withdraw

from their parliamentary process in order to lead western Canada out of

Confederation, when you have political leaders of the acknowledged

stature of Premier Blakency of Saskatchewan being concerned about this

matter, then you've got a constitutional crisis. It's a constitutional

crisis that demands leadership and it's a constitutional crisis that

has found leadership in the Premier of the province of British Columbia.

I'd

like to take this chamber back a little way, if I may, to the beginning

of our mandate. In the fall of 1976, in the meeting in Edmonton, the

first proposals for constitutional reform were placed by this

government before our sister provinces. I'd like to remind this chamber

of the leadership of our Premier, not only on that occasion but on

occasions of Western Premiers' Conferences. I would particularly like

to draw the attention of this chamber to the western Premier's task

force, which I have had the honour of chairing for the last four years.

I'd

also like to say that one of the first things this task force did was

discover 60 to 70 separate pieces of federal legislation which clearly

impinged upon provincial responsibilities. That would be, I would

think, accomplishment enough, were it not for the fact that in

subsequent years, by reason of our negotiations and discussions with

the federal government under the leadership of the Premier, a great

many if not most of those were eliminated.

What this chamber

must now know, when the NDP calls into question the leadership of the

Premier, is what the concern of the opposition is on this

constitutional crisis that we now face. I tell you that the public of

British Columbia have a right to know where the NDP stands on these

issues. Mr. Blakeney, as I've already indicated, being the only

socialist leader in Canada, to give the man his due, has already

declared himself as being extremely concerned about the constitutional

crisis that we're faced with. Now when is the opposition going to

recognize that we have this very serious problem in our country and

when is it going to tell us what its solutions are?

I have

some questions, Mr. Chairman, which I think the opposition must answer

if they're going to be critical of the leadership provided by this

party and by our Premier, because they have no right to ask the

questions they've been asking unless they are prepared to answer a

couple themselves.

Let me first of all ask them whether or

not they stand for a federal state. Do you believe in a federal state?

Now that's not a very difficult question, and one would have thought

that it would have been answered a long time ago, but it hasn't.

MR. LAUK: The answer is yes.

[ Page 1698 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: Thank you. So you're not in

favour of a unitary state? Do you speak for the party, by the way, Mr.

Member?

MR. LAUK: I speak for the party.

HON. MR. MAIR:

Mr. Chairman, as I develop my remarks, I think that you will see that

the members opposite will only agree with the federal system provided

it's a socialist state. I'm prepared to argue that the unitary state is

indeed what they want, and that they don't care about provincial

powers, provincial rights and provincial responsibilities, but they are

simply prepared to have a unitary government under socialist leadership

— and that's their only goal.

MR. LAUK: Explain the difference.

HON. MR. MAIR: A Regional District of

British Columbia would suit them very well.

Now

if you are federalists, if you do believe in the federal system — Mr.

Chairman, I ask the members opposite through you — do you agree with

the division of powers between the federal government and the

provincial governments? If so, what should those powers be?

Let's

talk about natural resources, because as I said to you before, Mr.

First Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), before you question the

leadership of our Premier, let us know where you stand on these issues.

If you are talking about natural resources, do you believe that they

belong to the provinces? Or do you believe that they only belong to the

provinces unless they are nationalized by the national government, in

which case they belong to the federal government? Where do you stand on

the ownership of our coal? Where do you stand on the ownership of our

water, our lumber and our minerals?

I want to, if I may, Mr.

Chairman, remark with some approbation upon remarks made the other

night by the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), who said

some words on the federal banking system with which I personally have

long agreed. I certainly agree with him when he has said that the

banking system in Canada does no credit to the nation and certainly is

of no assistance to the regions of this nation. But I'm going to say

this, and make no mistake about it — the surest way to perpetuate the

inequities of our central banking system is to perpetuate a political

system that does not adequately address regional concerns.

I ask this of the members opposite. If you are federalists, are you

prepared to stand up and speak for British Columbia? Are you prepared

to agree that British Columbia ought to have representation on the Bank

of Canada, the CTC, the CRTC, the Wheat Board and all of those boards

thatfall within federal jurisdiction, or are you prepared just to let

it all be run by central Canada? Are you prepared — I ask this question

through you, Mr. Chairman — to speak for British Columbia?

I've

heard some very disturbing things lately about the national New

Democratic Party: "We're all one — one for all and all for one. "

Blakeney and Barrett and Broadbent all speak with one voice. Well, let

me ask you this question, because I think before you question the

leadership of our Premier, you must answer this. What if, God forbid,

you were the government of this province and also the government of

Canada? Where would you stand then? Would you stand up and speak for

British Columbia in this chamber? Or would you go back to Ottawa and

kiss backsides and give away natural resources? What would you do?

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR:

Do you have a provincial policy? Because if you have one, how do you

get one if you only have one party? How do you get one? The only policy

that I know of that you have is to take money from people who want to

contribute to your federal campaign and spend it on the provincial

campaign. That's the only policy I know of. What do you do in this "one

for all and all for one" situation — this happy-go-lucky socialist

scheme that you're going to put in? Who speaks for B.C. when you go

back to Ottawa? What is it — just one great big cocktail party where

you carve everything up? Or does somebody, as it has to happen, put

their fist down on the table and say: "No. I speak for this province.

I'm a Canadian, sure, but I'm a British Columbian as well"? This is

what you're going to have to tell us before we're prepared to listen to

you criticize our leader who's gone back and spoken for British

Columbia for going on five years.

There is a crisis in

Canada, and I know that the second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald) likes to laugh and giggle about these things — because, of

course, he gets his advice from an academic exile who is supposed to be

a law professor, but can't find a law school to be a professor at.

There is a crisis. We have an inherent weakness in our system. Make no

mistake about that. Any system that will allow one half of the country

to be disfranchised has got to have inherent weaknesses. There is no

question about that.

There are unresolved inequities in this

country. Make no mistake about that. We are threatened from within, and

not just in the province of Quebec; we're threatened from others. We

read about it in the papers and see it on television every night. There

are people — and, I would say, of more and more political

respectability — now taking up the mantle of separatism. God forbid,

but that's what's happening. It's up to us in this chamber and in this

government to help save Canada. And what I'm saying to you is: tell us

what you're going to do; tell us what your position is; tell us where

you stand.

Now I may be wrong, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps there

is no crisis. Perhaps everything is just tickety-boo, and there is no

problem whatsoever. But if I'm wrong, it does no harm at all to make

the system more modern and improve it. But if I happen to be right, if

the former member for North Vancouver–Capilano happens to be right as

well, that we're in grave danger of not seeing the twentieth century as

a united country, then for God's sake let's do something and let's hear

what they have to say about what ought to be done.

Now, Mr.

Chairman, let me just ask acouple of questions of the members opposite

before I finish. What would I do, I am asked. What I would do is

recommend that you read British Columbia's constitutional proposals for

the first time. I know the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) has

read them, and I think the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has. As a

matter of fact, I heard a thoughtful speech by the member for Prince

Rupert — it was the only one he has ever given in this House, I'm sure

— concerning this matter. I agree with him. I thought it was a good

speech, and I wish more of you would do it. I'm sure that the member

from Coquitlam-Moody has read them too. But none of the rest of you

have, or if you have, you haven't paid any attention.

What you want to do, if you think that these proposals are

[ Page 1699 ]

wrong, is stand up and not only say

so, but say

where they're wrong and where you would improve them. What would you

do? These proposals aren't put out by the Social Credit Party in caucus

or convention, or only by the government; they're put out by academics,

business people, and people from the labouring field — everywhere. This

is a composite of what we think is the thinking of British Columbia. If

we're wrong, tell us we're wrong and show us where we're wrong, because

we'd like to hear. We'd like to listen. My God, we're all British

Columbians trying to save the country, not trying to tear it apart for

political advantage.

So I ask the members opposite — through

you, Mr. Chairman — first of all: do you have a philosophy on the

Canadian nation? If so, tell us what it is. Do you have a way of

achieving that? If so, tell us how. Do you have a way of resolving the

difficulties that now beset this country — the very serious

difficulties that threaten to tear it asunder? Do you have a solution?

Is it better than ours? If so, tell us about it. Work with us. But at

least tell us, and tell the people of British Columbia where you stand

and what you intend to do, because I can tell you this: either the New

Democratic Party has no position whatsoever, simply has not addressed

itself to this serious situation, simply doesn't care whether the

country stays together, simply doesn't care how it stays together if it

does stay together, or it's keeping it all a big, deep, dark secret,

because nobody in British Columbia has yet heard of it. So, Mr.

Chairman, I say to the members opposite....

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you vote?

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes, I voted on every issue

in this House, including the independent schools question, which I was

sent here to vote on.

say this, Mr. Chairman, before anyone in this chamber, regardless of

party, has got the right to challenge the leadership of this Premier,

certainly on questions of keeping our country together and

constitutional reform, he had better have some answers of his own. They

haven't given us any answers, and I suspect they don't have any answers.

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, before we get back to the Premier's estimates, which I

thought we were on today, I want to make a couple of comments regarding

the presentation of the minister of diversions this afternoon. I

thought he made some very revealing comments.

In the first

place, I want to say that no one associated with the New Democratic

Party, either at the provincial or at the federal level, has ever

offered any encouragement to separatism in the province of Quebec or,

indeed, in western Canada — no one in elective office. The only

national political figure I am aware of who has indeed endorsed

separation in Quebec and indicated he will vote for the referendum to

separate is none other than Fabien Roy, the national leader of the

Social Credit Party.

As I recall, Mr. Chairman, a few years ago Fabien Roy had a

very tough competition with the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr.

Chabot) to see who was going to be the national leader of that party.

The member for Columbia River, who is now a cabinet minister, indicated

that he was somewhat interested in the national leadership, but he

decided to stay in the province instead. I wonder if their views were

synonymous on this question of separation. Fabien Roy is the only one.

They may try to discredit and dissociate themselves from their parent

organization, but they're all tarred with the same brush, Mr. Chairman.

They get up and give pious speeches about our dedication to

Confederation.

The

minister made another important and very revealing statement. He said:

"In the unlikely event that the NDP were elected in Ottawa and also in

British Columbia, how would we be able to negotiate? How would we be

able to accomplish that when we're all one party?" Well, that reveals

an interesting conception of negotiations within Confederation. The

minister apparently feels that there has to be great hostility and

complete polarization at the bargaining table before any good-faith

negotiations can be undertaken. Mr. Chairman, we reject that

proposition completely. We feel that in a democratic state we have a

duty as citizens, certainly as politicians, to respect the mandate

which the people of Canada give to a government of any stripe in

Ottawa,, and we would be willing and ready to sit down with the duly

elected government and to negotiate on British Columbia's behalf in

good faith.

We do not believe in alienating whatever

governmem is elected in Ottawa. That's why we were hurt, ashamed and

embarrassed when the Premier of the province of British Columbia

refused to do his duty as a citizen and vote in the last federal

election. We think that was a poor move on British Columbia's part.

That is the individual who is now going to go to Ottawa and try to

negotiate on British Columbia's behalf — the man who didn't even take

the interest to vote in the federal election. In our view that doesn't

do a great deal to cement this great nation together — showing that

kind of contempt for the parliamentary process, the democratic process

as it applies federally.

The minister then said that a great

many people were disfranchised by the results of the federal election.

What a shallow understanding of democratic elections. The only person

who was disfranchised, that I'm aware of, was the Premier, who

disfranchised himself. He refused to vote. That's to his shame. Let him

justify that however he feels most appropriate. I doubt that he'll face

the issue squarely. He hasn't faced many other issues squarely before

the people of British Columbia.

Western separatism.

Nonsense! Our leader indicated loudly and clearly in his introduction

to this debate that we think that's a danger. We think it's ill-advised

and foolish. Surely the Premier's conduct and the minister's statements

about being disfranchised in the west simply because the majority of

people chose to vote Conservative and NDP rather than Liberal feed the

concept of western separatism. It justifies those people who are trying

to peddle the line that you have to have a government member before you

enjoy representation. If you follow that line through to its logical

conclusion, that means the abolition of opposition. That means

totalitarian government, and that is a dangerous and alien concept in

this nation of ours.

Mr. Chairman, we are talking about the

Premier's estimates, and we are talking about the Premier's

credibility. That is an important and fundamental issue in this

province. Before we can have any confidence in the Premier of this

province travelling to Ottawa to represent us or travelling again to

Europe to represent us, I think we have a right to know about the

conflict in his statement raised yesterday. At one of the meetings that

he attended in Europe, the secretary who was taking minutes of that

meeting reveals that the Premier was out flogging the sale of uranium

to the European Common Market countries. He came back here and said:

"No, no. We wouldn't sell uranium. The NDP are the devils.

[ Page 1700 ]

They're

the ones who want to do that." But, lo and behold, after disclaiming

that he had ever attempted to flog the sale of uranium from British

Columbia, we find the minutes of the meeting containing this passage:

"During

the conversation between President Jenkins and Mr. Bennett, which was

mainly devoted to Canada's constitutional problems and the political

situation in Quebec, the Prime Minister underlined the concern of his

government to find markets for the province's products and listed,

among other things, uranium. In reply to a question put by President

Jenkins, he explained that natural resources were under the provincial

jurisdiction, but that the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and

Resources was exercising export control on uranium."

Mr.

Chairman, I'm cognizant of your ruling, and I know that some people

might say that that was an untruth, because there's obviously a

conflict there. I wouldn't say that, because I know it's against the

rules of this House. But I want to tell you it strains my credulity. I

have great difficulty understanding how the Premier, the first minister

and chief executive officer of this government, who presumes to

represent us on the world scene, much less the national scene, has a

problem of credibility on basic truth in this House.

He made a statement, clear and simple, listed and recorded in Hansard ,

the verbatim record of the proceedings in this House. He said he had

not tried to sell uranium. Here is a résumé of the minutes of a meeting

which he attended along with his small minister for development.

Obviously they tried to sell uranium in Europe.

The least we

can expect from the Premier, if he wants a serious and mature

discussion about Confederation or about the very broad financial

responsibilities and administrative responsibilities that he has as

first minister.... The very least we can ask is that he get up and

clarify to the House's satisfaction the apparent variance which exists

between his version of the truth and the truth as contained in the

minutes of that meeting that he attended. If the Premier hasn't got

enough respect for his own office to want to clear up that doubt and

that kind of cloud that hangs over the credibility of the Premier's

office, then I have to say that I'm absolutely appalled and I think it

is a shameful day for British Columbia.

MR. RITCHIE:

You know, over the past couple of days we have heard so much about

credibility. We have witnessed close to two weeks of complete negative

nonsense from the opposition, and yesterday was a classic example, I

think, of what they have to offer. Absolutely nothing! How about your

credibility? I'd like to talk a little bit about your credibility.

Mr.

Chairman, yesterday I picked up on the remarks of the Leader of the

Opposition ridiculing our leader. He was getting into some real deep

stuff that he apparently doesn't understand too much about, or he has

forgotten some of his past actions and words.

Yesterday when I checked the Blues

I read that the Leader of the Opposition had touched on the question of

the proposed industrial park on the Gloucester property in Aldergrove.

He said: "I didn't like that land being removed." He and his colleagues

held a political rally on that land in Aldergrove simply to make

political points. It's quite obvious that their land preservation

policy depends entirely upon their political needs at the time. When

they are in power, they say: "Do it our way and like it."

What

about Tilbury Island? It was 700 acres of class 1 soil. It was all

prime agricultural land. How about it? It was converted to an

industrial park against the wishes of the Agricultural Land Commission

of the day.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: It was engineered, I believe,

by the then minister of economic destruction.

MR. KEMPF: Bob Williams.

MR. RITCHIE: No, it was the first member

for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

There

was 720 acres of class 1 land converted to an industrial park, and the

Leader of the Opposition said: "I didn't like that land being removed

in Aldergrove."

What about the Sterling development within

the agricultural land reserve? How about that one? It's the oldest

farm, with highly productive land. It is situated in one of the most

valuable land areas in the Fraser Valley. When they moved the equipment

in to break up that land for residential development within the

agricultural land reserve, I called the spokesman for the professional

pickets — you know, that group that travels around the province

picketing any decision concerning land if the opposition think they can

make political points on it. I called their attention to it, and they

said: "It is not in our area." I think they were headed by someone by

the name of Fontaine, an NDP candidate in the federal election. I don't

know how many times he ran. They said that property was not in their

area, and yet it was dead centre between Chilliwack and the Aldergrove

property that they had their pickets demonstrate on. What they really

meant when they said it was not in their area was that the decision

would be an embarrassment to the NDP. They should really not picket

there, because that wouldn't bring about the result they wanted.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, I must ask you to be a little more specific in the

estimates presently before the House. It's difficult for the Chair to

relate this to the Premier's estimates that are presently before us.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Chairman, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition chose to delve

into this particular matter. Almost all of the discussion up to this

point has revolved around credibility, and I'm dealing with the

credibility of the opposition party and the defence of our Premier and

his estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Nonetheless, this could

possibly be better discussed under the appropriate

section of the land

bill under which it would fall. I must ask if we can get back more to

the administrative responsibilities of the Premier.

MR. RITCHIE:

Well, I find this very difficult to respond to, Mr. Chairman. After

all, I picked this out of the opposition's statements, right in the Blues . It has to do

with the Premier's estimates. It's all part of the total discussion

that's been taking place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: While passing reference is in

order, detailed argument or debate is not. Again I would caution the

member on that aspect.

[ Page 1701 ]

MR. RITCHIE: Very well, Mr. Chairman, I

will attempt to keep as close to the Premier's estimates as possible.

But

while I'm on the question I'd like to ask: how about the park at

Kamloops? How about the recommendation of the member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace)? Does our Leader of the Opposition

resent land being taken out of the land reserve in Aldergrove and at

the same time agree that it may be taken out elsewhere as long as they

sign a 99-year lease? That is not the preservation of our agricultural

land that they're talking about. That's control of people through

control of their land. How about the statement by the executive

assistant to the then Minister of Agriculture, the member for Nanaimo

(Mr. Stupich), who said people do not require to own their own land?

That's not preservation of agricultural land; that's socialism at work

through the control of land.

So I think it is high time the

opposition stopped playing games with our agricultural land, and I'm

really disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition brought up the

question during his debate in the Premier's estimates. Stop playing

politics with people's livelihood. Our government believes in the

preservation of agricultural land strictly to preserve the ability to

feed ourselves in the future. We also recognize the need for

residential and industrial development in a way that has the least

impact on agricultural land. The Leader of the Opposition should stop

playing games unless he is prepared to talk about some of the decisions

that his government made when they were in power.

Mr.

Chairman, I expect that I'll have more to say on this as the debate

progresses, but I just wanted to take this opportunity, when we're

talking about credibility, to point out the lack of credibility on the

opposition benches by responding to the remark by the Leader of the

Opposition in his comments of yesterday.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, greetings. It's

the first time I've had an opportunity to greet you officially.

That's

outside the estimates; so far everything that's happened over on the

other side of the House has been. This is probably the most blatant

diversionary tactic I've ever seen. I hope somebody will brief that

member for the Central Fraser Valley on how you deal with estimates,

some time later this afternoon.

MR. BARRETT: Send him an affidavit.

MR. COCKE: Yes, and at the same time he may

reread that affidavit when he's talking about credibility and bring

some news to the House.

Mr. Chairman, what the member might be doing is anticipating

the next election. He was dealing with the estimates of the Leader of

the Opposition, I gather. We don't have room for that in our orders of

the day at the moment, but after the next election I'm sure he'll be

able to make speeches — if he's still a member — in the new Premier's

estimates. He may or may not be here to do that, but in any event he

should reserve that sort of talk for then. I'd just like to remind him

of one thing, dealing with the estimates of this Premier — the one that

we have now. When he starts talking about land and who was in favour of

retaining agricultural land, if people in this province haven't got

enough memory to recall the fight we had to put on and the viciousness

of the Social Credit opposition.... I recall the Premier, then Leader

of the Opposition, voting against that bill. So don't give us any of

those pious statements about your concern over land and a retention of

agricultural land. We remember. He wasn't in the House, but

leather-lungs was, the minister of small whatevers, and he....

AN HON. MEMBER: The minister of little

development.

MR. COCKE:

At that time the minister of little development did a great deal of

talking; as a matter of fact, he filibustered against it, warned the

people of the province how they'd lose their watches and so on. But now

we're talking of this estimate of that Premier, and the minister of

small business, and the lack of credibility that is occurring. We view

this as a very, very serious matter. The British parliamentary system

was built on a structure demanding that ministers are candid and up

front with all the information that they can possibly extend to the

public of their particular jurisdiction.

Mr. Chairman, we

have not seen in this committee any kind of direct answers to any

questions put to date. The most serious question is the question of

whether or not the Premier and his assistant at the time — his right

hand, his lieutenant who went to Europe — came back and reported

faithfully what occurred during that meeting. We have heard from the

minutes of the meeting one thing, and we have heard from the first

minister and from his lieutenant at that meeting something quite

contradictory. Mr. Chairman, these ministers can clear up the whole

situation, and then we can get on to a number of other questions around

the first minister's estimates. But how can we as an opposition

possibly ask questions when we can't even get an answer to the first

question that we asked with respect to this particular trip?

The

first minister has decided this afternoon not to stand up and discuss

the matter. He has asked the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), he has

asked the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), and no doubt

there will be others standing in his place, diverting the question from

the public of British Columbia. That's what we're talking about here,

Mr. Chairman. There is a question here about the whole parliamentary

system; this is a system to protect, a system to cherish, but a system

that cannot be tolerated if, in fact, ministers don't respond to their

obligations.

The opposition is here to criticize. That's our

whole job; that's our obligation. There shouldn't be all that great

concern over there about the stridency from time to time of our

criticism, particularly if you have any kind of memory about the

stridency of the old Socred opposition, as I do. Those ministers must

respond to the question that's being asked, and the first minister has

an obligation to this House this afternoon to get up and tell us the

whole story. What occurred in Europe? Why is there one account from one

person and one account from another person? That's all we're asking —

let's get on with it! Let's get on with the debate!

Mr.

Chairman, it's not that difficult, and it's certainly frustrating for

an opposition standing here asking questions, having the first minister

conferring with his colleagues, discussing irrelevancies, answering his

mail, and not even to date, an hour and a half into this debate, having

the courtesy to get up and answer a very simple question. What happened

in Europe? What happened at that meeting? It's simple enough.

One

of the reasons we want that question answered is because of the pious

contempt for the opposition that's been going on in terms of this whole

question of uranium. The

[ Page 1702 ]

minister

has been running around the province hinting that maybe we're in favour

of this development, when we have never been. Probably the most

outspoken person in this province on that question is the Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Barrett), and that's been going on for a long, long

time. Suddenly, in a moment of political terror, the first minister

comes charging in and says, "There will be a seven-year moratorium," as

though he had always felt that way. Nonsense.

And then they

dig up some remarks or some occurrences that occurred when we were

government, around the Minister of Mines.... Mr. Chairman, we want this

one question answered, and it's in his estimates that we want it

answered. I'm not going to review the occurrences of yesterday; we all

know them only too well now. We can all refer to the Blues ; and I'm sure

in due course a lot of the people in the province will be referring to Hansard .

It's the only place they're going to find it, but I'm sure that they're

going to find it there. And they're going to find one heck of a

conflict. Mr. Chairman, can we settle it now at 3:45 in the afternoon

of his second day of estimates? We'd be delighted, and then we can go

on with this first minister's estimates.

MR. HYNDMAN:

The preceding speaker has made a couple of sermonettes about the

function of the parliamentary system; and I'm happy to take my place in

these estimates of the Premier's office, Mr. Chairman, because the

estimates are also a time for government members to raise topics

falling within the Premier's bailiwick. In a few minutes I'm going to

raise a number of topics with which he's been associated, and ask for

his further and expanded comments on them, because I think those topics

and the Premier's response are going to be of interest to the people of

British Columbia. But along the way a couple of issues have been raised

by opposition speakers which are relevant to this debate — having been

made so by opposition speakers — and deserve some comment.

Much

has been made about the topic of voting and the topic of participating

in debate. Let's think back to June of 1977 in this assembly, a time

when one of the most important concepts and pieces of legislation, and

one of the most important pieces of philosophy ever considered by this

assembly, was brought to it by this government, headed by the Premier.

That was the question of financial aid to independent schools — a

difficult concept, a concept of much debate over the decades in this

province, a concept about which the traditional political advice across

Canada has been: "Stay away from it. It's a no-win situation; it's a

tough one." And I think it's to the credit of this Premier and his

government that he had the courage, and the sense of responsibility as

a provincial Premier, to feel that it was timely to bring forward for

consideration by this assembly, a modern debate, a modern look at the

question of financial aid to independent schools. This is a question

upon which there had been growing debate throughout the province. It

would have been irresponsible, although much easier, for our Premier to

simply ignore that topic and not bring forward the legislation; but he

did.

And so in June of 1977 there was brought forward for

debate and vote in this assembly a bill providing for a limited form of

financial support for independent schools. To your left, Mr. Chairman,

is a group in opposition, headed then by the same Leader of the

Opposition who now heads that group, and who has sermonized in this

House on voting and participation in the parliamentary process of

debate. What did that Leader of the Opposition have the entire

opposition do when that important piece of legislation was called for

second-reading debate and second-reading voting? He led a walkout.

That's how much he thought of the importance of the process of debate

and the importance of voting — on second reading on financial aid to

independent schools he led his benches in a complete walkout, not just

from the second-reading debate, but also from the second-reading vote.

HON. MR. BENNETT: They didn't walk; they

ran.

MR. HYNDMAN: They probably ran. They ran

and hid in their caucus rooms.

They

had a couple of problems. What the Leader of the Opposition wanted was

six months to think it over — put the finger in the wind and decide

what to do. And we're told there were also problems in the NDP caucus —

differing points of view. Well, three months passed fron second-reading

debate and second-reading vote. By that time the Leader of the

Opposition and his colleagues had had a chance to put the finger in the

wind and patch up their differences, and three months later, in

September, when third reading came, they appeared and they voted.

I'd like to just compare that walkout — that boycott of debate, that

conscious fear of voting, that abstinence from voting — with some of

these quotes from yesterday's Blues

of the Leader of the Opposition, who makes so much of the importance of

the vote and of participation in the political process. The Leader of

the Opposition had this to say as he lectured the House yesterday —

this from the man who led his benches in a walkout on second-reading

debate and kept them away for second-reading vo te:

"...citizens who expect political leadership from people who are in

political leadership positions, and who expect articulate debate on

those decision-making processes and the various points of view that

make" them "up...." People like this have no time for those who say,

"'it's beyond me, there's no use in my even voting....'"

The Leader of the Opposition told us yesterday: "I have never run away

from the ballot box." Well, it seems to me he once did — in this

assembly.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Now who are we to believe, Mr. Chairman? The Votes

and Proceedings of this assembly, or the Leader of the

Opposition, who said yesterday: "I have never run away from the ballot

box"? Votes and

Proceedings

of this assembly tell us that he ran away from the ballot box on second

reading on financial aid to independent schools, and he led a runaway

from the debate on second reading. He said this to us yesterday in his

lecture: "The first responsibility of any citizen in Canada is to

participate in the political system." Isn't that terrific? That's great

participation on second reading in this assembly on financial aid to

independent schools.

Then we have raised in this debate the

case of the Reuter letter. Mr. Chairman, I've heard of Reuters news

dispatches, but until yesterday I hadn't heard of a Reuter letter.

Let's just get a couple of things clear for the record about this

letter. Some members of the opposition have called this letter minutes

of a meeting. That letter does not constitute minutes of a meeting. It

does not constitute an extract from minutes of the meeting. Indeed, it

makes no reference to minutes at all. It's a letter, all right, and

who's it from? Is it from Mr. Roy Jenkins, who was the other party to

the conversation? No.

[ Page 1703 ]

It's from a staff member in Mr.

Jenkins' office who, we are told, was taking some notes.

Who

was the letter to? Well, the letter is not to the Leader of the

Opposition, Mr. Chairman, as inferred by the Leader of the Opposition.

It's to a Mr. John Mika. Mr. John Mika, I'm told, now is employed in

the NDP caucus rooms, but also ran and was defeated as an NDP

candidate. So this is not any kind of an official set of minutes, but a

letter from a secretary in Mr. Jenkins' office to a defeated NDP

candidate in these buildings.

What's in this letter? There's

no reference to minutes. The letter is an answer to a telephone call.

Now isn't that interesting. It's not an answer to a letter.

Unfortunately the much-vaunted research team of the opposition of this

assembly didn't want to transcribe their requests to print, presumably,

so they might be tabled with the reply. So the setting, Mr. Chairman,

is that Mr. Mika telephoned somebody in Mr. Jenkins' office, and we

have not had disclosed to this assembly what was in that conversation.

Some

questions are asked about something that happened two and a half years

ago. It's very interesting that what is requested and is sent back is

not an official set of minutes, is not a statement by Mr. Roy Jenkins,

but is a very brief and carefully worded reply to a mysterious phone

call. The document in question is the

interpretation of a minor

functionary in Mr. Jenkins' office in response to a telephone request

about something that happened two and a half years ago. One might say

that's really hearsay. Well, it's not — it's double hearsay. It's worse

than that. No self-respecting lawyer in the opposition benches would

tolerate that kind of sham evidence being introduced in any kind of a

court of law.

Mr. Chairman, I'm just a little amazed that

that group to your left who have prattled for two weeks on the Vogel

matter about justice being done, and confidence in the justice system,

and the appearance of justice, would flog that letter as some kind of

evidence. If those members on your left want to produce a statement

certified by Mr. Roy Jenkins that says the Premier was flogging the

sale of uranium, then we'll have something to debate. But short of

that, you should be ashamed of yourselves — absolutely ashamed. It's

double hearsay, and if you can't produce from Mr. Roy Jenkins a direct

statement backing up the phrases you've used, that the Premier was

advocating flogging uranium, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Produce it or be ashamed. That's what I say. Don't, Mr. Chairman, let

us suffer any more of this sermonizing from that group on your left —

one week about justice being done and the appearance of justice and

crossing the i's and dotting the t's, and the next week trotting in

some carefully crafted response to a long-distance call and passing it

off as official minutes in evidence. My heavens, Mr. Chairman, we're

just a little more astute than that.

Question number one

from Mr. Jenkins was: "Mr. Premier, tell me about your mission." The

Premier answers: "We're here to promote the export sales of British

Columbia's products." Question 406 two hours later was: "Tell me, Mr.

Premier, what are all the products that might be produced in B.C.? And

there's a list of 55. You call that advocating the flogging of uranium?

You should be ashamed of yourselves. We'll watch how many members of

the bar who occupy those benches get up sincerely and with vigour and

advance that letter as a substantial piece of evidence.

May

I direct myself to some of the matters with which the Premier has been

quite properly involved in policy areas since his last estimates, and

leave with him, on behalf of the people of Vancouver South, a number of

comments and queries which, I think, deal with topics of interest to

our citizens. I'm sure in the course of the Premier's remarks he'll

give us the answers to these.

First, dealing with the

Premier's trade mission to Japan in the fall, a mission which

regrettably hasn't really had the review in writing that many of us

would have hoped upon the Premier's return, there were a couple of

questions upon which I think people in Vancouver South, who have some

very real interest in our export trade, would value the Premier's

comments. The first is the general question of the relationship between

the slightly changing value of the Canadian dollar and the effect on

British Columbia's exports. Mr. Chairman, a question which I often

encounter talking with people in Vancouver South, who are quite

interested in the comings and goings of the Canadian dollar, is along

the lines of: at what stage, if the dollar starts to rise, is there

going to be a quite serious negative impact on British Columbia's

export trade? Or, alternately: because of the quality of our products

or the demand for them, can British Columbia in a sense rest easy that

the Canadian dollar can rise, perhaps approaching the American dollar,

before we're going to see some real pinch in our export situation? So

to the degree the Premier is able, I'd value his general comments on

these questions: the relationship of the Canadian dollar; and, should

it start to rise steadily in value, at what stage, if that happens,

British Columbians are going to have to start to look very carefully at

the impact on our export trade.

The second question I have

for the Premier, Mr. Chairman, is in the general area of

federal-provincial relations, an area in which, to his credit, the

Premier has heavily involved himself. I have four thoughts here which,

in my submission, are ideas which would go some distance towards making

western Canadians feel somewhat more a part of the fabric of the

Canadian economy. Rather than advocating them or necessarily calling

for them, I'd like to toss them out, and in the fullness of time I'd be

interested in the Premier's comments as to which of those might be

advanced at forthcoming conferences.

Dealing first with

representation for western Canada on the Bank of Canada, which the

Premier has advocated, I want to say to the Premier that that's a

particular concept that in my travels in Vancouver many people identify

with. I think many British Columbians are very much with you on this

concept of giving the west, particularly British Columbia, some

representation on the Bank of Canada. But I'd like to take it a step

further. You know, the Bank of Canada is called the bank of the

bankers, functioning as a central bank in our monetary system. I wonder

if some better feeling towards it might be developed if the federal

government moved the central bank to central Canada, perhaps choosing

Winnipeg, where I gather the mint has now been moved. But it seems to

me people in the west might feel a little more comfortable and a little

more satisfied that central bankers really understood some of the

west's aspirations if the central bank was moved. Mr. Premier, I know

the central bank now occupies a brand new office building in Ottawa — I

understand it's a glittering affair — but I'd be interested in your

observations as to what chance there might be for arguments from the

western perspective that say: "Let's move the central bank into central

Canada."

While we're on the topic of the central bank, Mr.

Premier, I'd be interested in your comments on the following

proposition. The governor of the central bank, the Bank of

[ Page 1704 ]

Canada,

Mr. Bouey, is a gentleman whom many of us read about virtually daily.

He's talking about interest rates and inflation, and he certainly

speaks for the Bank of Canada. Still, because most of his speaking is

done from Ottawa, I think many western Canadians feel he's some

distance away. I wonder what the reaction of the governor might be —

and perhaps, Mr. Premier, you're aware of this — if he was invited by

this Legislature's Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and

Economic Affairs to appear before it. Let's remember, first of all,

that our public accounts committee also has the title "economic

affairs." I appreciate that that committee can do no business not first

initiated by this assembly. But if we had some reading that the

governor of the central bank might be prepared to come here for a day

or two and appear before our Select Standing Committee on Public

Accounts and Economic Affairs to have a dialogue with members on both

sides, I think that would be very useful and helpful to British

Columbians. If we could obtain a reading that Mr. Bouey might be

receptive to such an invitation, I then would like to ask that we all

consider, perhaps from this assembly, asking our Select Standing

Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs to issue such an

invitation.

I have two other comments on federal matters,

Mr. Premier, before I sit down, both dealing with the organization of

federal policy-making bodies. The first is CMHC, the Central Mortgage

and Housing Corporation, very much a major instrument in influencing

housing policy, rental accommodation policy and apartment construction

policy in Canada. I think as we enter a phase of our Confederation

during which western Canada is going to be growing at a stronger rate

and in different ways than eastern Canada the argument can be made that

the housing needs of the four western provinces may be much different

than those of central and eastern Canada. That being so, I wonder about

the wisdom of taking CMHC and dividing it into two wings, CMHC West and

CMHC East, having the head office of CMHC West somewhere in western

Canada and having them both report to the minister responsible. But it

seems to me the argument can be made that the housing requirements of

heavily built-up and developed central Canada and of the Maritimes are

going to be much different than the forthcoming accommodation

requirements of western Canada. I personally would like to pursue the

possibility of having CMHC for western Canada, from the Lakehead west,

organized in western Canada to deal with western Canada.

Finally,

Mr. Premier, I wonder if you can once again beat the drum for western

Canada on a promise made by Prime Minister Trudeau some years ago; I

think it was 1974 or 1975. It was a promise which, I think it is fair

to say, has not been substantially fulfilled. If it were now to be

genuinely fulfilled, in an era when the Prime Minister has said he

really wants to do the things that matter to the west, this would be

the time to do it. I refer to the establishment of the real head office

of the Canada Development Corporation in Vancouver. We know that in

response to a campaign pledge the CDC did open a titled head office in

Vancouver, and it can be said that the head office of the Canada

Development Corporation is in Vancouver. But I think it's fair to say,

Mr. Chairman, that the facts are that the real head office activity of

the, CDC still takes place in eastern Canada. I would make the

suggestion that if the Prime Minister is currently looking for things

to do which genuinely show a new desire to make peace, spiritually,

with western Canada, to show that there's a new desire to have a

working accord, now is the time to make the CDC office in Vancouver the

real, substantial head office. I would be most interested in whatever

comments the Premier might give us as to what success advocates of that

concept might have out here.

In closing, may I simply say to

the Premier, who has been forced to listen to several days of

substantially personal attack through his estimates, that in my travels

in Vancouver South, an area I have the honour to represent which

travels all the way to the Burnaby border and takes in all kinds of

people, housing and ethnic groups, one of the things that you do, Mr.

Premier, that our people take the greatest pride in is your work in

federal-provincial affairs. Although for good reason we now have a

separate Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations, I think many citizens

of our province hope that in spite of that you will also continue your

active interest in those matters.

MR. HOWARD: Mr.

Chairman, as I always do, I listened with a great deal of interest to

the second member for Vancouver South speak on behalf of the Premier.

But then that's appropriate, because the Premier isn't speaking on his

own behalf, and I suppose the member for Vancouver South felt obliged

to. But listening carefully to the hon. member's comments, I can now

see quite clearly why the Premier didn't take him into the cabinet.

The

second member for Vancouver South made reference to something he

laughingly referred to or identified as the Reuter letter, saying that

he'd heard of the Reuters news agency but not of this particular

person. That probably indicates a sort of disdain on his part for

anything that might be contained within that letter. He made fun of the

person to whom it was addressed, Mr. John Mika. For some unknown reason

the member for Vancouver South drew into the debate the fact that Mr.

Mika had run as a candidate for the NDP and lost. Well, at least Mr.

Mika stayed with the same party, unlike the member for Vancouver South,

who ran twice for the Tories and then decided to abandon them, hoping

that by running for the Socreds and by sucking up a little bit there he

might get into this House and into the cabinet. But he has only got

partway there, and he will never make the second step.

There's

nothing mysterious about the telephone call. The telephone call to the

Commission of the European Communities was occasioned because some

information had appeared in the press. As was pointed out yesterday,

there is a necessity and indeed an obligation on the part of the

opposition, when it reads matters attributed to the Premier, to

doublecheck them to see whether they are in accordance with the truth.

That was the reason for the telephone call — nothing mysterious. It was

an attempt to find out what really took place there.

I'm

presuming that the member for Vancouver South was again speaking on

behalf of the Premier when he intimated he or the government would like

to get a letter signed by President Jenkins. If we had that kind of

letter, that would really be something worthwhile. I suppose it's not

impossible to get such a letter. I wonder if the second member for

Vancouver South, who in speaking on behalf of the. Premier was so

careful to cast ridicule upon this letter from Etienne Reuter, would be

prepared to tender his seat in resignation if we get a letter from Roy

Jenkins saying substantially what this does. In the time-honoured

tradition of parliament, will he back up his comments and his

aspersions against the authenticity of

[ Page 1705 ]

the writer of this letter? Or was he

just intent on muddying the waters and casting aspersions about the

situation?

the few short weeks I've had occasion to sit in this Legislature, both

now and during the last session, I've come to understand one thing:

that the age-old concept — maybe it's old-fashioned, by some people's

standards — that says a man is as good as his word and that a man

should be taken at his word doesn't apply to this Premier. I've come to

appreciate that.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The Chair must remind the hon. member for Skeena, as the Chair has

mentioned earlier today, that we have rules concerning imputation of

falsehood uttered by members in the House. Perhaps if we could be

reminded of doesn't apthat in our speeches the proceedings would carry

on quite nicely.

MR. HOWARD: It's a foundation in the

British parliamentary system too. I'm sure you know the references far

better than I do, Mr. Chairman. In all the works written about this

system that we inherited and which we seek to advance, the foundation

is a question of honour, of trust and of faith — that what one says in

the chamber is to be taken as the....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for

Skeena has the floor.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Chairman, I don't mind the interruptions, catcalls and whimperings

from members on the other side of the House. I would ask, though,

please, that you keep your eye on that wild man from Kamloops, because

I've seen him in action, and I don't want to be subjected to any more

of that volcanic emotion that he has, no matter how lightly he tried to

treat a certain matter on an earlier occasion of debate in this House.

So apart from your protecting me from the wild man from Kamloops, Mr.

Chairman, I don't mind the interruptions at all.

There is

conversation in this debate about the leadership of this government.

Members on the other side have lauded the activities of the Premier in

his capacity as leader of this government and his dealings in that

capacity with the government in Ottawa; how they marvel at how

successful he was, and how they so much look forward to the future and

having the Premier go again and again to Ottawa to represent British

Columbia and do our negotiating for us. I've had one example of that

Premier negotiating on behalf of British Columbians, and it tells me

that I don't want any more of that kind of activity. What the Premier

did was prove that he was totally incompetent to protect the interests

of British Columbians, especially coastal British Columbians. When he

went to a meeting with Otto Lang, minister in charge of nearly

everything in the federal government at that time....

HON. MR. BENNETT: When was the meeting?

MR. HOWARD:

When was the meeting? Well, the Premier has an awfully poor memory.

Perhaps the Premier, instead of asking me to refresh his memory about a

particular meeting, should get up and tell us the truth about that

meeting he had in the European Economic Community. I'll gladly yield

the floor to the Premier if he wants to stand up and participate in the

debate and say to this House truly what the case is with respect to

this letter from Etienne Reuter. Is that letter true, or is it false?

That's all. It's a simple question. Is it true or is it false?

wants to continue to write his letters, etc. It's entirely up to him.

But in a particular conversation with Otto Lang the Premier said that

he, the Premier of this province, representing the interests of British

Columbians, was quite prepared to sign away the federal government's

right and obligation under the constitution to provide coastal shipping

to this community. He sold us down the creek — or sold us along the

tide. He gave away what has been traditionally, since British Columbia

entered Confederation in 1871, the responsibility of the federal

government under the constitution, to provide coastal shipping

facilities on this coast, as they do on the east coast.

MR. BARRETT: It was his father's position.

MR. HOWARD: Certainly it was his father's

position.

MR. BARRETT: It's my position.

MR. HOWARD: And the position of the first

member from Vancouver....

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD:

If the Premier wants to interrupt across the floor, perhaps he'd

interrupt and tell me about this Reuter letter here that we're waiting

for an answer about.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD:

Never mind heckling, Mr. Premier. How about answering the question

about this letter. How about dealing with your responsibilities as the

Premier, instead of heckling?

The member from Vancouver

East, when he was the Premier of this province, had a consistent view

about what coastal transportation should be. He laid it heavily on the

federal government about what their obligations were, and insisted on

the continuation of them. The man who was Premier in this province

longer than any other person — a person who has gone from this world,

but who was admired tremendously in this province by many people —

never once abandoned his responsibility to the people of B.C. But not

so the present Premier.

He put his name, as the Premier of

this province, in signature. "W.R. Bennett," it reads here in written

form, and I'm assuming it was the Premier who signed this document, and

not somebody long gone from the research department of the Socred

caucus. This particular document, signed on the other side by the

federal government by a signature that I'm sorry I cannot decipher —

one of them is Otto Lang — signed away the traditional responsibilities

of the federal government to provide coastal shipping. It says right in

the

preamble to that document that "the province" — this is our

Premier, Mr. Chairman, negotiating for us, protecting our interests

with those terrible Ottawa people — "agrees to assume sole

responsibility for deciding which services should receive financial

assistance and to provide all such

[ Page 1706 ]

future

assistance...." As a result of that the federal government pays them $8

million per year with an indexing escalating clause in it that I think

resulted in last year's payment being $8.6 million.

The

Premier looks up in dismay at that. Is he questioning the $8.6 million?

What is the correct figure, then? In the first year it was $8 million;

in the second year it was $8.6 million. So research people tell me.

Write it down, Bill.

While you're at it, Mr. Premier, write

down your answer to this letter from Etienne Reuter. Write down your

response to that, and level with the people of this province. Stand up

as a Premier should — as a man should — and say that the contents of

that letter are not accurate or that they are accurate, whichever the

case may be. That's the simple question that needs to be answered in

this House. It's one of the credibility of the Premier, who has said

one thing with respect to what happened at that meeting with the

European Economic Community, but is quoted in the press as saying

something else.

He's quoted in the press as saying, almost

gloatingly, "they want it, we got it" — "they want it" meaning the

European Economic Community, "we got it" meaning uranium. Of course, he

did say, which was truthful, that the federal government prior to that

time had placed a moratorium or an embargo upon the export of uranium

to countries which didn't satisfy the safeguards for nuclear

proliferation and the misuse of uranium from peaceful purposes for

military purposes. But he did say, "we got it and they want it" —

rubbing his hands, almost, in the process. He has an obligation to the

House, especially since the commission of the European Economic

Community, in a letter of December 6, 1979, from the office of the

president, says just the opposite. It has been tabled in the House and

reference was made to it yesterday, but we have had no comment at all

from the Premier as to whether or not that particular letter factually

and truly represents what took place there.

I think, in the

time-honoured tradition of parliamentary activity, that where such

conflicts do exist where one member says something and there is some

material presented which says something else, the member whose remarks

are in question is duty bound to follow that along — especially the

Premier — and identify clearly what the factual situation is. As long

as we have an absence of intent on the part of the Premier to proceed

in that time-honoured tradition and pay respect to the British

parliamentary system that we have inherited, seek to advance and like

to work in — as long as the Premier remains aloof from that — then just

so long will there remain the suspicion in the public's mind that maybe

the Premier wasn't fully telling it the way it was.

He isn't

the only one, of course. The small minister of development is in a

similar situation, having said one thing in this House and being quoted

in the press as saying something entirely different. That needs to be

clarified. It should have been clarified yesterday when the member for

Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) brought that newspaper clipping and that

quotation to the attention of the minister of small development. He had

an obligation then, when the newspaper reference was drawn to his

attention, to stand in the House as an honourable minister — instead of

sitting there shamefacedly like somebody caught with his finger in the

cookie jar — and say: "That attribution to me is not correct."

That

is the standard, traditional position people take when misquoted; they

identify before their peers and the general public in this chamber that

whatever was said in the press does not in fact represent what was

said. As long as there is silence from the benches about the two phases

of this particular matter — one affecting the Premier and one affecting

the minister of small business — there are going to be continual doubts

in the minds of the general public as to whether or not the Premier can

be trusted as a man of his word.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr.

Member, and all other members present, the Chair has twice cautioned

this House now about our rules, which do not allow for imputations of

falsehood and do require that courteous treatment in debate is due

alike both sides of the House and both Houses of Parliament. Perhaps if

we could remember those comments we can continue.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Chairman, I wish Mr. Reuter were living in B.C. Then I think we

could clear this matter up because we could go out in the hallway and

call Mr. Reuter a liar, he could sue us and then we'd possibly get the

Premier in court and see what really transpired in that meeting in 1977

in Europe.

But we're talking about the leadership of this

government, this province and Social Credit. I suppose what we have to

do when it's necessary is review that leadership. I think we can even

start prior to the Premier being Premier, when he was Leader of the

Opposition and the Social Credit was on this side of the House. At that

time, as Leader of the Opposition, he had working in his office one

Arthur Weeks. It came to light at that time that, prior to giving some

cheques to Marjorie Nichols of the Vancouver

Sun , Arthur Weeks had forged on the back of those

cheques.

Let's

consider this for a moment. Arthur Weeks worked in the Premier's office

when the Premier was Leader of the Opposition. Arthur Weeks forged some

things on the back of some cheques before handing them to a reporter,

pretending those things hadn't been written by himself, Arthur Weeks,

but by others. He worked for the Premier. Then, after winning the

election, Arthur Weeks worked in the Premier's office before working in

the office of the minister of small development. The Premier denied

Arthur Weeks worked in his office before working in the minister's

office. That's not true. Arthur Weeks worked in the Premier's office

before going to work for the minister of small development, but the

Premier denied it. We all know that it's true but the Premier denied

it. We also know that prior to being Premier the Premier had a telegram

that was stolen, which he waved around and talked about. Now he doesn't

believe in confidential memorandums or letters being used; he finds it

shameful, even though he did it himself.

MR. LAUK: He used to find it glamorous.

MR. LEA: That's right. He found it

glamorous at that time.

find, as we go through the political history of this Premier's career,

that over and over again he has made statements that we have since

found were not true. He said Arthur Weeks didn't work in his office

after he became Premier. That's not true; he did. He said he didn't

know where that telegram came from, which he used in 1975. We still

don't know the truth of that, but we do know that it was stolen and it

ended up in the Premier's hands when he was Leader of the Opposition.

We also know that when the

[ Page 1707 ]

Premier

was questioned about the practice of sending letters to newspapers and

signing phony names, he said he didn't know anything about it. We now

know that the Premier wrote letters to Social Credit members urging

them to do just that. Where does it begin and where does it end — this

desperate grab to get power, and this desperate bid to keep it? Will

they say anything? Will they do anything? It appears so.

Now

we have one of the latest scenarios, and it surrounds a visit in 1977

of a trade mission to Europe. On that trade mission were the Minister

of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and the Premier. Let's just go

back to the press release of Friday, September 16, 1977. It says:

"Premier Sees Potential for Deals with EEC."

"Brussels.

"Premier

Bill Bennett said Thursday he is encouraged that B.C. can flesh out the

bare-bone framework agreement signed between Canada and the European

Economic Community a year ago. Leading the first provincial government

delegation to the EEC since the Trudeau government forged a contractual

link, the Premier said he was not trying to drum up business for today.

He said he had come to create a climate in which deals would be signed,

and that his talks with EEC president Roy Jenkins and other top

European officials had gone better than he expected. Full of

compliments for the federal officials who assisted the provincial

mission, Bennett said such a meeting with the EEC might not have been

possible before last year's formal agreement between Canada and the

Community."

We have the Premier admitting that he did go to

Europe. We know that. Also, we have a letter from people in Europe

which says that they saw him there. So we know, probably — I can only

say "probably" — that he went to Europe. If it weren't for the letter

from Europe, I don't think I'd believe that he even went. But we know

he went, and we know, also from this press release, that they went to

sell British Columbia goods. We also know that yesterday in this

chamber the Premier denied that they tried to sell uranium in Europe.

The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development got right up

behind the Premier and denied it too. We now know that the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development went to two meetings, trying to

flog uranium, not just one. We know the Premier went to one to try to

flog uranium; but we know the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development went to two meetings, trying to sell uranium. And he denied

going to any meeting to try to sell uranium.

Mr. Chairman, the question is: was the Minister of Industry

and Small Business Development telling the truth yesterday? The

question yesterday and today is: was the Premier telling the truth when

he said that they didn't try to sell uranium? Or is Mr. Reuter lying in

this letter? Those are the questions for this Legislature. And isn't it

strange that yesterday you couldn't keep them down. They were jumping

up and down — the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

and the Premier — telling us everything, until finally they got caught

in their own web. They haven't been up since. The Minister of Industry

and Small Business Development is reading reports. That's all he's been

doing today.

MR. LAUK: Last year's reports.

MR. LEA:

Maybe 1977 reports. Maybe he's trying to find for himself if went to

Europe to flog uranium. I think we can take it for granted.

All

the facts are in. We have the letter from the office of the president

of the European communities' commission, from the secretary of that

commission, telling us that, yes, the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development, the Premier and the Provincial Secretary, when he

was the Minister of Finance, went to Europe and tried to sell uranium.

Yesterday, before they knew of the existence of this letter, the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and the Premier

denied going to Europe to try to sell uranium. How can they deny it in

the face of this letter, Mr. Chairman? During the conversation between

President Jenkins and Mr. Bennett, which was mainly devoted to Canada's

constitutional problems and the political situation in Quebec, the

Prime Minister — maybe he called himself that over there; but, indeed,

Mr. Reuter calls him that; that's Mr. Bennett — underlined the concern

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

listed among others, uranium.

Where are these defenders of

the leadership of government now? Since the existence of this letter

has been made public in this House, we've had the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Mair) get up and talk about all of the constitutional

pitfalls that we might be falling into in the coming years. We've had

the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) get up and talk

about everything else, but not about this letter and not about whether

the Premier and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

tried to sell uranium when they were in Europe in 1977. They'll talk

about anything, but they won't talk about this. The Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development knows very well that when he

was in Europe with that delegation they tried to sell uranium. The

Premier knows that they tried to sell uranium. Mr. Reuter confirms that

they tried to sell uranium, and yet the Premier and the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development deny, in this House, trying to

sell uranium.

What cin you conclude, Mr. Chairman? You have

to conclude that we have to take an honourable member's word, which

means that Mr. Reuter is a liar. If we take the word of the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development and the word of the Premier,

then the secretary to the president of the Commission of the European

Economic Communities is a liar. That's the only conclusion we can come

to.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

If Mr. Reuter is

not a liar, what conclusion can we come to? If Mr. Reuter is telling

the truth in this letter, and that delegation of the provincial

government in 1977 did try to sell them uranium, then what conclusion

can we come to as members of this Legislature? Regardless of political

party, regardless of whether you represent Dewdney for the Social

Credit and regardless of whether you represent North Peace River for

the Social Credit, what conclusion can you come to? This is an

important question. I want some time for everybody to think it over

before they stand up and speak again.

Mr. Chairman, I move that this committee rise, report progress

and ask leave to sit again.

[ Page 1708 ]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 25

Macdonald

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

Barrett

NAYS — 29

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

Mr. Lea requested that leave be asked to record the division

in the Journals of the House.

MR. LEA:

I wonder what the new members and ministers — the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. Smith), the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), the new

member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), the new member for Kootenay

(Mr. Segarty), the new member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Ree),

the new member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) and the new

member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) thought before they came to

this chamber as elected members for the Social Credit Party. They

probably had a far different view of the Premier and of present cabinet

from the view they have today. I'm sure that when they spoke with the

Premier prior to the last election they believed him. I'm sure they

thought he was the kind of person they wanted to lead them into the

1980s. It would be interesting, Mr. Chairman, if those new members

would take their place in this House and tell us what they think

happened surrounding this uranium question and whether the B.C.

delegation in 1977 tried to sell uranium to the European economic

communities. It'd be interesting, Mr. Chairman, to hear what the member

for Kootenay has to say.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Do you want to? It would be

interesting, Mr. Chairman, to find out just exactly how they would

explain how this letter from Mr. Reuter saying that the Premier and the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development were in Europe

trying to sell uranium. Mr. Member for Kootenay, you heard the Premier

say he didn't. You did hear that. He shakes his head; yes, he did hear

that. He heard the Premier say that he didn't try to sell uranium when

he was in Europe. Did you also hear it when we said, Mr. Member for

Kootenay, that this letter from Mr. Reuter says he did? You didn't hear

that?

MR. LAUK: We'll repeat it.

MR. LEA:

Well, maybe I should repeat it for the member for Kootenay. Mr. Reuter

said: "During the conversation between President Jenkins and Mr.

Bennett, which was mainly devoted to Canada's constitutional problems

and the political situation in Quebec, the Prime Minister" — that's Mr.

Bennett — "underlined the concern of his government to find markets for

the province's products and listed, among others, uranium." You've

heard it now, Mr. Member for Kootenay. How would you, Mr. Member,

explain that Mr. Reuter says that when the Premier was Europe he was

trying to sell uranium and the Premier says he wasn't and didn't do it?

Mr. Chairman, it would be interesting to hear the new Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), who's an expert in these

sorts of things.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Health gave his

speech.

MR. LEA:

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) gave the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations' speech, because, even though the Minister

of Health has a heavy portfolio, he knows that he has to help out the

minister "he wasnwith this very heavy portfolio.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You guys are really making

points.

MR. LEA:

Well, I'll tell you the point we are making, Mr. Minister. We are

making the point that the Commission of the European Communities said

that Premier Bennett was in Europe trying to sell our uranium and the

Premier denies it. Somebody is lying. Is it Mr. Reuter?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. member, on several different occasions this

afternoon you have been cautioned about the impugning of characters of

hon. members. I would caution you once more to use language in the best

parliamentary tradition and to please refrain from contravening those

long-standing principles of this House.

MR. MACDONALD:

On a point of order, I appreciate the reference to the best

parliamentary traditions, Mr. Chairman, but we are dealing here not

with a light matter but a very serious matter. And in those best

parliamentary traditions, when there is a clear discrepancy of

statements, are not the ministers of the Crown obligated to the

legislative body to give an explanation as to what happened at that

meeting? I'm asking whether that's not the case.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, that is not a point of order. I'm sure you know full well

that questions may be asked of ministers, but we may not insist on

replies.

MR. LEA: We're not arguing that the Premier

did not reply; he did reply. But what he said is in contradiction to

what Mr. Reuter said in his letter to John Mika, dated December 6,

1979. It isn't that the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development didn't reply; he did reply. He also was in contradiction of

the Reuter letter. I have not called those two ministers liars; I've

said that if they're telling the truth, obviously Mr. Reuter is a liar.

That's quite different, and I invite both those ministers to take their

place in this House and confirm or deny that Mr. Reuter is a liar.

[ Page 1709 ]

MR. HOWARD: You don't hesitate any other

time.

MR. LEA:

No hesitation at all at other times. But today it seems strange, Mr.

Chairman, that neither the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development nor the Premier is willing to call Mr. Reuter a liar. And

you know why? I believe that Mr. Reuter is telling the truth, and

probably everybody in this chamber believes that Mr. Reuter is telling

the truth, and it is in contradiction to what the Premier and the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development have said in this

House. Now do we get an apology from those two ministers? And I don't

mean the NDP; I mean every member in this House, other than those two.

Do we get an apology from them?

Where are all the pious

statements from the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) ?

Where are they now? They're sitting there now, talking with one

another, pretending it didn't happen. It did happen. Mr. Reuter's

letter has been filed in this House. It is in contradiction to what we

were told, prior to that letter, by the the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development and the Premier.

Every member in

this House, regardless of political party, deserves an apology, or a

declaration by those two ministers that Mr. Reuter is lying in his

letter to Mr. Mika. That question is not going to go away, because

until it's answered we don't know whether two ministers of the Crown

are levelling with us. We don't know for sure whether Mr. Reuter is

telling the truth. I believe he's telling the truth.

there anybody else in here who believes Mr. Reuter is telling the

truth? Raise your hands, everybody who thinks Mr. Reuter is telling the

truth. Even the press gallery can join in. The gallery's got their

hands up. Everybody is taking

part in this. Everybody believes that Mr.

Reuter is telling the truth. Does the Premier believe Mr. Reuter is

telling the truth? We deserve to know.

MR. BRUMMET: I

believe the member for Prince Rupert raised a question as to what the

new members thought about some of the goings-on here. I can tell you

quite frankly, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert, this new member is not

impressed, not with the tactics I've seen here this afternoon to

prolong a debate, or the number of ways that member tried to call

somebody in this House a liar and skirted around it in various ways

without ever coming out and saying so. In my whole sc