[ Page 1665 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions.

Telephone rates.

Mr. Mitchell –1665

Tabling Reports

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

Hon. Mr. Heinrich — 1667

Routine Proceedings

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

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1667

Mr. Barrett — 1670

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1674

Mr. Barrett — 1674

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1675

Mr. Barrett — 1678

Mr. Davis — 1680

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1681

Mr. Macdonald — 1684

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1685

Mr. Lea — 1687

Mr. Levi — 1687

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1689

Tabling Reports

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

Mr. Strachan –– 1689

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon in the gallery there is a group of gentlemen from the Clover Point Men's Club, which endeavours to attend question period every day. Tomorrow is their first annual luncheon, at which I have the pleasure of being the guest speaker. I would ask the members to make them welcome.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the first member for Surrey, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), and myself, I'd like to welcome to the galleries today students from Queen Elizabeth Senior Secondary School visiting Victoria under the auspices of the Crown Zellerbach program, and students from Len Shepherd Junior Secondary School with student visitors on an exchange program from Japan. I hope the House will welcome both of those groups of students.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased today to welcome to our caucus meeting the executive committee of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. They may or may not be in the galleries now. We had the president Don Knoerr, a cattleman from Smithers; the vice-president George Aylard, a dairyman from Sidney; directors Oscar Austring, a blueberry grower; John Savage, a vegetable grower; Ernie Malen, a fruit grower; Jack Reams, a hog producer; Harold Allison, a cattleman from Princeton; and the general manager, Jack Wessel. Would the House please welcome them.

MR. BARNES: I would like to ask the House to join me and my colleague, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), in welcoming 29 senior citizens, along with their chairman, Mr. Jim Sturgeon. They are here from the Canadian Legion, Branch No. 177, in the Mount Pleasant area. They are on a tour and are visiting during the question period. I ask the House to join in making them welcome.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, also in the gallery is Mrs. Chrissie Scherdahl from Burnaby-Edmonds, accompanied by her friend, Mrs. Hall. Would the House join me in bidding them both welcome.

Oral Questions

TELEPHONE RATES

MR. MITCHELL: I have a question for the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. B.C. Tel has applied to the CRTC for a general rate increase on both private and business lines. There is solid evidence that this increase is desired by the company not for rising costs but in order to finance its acquisition of a substandard manufacturing company called Automatic Electric. Has the government decided to intervene and oppose B.C. Tel's application to the CRTC?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of assertions in that particular question which cannot be accepted. The government will have to consider whether or not an intervention before the CRTC would be appropriate. I might say that the government of British Columbia has appeared on many previous occasions before the CRTC, but whether or not it's appropriate that a federal jurisdiction should be setting policy for a British Columbia telephone company is a political matter which, I think, needs to be considered by the province. So, Mr. Speaker, no firm policy has been taken on this matter.

MR. LAUK: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, in the past, as the minister has indicated, interventions have been made by the British Columbia government, which is a powerful agency, on behalf of the ordinary telephone user in the province. That intervention in the past has met with some success. Can the minister indicate why the government is now rolling over and playing dead when telephone users are paying ever-increasing costs for telephones, and most of the profits of B.C. Tel are going to Connecticut?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, a number of assertions have been made on that particular question which are simply untrue. The problem, as I outlined in answer to the previous question, is that the prior interventions of the B.C. government before the CRTC have signally failed to achieve the proper objective: to have a B.C. utility under provincial and not federal jurisdiction.

MR. LAUK: Has the government of British Columbia reached agreement with the federal government with respect to transferring the regulatory power of that utility to the province?

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

MR. LAUK: It's precisely the problem that the rate increase is liable to occur before such agreement is reached. Will the minister now decide and give some assurances to the House that there will be government intervention to protect the people of British Columbia from this price gouging?

HON. MR. McGEER: Again, the member, as he frequently does in this House, whether in raising questions or in debate, has made wild assertions. As I said, Mr. Speaker, how to deal with this problem has not been decided by the government. I only say that the routes taken in the past, which have been there to solve an immediate problem, have signally failed in solving the larger question. It's the solution to the larger question which will serve the interests of the people of British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: It is clear that in the last seven and a half years B.C. Telephone Co. has made over $230 million profit. Of late a considerable portion of that, 56 percent, has been going to Connecticut. Has the government decided to take any action to prevent the outflow of compensation to foreign shareholders at the expense of telephone users in the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. McGEER: If these allegations are correct and, Mr. Speaker, based on history, I have no confidence at all in that member's ability to bring accurate facts before this House — then the blame must be laid squarely before the

[ Page 1666 ]

CRTC and the federal government. The difficulty we face in the province of British Columbia is that we do not have jurisdiction over the B.C. Telephone Co., and therefore the member opposite should be strongly in favour of the efforts that the British Columbia government will make to solve the important question of obtaining jurisdiction over our own telephone company.

MR. LAUK: Some time ago the Premier of this province intervened quite strenuously, from the ski slopes, to prevent the takeover of MacMillan Bloedel by the CPR, a national corporation over which there was little jurisdiction of this government. Will the minister assure the House that such action will be taken — that is to say, as strenuous — in preventing the increase proposed by B.C. Telephone?

MR. LEVI: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Last November I sent a telegram complaining on behalf of boatowners about an announced increase in rates for marine telephone equipment. At that time I was told that because it was not a tariff increase there would be no public hearings; however, if someone requested such hearings they would consider it. On December 1 the CRTC announced that the rates that were to go into effect on that day would in fact not go into effect, and that they would be happy to receive briefs and interventions in respect to this matter, with a view to evaluating whether there should be public hearings. The closing date for receipt of briefs was February 15. As the minister responsible for protecting the consumer, has the minister, or have his officials, submitted a brief to the CRTC in respect of this very important matter?

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

MR. LEVI: I have a supplementary question. Can the minister inform the House why a brief on this very important matter has not been submitted?

Interjections.

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

MR. LEVI: Could the minister explain to the House why his ministry has not submitted a brief on this matter? The interests of the consumers of the province will not be before the CRTC. In the job that he holds he can lend his weight to the question of having public hearings.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, Mr. Speaker, action or the lack of action would be determined by the benefit to the people of the province, and in such a case it would have been determined that such action would not necessarily be that beneficial. Other action may have been taken with respect to the announced increase and the rollback of that increase, because we were in communication with some of the people responsible for that proposed rate hike. Whether representation by way of intervention was the only method, or the most acceptable method, was reviewed by ministry officials, and it was not determined that that intervention need be the only route to go.

MR. LEVI: Could the minister tell us what other routes there are, apart from discussing the matter with the federal minister, that are as effective as having representation at the public hearing?

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

MR. LEVI: The CRTC is in the process of making up its mind whether, in fact, it will have public hearings. It is in the interests of the consumers of the province, Mr. Speaker, to have such public hearings; they are not called for. Surely the minister must know that the position of his office is so powerful that he should make these representations. Now let me ask the minister this: has he had discussions with the federal minister in respect of this matter?

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

MR. LEVI: On a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, has he had discussions with the chairman or the vicechairman of the CRTC on this matter?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No.

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

MR. LAUK: I have a question to the Minister of Finance with respect to the shareholding held by the government, either directly or indirectly, in B.C. Telephone. Has the government decided to exercise its rights, as one of the largest minority shareholders in B.C. Tel, to influence that company to withdraw its application for a rate increase?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member, it was in yesterday's mail, I believe, that I received the full submission with respect to the requested rate increase by British Columbia Telephone. It was addressed to me as Minister of Finance. I intend to make my colleagues aware of the details of that submission at the earliest opportunity.

MR. LAUK: On a supplementary to the Premier, could the Premier advise us on the policy of the government with respect to interventions with the CRTC on behalf of telephone users in the province of British Columbia? It is obvious the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications is of one mind and the Minister of Finance another.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, there is no difference of opinion between the members of this government. The information will be assessed by the various ministries. Should intervention be recommended, then the government would consider that recommendation. What we have now, though, is a government that is concerned with a B.C. utility being responsive to a B.C. agency.

Members will be asked at this sitting of the Legislature to consider legislation for a public utilities commission which will, for the first time, have an agency in place in which rate hearings concerning British Columbia Telephone could be heard, because up until now we've only had rhetoric from many people. The agency will be in place which will give validity to our requests to the federal government that power

[ Page 1667 ]

taken under the Declaratory Powers Act to put B.C. Telephone under the federal jurisdiction should be undeclared in the interests of the citizens of British Columbia.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Premier's statement. Will he now instruct that there will be no increase in B.C. Hydro rates until such a commission is in place to review them and to straighten out the confusion that exists in the cabinet?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, it would be foolhardy for this government to anticipate how quickly some members of this Legislature will allow the passage of the public's business to be concluded and proposed legislation to be carried out.

Mr. Speaker, for the first time we are setting up from this House — hopefully with the support of the opposition — a public utilities commission that can conduct such hearings where the citizens of British Columbia can appeal both telephone and energy increases proposed by utilities — fair opportunity for British Columbians to be heard by a B.C. agency to do with B.C. utilities. Now that is something that is being brought in, has been indicated in the throne speech, and will be forthcoming for members to consider at this sitting of the Legislature.

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: All business of this Legislature will be introduced in its proper time, and all members will be given an opportunity. The first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) is now from his seat putting his own priorities on what order this legislation should be introduced in. Let me tell that member: you'll have ample opportunity...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT:...and all the time you need to discuss and debate in this Legislature positive government programs. Any delay can only be caused by your own lack of consideration for the results that we want to achieve for the people of British Columbia.

Interjections.

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

Hon. members, I think we need to remind ourselves again of the scope of question period. The Chair is doing everything in its power to keep the questions in order, and the Chair must also do everything in its power to keep the answers within the scope of the questions asked. I would ask all hon. members to hear the answer and assist me in determining its scope.

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

MR. LAUK: In answers to questions the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) made certain references to me and the accuracy of my information. I did not want to take the time of the question period to raise a point of order, but I consider his remarks most unparliamentary. I won't ask him to withdraw them, but I state for the record that if the hon. minister has any support for that allegation, he should bring it before the House.

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

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

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, in making a few introductory remarks on my estimates, I would like to pay a compliment to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) on his budget, not only for the content but for providing for the first time the type of background material and information that is useful in forecasting the economy of the province. Certainly this information not only is useful to all members of this Legislature, but also gives us a very clear picture about where the province of British Columbia is going in a statistical sense. It is in future debate that the ministers in their estimates, Mr. Chairman, will be able to put a picture upon those statistics and paint a picture upon which the thrust of their various ministries will be going. I leave that for later in the estimates, but I would like to say that the background information and the budget itself indeed paint a very positive economic picture for the people of British Columbia.

That economic picture can give the people of this province — the people in all parts of this province — some cause for optimism over their future and that of their children. It means that there is opportunity in British Columbia in the years ahead; in fact we can stride into the 1980s with confidence in this province. One only need look at the projections and on the actions having been taken by a number of ministries to recognize that economic activity will forge ahead in all areas of the province; it won't just be confined to the resource areas of the north and the central interior, but economic activity will in fact take place in the urban areas of greater Vancouver, greater Victoria and Vancouver Island. Our people indeed have reason to be optimistic.

While there are some problems inherent that can be resolved in the provincial economy, the problems that show up within the forecasts not only of the provincial economy but of the Canadian economy as well should give all British Columbians, and particularly those in this Legislature, some reason to pause and reflect on the problems that will impact on us in British Columbia because of policies of the government of Canada, or because of lack of, policies of the government of Canada, or because of problems with the economy that are different in British Columbia and are not yet being attended to by the policy of the federal government.

We should also look with some concern to the political

[ Page 1668 ]

problems that face our country which can impact back into the province of British Columbia. Mr. Chairman, we all should be aware that our country is under the stresses and strains of regional concerns which may be expressed differently and in different ways. The people of Quebec are concerned about their place in Confederation. Those problems are different, but the concerns of the people of the Atlantic region of our country are no less. The problems are different for the people of the Prairies; and here in the British Columbia region, the Pacific region of our country, are a number of problems that can only be resolved not by the government of Canada alone, but in concert with other provincial and regional concerned governments. That's the only way in which we can meet the type of rosy economic forecast that I would like to make for British Columbia.

While I say we have a number of positive things here in British Columbia, there are things that must be resolved in cooperation with the government of Canada that can ensure that future to a greater degree. Some are economic and some political. Today I don't think that any member of this House would disagree that the number one economic problem in this country is that of high interest rates. I don't think anyone in this House would disagree that high interest rates imposed by the Bank of Canada — apparently separate from federal government policy, and tied now to some new measure relating to the sale of Treasury Board notes — are one of the detrimental factors that will affect our country generally, and particular groups of people and particular economic areas in a very harmful, if not disastrous, way.

Housing and accommodation are a problem for many people in this country. Those who have it are fortunate. For those who have not yet had an opportunity to purchase their own homes, today's high interest rates, impacting out into the marketplace, prevent them from making that major decision in their lives — to purchase their own homes. I think personal home ownership is not only a desirable social goal, but is probably the personal goal of every Canadian. Certainly I would want to see that it can be attained by every British Columbian. Yet, today, unitary action by the Bank of Canada has impacted back out into the financial institutions, making mortgage money unaffordable to the people of the country. But it is impacting not only for those who do not yet have accommodation; that decision of the Bank of Canada without the meaningful consultation with the provincial governments, and provincial and federal governments developing a national economic policy, is also starting to hurt, and will hurt in great measure, many people who already own homes and must refinance because the term of mortgage lending has decreased markedly in the last few years as uncertainty over the cost of money in money markets has heightened.

Mr. Chairman, a large number of people in our country, and here in our province, may be hurt. It's time for the government of Canada to respond to the requests of our provincial government and others for a meeting to resolve this situation. It is apparent now that the high interest rates imposed by the Bank of Canada are not part of any other policy and are there for only one reason: capital retention in the country. All analysis would lead us to conclude that they are not there for curtailing expansion, because expansion is needed. They are not there to curtail an overheated economy, because that is not the case. It is merely a preoccupation with the Bank of Canada — their concern for holding capital within this country.

What then are the opportunities for an answer? Many people know the question and many people have spoken out against high interest rates. But we must realize that high interest rates can only be resolved in one way, and that is by the Bank of Canada taking action in concert with the federal and provincial governments in a number of measures that will encourage capital not only to stay in Canada, but to continue to come into this country. There is some reason to believe that this can be done if governments rethink many of their major financial positions.

There has been a preoccupation in this country for many years with the idea that governments must tax and must deal only with people as money-lenders or money-borrowers, and governments have not taken the opportunity to encourage our people to harness capital for equity investment.

So, Mr. Chairman, what I would suggest as just one of the measures that the government of Canada and the Bank of Canada should bring about as an economic policy is that, in lowering interest rates and lowering the costs to our people, they provide the incentives from the federal government — and the provincial governments may have to cooperate in their own law — to encourage our people to take that capital that was being lent on short or long term, at high interest rates, to the financial institutions, and harness it in purchasing equities in our country, developing new business and new industry — not as money-lenders, but as people with an ownership stake in the business and industry of Canada and, particularly, of British Columbia.

That measure alone would not only give our people some opportunity to participate in ownership but would free capital, Mr. Chairman — make capital available on the other side of the market at affordable prices. Interest rates must come down, but measures must be taken to ensure that capital stays in the country.

Amongst other things, then, governments must lower the tax regime on individual Canadians in order to leave more capital in their hands to undertake this equity investment. Not only those governments who talk about big government, government ownership, and government collecting more and more from the private sector in order to carry out their schemes, but many governments who pay lip service to the private sector have been guilty of imposing a greater and greater tax regime on our people, leaving them less with which to undertake investment and ownership in this country. One can only see that governments have been self-defeating for the people of our country and our province, when we take away tax on their dollars and then keep challenging the private sector to respond with new investment when we have left them with very little.

This government, Mr. Chairman, has reduced taxes in the years we have been government. We have left more money in the hands of individual citizens. More and more of the social benefits of government are being paid for out of revenue from an expanding resource, an industrial sector. That record is evident for all to see. It's evident in the forecast, it's evident in the figures of the budget that tell us where we are going and where we have been, and it's evident when you compare British Columbia's individual tax rates with the other provinces of this country.

In those figures and the tax measures taken to leave more money in the hands of people, you can also see that this government is in fact providing a model for all other governments, inasmuch as we are not plunging the people of this province into debt for current account. We're not leaving

[ Page 1669 ]

future generations with a pile of dead-weight debt, paying dead-weight interest charges for those services that we would ask for and that in fact our people need today. But when we look at the rest of the country and see the position it's in, particularly the government of Canada, we can recognize that the policies that have been followed in that jurisdiction play a large part in creating the problem we face today.

High interest rates didn't just happen. They happened because successive federal governments responded to the wishes of the people to give them everything they wanted; or, in the case of governments being put in the minority position, they were held up to some sort of political blackmail by minority parties to spend and spend an even greater part of the gross national product. They have had to borrow to pay for those things. They have incurred a debt on the people of this country that must be faced. If it wasn't evident before to the people what that cost would mean, let them look again today, Mr. Chairman, as the federal government, caught in its own lack of economic planning, has to refinance federal debt incurred years ago at rates of 5.5 percent, 6 percent and 7 percent at rates in double-digit figures, double the rates we were paying in interest before. No new services, no new programs — a debt, though, paying an even greater penalty on the taxpayer and the economy of today. That is the legacy of governments which will not, and cannot — and, Mr. Chairman, shouldn't and must not — respond to the temptation of spending today to buy favour with the voters, leaving this type of economic chaos behind for others to clear up. The chickens are coming home to roost.

Those who have advocated the free-spending, freewheeling policies of incurring public debt, those whose practised it in the only opportunity they had to be government in this province, and those who practised it on the federal level and in other parts of the country have not served the people well. They may have bought short-term political relief, but history will not treat them well, nor will those who follow, who have to pick up the bill and pay the tab. It's time, then, for a rationalization of our economic strategy in this country.

British Columbia has tried to play a cooperative, leadership role in this area, at economic conferences, at First Ministers' conferences and Finance ministers' conferences. We have presented to those conferences detailed papers on ways in which we think this country can resolve the critical financial problems we face and provide a guide to all future governments in a cooperative effort to prevent the situation from getting worse and to prevent what we have today from happening again to such a degree. It's all right to cry out against the problems we have today — high interest rates and others — but let us be perfectly clear as to how those problems were caused. The answers are very, very clear. Today we live with problems resulting from the actions of earlier governments. We must then resolve the way in which governments spend public money and the amount of debt governments are allowed to incur. There are guidelines that can be imposed to prevent us from this type of irresponsible action.

However, we must address ourselves to the problem of resolution; that is, today we must reduce the interest rates imposed by the Bank of Canada. Again I say that it can be done only if it's accompanied by capital retention measures that stress the positive, equity investment and equity opportunities that, with a number of other measures provincial governments can take, will help lower this cost imposed on our society for no other reason than for capital retention. It will help us then to move on to a number of other incentives to deal with the specific economic sectors of housing and rental accommodation. Certainly one of the ways in which government can move is not with penalties, as many who arrive at government would do, but by imposing government restrictions, imposing the full weight of government and inhibiting the private sector. Rather, governments should use incentives to encourage the construction of rental accommodation. The MURB program, which was cancelled, and capital cost allowance…. That is the way Canadians and British Columbians have traditionally done things. They have done it when the opportunity was there, and they have done it when the encouragement was there.

But when government becomes part of the problem, either through its own heavy-handed action or inaction or lack of appreciation of what could be done to encourage them, then the number one problem in this country becomes government itself. I think that the people of our country and of our province are well aware of the problems. They've had a strong dose of negativism from many. Those who dwell on the negative, those who keep restating the problem…. I think what they want from this chamber and our national parliament and the chamber in every government in this country are solutions. They're well aware of the problems. In our provincial jurisdiction this government has offered solutions. When it calls for cooperation with the government of Canada, we have willingly played a leadership role in making suggestions and offering cooperation. We have talked about some of those suggestions. The fact that they have not been agreed to is not the fault of British Columbia. We've gone to those conferences willing to try to develop solutions that will help give us a stronger country.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Now that some members have participated in their usual practice in this chamber, perhaps we could get back to the serious problems of the people of this province and of this country.

There are also political problems in this country, not of a partisan nature, but problems of the regions. As I mentioned briefly earlier, one has only to look at the regional stresses and strains on Confederation to recognize that all is not well. Those problems are not just economic. In some cases the problem is a feeling of a lack of participation in the decision-making at the centre of this country. In some cases those concerns are valid. There would be no such label as "western alienation," which has been with us for a number of years, if there wasn't a problem and if the people didn't feel they didn't have a say in the policies of this country. There wouldn't be such things as the problem of dissatisfaction and the search for sovereignty association of the people of Quebec if there weren't the seeds of a problem and they felt they were a part of this country.

The answer, Mr. Chairman, is not in decentralizing the country to the extent that we destroy the federal government. Some are for that; that's not the answer. If we are to have a country at all, we must have a government that can act and bring some equity and equality to citizens and regions of this country. But in the name of central government, they shouldn't use their power to keep on addressing the weaknesses and supporting the weaknesses of the country while inhibiting the stronger parts from making a better contribu-

[ Page 1670 ]

tion to their own regions and to the country itself. There are ways in which we believe the regions can make a stronger contribution and feel a part of the directions this country is taking. As I say, we do not say the answer is decentralization. In fact, British Columbia's proposals to first ministers' conferences on the constitution have stressed the opportunity to give us more say in the central decision-making boards and commissions rather than less being developed on provincial governments. There are a number of boards and commissions that make decisions every day that affect all parts of the country.

Yet we know all parts of the country aren't feeling the same problem. The very fact that there is not a housing or rental crisis in some parts of the country doesn't mean you should cancel the MURB program; as was proposed in the budget of the previous government, because there is a very real problem of rental accommodation in this province. We're living with our own successes in this province, because our success is in attracting people and building an economy where other Canadians want to come and participate. Migration within the country is one of the rights of a free people in a free country — to come and seek their opportunities here in British Columbia. They also leave accommodation behind, and that doesn't create a problem of lack of accommodation. But in-migration to British Columbia that is setting record levels has turned around the situation of a few years ago when, migration statistics show, more people were leaving than were coming.

That very success of building an economy where all Canadians feel they can participate has created some of our problems. That means that you need a national policy and you need representation from all regions, so that the policy can be tailored to respond to the needs of each of the regions. It cannot be developed, with blinkers or blinders on, just for central Canada. It must respond to people in all parts of the country. That point can be made about needs in every part of this country at various times. That is the type of policy and that is the type of recommendation we took to first ministers' conferences on the constitution.

It's not just a matter of tinkering with the constitution for the sake of tinkering. What we really need is a modernization of the government structure in this country, both regionally and federally, in order to meet the needs of people. We didn't arrive at these suggestions easily. We took the opportunity to study other federal systems: Switzerland, the federal republic of West Germany, Australia. We looked at the relationship of the Lander governments with the federal government in Germany. We saw how they provided regional representation that could provide a regional voice, as well as the voice of representation by population in their parliament and their government; and it's working well.

In a country such as Canada, then, with such a large land mass, with distinct economic regions, and yet a very small population, there is a need for this type of regional representation at the centre. Yes, our provincial governments have a strong voice; and, yes, our federal government, in theory, should be able to legislate for all the people. But at times the regional stresses and strains demand that regional input be given in order to come to really effective national policies that can work for the equal benefit of all Canadians, without penalty to certain parts of the country. That, in effect, is what has happened from time to time in this country.

With all good intention, national policy, unilaterally imposed by the federal government, has dramatically hurt certain parts of the country. In fact, national policy has not kept pace with modern needs. There has been a preoccupation with throwing a crutch to the weak rather than encouraging them to walk. Whether it is people or regions or governments, the answer has always been to throw a crutch. Yet the best answer is to go to the root of the ailment and effect a cure that allows them to walk — effect a cure that allows them to run. But the answer has been in the past — whether it be to provincial governments or people — to throw them a crutch; throw them a second crutch; never give them the opportunity to stand; never give them the opportunity to walk and then run. That's what we need in this country: some opportunity for our provincial governments to be allowed to continue to develop their provincial economies.

Look at British Columbia. Look at western Canada. Governments have been aggressive in developing their economies. Today we not only make a contribution to this country in very real economic terms in large amounts of cash transfers for equalization payments, but we also supply economies in which people from other parts of the country come to get employment, to build a home, as people have in the past. Those are the type of policies that our government has taken in the past to the government of Canada, and we will in the future. We have asked for an early meeting with the new government of Canada, Mr. Chairman.

I announce that to this assembly, and during my estimates and those of my colleagues I shall look for positive suggestions from all sides of the House that will aid us in our cause, because there is no sense in us taking back negative solutions — we want to take back positive solutions to this country.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I have been subjected to listening to the Premier attempt to articulate the government's position on a number of matters on a number of occasions. I would have hoped that perhaps a little more preparation would have gone into the continuity of what the Premier was attempting to get across, because in his rambling comments he has become somewhat of a transparent critic of his own earlier positions. We do have serious problems in this country, and quoting the Premier with such brilliant flashes of wit as, "the chickens have come home to roost," "we have to be responsible," and "there are problems," the Premier then comes back to what he said were his solutions or his approaches.

I always understood clearly that the responsibility of a free citizen in a free society was to participate in the democratic political process, and that includes voting. We sit here in this House and hear the clichés and the rhetoric about the federal government, the trouble with the political system, and the lack of participation and decision-making, and the complaints about the lack of participation and decision-making — it's hardly any example for the people of this province to have a Premier absent himself from the political process and say at the time: "My vote won't make any difference anyway." That's not leadership; that's not a demonstration of concern about the serious problems of this country.

We would have hoped that the Premier, during a federal election, if he didn't want to state what he wanted to happen federally, would have kept his mouth shut and at least voted. To not take a position at all on federal issues in terms of indicating to those citizens who expect political leadership from people who are in political leadership positions and who expect articulate debate on those decision-making processes

[ Page 1671 ]

and the various points of view that make up the fabric of democratic participation in this society, to absent oneself from the debate and then, once absenting oneself, to debase the whole system by saying, "It's beyond me, there's no use in my even voting," and to come to this House today and make the rhetorical statements that I can hardly fathom in terms of other than clichés — something about the lack of participation and decision-making.... The lack of participation and decision-making was made as a conscious decision by the Premier of this province, who refused to participate even to the extent of voting in the last federal election.

Now we come to the next question, to deal with the Premier's ramblings today. I can understand why it's necessary for the Premier to recycle the same speech he's been giving — sometimes more coherently than today — over the last five years, with the same clichés about home ownership, no government interference, and how a government has no place in the economic arena in terms of overtaxing the people. Why, he even went on to say that he had given detailed economic positions to Ottawa. He had, and I'm going to refer to some of his own words in those detailed positions.

But first of all I want to deal with the serious problems that exist in this country. Indeed it's true that we have just gone through another federal election, just as cataclysmic or as happy as the federal elections this country has gone through over a hundred years. There is no imminent danger of western alienation, Mr. Chairman. There have always been kooks, screwballs and nitwits who have talked about positions different than keeping this country together as a nation, and they should be labelled as screwballs, nitwits, and people outside the mainstream of a commitment to keeping this country together as a nation. Beating the old rhetorical drums about "unfair federal policies, yet we have to keep this country together," without being specific hardly serves the purpose of keeping this country together. The first responsibility of any citizen in Canada is to participate in the political system, and the second is to have responsibility to this country as a nation. That's what citizenship is all about.

Mr. Chairman, I want to remind you above all people — because you are eminently fair and unbiased in this debate of some words that the budget speech, which the Premier referred to, contained regarding federal-provincial relations. This is from a government led by a man who wouldn't vote in the federal election. I read to you for your attention: "The next few years will see important decisions made at the national level and it will be of utmost importance to ensure that the interests and concerns of British Columbians are appropriately reflected." The way to do that is to say publicly what your position is, especially during an election campaign.

The speech then goes on to say: "The federal election results could make this more difficult, and the government of British Columbia will therefore have to pursue intergovernmental affairs with increased vigour." Is he saying that he's unhappy the Liberals were elected? Is he saying that he's unhappy the Conservatives weren't elected? What interpretation of the federal election is he particularly referring to in this statement? What exactly is the position of the government of British Columbia on the federal election results, and what will be its response in political terms? This is from a man who won't vote in the federal election.

I don't want to embarrass the Premier, but I do have to refer to this. The Premier said in his speech that they had presented many detailed economic strategy proposals to the federal government. I think that's what I heard, Mr. Chairman; if I'm incorrect, I know you will correct me. Amongst the ramblings was there not a statement that the government of British Columbia has a stated position on economic strategy? Well, that's correct. It certainly does. And then there was a plaintive complaint, as I wrote it down, that they don't pay attention to us, in effect. The fact that they haven't been adhered to by Ottawa is a matter of concern by the Premier. In other words, they have not taken his government's proposals too seriously. But would you, Mr. Chairman, if you were told — not told, lectured; not lectured, but almost ordered — to behave based on the pattern outlined by the leader of the government of British Columbia — to do such and such and so and so, and to do it exactly and precisely, only to find that that little slap on the wrist was only meant as a joke outside of British Columbia, because the government of British Columbia never followed its own formulas or policies? Somebody in Ottawa probably read what the Premier said and then probably tried to find out what he was doing, and found out that the Premier of British Columbia had expounded two policies: one for public pronouncement with rhetorical flourish in this chamber or in Ottawa, and another for practice.

I have to quote what our leader of government has said as he lectured us again today about the government not listening to his proposals. I quote to you from a statement read by the Premier-perhaps not written by him-in February 1978: "Towards an Economic Strategy for Canada." This is advice to all the governments of Canada from Bill Bennett. It has his name right on it, and he says: "Boys, do what I am telling you to do."

MR. LEA: Who signed it?

MR. BARRETT: Bill signed it.

MR. LEA: Do we know for sure?

MR. BARRETT: There are some other things, and we don't know who signed them, but we'll come to that later. I want to read to you what he's telling the boys to do: "For a period of three years all governments should restrain spending growth to a rate of at least one percentage point below the growth rate in the economy — rate of growth of gross domestic product for the federal government and rate of growth of provincial domestic product for each province. By way of example, if provincial economic growth ran at 10 percent, unadjusted for inflation, then government spending would grow at not more than 9 percent, unadjusted for inflation."

AN HON. MEMBER: When did he say that?

MR. BARRETT: That is part and parcel of the lecture that was given in 1978, 1979, and again today in 1980, because the Premier thinks that, like himself, no one else reads. The Premier thinks that if he says one thing one place, it doesn't really matter what he says another place. Then he comes and cries in here that Ottawa won't listen to his proposals.

[ Page 1672 ]

MR. KING: Jack Davis thought he meant it.

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

Let's examine exactly what the delivery of this theory has brought. The theory is simple; even the Premier understands it; he espoused it. This is what it is. You take the unadjusted percentage of the growth of the provincial product and limit your budget to 1 percent below that. Has everybody got it? New Social Credit economics, lectured to the federal government.

The budget of 1977-78, delivered at the same time this theory was delivered, was as follows. The gross provincial product growth was up 12 percent, the provincial budget was up 11 percent. Formula on. It's got nothing to do with the fact that the formula was declared at the time knowledge was available of what the budget would be and what the increase would be.

Number two year. Remember this is a three-year program. The provincial leader of this government is attempting to tell us that Ottawa should follow this, and they haven't been listening to him, and this is a clear-cut economic policy — as he said this afternoon — which must be followed by governments in order to deal with the problems of high interest rates and high inflation, and to give people tax money back. Did you hear that one? To give people tax money back. This is what he did in 1978-79.

The gross provincial product growth was up again by 10 percent in 1979-80. By the Premier's formula, the increase in provincial government budget spending and return of taxation should limit the budget to a 9 percent increase. By his own stated policy formula, announced in Ottawa, lecturing federal politicians and other governments what to do, it should have been up 9 percent. Guess what happened. It was up 19 percent; his own policy was double-crossed in the first year.

Not to be outdone, we got the same speeches, the same rhetoric. Once the Premier's mind is lock-set in rhetoric and rambling nothings about economic process, once that mindset is locked in, it doesn't adjust to reality. And what do we find? The same speech today, in the face of the evidence that he was denying his own theories. And what are we faced with?

It was the Premier who brought this budget up, Mr. Chairman. Far be it from me to bring it up; I don't want to be out of order. But since he brought it up, I'm going to respond by telling you.... And I wouldn't like it to go out of this chamber, because it will ruin the kind of after-dinner speeches that he gives on the rubber chicken circuit, with the same clichés about his economic policies and warning everybody to follow them except himself. How do you expect them to pay any attention to you, Mr. Premier, when you don't even follow your own economic statements? Try to peddle that stuff again today; it's great. It's good for a joke, but you're not kidding anybody.

In today's budget that we're dealing with, the gross provincial product growth is up by 10 percent. By your own formula the expenditures should be limited to 9 percent. The expenditures this year are up 19 percent-double what your theory says. For three years you've been peddling this gobbledegook; for three years you've been lamenting all over that Ottawa won't pay any attention to you; and for two of the three years you've broken your own economic theories and you have been taking more tax out of the people of British Columbia, and keeping money out of the pockets of the people of British Columbia.

I know why the former Minister of Finance was removed. It's all part of the policy of not having any kind of consistent delivery of service in this province. It's part and parcel of a system of the Premier going on in some kind of airy-fairy economic theories that he tells Ottawa to behave in one way, and can't follow in another. He lectures us about good Canadian citizenship and the "Perils of Pauline" episodes of what he thinks is wrong with this country. He won't even vote in federal elections, he doesn't even follow his own economic policies, and he's got the gall to come in today and spout that same old junk.

What have you done? Well, you've learned to be an ad hocker. Out of panic, the ad hockery of this government has increased at a dramatic rate. You tell me how you can administer a province, Mr. Chairman — and you know this better than anyone else, because as an impartial chairman you don't have any aspirations to go beyond the very onerous tasks of governing this House during estimates.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: And no improvements.

MR. BARRETT: There have been no improvements. Some of the ministers who have some visible skills — based only on the litmus test of comparison to others, which is a base standard to begin with — are left in the job of clean-up men. The member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) has got the biggest task of clean-up man of anybody in cabinet. He is the guy with the biggest broom and the biggest shovel who follows the parade, cleaning up after various cabinet posts.

MR. LEA: He'll get Energy next.

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

Mr. Chairman, 63 portfolio changes in four years is an average of one change every four weeks. How would you feel if you were a backbencher and there were 63 cabinet changes, one every four weeks, and you were elected in 1975 and didn't make it to the cabinet with those odds? How do the backbenchers feel, those who have been there since '75, with that kind of whirling-dervish musical-chair approach the government...?

Well, Mr. Chairman, let's just take a look. There have been four Ministers of Energy and umpteen energy policies. The four Ministers of Energy were Mr. Davis, Mr. Bill Bennett, Mr. Jim Hewitt and Mr. Bob McClelland. There have been four Communications ministers: Mr. Jack Davis, Mr. Bill Bennett, Mr. Alex Fraser and Dr. Pat. There have been four Travel Industry and Tourism ministers: Mrs. McCarthy, Mr. Veitch, Mr. Don Phillips and Mrs. Pat Jordan. There have been four Mines and Petroleum Resources ministers: Mr. Tom Waterland, Mr. Jim Chabot, Mr. Jim Hewitt and Bob McClelland. There have been four Ministers of Agriculture: Mr. Don Phillips, Mr. Jim Hewitt, Mr. Cyril Shelford and Mr. Jim Hewitt II. There have been four Ministers of Recreation: Mrs. Grace McCarthy, Sam Bawlf — now tunnelling — Hugh Curtis and Evan Wolfe. On and on goes this administrative tangled web of nightmarish shuffling of ministries, and then they try to tell the people of this

[ Page 1673 ]

province and Ottawa how to run their affairs, when we can't even have a minister in his seat long enough to know where the washroom is. That's why they built so many washrooms in cabinet ministers' suites; at least they know where that convenience is, beyond the rest of the problems that they have.

Here are the cabinet changes, pages and pages of them, in the Bennett administration. Yet, Mr. Chairman, after four years the crucial change that should have been made at that time has never altered at all; and that is the leader of this government, who says one thing and spouts something else. Lecturing is one thing, chastizing is another and high-flown grounds for statesmanship are something else. But examining the record of the leader of this government leads one to believe that the record was stuck in a speech that was programmed in 1974. Events have passed him by; when all else fails, get up and filibuster.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to your attention some other problems. I outlined the double-talk about economic strategy. I've outlined the fact that the Premier's commitment to federal participation doesn't go to that dangerous point of voting. Let's look at the consequences of this kind of drift, the lack of credibility that the Premier has forced on himself because of the drift and the deep concern people have about this government as it comes to its epitasis.

Look at the Hydro rates. We had a lovely example today in question period. The Minister of Universities, Science and Technology — and outer space — was in trouble. He got a whisper in the ear on how to answer the question on B.C. Telephone. Then the Premier got up to throw confusion into his own answer. He said: "We're just waiting for the introduction of this regulatory body that will permit us to have some control over these utilities." That sounds very good.

MR. BARBER: Bring it on tomorrow.

MR. BARRETT: "Bring it on tomorrow," says my good friend and colleague for Victoria. I want to remind you of something again that the Premier seems to forget. There are nasty reporters around. I don't wish to attack the media. I'll leave that to the Premier. This is what the media reported the Premier said in the Province of October 13, 1978, about B.C. Hydro: "While B.C. Hydro is warning customers unofficially to brace themselves for a steep increase in natural gas and electricity rates next year, Premier Bennett says he expects Hydro to lower its rates."

MR. BARBER: What year was that?

MR. BARRETT: That was 1978. Did he bring in the legislation that you are blocking — that you, personally, the member for Victoria, are blocking? Did he bring it in before? You blocked it for a year and a half.

The Premier said in Victoria Thursday that he expects Hydro to be able to reduce rates, because it will save $60 million annually once its losses in the transit division are transferred to the Urban Transit Authority.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was he telling the truth?

MR. BARRETT: Well, no. Never ask the question: is the Premier telling the truth or telling a fib? No, no, never ask that question. Just examine what he says from one month to another and find out if he knows the difference.

He stands up today and tells us about his economic policies. He slaps wrists about nasty Ottawa and doesn't even vote himself. He stands up in question period and says we are stopping him from handling Hydro, which is a new problem, when he himself said Hydro should have been cutting rates two years ago. What else?

Let's go to Gloucester estates in Langley. Let's deal with that in terms of continuity in government and faith in the judgment and the application of law. Whether we like it or not a decision which aroused a great deal of controversy was made to remove land out of the agricultural land reserve by way of an appeal to cabinet. I didn't like that. I didn't like that land being removed, but it was according to the law of the land; if you want to change the law of the land, you involve yourself in politics and get elected to office. The land was removed, and a public outcry was heard. Lo and behold, the chief officer of the government of this province announced that he didn't want the land removed. Well, I'm glad to hear he didn't want the land removed. Why didn't he say so before the land was removed? What did he do about it once he decided that the land shouldn't be removed? He attempted to circumvent the law as it existed, without ever indicating that he was going to bring amendments into this House to prevent that from ever happening again in the province of British Columbia.

The Premier is on record, Mr. Chairman, as being against that land being removed. I won't go through all of the details of the exchange. They are a matter of public record between the people involved, both pro and con. But at the present time there are proceedings leading to a court case by Gloucester to have that land excluded. I don't think it's fair to Gloucester to have on the public record that the Premier wants that land in the land reserve without him coming in here and placing a law in front of us to prevent it and save Gloucester and the community the turmoil of going through a legal process that the Premier has already indicated that he would fudge anyway.

You want to save that land? You want it in the land reserve? We've been here for three weeks. Do something about it instead of putting any citizen, regardless of where they sit on this issue, through the hoops of a court hearing. If you've already made up your mind and if you don't want the land removed, then say so. But people aren't believing you any more, Mr. Premier. Your statements are contradictory, they're ad hoc, they're knee-jerk, and there is no consistency in terms of policy.

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

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, perhaps. I'll wait until the red light goes on. I'll have a couple of minutes after that. I know, Mr. Chairman, that you impose the rules fairly. When the red light goes on, that means we keep talking for a little while.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier said yesterday that they might have fudged up the Marguerite a little bit, and that they'd handled that one badly. You didn't handle that one badly. You blew it! You forced the poor old member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser), who has never had any naval experience beyond being on a row-boat in a high wind on Lac la Hache, into being responsible for determining whether or not the Marguerite is safe. We have experts all over the

[ Page 1674 ]

world, including Lloyd's of London, who say that the ship is safe. We have people saying they're the ones who will be sued if their word isn't taken. All of a sudden, the poor member for Cariboo is forced to carry the can again. One of the most popular members in this House has his reputation dragged down because of the Premier's actions. I have so many other examples, but I now want to come to the Bates commission on uranium.

The Premier had a position of peddling uranium. He went over to Europe and said: "Boys, come and buy B.C. uranium. The only thing stopping it is federal legislation." The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) was even clearer. The Premier left the clear statement: "Boys, come and buy uranium. It's going to be available. The only block is from the federal government." As he travelled throughout the European community he left the impression that British Columbia would be in the marketplace to sell uranium. Then he set up the Bates commission, saying he wanted to make sure his position was correct.

Under the Public Inquiries Act you delegate authority from this Legislature to take certain actions as defined by law. But I have never heard that once you define certain actions under a public inquiry there is a summary execution; I think it's against the law. I don't think that the Premier, who is surrounded by sycophantic ministers, has the right to announce: "I now have decided to terminate the Bates commission." I think Dr. Bates has been most charitable in negotiating an additional five months to save face for this government. I welcome the latter-day conversion of the Premier against radioactive material. I'll leave it at that, but there's a lot more that has to be said about the inconsistencies of the Premier and his gobbledegook mindset speech that hasn't changed in three years, in the face of the facts and in his own behaviour.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon the leader of the official opposition made some sense. Today he made some sense, particularly when he talked about people who are against people keeping Canada together. He called them kooks — "right on," he says — and he called them nitwits and he called them screwballs. This is the day of true confession. This is the day of true confession, for today the leader of the official opposition levelled in this House. He indicated just exactly what the socialists are in this province and what they believe in and, indeed, how critically dangerous their policies are and how menacing those policies are to the continuance of this country as we know it. Yet the leader of the official opposition today labels those people who support such policies and who endorse them as screwballs, as nitwits and as kooks. But who indeed did not ferment, if not spawn, those ideas? I'll tell you. "For an Independent Socialist Canada: resolutions prepared by the Waffle movement in the New Democratic Party for the consideration of riding associations, affiliated union locals and youth clubs for the federal convention of the New Democratic Party, Ottawa, April, 1971." This is what they think about keeping our country together.

"As New Democrats, we see the recognition of Quebec nationhood as essential to the building of an independent socialist Canada.... The whole history of French Canada since the conquest of 1759 is ample testimony to the existence of a Quebec nation. Many historical events, such as the rebellion of 1837, the response in Quebec to the hanging of Riel in 1885, conscription crises in both world wars, and the political ferment of the past, make it clear that French Canada is an embattled nation that has been denied full expression of its national existence."

This is what they say. And this is what this self-defined.... I won't use those words, Mr. Chairman, because they'd probably be considered unparliamentary — he called himself that. He says this:

"We must give up any vision of Canada which sees Quebec as a province like the others. As long as we insist on Quebec behaving like the other provinces, this will not be possible. The people of Quebec will not go along with any other form of federal government. We must seek a solution which allows both nations to pursue the creation of a planned socialist economy, without this causing problems for nationalization."

Here are their resolutions:

"Our goal is the building of an alliance between English Canada and Quebec socialists towards that end.

"Be it resolved: (2) The New Democratic Party supports the right of the people of Quebec to national self-determination up to and including the right to form an independent Quebec state. A lasting, solution to the relations of our two peoples can only be determined when popular representatives from both sides sit down and negotiate on the basis of the principle of equality of the two nations of English Canada and Quebec. We believe that full national equality can be achieved between English Canada and Quebec only through socialism."

Mr. Chairman, this is the man who stood in the House today and labelled these people as being "screwballs, nitwits and kooks." Yet he endorsed those premises, as did the former Attorney-General, as did the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, as did the hon. lady member, and as did the former Speaker. Now how could you possibly sign a document like that, which, in the back of it, is the self-destruction of our country?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, we have been given a delightful treat today. After three months in the position of Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, he has now evidenced the amount of research he has done on national affairs on behalf of this government.

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

MR. BARRETT: You renounced the Liberal Party.

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

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

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

[ Page 1675 ]

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

Mr. Chairman, there is a serious debate going on in this country, and that debate must be addressed by all politicians. I have never taken, and never will take, the position that any part of Canada should separate. And I made that very clear.

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

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

The fact is that I have always participated in every federal election that I've been able to; I've voted in every federal election; and I've stated publicly that I endorse those policies that keep this country together. I have never run away from the ballot box or my position on any federal issue.

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

MR. BARRETT: What, the reading of it? It certainly was. Mr. Chairman, he has been much happier since he's no longer burdened with that portfolio.

I want to go on to finish my remarks about a government that has been operating ad hoc with the Premier interfering in decisions. I listed some of those decisions beyond the cabinet changes — the Hydro rates, the Marguerite and the Bates commission. It was a dramatic switch in position by the Premier of this province, who was in Europe flogging uranium sales from British Columbia, using the only barrier at that time that the federal government had. The ultimate answer!

Mr. Chairman, we also have to deal in this province with the three evils that the Premier has not specifically addressed himself to. One is the high interest rates. You're against them? Then give people some of their tax money back, and allow them to use their own money instead of having to borrow money to buy means of transportation to get to work and fill your tax coffers. Unemployment. Give people some of their own tax money back so that businessmen are allowed to reinvest their own tax money and create jobs here in the province of British Columbia instead of....

Where is the vision in terms of capital investment in this province? Where is the vision that W.A.C. Bennett had about this province? Where is the vision and leadership that was always part and parcel of a major debate under the Premier's estimates about different philosophical approaches to that vision? There always was that annual debate. There was talk of the great railway right through to Alaska. There was talk of industrial projects. There was talk of reinvestment and joint venturing on the basis of a government that was led by a man who at least had a vision and an understanding of this province from border to border. We had the debate of coastal shipping. We always had the philosophical agreement in this House that we would never sell out to Ottawa and its subsidies — buying out the subsidies so that we're stuck with coastal shipping while the maritime provinces get a far better deal. Who was it that sold out but the Premier of this province?

Mr. Chairman, where are the plans for a steel mill in this province that were aborted by this government? What about the destruction of Railwest, only to have the machinery from that Railwest plant sold to the Americans, who are now using that very machinery to sell railcar plants and railcars into the Canadian market? Where's our oil refinery? There is no vision. There is no leadership.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Last but not least, the member for Vancouver Centre talked about legislation passed in this House in 1975 that even the Socreds voted for — the Savings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia. There were statements made by those members in support of this legislation under the New Democratic Party. They agreed that this vehicle could be used to finance housing, help small businessmen and assist co-ops in this province. Nary a vote against it from the Socreds. Our report was prepared by a joint committee of the Finance department and by the British Columbia Central Credit Union. That report was given to this government in February 1976 to implement the program that they endorsed. That report has been kept secret by Social Credit ever since. Where is that report, Mr. Premier? Give us an opportunity to examine a real blueprint as an alternative. You voted for it in this House. It was an attempt to deal with high unemployment, high inflation and high interest rates. Why are you keeping the report secret? As you tinker-toy around with economic theories that you have abandoned yourself, we have on the floor of this House legislation that can get to work to allow people to use their own money, not by a crutch, as the Premier wants to say, but use their own money to deal with the economic problems we have in this province. It is the epitasis. It was a pathetic but welcome bit of comic relief from the former Attorney-General to defend a Premier who finds it very difficult to defend himself, especially over these last six months.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I always enjoy the Leader of the Opposition, and I wish him continued success in that role. He was incorrect in a large number of things. I'll deal specifically with the uranium question in Europe. Number one, this government did not go to Europe selling uranium. The government was not actively concerned about developing B.C.'s uranium resources, but when you go to Europe you go as a Canadian, not just a British Columbian. I was asked at a general meeting about Canadian uranium, and I said that policy was the federal government's, which it is. They said our party is the one party in this House that has been entirely consistent on uranium mining. We've been entirely consistent.

I remember when I saw the document. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Mr. Hewitt, phoned me during the last election about a document that dealt specifically with.... He phoned me on a TV show and told me about a document that was there, signed when the last government was in power, authorizing a company to undertake uranium mining. Normally in this province, Mr. Chairman, one only has to get a free miner's licence to search

[ Page 1676 ]

for anything. The minister told me, on television, that this document dealt with it specifically. I think that was the position of that party as government.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We have not. Uranium exploration was underway and this government has taken a look at it. We've had the Bates commission and, yes, it will provide a fund of information for the people of this province. When the seven-year moratorium is over, Dr. Bates or his successor can conduct, with the accumulation of additional technical information developed in the next seven years, the type of research and hearings that will give the British Columbia government of that day the opportunity to make their statement on uranium mining. The information from the Bates commission is not a waste. It will be valuable public information because it deals with some of the myths.

But we made a decision. The decision was this — that there be a moratorium on uranium mining for seven years. The economic climate and the mining climate is such in this province now that it can stand a government to stand up and say this particular resource will not be mined, because the people have a concern — the people, not the political flipfloppers who do one thing as government and another when they're out, not those who choose to ride on the coat-tails of their successful counterparts in Saskatchewan when it suits their purpose, and run away because Saskatchewan, under the NDP, is undertaking major uranium exploration and mining to ride on the coat-tails of their national leader, Mr. Broadbent, who believes in uranium mining. No, I think the public knows where the inconsistencies lie and they know that this government, as government, has taken action to provide that security and peace of mind to British Columbians in that during the next seven years no uranium exploration or mining will take place. That's what this government has done.

Others in this chamber who have been government and have undertaken other action, with which they apparently disagree now, or who publicly wish to condemn their colleagues in other provincial governments, and their national leader.... That's a private party matter and I don't think we need to dwell on it in this Legislature. What we need to dwell on is that uranium mining or exploration will not take place for the next seven years in this province. The government of British Columbia did not, nor did I, go to Europe on a uranium selling expedition, as was incorrectly stated, amongst other things, by the Leader of the Opposition. That's totally untrue.

MR. BARRETT: You didn't talk to them about selling uranium from B.C.?

HON. MR. BENNETT: If the Leader of the Opposition would listen, Mr. Chairman, I was there also as a Canadian. One thing the Leader of the Opposition, with his limited exposure to international affairs, doesn't realize is that when you're there they treat you, and expect you to respond, as a Canadian. They don't care that your mind might be preoccupied with some small piece of the country. They ask us questions on Canadian affairs. They ask us questions on government of Canada policy. In that case the question was to do with the government of Canada and the question of the export of uranium. We responded that I was there as a provincial government Premier and as a Canadian, and those decisions are made by the government of Canada. Do not try to twist a question that happened there into your own, because.... Mr. Chairman, I was hoping we could….

MR. BARRETT: You didn't discuss B.C. uranium?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, that was the question, and that was the answer I gave.

I'm quite aware that this debate on my estimates may wander, as there are those who see and say what they wish to see and say, using as the basis for their research any newspaper report that forms the basis of any conclusion they wish to reach. I tell them that that mission was there. The purposes and aims of that mission were clearly identified in the material made public before the mission left, and it did not identify that as an area. But when we, as Canadians, are travelling, with the government of Canada officials paving the way, we respond to questions about Canada, and we respond when the authorities lie....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No. How many times...? I want to tell you, that question of British Columbia.... Nobody knew that when you were government you had those secret little orders allowing uranium exploration. Even I didn't know then that while you were government you had signed little agreements that specifically dealt with uranium exploration. We didn't know that.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal, positively of course, with our economic policy, because we have taken positive recommendations to first ministers' conferences. There has not always been agreement with the B.C. position. The B.C. position, and any economic strategy, requires the agreement of all provincial governments. I want to say that one of those governments is the province of Saskatchewan. The things they advocate at those conferences and whether we agree or whether we adjust to changing economic situations....

We have not yet received all the agreements which would be required to implement a national policy such as we have talked about. That means that we will be dealing from time to time with policies that are not as precise as they could be if we had such agreement. That such agreement has not yet been reached is no fault of the various governments; it reflects the various philosophies of many of the governments that go to those conferences. Many of them separate capital account from current account; many of them have different economic policies; some of them, Mr. Chairman, even believe that government ownership is the only answer in this country. Some of them believe it even though it has not worked when tried in this country, and in other countries it has been changed and aborted as they seek a more comfortable public image, and the name "socialism" is replaced by the words "social democrats"; so we see changes in what they wish to be or wish to appear to be.

No, Mr. Chairman, our goals haven't changed; our goals haven't changed this government. What we have tried to do is to provide a destination or goal which this government wishes to achieve. The results of our stewardship of the public economy are well known; they're printed there for the people to see the record of performance of government. That goes beyond the innuendo, beyond the twisting and beyond

[ Page 1677 ]

the sometimes whining histrionics that some people would use in place of discussions of ways we can improve this province and this country.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let me deal with a couple of other areas in this province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Leader of the Opposition can get up; there is going to be ample time for him to perform for all of us.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to talk about one of the things that make up this country which is important to us — and perhaps the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) will pay attention — that is, the basis of the country, the multicultural policy that our province has been searching for and helping the intercultural and multicultural society to develop, reinforcing the roots of the people who make up this province. In a number of conferences we have encouraged participation, and indeed a publicly sponsored conference in conjunction with various groups will lead to the development of a multicultural policy for our province, recognizing the contribution of the various people who have come to help us build a country, the contribution they have made in the past and can make in the future without losing their identities, because of the very strength they bring to this country, a strength we want to preserve. Their culture can be a part of the Canadian and British Columbia culture. That requires that all of us broaden our understanding of those strengths that they bring them.

Later this year, hopefully, the multicultural policy, as a result of these meetings that took place in the major conference in concurrence with the intercultural multicultural group, will be a permanent part of government policy in British Columbia. It would be more than a strengthening, then, of the support of the festivals, observance of national days and preservation of their customs. It will also be physical ways in which we can help in the development of their cultural centres, such as we've done with the Chinese cultural centre and other groups, not only in greater Vancouver but in areas such as my own constituency, where we have been able to help provide a senior citizens' home sponsored by the Japanese-Canadian society there, which has played a long and historic part in developing Kelowna and the Okanagan area itself. The facilities, then, need not just be those meeting places for culture, such as their cultural halls and societies, but in fact their ability as societies to provide these types of facilities that meet a public need as well — nursing home care, senior citizen care and others.... They have a strong role to continue to play, both in our province and our country.

One of the strengths is also one of the solutions for the continuation of the country, and that is an understanding of the differences in background of many of the people that built the country, whether they be French-Canadians, Anglo-Canadians or those from other countries of the world. There shouldn't be a concern today that somehow a flood of people is going to come in and take the jobs of Canadians, because this country has always provided a home for many who desire hope in the world. I see the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) pounding his desk; he chose to make this his country and his province, and indeed has been a large part of the building of this province and of the Kootenay region. That's important, because we can talk balance sheets, and you can talk bottom line, but the bottom line in this province and in this country is really people. You serve them well when you manage their money well, but you serve them well when you recognize them as individuals, recognize what they have to offer in this country, and recognize that their differences don't necessarily hurt but may help this country.

With that type of background that's going to help our country and our province as we assert ourselves into international trade, because it's more evident than ever that the country cannot be propped up by the walls of high tariffs holding the outer reaches of Canada as captive markets for central Canadian manufacturing........ That hasn't served the development of our industrial base, and it certainly hasn't helped central Canada, in which the very industry that's been protected has become weak in some cases, inefficient and non-competitive on the international market.

A lot of our future in meeting our aspirations in developing more than resources, getting more value added in our industry and more process in refining, will be the ability, to look at world markets and develop an industry of scale that can compete on world markets. That's why it's been important that the country has moved, as British Columbia has pressed for for many years, to a lowering of our high tariff barriers which, in protecting a market of less than 25 million people, have denied us market access in the hundreds of millions to other countries in the world who put up their barriers in retaliation.

We now see a growing opportunity for Canada, but it's manifest here in British Columbia where we are Canada's western window. We are the window to the Pacific Rim — a window that has great promise because the countries of the Pacific Rim are emerging countries. Their industrial success and their growth also give them the type of economy and personal income that makes them consumers. They then can become customers as well as sellers. We have an opportunity for expanded trade which will help Canada with its balance of payments, will help strengthen not only the British Columbia economy but the Canadian economy as well.

These are things that we are pleased that Canada has been moving to and is moving to because of the recent GATT negotiations, in which the Premiers' conference and the Western Premiers' Conference have had a united position. British Columbia has played an aggressive role in encouraging the lowering of tariff barriers that deny us access to many growing markets of the world. If British Columbia is to have industry with a small population we cannot build up the type of industry of scale, with our own population as consumers, sizeable enough to compete. It has to start with at least the logical parts of the world as its market base in order to get our products to market, to employ our people in higher technological positions, to provide the additional value added.

There's always been a lot of rhetoric about getting more jobs and more industry. This government didn't cancel, as someone said, a steel mill for British Columbia. There was no steel mill. At a time when world steel markets were falling apart and at a time when the capacity of the steel industry was declining — I think it dropped to between 60 percent and 70 percent of capacity — the Japanese were eager to find somebody else to help pay for a study they didn't have to use. They were pleased because they knew that normally they would have to pay the whole cost of the study. That very study was held out as an expectation. We've seen what the steel market has been like. Try to count the number of new steel facilities initiated and developed in the last number of years when

[ Page 1678 ]

existing facilities are having financial problems. We see the problem of North American steel on the west coast. One only has to look at Kaiser Steel in the U.S.

The statement that this government cancelled a steel mill is untrue; it's false; it's incorrect. No one would make that statement except someone who knew it was incorrect and was trying to gain political advantage; I see no other reason. To continually hold out false expectations to the people when most of them know better.... They read the international magazines. You're not dealing with a public that somehow has no access to knowledge. They know that the steel industry has been under capacity for a number of years. They know the problem of west coast North American steel. To continually hold out the hope of something of which there is no expectation to justify paying half the cost of a study for a Japanese company is certainly not considering the solution and placing the economic facts squarely before the people of this province.

In the future in this province there will be some opportunity for more refining and more processing. It will be a decision government will make about utilizing our energy. In many countries which now have aluminum smelters and other facilities, the key component is a secure supply of energy. Governments will have to consider dealing with such proposals and looking at energy requirements and sources and the best use of that energy and whether it can develop additional value-added processing and industry in our province. That opportunity is real. It's being able to calculate whether that's the best use of the energy and whether they can negotiate additional processing of that product that will employ the people of British Columbia. Certainly a country like Japan, which imports energy, is a successful trading nation.

The other day one member of the Legislature, who was wrong again, cited West Germany as the most outstanding example of growth of gross national product and lower interest rates, and as the greatest industrial success in the world. Again he's wrong. I'm sure it happens to be Japan. Their real growth rate will be the largest of what are considered to be the major powers in the industrialized world. Japan has done this even though they are a country that's had to face the impact of being almost totally reliant upon imported energy. What's happened to supplies and prices, as a result of the actions of the OPEC countries in 1973.... Part of the reason for the economic mission to Japan last fall was to reinforce B.C.'s position that perhaps as trading partners we could take a look at their changing position; that it was in their interest to complement B.C.'s industrial position, a position held since we became government, to get more processing, refining and manufacturing in this province; that perhaps it was short-sighted of them to continue industrial manufacturing that consumed high levels of energy; that a good future trading relationship would provide more manufacturing or more processing in British Columbia; that it would create more opportunities not just for our people but for the increasing number of other Canadians who are coming to British Columbia as part of what is the Canadian birthright of opportunity and free movement of people.

As I said earlier, part of the problem we face in British Columbia today is, because of our success, to see ourselves as others see us. Perhaps there are those in this chamber who have become so negative and so critical that that's all they can do. Perhaps they're not the best observers of what other Canadians and people in other countries think about British Columbia and its opportunities. I say a useful thing would be to ask the people who are coming to British Columbia: "Why are you coming?" They're coming because they can see the opportunities. You see, their whole life isn't built around being negative. They're not seeking some sort of advantage they think may do them some personal good by being negative. They see very real opportunities here. That's why they're coming.

There are people from other countries who want to come to Canada for the very same reasons. When they get to Canada it doesn't take them long to realize that British Columbia and the west are where the opportunities lie. These are the people who can make a reasonable and valued judgment. They haven't tied their whole life into bitterness and criticism so that they can no longer get a useful perspective. They're willing to make a contribution, as I hope we all are. British Columbia has, as I said, some very real reasons to be confident about the future.

I also pointed out that we have some very real challenges on the national level. I say that not in the spirit of rethrashing old straw, but in a very real attempt to say that some time we've got to come to grips with the issue and, perhaps, be united in British Columbia. I think the people are united in support of our attempts to do something positive about it. It doesn't mean we have to abandon firm positions that we believe are important to preserving our province. It doesn't mean that our party would have to abandon our position of preserving the ownership and control of provincial resources. It doesn't mean offering to turn them over to the government of Canada and trading an advantage now reached by British Columbians who have lacked other advantages in the past. It means trading it when it becomes of value. We won't abandon that position, and it's a provincial ownership right that's worth fighting for. The fight could be more than electorally.... It's worth fighting for, that ownership right of our resources in our province.

Mr. Chairman, we might disagree on some things in this chamber, but we can agree on the general aims. I think we can also agree on some of the approaches that may help us achieve some success. Oh, there's plenty of opportunity to disagree and fight and be bitter and try to rehash the last election, but I think one of the areas in which the public don't want to see the pettiness of that type of action is in the national arena, as we attempt to do something about our country.

I would hope that all members, if they wish, would get up and say something positive about our country and our province and say what we can do about it during my estimates. We've got a lot to be positive about.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, one of the most positive things the Premier could do is to explain to us why he didn't vote in the federal election. If the Premier is sincere about his appeal to all of us to deal with these issues and avoid pettiness, tell us why he didn't vote in the election. If there is no valid reason, apologize, and then we can go from there. But you can't say one thing in the House here and do another thing outside. The Premier wishes to ramble on, so I have to come back to specific questions. Estimates deal with specific questions. I appreciate the Premier not wanting to address himself to these things. He might find them embarrassing, but I'm patient. We might get around to some answers.

The Premier promised to go to Ocean Falls. He never kept that promise. The Premier promised to go to Squamish before they closed Railwest. He never kept that promise. The

[ Page 1679 ]

Gloucester estate, Mr. Premier. Do you intend to amend the legislation to ensure that that property goes into the agricultural land reserve? Do you intend to do that? Do you intend to keep your word saying that you want that land preserved? I hate to appear to be so nasty as to even ask a question, Mr. Chairman, but I'm just simply asking a question. Does the Premier intend to see that that land, as he said publicly, goes back to the agricultural land reserve? Yes or no.

Does the Premier intend to continue his position against B.C. Hydro raising rates? Yes or no. Does the Premier wish to continue his position on his explanation of the Bates commission? What about his position on whether or not he advocated the sale of British Columbia uranium? You said no, Mr. Premier. You say that press reports are incorrect. I'll read the press report, and perhaps you can indicate to me that this is wrong. I quote from the Vancouver Province of September 16, 1977: "'They want it, we've got it,' Bennett said of B.C.'s yet unmined uranium deposits." Now did I understand you clearly? You said that you did not raise the possible sale of uranium from British Columbia. No, I'm not going to go through another 40-minute filibuster. I got your answer. You said no, you did not. You tell me right across the floor. Yes or no.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: He shouted "no" across the floor. We heard your answer. Is this newspaper report incorrect? Mr. Chairman, the newspaper report...and I know what reporters are like; they're always wrong, according to the Premier. "They want it, we've got it," says Bill. Now, Mr. Chairman, you heard the Premier yell that he did not push the sale of B.C. uranium. I heard the Premier yell "no." The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) heard him yell "no." The Premier even heard himself yell "no." Now was he speaking as the lawyer or the deputy? Was he speaking as the Premier or the leader? Was he speaking as a Canadian or as a British Columbian? Well, I understand that he was saying to all of us in this House that as the Premier of British Columbia, over there on a Canadian mission as well as a British Columbian mission, he did not advocate or discuss the sale of uranium from British Columbia at all. He yelled "no." He said my newspaper research is wrong. Nasty newspapers! Don't you ever publish this stuff again!

MR. MACDONALD: He's going to take back his answer.

MR. BARRETT: He'll take back his answer? I won't rip up the paper. Having been the victim of bad reporting in the past, having had my own words put on a tape and then denied that it is my voice, having signed letters and denied that it's my signature, I would do like the Premier does in that frame and say: "No." And he said no.

So what I did, as Leader of the Opposition, is I phoned to Europe. I had my staff phone the secretary to President Jenkins of the Commission of European Communities. President Jenkins was present in the room with Premier Bill Bennett. The secretary to the commission was present in the room with Bill Bennett. The name of the secretary was Etienne Reuter, and he transcribed the minutes of the meeting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: The Vancouver Province wasn't there. The Vancouver Sun wasn't there. Bill Bennett was. Jack Webster wasn't there. Marjorie Nichols wasn't there. All of those backbenchers weren't there. Jack Davis wasn't there. But Etienne was there.

Now what did Etienne say when we phoned him? Somebody give the Premier some advice. I want to read to you what Etienne Reuter said took place at that meeting where he recorded the minutes, when Bill Bennett was present, along with Roy Jenkins — not the newspaper, not a tape, but the secretary who recorded the minutes, recalling that when we asked the Premier a number of times.... My colleague, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), said: "Did you advocate selling B.C. uranium?" "No," he yelled. Well, here's what Etienne Reuter has to say about the Premier and his word — not the newspaper research, but the man who was there and took the minutes:

"Brussels,
December 6, 1979.

Mr. John Mika,
Office of the Leader of the Opposition,
Parliament Buildings,
Victoria, British Columbia,
V8V 1X4, Canada.

"Dear Mr. Mika:

"I refer to your telephone conversation of last week relating to Prime Minister Bennett's visit to the commission on September 15, 1977. During the conversation between President Jenkins and Mr. Bennett, which was mainly devoted to Canada's constitutional problem" — the Premier seemed to remember that — "and the political situation in Quebec" — oh, the Premier seemed to remember that — "the Prime Minister underlined the concern of his government to find markets for the province's products and listed, among others, uranium."

"In reply to a question put by President Jenkins, he explained that natural resources were under provincial jurisdiction, but that the federal minister for mines and resources was exercising export control over uranium."

That part is correct.

What the Premier neglected to tell this House in his emphasized statement of "no" is that, according to. the minutes of this meeting, the Premier was talking to Roy Jenkins about buying B.C. uranium and other products from this province. The next line says: "I hope this information will be of some use to you." I doubt if it'll be of any use to me or anybody in this province. We know how the Premier tailors his answers to the situation that he finds himself in, even in this House. "Do not hesitate to contact me again if you need further clarification."

I'll read the line again. In direct response to a question from my colleague across the floor of this House — "Did you attempt to sell uranium from British Columbia?" — you yelled "no," in a fit of anger. In relation to that specific through you, Mr. Chairman — I quote again:

"During the conversation between President Jenkins and Mr. Bennett, which was mainly devoted

[ Page 1680 ]

to Canada's constitutional problems and the political situation in Quebec, the Prime Minister underlined the concern of his government to find markets for the province's products and listed, among others, uranium. "

Who's wrong, Bill? This poor little clerk who took the minutes, or you? Why would we bother to write and double check? We've learned in the opposition that it's necessary to double-check the Premier's statements and his positions and, if necessary, to go to the source to find out what the situation is. We know that all of the press gallery is wrong, as announced by the Premier at the last Social Credit convention. We know that he never said, as quoted in the Vancouver Province, that Hydro should cut their rates. You know that he never said on electronic tape: "I will go up to Squamish and talk to the railcar plant employees." You know that he never said that he knew anything about the dirty tricks or the letters. We know all of those things.

MR. BARNES: Try seatbelts.

MR. BARRETT: We also know about the seatbelts, then he said, "there's no seatbelt in the car," but the dirty cameraman went and took a picture of the seatbelt in the car — the seat that he just left.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the record of the leader of this government is one of vacillation, one of avoidance of answering questions, but once provoked into answering a question that may unnerve him or embarrass him, inevitably the answer is one at conflict with the facts.

As far as I am concerned, the Premier can get up and take another 40 minutes and go ahead and do another flowery encounter.... We'll have a group encounter session here, and old Jack and the boys can hit outer space and understand what he's talking about. The rest of us who are not astronauts are still trying to figure out what space the Premier's in, but when it comes to dealing with the facts, don't stand up in this House and give us claptrap and double-talk when the facts are entirely different on your position on uranium.

MR. DAVIS: As an astronaut from outer space, I have been endeavouring to sort out in my own mind what clearly is the position of the opposition on several important issues. I think, though, looking back over speeches not only from today but in recent years, there are several lines which can be drawn — several differences which are obvious to those who take a long view of things.

One difference is in respect to resource development. Resource development is very important in a resource-rich province like this. The difference is remarkable. The party opposite — certainly the Leader of the Opposition — appears to believe really in a closed society, in a province that can perhaps do everything on its own. He talks about keeping interest rates down; really he would be involving us in a tremendous belt-tightening, saving program if we were to try and develop our own resources as rapidly as he would like us to do.

This party on this side of the House believes in partnership, in working with others and, through foreign trade — and, for a time at least, through foreign investments — supporting our own investment, harnessing our resources in an effective way. I think the difference is one of a very closed, narrow approach to resource development and a much more worldly, outlooking free trade approach to resource development. The results are there for all to see in terms of revenues paid to this province by our resource industries in the 1970s. The resource industries certainly produced less revenue in '75 than in '74. The resource revenue was dropping sharply. Industries like forestry and gas production and so on were generating less revenue. We've had a remarkable increase in resource revenue in the last five years. In the last year we've had — what's been called, at least — a windfall of revenue. As a result we've been able to decrease the proportion of revenue coming from people from 60 percent to 50 percent. This has been possible because resource revenues have increased, and they've increased as a result of investors' confidence in the resource industries in this province.

In this latest budget, roughly half of this increase in revenue is going into a stabilization fund, a sort of heritage fund. We can't count on resource revenues increasing as rapidly in the next few years as they have done in the last two or three years. Nevertheless, for the long pull, with this party in power we have a much greater likelihood of resource income giving the people of this province the standard of living, the standard of services to which they are really entitled.

The resources of this province belong to this province. The resources of Alberta belong to Alberta. The Premier of Saskatchewan has argued eloquently that the resources of Saskatchewan belong to Saskatchewan. This is a belief in all of the provinces. And in our future constitution, as it's changed, I hope that that particular matter is dealt with effectively, and that resource revenues will remain with the provinces. This has to be an article of faith, particularly in provinces which are resource rich, which have relatively few people, and which have a tremendous potential both in renewable and non-renewable resources.

Perhaps the hon. Leader of the Opposition didn't mean it, but when he was in Ottawa at a federal-provincial conference in 1975, he rather generously said — and repeated — that if the federal government would nationalize the oil and gas industries of Canada, he would happily sign over the oil and gas resources of this province to the nation. Now I rather think he was carried away at the time; it was more a matter of party doctrine, even socialistic doctrine, than clear thinking. He was certainly not thinking in terms of the best interests of the people of British Columbia.

I don't personally believe that ministers in Ottawa, certainly bureaucrats in Ottawa, can administer resources in this province better than the people of British Columbia here at home. I believe, for example, in the administration of resources — the renewable ones at least — on a perpetual basis: forest resources, fisheries and so on. And that can best be accomplished by people who are as close as possible to the scene, as close as possible to the soil and nature of this province — those who appreciate it most and can protect the environment as well as make the most from an income point of view of the exploitation of those resources.

This offer to turn over at least the oil and gas resources of this province to the national government, if they would socialize the industry, is a strange stand for a Premier of this province, and a strange continuing stand for a leader of the official opposition who aspires again to be the Premier of this

[ Page 1681 ]

province. I would doubt that if during an election campaign the Leader of the Opposition espoused that policy in an outspoken way throughout the campaign, the people of British Columbia would buy it. And I doubt, therefore, if he'd say very much about it.

The Leader of the Opposition has done other things in strange ways. Perhaps you'll remember, Mr. Chairman, the glossy document entitled "The Way Out." It certainly was way out. There was an idea that the Premier had — imported, incidentally, from eastern Canada — to build a railway down from Alaska to carry Alaskan oil to the continental United States. I agree with him that it would have been better if some manner of carrying oil down across Canada such as a pipeline had been adopted. But it's interesting to note that in that document the railway stopped at the B.C.-Yukon border, and it was a pipeline the rest of the way. The rail line was an idea spawned at Queen's University as a result of a contract with the CPR. The CPR wondered about oil coming from the north. The Queen's University economists said it might be possible, and they pointed out that the environmental impact, for example, would be much worse than that of a pipeline. But that didn't seem to bother the former Premier. Indeed, he didn't require any engineering studies, any environmental studies, or environmental protection investigation, certainly no hearings, and he went to Washington, D.C., to announce it. He didn't discuss it in Ottawa; he didn't discuss it with anyone before he aired it in the United States. So that's another strange action and, I believe — having regard to the long view of resource development in this province — an irresponsible one.

From time to time the Leader of the Opposition has shown concern about British Columbians getting their fair share of the pie, if I can put it that way. I believe he did the right thing when he took a tough line on natural gas prices and the export of natural gas. The price had been negotiated on a 25-year basis at 22 cents; it's now over $5. He had to break a contract — and I think breaking a contract is a serious thing — but in the nature of the situation, with rising oil prices after the Middle East crisis, that had to happen.

But the former Premier has gone on to say other things which, if he were the head of the government, would frighten investors away, not simply foreign capital but Canadian investors, even investors from British Columbia. For example, with regard to a future pipeline across this province, be it oil or natural gas, he said that this province would get its pound of flesh. Well, I think it's important for a province to behave responsibly, to lay out well in advance what that price would be, and then live with it and therefore encourage investment in other areas.

In foreign investment, and especially foreign investment relating to trade, we have to have partners. It takes two to tango in respect to trade: it takes a buyer, an importer abroad, as well as an export industry in this province. We therefore have to develop an atmosphere of trust between our trading partners and ourselves. I think that is very important. This government, with its predictable policies with respect to resource development, has a much greater opportunity to attract capital than the party opposite could possibly do.

I know that pricing for exports is important. I know also that we must concern ourselves with Canadians, certainly British Columbians, knowing that they have a major share of the action. I think the BCRIC experiment was a resounding success, and it indicates that there are many British Columbians who are prepared to invest in our industries, particularly in our resource industries — to take a chance and in the long run know that they have had a share of the action in this province.

I agree with the opposition that foreign ownership is a tough problem. It's a political problem that all parties in this country, whether federal or provincial, have to deal with. Our people have to know that they have a share in the action. It's only the manner of approach that's at issue here. Can we do it all by ourselves, or must we share this with the private sector, and with foreign investors to a degree? I don't think we can do it all alone at this stage. That's really what the opposition is saying.

When the Premier said that interest rates were the biggest single problem facing us today, I heard a number of members of the opposition agree. Yes, interest rates are important. Interest rates reflect inflation. We've got to control inflation, and then we'll control interest rates.

A government which works with the private sector and, given the right kind of rules, encourages foreign investment as well as domestic investment, has a better chance of attracting money and getting development going in our resource industries — without excessive inflation or an excessive increase in interest rates — than a government which would try to do it alone and would try to do it on the backs of our own people right now by requiring them to save, forcing them to save, driving interest rates up in the process or running big deficits and having to borrow, thereby driving interest rates up.

So I think that basically this government is on the right track. If interest rates are the test, it's following the right course. I believe the opposition would do the opposite.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with a number of things, but I wouldn't want the Leader of the Opposition to be able with his words to put a position on me and this government that is incorrect. Our government did not go to Europe to sell uranium. With me were a number of ministers and others from this province who most likely will want to deal with the question later.

There is no doubt that political members from Europe's many countries were concerned with uranium. Yes, they would ask questions. Mr. Jenkins, a former major figure of the British Labour Party, would be willing to want to know about uranium. If he asked what all the products that British Columbia had in its treasure trove of wealth were, he could get a list, because British Columbia went well briefed. We had briefing books that gave all of the things we had in British Columbia. Did we try to sell uranium? Not at all, but I think the letter indicates that he, as a member of the Labour Party, was interested. Here's the strange thing: there were no attempts to sell uranium. We certainly did try to sell our coal, forest products and other products. You know, those things come back and give you…. Although you don't talk to everyone, you talk to people in France, Germany and other countries. They have responded, because British Columbia is not only developing its links with the Pacific Rim countries but with Europe as well — yes, energy-starved Europe at that time.

As politicians they were concerned with Canada's uranium policy and whether there was uranium, and they got the answer. The Canadian government controls the sale of uranium. What products does British Columbia have in the ground? We have lots of things, but we're here to sell coal

[ Page 1682 ]

and forest products. That's the truth, and that's exactly why we were there.

Those who would attempt to divert the attention of this debate with that type of silliness are losing their opportunity to prove themselves to be positive. I think the public enjoy some of the allegations that are hurled along with the innuendo in the circus. Then they send questions saying: "When are the people going to get positive?" Well, my statements have been clear on this issue. What's more, what speaks louder than words are the actions of government. Our government has gotten results, and we've taken action in uranium. We saw the only action you took on uranium, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, when you were government. That document exists; maybe you wish it would go away. Our actions speak for this government. No amount of twisting can ever change that. This government has had an aggressive policy of helping our private sector market forest products and coal and opening up a host of opportunities for industrial products. When we represent our province and our country, we're not ashamed of the things that are here, but we know our strengths and we know the things we're there to sell. Our documents and our research are complete when we go to travel. It isn't just a camera trip with friends to China.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, we recall a trip when your colleague from Vancouver Centre went to China. We recall that. There were great slides of it.

What we've tried to do is achieve results. People can see it with the results that have been achieved with British Columbia companies in countries of Europe. They can see it in the results of the Pacific Rim. They can see it in expanded trade with Japan and the opening up of a new forest company mill geared to Japanese dimensions and sizes as we decrease our dependency on the U.S. market and expand our markets.

MR. LAUK: We've been hearing that for years. Where's the action?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm glad the first member for Vancouver Centre said: "Where's the action?" Perhaps he isn't aware of the dramatic increases in B.C. forest products being shipped to Japan as they have adopted North American building standards. I wonder if he's not aware that because of that, we now have the first major mill in British Columbia in Nanaimo. You're sitting next to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who knows that Mayo Forest Products is geared primarily for the dimension and product for the Japanese market. Now, Mr. Member for Nanaimo, will you please tell your seatmate the great things that are going on in British Columbia right now?

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: There again, Mr. Chairman, actions speak louder than words. The member for Vancouver Centre has embarrassed his colleague, who left the House after he attributed a statement to him that he may or may not have made.

Mr. Chairman, this province is international in nature in regards to trade. It's true we've needed an aggressive marketing stance; but that has been on acceptable and developable B.C. products.

The actions the government has taken are specific actions that the public can feel and see. They see the expansion in the forest industry, they see the moratorium on uranium mining, they see the development of new mines; they see there, Mr. Chairman, as concrete proof of what is happening. They don't need the silliness of some of the people who are here under the pretence of conducting the public's business. They don't need that silliness, because they can see and they can feel the positive results of actions the government has taken. It's not the action of a government which believes that all the answers will be found in government, but of a government that is prepared to help and assist and encourage the private sector.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), in his few remarks, addressed that problem and embraced that as the concept that probably divides us to the greatest degree in this House. We may have other issues of debate and it may be that that party in opposition has changed its position since it was government. I think the public, and perhaps we ourselves, would be very interested in hearing what they're advocating now, rather than what they're against, and what they would do to build this province, rather than those people and persons and things they would attempt to tear down. I think the public can only enjoy and be titillated by that type of juvenile debate for a very short period of time. After a while they say: "Let's get on with the job, and let's assist the people who are doing the job."

There's a growing appreciation and awareness of what's been accomplished in British Columbia in the last four years. This isn't a government that survives on rhetoric and speeches; it's a government that gets things done. That's an old slogan with our party. It's a slogan that should perhaps be our very motto, because that's what we've always counted on: performance. It's a government that gets things done and allows people to get things done. I think the people have had enough of people who make wild statements, great-sounding speeches and great entertainment, without the substance of accomplishment — the accomplishment that people can see and feel around this province.

In Stewart they see a mine reopening; they know about the work the ministers have done to encourage the new process and to get that mine reopened. They know the work that this government did — the visible tax changes that were made to encourage the mining sector that had been driven out of this province. They were here when the mining industry was driven out, and they've been here as they've come back. They've come back with fair taxation, and they've come back having to accept some measure of responsibility when they do business in British Columbia. Mr. Chairman, they can see it and they can feel it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I hear a whine from the other side. I don't know which member it is, Mr. Chairman, but it keeps saying in a voice I can't imitate: "Ocean Falls." The member says: "Tell us about Ocean Falls." Well, Ocean Falls is being given an opportunity to undergo a very dramatic opportunity in the rationalization of the forest industry on the mid-coast. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) will be talking very aggressively about that when he takes his place during his estimates.

That's exciting. Opportunities are always exciting; bandaids are never the answer. Things can be done that have impact in a number of areas. They're exciting things, where

[ Page 1683 ]

the people are willing to see that positive, reliable action is taken — not action that will fail ultimately, but action that will provide not only an opportunity in a single area but opportunities over and over. That's what happening in our forest industry — a new Forest Act and a rationalization of the forest industry.

There's mining legislation which has encouraged new mines. The member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty), who is not here.... But the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) knows about new mining activity in his area. The member for Fort Nelson and Fort St. John in the great North Peace knows about the dramatic turnaround in oil and gas exploration and discovery in his area.

The farmers of British Columbia recognize that their industry is growing. The figures show an increase in production and an increase in farm earnings. They know what's happening in British Columbia.

The people in small businesses who sell retail see the increase in retail sales. They know what's happening in British Columbia. In fact, just about everyone feels the results of the positive things that have been happening except the opposition, whose only measure of success is whether they get to be government or not. They don't care whether the province is running well. They don't care that they have a responsibility to assist. They only hope that things go bad so they can have a ride into some power.

MR. BARRETT: Tell the truth.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Leader of the Opposition wants me to tell the truth about him, but I'm not going to. I wouldn't make that threat to him. I will not tell the truth about you if you stop telling lies about me. That's a fair deal, Dave.

Anyhow, Mr. Chairman, the fact that this government had the courage to put a moratorium on uranium seems to disturb the opposition. It disturbs them because their own actions — not their statements, because they'll say anything on any given day — in government, dealing with uranium, actions that allowed the active search specifically for uranium....

AN HON. MEMBER: Even Peter Rolston agrees.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes. Oh, I've got some great letters that I'm going to be reading sometime in this Legislature — some great letters from very interesting people. And I thank him, Mr. Chairman, because he's shown that you don't have to be a socialist in B.C. to want to know about uranium. They want to know in Britain, and they had an election in Sweden over it a few years ago, and the social democratic government was thrown out. What was one of the major topics in that debate? Nuclear power. Maybe we should revive those debates of what went on, because it's true that those governments where the social democrats are are interested in uranium. I'm sure Mr Jenkins, among others, would be interested in asking whether Canada has uranium, and I'm sure that with his connections he's probably by now got hold of Mr. Blakeney, who's willing to produce and sell uranium. But I tell you, everybody knows, because there's a moratorium in British Columbia, that we're not going to be selling uranium. They know that.

What they do know is that this province is encouraging development, encouraging industry, encouraging expansion of the forest sector. Now what has our answer been to the forest sector? Our answer, Mr. Chairman, through you to the second member from Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), who's listening most intently, is to encourage the private sector to develop — we don't need to take over any defenceless little forest companies. What we have done is encourage the private sector to undertake the expansion and the reconstruction of old mills to get better production and to get a better competitive position on our forest products. Mr. Chairman, you know what? That's another record the people of British Columbia can see. They don't have to listen to what isn't true; they can see it. The people up in Powell River know a newsprint machine is going in. They know it. They can see it. They know that the expansion that didn't take place a few years ago threatened their jobs, and that today there's a new newsprint machine. They know on Annacis Island that there's going to be a new fine paper machine. MacMillan Bloedel — more value added. People at Crown Zellerbach know their jobs are more secure because of major expansion by that company.

I could go through all the large companies and the small companies, Mr. Chairman, and you know what? The answer and the story is the same. They all feel optimistic. They don't feel threatened. They don't think somebody's coming to grab them. They don't think that tomorrow they'll be out of business. The people's jobs aren't threatened. We aren't losing our competitive edge, because now we will be competitive. We won't have old, outworn facilities; we'll have modern facilities for a modern industry in which British Columbia can compete with the rest of the world. That's what we have.

People want to say: "What has the government done?" Well, these are the results of what the people have done — the people who have responded to the opportunity here in British Columbia. That's what they want to see — positive results, Mr. Chairman. I know you do too. You like the fact that you can have a government, despite people from the geographic area you represent who are in this chamber and who may be against the Annacis Island crossing. They're pleased to see a government that gives results, that's going to provide an opportunity for the people to have that crossing over the Fraser River.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Let it be clear for the record that the Leader of the Opposition says that the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) blackmailed the government. That's what the Leader of the Opposition said.

MR. BARRETT: Did I say that?

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's right. That's what he said. Let me tell you, if results are blackmailed then our government has responded to blackmail by 2,500,000 British Columbians who only want positive results. They want a government that gets things done. They want a government of accomplishment; they don't want a government of whiners and people who are negative and people who only criticize; they really want to see a government that gets things done, one that will provide some opportunity for them to get things done, whether they are in the agriculture industry, the forest industry, the mining industry, or whether they've got a little business. I'll bet even Len Friesen's business is up since we

[ Page 1684 ]

became government, Mr. Chairman. I think his business will be up.

Mr. Chairman, I say this government's done a number of positive things. I think we've marketed from our strengths in British Columbia. I think our actions have shown the direction this government wants this province to go. I think our encouragement of private ownership.... The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) mentioned BCRIC. I think that type of encouragement and that type of philosophical commitment are all things that are part of the record. They go beyond the area of political rhetoric. They get into the area of things that people can actually feel and see. By and large that's what people want: governments that give them action, governments that give them results, governments that provide the opportunity for them to provide for themselves. I think that's the greatest opportunity we've given the people of British Columbia. There are figures that show the number of new businesses that have incorporated at ever increasing rates in the last few years.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that those things are things that point to what this government's doing.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, could you call the members to order, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, whose voice is very grating and difficult to listen to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the debate this afternoon has been spirited. I would caution members against constant interruptions.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, these things are all part of the facts of British Columbia. They're there in the budget; they're there in the reports of the research and planning department that put out the forecasts and the statistics for British Columbia. Some people don't like that. They don't like what they see because they only want to see bad news. You know why? Bad news makes them feel good. They're the bad news bores. That's who they are, Mr. Chairman — the bad news bores of British Columbia, who are boring this Legislature and the people with their continuous bad news. And the chief strikeout artist for the bad news bores has been boring us all afternoon — the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Chairman, these things are part of what is happening in British Columbia. That shouldn't be boring to them; it shouldn't be bothering them. They should be happy of the opportunities here that people are coming back to British Columbia for. What do they want from this province? Do they want it only to be good when they are government? Are they so upset that they loused it up when they were government that they somehow never want it to be good again?

Mr. Chairman, things aren't perfect. I tried earlier to direct some opportunities, to discuss ways in which we could involve ourselves and go beyond the papers that British Columbia put before the constitutional conference, to seek the cooperation of all members of this Legislature in helping us work to strengthen our country. I sought to look for positive ideas on how we could come to grips with the number one economic problem in this country, but there was not a positive word this afternoon. That's discouraging, because we have some positive ideas and we'll continue to press them. But we know we don't have all the answers. We've been looking for some cooperation. I'm going to be sorry to have to go out, as I have been, around the province and tell the people that we don't get that type of assist — that everybody expects you to put the puck in the net by yourself. They all know there are good Canadians as hockey players, and sometimes there are people who give an assist.

MR. BARRETT: Why didn't you vote?

HON. MR. BENNETT: We can talk about that later.

MR. BARRETT: Why didn't you vote?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must caution the Leader of the Opposition about his incessant remarks during the debate. He has used one particular phrase 26 times. The Chair has kept track of it. That is a rather incessant interruption to Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARRETT: What phrase?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure the member is very familiar with the phrase. The Premier continues.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's very interesting, Mr. Chairman, that after 26 times some people can't remember what they've said.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The constant heckling is making me lose my place in this very positive debate.

Let's talk about this province and let's talk about our country. That's what we're here for, and that's what I've been trying to deal with this afternoon. The members can talk about the policy direction of this government, and we can show them by what we've done. We can tell them where we haven't taken concrete action. We can talk about what we hope to achieve in the future. We want to deal with the positive areas of where this province is going and with the sound economic and political plans we have for British Columbia and for our country. I will be elaborating on this during the estimates.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to lose the mood of good humour, but I hope the Premier is listening to the very few words I have to say. In the debate on the estimates, in a British parliamentary system, the minister concerned, in this case the first minister of the Crown, has to give an account of himself and the conduct of his office. Two weeks ago we heard a very great two-and-a-half-hour speech in which the Premier used up the time of the opposition member who possibly might have spoken at that time; that was great political manoeuvring. Now we're hearing segments of the same speech again and again as we, the elected people in the opposition, ask legitimate questions about the Premier's office. It's really an accountability session. We could be here for months listening to this same kind of recycling of old speeches from the Premier, but it would be more to the point if the Premier answered the specific questions. It's an accountability session we're engaged in; that's what the estimates are all about.

[ Page 1685 ]

As part of the opposition, we have to say that there has been and continues to be a credibility problem in the Premier's office. Today I asked a simple question of the Premier. I repeat the question. I simply said: when you attended the European community meeting in September 1977 — that was the reference; it wasn't in my question — were you trying to sell B.C. uranium? It's not a trick question; there's nothing tricky about it. The answer was a definitive no.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. BRUMMET: Is that the accountability you were talking about?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, that's answer number one. We have here a letter on the letterhead of the European community. We have obtained it because, quite frankly, there is a credibility problem in the Premier's office. It says: "The Prime Minister" — referring to the Premier of this province — "underlined the concern of his government to find markets for the province's products," and listed, among others, is uranium.

MR. BRUMMET: What are the others?

MR. MACDONALD: The others are not relevant. The question we're talking about here is credibility. We're talking about whether the Premier is bringing fair and frank replies back to this Legislature and to the people of the province of British Columbia. We're not debating the desirability of whether or not we should have uranium mining and whether or not we should export. We have this official letter and a direct contradiction. The question is: can we believe what we're being told in this Legislature? That's what we're talking about. That's what the people of British Columbia are talking about today.

They've been listening for the last six or ten months to: "I know nothing about this" — and the underlings are fired; "I know nothing about that. " And we wonder whether or not we can believe what we're hearing from the Premier of the province of British Columbia. That's what we're talking about, Mr. Premier. It makes some sense, you know, if you think about what the Premier.... This was September 1977. At that time there was no moratorium on uranium mining. There was exploration and some minor development going on in the province. In terms of selling the minerals of British Columbia throughout the European community, it makes perfect sense that the Premier would say, as the minutes apparently say and as this official letter says, "including uranium." It is inherently credible that that was said. It's there in the minutes. It's there on the official letterhead written from the office of the president of the Commission of the European Communities.

I ask the Premier now: please do not give us another rambling statement about that general philosophy of which we've heard so much, and so inconsistently, if I may say so. I would like him to tell the Legislature once again whether or not he made some attempt to sell B.C.'s uranium when he attended the Commission of the European Communities in September 1977. Would he give a clear answer to that question? Because the issue we're talking about, Mr. Premier, is whether or not you're misleading the people of this province.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I happened to be with the Premier on that trip to Europe. Before I comment on that I want to talk about credibility for just a moment. The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) just mentioned credibility a moment ago. To me, what has been coming from the opposition in this Legislature this afternoon is incredible. You talk about credibility. They've been trying all afternoon to build up a case to tell the people of this province and have them believe that we went to Europe specifically to sell uranium. That is exactly what they're trying to do and, as far as I'm concerned, they've lost their credibility.

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order, the hon. minister, through inadvertence, has misrepresented what was said. The question was not whether you specifically went to Europe to sell uranium. The question was: "While you were there in Europe, did you try to sell B.C. uranium at that meeting?" It's a very specific thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, this is not the appropriate time to introduce that point of order.

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I do not want words put in my mouth or to be misrepresented by that minister over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. members. The appropriate time for that type of comment — to the member for Vancouver East — is after the minister has finished.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, maybe that lawyer from Vancouver East needs to stay in the House a little longer, and maybe he'll learn the rules of this House. I've suffered vicious attacks in this House from that second member for Vancouver East. As far as I'm concerned, he's lost his credibility and will never regain it. That is exactly what has been happening here this afternoon. they are trying to build a big case to tell the people of British Columbia that we went to Europe specifically to sell uranium. And you know, Mr. Member for Vancouver East, that is exactly what you and that no-good leader of yours over there are trying to do in this Legislature this afternoon. I'll tell you why.

Yes, I was on that trip to Europe, and I happened to be in that meeting that you have all the minutes for. You're trying to build a huge case around the fact that after stopping uranium mining in this province, we tried to go to Europe a few years prior to that to sell uranium. You would think that it was one of our priorities. I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, if you talk about accountability, that is the type of opposition that we have had in this Legislature since it opened a month ago. There has never been one bit of constructive criticism about the policies of this government from that gang over there. Oh, they're past masters, I'll tell you. You've seen them getting down into the gutter and making personal attacks on practically every member on this side of the House, with not one constructive, positive criticism about the policies of this government.

I'll tell you why. They have no credibility in the minds of the public, because they can't constructively criticize the policies of this government or the economy of this province. They can stand up and twist the figures around to suit their own liking, but the fact of the matter is — and I want to tell you exactly what's going on over there — they have a leader

[ Page 1686 ]

of an opposition party that once tried to run this province. He ran it all right; he ran it into the ground.

I remember when our present Premier was Leader of the Opposition and the personal abuse started to flow from the now Leader of the Opposition. He didn't ever think that this gentleman who happens to be our leader today had the ability to put this party back together and to form a government. He was so disappointed when our present leader built up a party that he didn't know what to do. As a matter of fact, he lost his own seat, because his credibility was so poor in his own riding that they had to go out and offer $80,000 for a member to resign.

What has happened since that time? Under the leadership of a gentleman about whom they are trying to create some credibility gap. and attacking personally — not the policies, but personal attacks.... That man over there is so jealous of what our Premier has done in the last four years that it's driving him berserk. That's why we have this great big umbrella this afternoon, a credibility gap, that we went to Europe to try to sell uranium. I'll tell you what we went to Europe for, Mr. Chairman. We went to Europe to restore the credibility of the province of British Columbia, which those birds over there killed when they were government. We listed a lot of items that British Columbia was interested in exporting, because if we do not export we will not be able to maintain our standard of living.

There has been a lot of talk over there about the trips I've made; I'll talk about those in my own estimates. I want to outline just a couple of facts, for we talked about exporting. As I've said before, British Columbia and Canada must export. From British Columbia we export approximately 50 percent of our production. We think that the Japanese export a lot; the Japanese export about 10 percent of their production. The United States export about 6 percent of their production. We are an exporting country. If we're going to continue to sell our goods and services abroad we must be aggressive, and that is the reason for these trips. I'll tell you, we had to restore the image of British Columbia in practically every country in the world, because we were thought of as the Chile of the north. That's where the credibility went, and that's why there was this vicious attack. They're trying to attack our Premier personally because they can't find anything to attack in the policies or the leadership ability of our Premier.

It's no wonder that this Legislature is losing its credibility gap, when the opposition spends....

AN HON. MEMBER: They're losing their credibility gap! [Laughter.]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:...is losing its credibility. I'm glad the opposition is able to get such a tremendous laugh out of a slip of the tongue. But that is the mentality of our opposition, and I guess we're going to have to live with it.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

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. Is it constructive? Is it going to help the economy? Is it going to help the individuals in this province? The answer happens to be no. If you're trying to build a case.... As I say, I was in the room. I was on that trip, and there was no attempt by this government to try to sell uranium in Europe. As a matter of fact, if my memory serves me correctly — which it usually does — there was a ban on the export of uranium from Canada at the time we were in Europe. Nobody could export uranium.

AN HON. MEMBER: So what?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: So what? So they're trying to build a case that we go to Europe to try to sell uranium when there was a ban by the federal government on the export of uranium. How stupid do they think we are? Because I get a little over-enthusiastic once in a while, I remember the Premier warning me. He said: "Remember, we're not trying to sell uranium; that's federal jurisdiction."

Something else, Mr. Chairman — I want to outline to you that when we travel to an overseas country we have the courtesy to call on and work with the Canadian embassy, something that those birds over there never thought of when they were going overseas. They went on their own little merry way. They didn't care about the embassies, which are there to work for us. We made a policy decision that if we wanted the embassies in the world to work for British Columbia, we were going to go there and educate them. But not those birds. No, they went off and were too busy either going on junkets or playing rugby and taking members along on joy trips to China.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, there is the man — yack, yack, yack away. We thought, when you lost $180 million for ICBC, that that was enough. Or has Yvonne told you what to do this afternoon?

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, if we want to restore some credibility in this Legislature, we better send a message to the Leader of the Opposition that showmanship and personal attacks will in no way substitute for leadership ability and good policies in this province. They never did and never will, and there's where the credibility comes in. Every time I get up and speak, the Leader of the Opposition leaves the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's scared.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm not saying he's scared of me. But I'll tell you why he leaves the House: he doesn't want to hear the facts. He never has and he never will. That man over there is more interested in power than he is in the well-being of the citizens of this province, and he has proven it time and time again — a man who is so jealous because he lost his credibility when he was in government, and has lost his credibility as Leader of the Opposition, that he wants to tear down the policies of this government and the leadership of our Premier. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, it won't work, it won't fly, it won't wash, and he knows it.

I would make a suggestion — and I don't want to lecture the Leader of the Opposition — that he stand in this Legislature, bare bones, face to face, and start discussing the issues and the challenges that face this government — the challenges that would face him as government — the challenges that face our Canadian people, and the challenges that face our federal government. Let's come to grips with some of the

[ Page 1687 ]

challenges, and let's be bold and brave and never mind any more of this credibility gap and trying to tear down by personal attack members of the government — or members of the opposition.

MR. LEA: I'll be very brief. I just want to correct a statement that was made by the minister who just spoke. This is from the Vancouver Province for Friday, September 16, 1977. The minister, when he was speaking, said that he was in the room with the Premier in 1977, when uranium was offered for sale. Only the minister said: "That's not true."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't say uranium was offered for sale.

MR. LEA: That's right. You said: "It isn't true. It was not offered."

Okay, here's what Phillips said when he got back: "Phillips told top EEC officials in a separate meeting to come and be 'our guests' in the exploration in B.C. for uranium. But, he warned, they would have to take their chances whether the federal government would let them take the uranium out. " Talk about credibility!

Interjections.

MR. LEA: I'll just read it again for the minister.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Read the whole thing.

MR. LEA: If I read the whole thing, there'd be two or three more of you in trouble. We'll just spread it out a bit at a time. We'll see who tells the truth, and then we'll let it out a bit. We'll let you speak first so we can bring your words back to haunt you.

The minister said he was in the room in Europe and they didn't offer uranium for sale. He may be right, because it says here, according to the minister, that he also went to a "separate meeting." "Phillips told top EEC officials in a separate meeting to come and be 'our guests' in the exploration in B.C. for uranium. But, he warned, they would have to take their chances whether the federal government would let them take the uranium out." "Come and be our guests. Come to B.C., explore for uranium, mine it and take it out. But watch the federal government, because even though we're willing to have you explore and mine and take it out, they might stop you." Now isn't that credibility? After a 30-minute lecture on credibility by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, we find out that, once again, the minister and truth are strangers.

MR. LEVI: There has been some discussion this afternoon about a credibility gap, and I've been having some trouble understanding exactly what it is. First of all, I think we have to suffer, Mr. Chairman, from the only gap we have here, and that's between that minister's ears. What we have now is the Premier getting up and saying he did not go over there to sell uranium. Then we have the minister admitting that, yes, they did, "but you have to take your chances because you have to get the federal government to allow you to export it. " It's interesting that a year after they came back from Europe several people in Point Grey were interested in uranium mining.

MR. LAUK: In the endowment lands.

MR. LEVI: Oh, no, they were interested in uranium mining in the whole province. The Science minister (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who represents Point Grey, must be familiar with resolution J-13 presented at the Social Credit convention in 1978. This is what it says:

"Whereas (a) uranium is a vital energy mineral in Canada and abroad, and (b) British Columbia has a favourable geology to be explored for uranium deposits, and (c) the application of existing technology satisfactorily manages the health, safety and environmental effects of uranium mining and use, and (d) uranium exploration, development and mining will generate economic benefits to the people for a larger and more diverse mining industry...."

This is from Point Grey, from the Science minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom). These are the bright, intelligent, interesting people who are members of the Social Credit Party. Then they say at the end:

"Be it resolved that the Social Credit Party of British Columbia support the expansion of uranium exploration, development and mining in the province. "

We had the Premier telling us before that they have a consistent policy.

HON. MR. McGEER: It didn't pass.

MR. LEVI: It didn't pass? Oh, I thought you were having the same problem we had with the Waffle thing at our convention. That didn't pass either. I'm glad you set me straight.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Yes, I signed it, but it didn't pass, Mr. Minister.

He just said the resolution didn't pass. Isn't that too bad. But the Premier said: "We've got a consistent policy." It sure is; it started three and a half weeks ago. That was their policy. But we now learn from the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) that he is saying something in direct contradiction to what the Premier said. The Premier said: "We did not discuss the selling of uranium." But now we have the minister admitting that they did. Who's telling the truth? Which of those two people is telling the truth?

MR. LEA: Probably neither.

MR. LEVI: Well, that may be. It may very well be that neither of them is telling the truth. Somebody over there must know whether they went over in 1977; to sell uranium. We have it on the word of the minister of small business, who always deals in true facts — which he differentiates from facts.... Mind you, neither of them has been out of the chamber yet, because the kind of conversation that's going to go on out there is that the Premier is going to back him up against the wall, and we'll probably wind up with our fifth minister of small development.

[ Page 1688 ]

Who's telling the truth? The Premier tells us that it's very nice because that's the kind of thing we're against. Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Look, if you guys want to debate, go out in the hall.

I would like to deal with a different question, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to deal with something that the Premier insinuated himself into a few days ago in this Legislature. I was interested in the remarks he made following the statement by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) in relation to what took place in what's now known as the Vogel affair. The Premier, who is not a lawyer — and I'm not a lawyer, but we can have something of a debate about the Premier's concerns about the justice system — got up and said, as soon as the Attorney-General had sat down:

I say, on behalf of the government, that we accept the statement of the hon. Attorney-General as an honourable member of this House, and we accept his statement without question because of our considerable admiration for his reputation as a member and his reputation as a counsel before becoming a member. Mr. Speaker, we accept it because in this instance and in others the system of justice must be clearly protected and the public must have confidence....

I would hope that when the Premier gets up to reply he'll tell us what took place. He was the Premier of the province in 1978. I'd like the Premier to tell the House whether at the time of what is now becoming known as the Farris case the Premier received a call from the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice of Canada in which they informed him that the chief justice of the appeal court was resigning. Did he receive such a phone call? Was he told about what happened? Was he told by the Attorney-General what happened and what reasons there were for the chief justice of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia to resign?

The Premier is interested in the justice system. There are many of us who are not lawyers or judges who are also interested in the justice system and want to know exactly what took place that led to the resignation by the chief judge of this province. Nobody has told us. What we have been faced with in the last few days is a series of inferences, remarks and exchanges in letters, which are now published, in relation to what has now become the Farris affair. During the time that it happened we didn't hear a word from the former Attorney-General. We have only started to understand what has happened about this case because of what's known as the Vogel affair.

But what has happened? Are we to believe the stories in the newspaper that the reason the chief justice of the appeal court resigned was that there was some involvement in what subsequently will be known as the Wendy King case? Is that what it is? Is it somehow because a woman was charged with keeping a common bawdy-house that it leads directly to the resignation of the chief justice of the appeal court? Is that the kind of thing that happened there?

But then we have to ask some questions, because the Premier is interested in the justice system. If you go to Vancouver, and many of you have been there, and you talk to lawyers and policemen.... Everybody talks about what happened then but nobody talks in this House about what happened. We don't hear from the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) or the former Attorney-General. What actually happened? What led to the resignation of the chief justice of the appeal court? Nobody wants to talk about it. We can talk about the Moran case; we can talk about a case of impaired driving; we can talk about Vogel's interference — and we have to get a judge of the supreme court to look at that — but the public of British Columbia is left with no understanding of what took place two years ago, no understanding whatsoever.

We have the Premier getting up and telling us he's interested in the justice system. Well, what took place? Nobody wants to talk about it, but I can tell you it's being talked about by a lot of people. It's time that either the present Attorney-General or the previous Attorney-General, who is now also a cabinet minister, cleared the air on this thing. It's my information that what took place in respect to that case is that the chief justice of the appeal court was picked up on a wiretap and that wiretap was on an individual who was suspected of trafficking in drugs. That, I am informed, was the basis on which this took place. You have the chief justice of the appeal court of British Columbia picked up on a wiretap into a bawdy-house, and the reason for the tap was because they were checking on an individual who was subsequently charged with trafficking in drugs. Now why is it that we have to sit around for two years and wait for some kind of an explanation? We heard the other day that we have only part of the story. The Attorney-General gets up and tells us about the Wendy King case and he tells us about whether in fact the chief justice would or would not be called as a witness.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, I must remind you that we are discussing the administrative responsibility of the Premier. Your remarks could more aptly come under another estimate.

MR. LEVI: With respect, Mr. Chairman, it was the Premier who insinuated himself into this situation last week, after the statement by the Attorney-General. He got up and made these points, and what I'm asking him to do is to answer some questions in relation to this. He is the chief officer of this government. I asked at the beginning of my speech what took place in August. Did he receive a call from the Prime Minister of Canada? Was he told that the chief justice of the appeal court was resigning and that there would be another one appointed?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Nonetheless, hon. member, again I would draw to your attention that we are talking about the administrative responsibility of the Premier. Your remarks could very well be in order under another estimate.

MR. LEVI: What I'm asking the Premier, Mr. Chairman, is: did he get a phone call from the Prime Minister of Canada as the chief government officer? That's what I want him to answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's in order.

MR. LEVI: Did he get such a phone call? Was he given the information as to what took place? We didn't hear from the Attorney-General of the day. But the usual practice, as I understand it, is that the Prime Minister of Canada will in fact phone the leader of a government and say: "We have to make an appointment; there has been a change." This is usually the way it's done on the basis of protocol. He doesn't phone the secretary and say: "Tell your boss when he comes in that

[ Page 1689 ]

we're changing the chief justice." It's done in a very formal way and there has to be some concern about it.

All we've been able to do, Mr. Chairman, in relation to this matter, is to hear half the story as a result of an investigation conducted by the Attorney-General. What we are trying to find out is the Premier's side of this, because he has an abiding interest in the justice system. He has yet to tell us what took place. I am pleased that he, as a layperson — he's not a lawyer — got into this. That's good, because it's time that justice was discussed in this House by people other than lawyers. It is not the private preserve of lawyers or judges. Anyone can discuss the justice system, regardless of their point of view. Well, we got the leadership from the Premier. Whatever reason he gave for getting up and making the remarks that he made...complimenting his Attorney-General — fine. But he did make some observations about the justice system.

I would ask the Premier what the sequence of events was. What we have at the moment.... It's no good me dealing with the Attorney-General on this when I want to find out some information from the Premier. He's the one who has to answer. Did he get a phone call from the Prime Minister of Canada? Was he told there was a resignation? Was he told why?

We know what took place according to the federal Minister of Justice. We know there was a reference made to the federal Judicial Council. We also know that whatever was taking place at the time was stopped, because the new Minister of Justice, the Hon. Marc Lalonde, in a public statement said: "The man is no longer a judge. The investigation does not have to continue." That's the way it ended.

Here we are almost 18 months later with this thing coming up in the midst of a report that the Attorney-General has to make. I would say to the Premier that it is time to put this thing to rest. I would ask that we not have the incessant chatter that goes on in Vancouver and other places about tapes and about who did this and who did that. If the justice system is to have any credibility in this province, then we'd better get that cleared out of the way first.

We've gone through three weeks in this House. It has led to a series of investigations — not counting the investigations that were going on before. The Premier inserts himself into this discussion and, as I said before, it's good that he did that. Other members have to get up and talk about the justice system. There are lots of people who have to deal with this. The first thing we have to learn has to come from the Premier. He has an obligation as the head of that government. You said in your remarks that as the head of the government you wanted to make a statement — an unprecedented situation in this House but it was allowed. You made a statement demonstrating the sincerity you felt about the justice system and the need for it to continue. Well, you have it within your power to start the discussion that can set this thing to rest, and then let's get on with developing a good justice system.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of dealing with other areas of responsibility during my estimates, but I will be dealing in areas that are important in respect to government policy. I will try to deal with them wherein government policy, over and above the individual policies of ministries, is important. So, Mr. Chairman, I give you that advice. I think you'd probably extend a little extra latitude in this first day, it being a new sitting. Quite frankly, I'm not trying to limit the opportunity for discussion in this area, but the members will have ample opportunity to deal with the specific areas administered.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

MR. BARRETT: I wish to gain the floor on a point of order. I ask leave of the House to table a document that I referred to in committee.

Leave granted.

Mr. Strachan tabled the first, second and third reports of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, which were read as follows and received.

"The Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

"Report No. 1: The standing orders have been complied with relating to the respective petitions for leave to introduce the following private bills: An Act to Incorporate the Institute of Accredited Public Accountants of British Columbia; pension plans — I.W.A. Forest Industry Merger Validation Act.

"Your committee recommends that the respective petitioners be allowed to proceed with the said bills. All of which is respectfully submitted. Mr. Strachan, Chairman.

"Report No. 2: Your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

"The standing orders have been complied with relating to the petition for leave to introduce a private bill intituled An Act to Amend the Cultus Lake Park Act, except for late filing; but with respect thereto the petitioner has paid double fees in accordance with standing order 98(3).

"Your committee recommends the petitioner be allowed to proceed with the said bill.

"All of which is respectfully submitted. Mr. Strachan, Chairman.

"Report No. 3:..that the following private bill, hereinafter listed, did not proceed past the second reading stage during the 1979 session of the Legislature: Bill PR402, An Act to Amend the Cultus Lake Park Act.

"Your committee recommends that one half of the fees paid by the petitioner be returned in accordance with standing order 98.

"All of which is respectfully submitted. Mr. Strachan, Chairman."

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

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the report of the auditor-general for the year ended March 31, 1979, which was tabled on March 14, 1980, be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs.

[ Page 1690 ]

MR. BARRETT: It is certainly our intention to support the motion. However, I take this opportunity, in referring it to the committee, to say that, while the committee will be enhanced in its work with that report, it will not be able to do its full work without the second volume of Public Accounts, which is overdue in the House. I would hope the minister, in closing the debate on this motion, would inform the House when we can expect the second volume.

MR. SPEAKER: With great respect, I do not see the relationship between the two.

MR. BARRETT: You have to have both copies to do the job in the committee.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.