[ Page 1691 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling Reports

Public Accounts for 1978-79, printer's manuscript of volume 2.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1691

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions.

Ferries. Mr. Barber –– 1691

Pharmacare. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy replies –– 1692

Ferries. Mr. Barber –– 1692

Administration of justice. Mr. Macdonald –– 1693

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office, estimates.

On vote 9.

Mr. Lea –– 1694

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 1697

Mr. King –– 1699

Mr. Ritchie –– 1700

Mr. Cocke –– 1701

Mr. Hyndman –– 1702

Mr. Howard –– 1704

Mr. Lea –– 1706

Division on the motion that the committee rise –– 1708

Mr. Lea –– 1708

Mr. Brummet –– 1709

Mr. Nicolson –– 1710

Mr. Strachan –– 1710

Ms. Brown –– 1711

Mr. Segarty –– 1711

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1712

Tabling Reports

Judge McCarthy hearings for the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation, second, third and final reports.

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 1714

Study of British Columbia Ski Areas and their Potential Market.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1714

Appendix –– 1714

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, since 1897 the Vancouver YWCA, as a community agency, has provided programs for women in a social, cultural, educational and recreational environment. In spite of the fact that they are 83 years old in experience, they are a vibrant, youthful and forceful organization in their approach to today's challenges and services to women. Therefore I would like to ask this House to give a particularly warm welcome to Mary MacDonald, who is the past president of the YWCA; Louise Donovan; Susan Witter, the president elect; and Cleta Herman, the executive director.

In addition, I would like to ask the House to welcome some friends in the gallery today: Mr. Fred Tristane, Mr. Ed Hawkes and Mr. Trevor Neate.

MR. BARNES: My colleague, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), and I would like to associate ourselves with the remarks of the previous speaker.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker and hon. members, I would like to introduce to the House today and request it give a very warm welcome to a most distinguished visitor, Mr. Gian Bettarnio, who is the secretary-general of the European People's Party in the European parliament. Señor Bettiamo is visiting Canada under the auspices of the Department of External Affairs, and he is meeting with representatives of political parties, senior civil servants and academics throughout the country. I say to him: Buon giorno; we're delighted you are here, and do come again.

MR. LORIMER: I take pleasure today in introducing two guests, Joan and Don Jantzen. They are oldtimers in these precincts. Many members across the way know them well.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: There are a number of people in the galleries today whom I would like the House to recognize — one individual and a group: Mr. Ian Falconer, chairman of the board of theVancouver Stock Exchange, who is with the firm of Midland Doherty, and ten ladies from the Salvation Army Home League of Richmond; among them is Mrs. Eva Poproski.

MR. RITCHIE: Today I'm very pleased to introduce to the House two very good friends of mine from the Central Fraser Valley: Mr. Greg Goritsas; and a good friend to the poultry industry in British Columbia, a retired gentleman, Mr. Bill Wood, who was the poultry commissioner for British Columbia for a number of years. Would the House please welcome them.

MR. MUSSALLEM: May I ask the House to welcome four guests from the constituency of Dewdney: Mr. and Mrs. Patrick Lowen, Mr. Arthur Cochrane and Mrs. Stella Jorgenson.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I seldom introduce anything other than groups of school children, but my past is catching up to me. An old Air Force buddy whom I haven'tseen for over 38 years, Bud Boyd, now from Regina, is visiting us today. I would ask the members to welcome him.

MR. DAVIDSON: In the gallery this afternoon visiting us is my sister, Mrs. Donna Mackey, and her friend Mrs. Dora Tysoe. Further, Mr. Speaker, visiting us is Alderman Lois Jackson and her husband Allan from Delta. I would ask the House to extend a warm welcome to them.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the printer's manuscript of the 1978-79 Public Accounts, four books comprising volume 2.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Would you permit me, Mr. Speaker, while it may be somewhat out of the ordinary, to indicate that limited copies of the printer's manuscript are available. The final document is at the Queen's Printer, and we expect to have it within the next several working days.

Oral Questions

FERRIES

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Is it true that in approximately the fall of 1979 the vessel Queen of Surrey was promised to the B.C. Steamship Company for use on the 1980 Victoria-to-Seattle run?

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

MR. BARBER: To the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, the same question: did the minister, or anyone acting for him, make a commitment to Mr. Arthur Elworthy or anyone representing him that the vessel Queen of Surrey would be made available for the 1980 Victoria-to-Seattle run?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member asked that question, because I had a lot of negotiations last summer with Mr. Elworthy while he was running the Princess Marguerite. We took that Princess Marguerite from a loss position on the Victoria-Seattle run and did something with it. I had a lot of negotiations and discussions with Mr. Elworthy.

MR. BARBER: I don't think the minister heard the question. Was the vessel Queen of Surrey promised by your administration to the B.C. Steamship Company for its use on the 1980 Victoria- to-Seattle run? Yes or no will do quite nicely.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I don't think my administration had any discussions with Mr. Elworthy.

MR. BARBER: What did you just say? Did you all hear that? You just told us you spent the summer negotiating with Mr. Elworthy. Now you say....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I recognize the Minister of Human Resources.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm responding to a verbal request....

[ Page 1692 ]

MR. BARBER: What is this? I have a supplementary question.

MR. SPEAKER: When I recognized the minister there were no other members on their feet. If we wish to change the way in which the House is run I think that would be very welcome. However, it would need to be done by a substantive motion. Other than that I don't believe there should be any debate.

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

MR. BARRETT: It is customary, Mr. Speaker, as I understand it from your previous rulings, that when a member is on his feet asking a supplementary he's allowed to continue the thread.... Obviously the member is still on a supplementary and was on his feet.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the vantage point here gives the Chair a distinct advantage of seeing what is happening in the room. Clearly, when I recognized the Minister of Human Resources, no other person was on his or her feet. Following this I did hear some debate, but certainly no suggestion that there was a supplementary question. I recognize the Minister of Human Resources.

PHARMACARE

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to respond to a question regarding Pharmacare last week from the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt). March 31 has been the deadline for acceptance of Universal Pharmacare claims from the previous year since the inception of this program in 1977. In 1978 and 1979 the ministry arranged for announcements on radio and television to publicize the March 31 deadline and the application process and benefits of Universal Pharmacare. As well, information cards and brochures on the program were placed in all pharmacies throughout the province. In 1979 advertising for that campaign cost $100,000 to make that information known to our citizens of the province. A well-established distribution method for Pharmacare information has been developed with the cooperation of British Columbia pharmacists.

Pharmacies throughout the province are used as distributors of Pharmacare information. Claim forms are available in every pharmacy, and pharmacists routinely refer clients to the claim forms as prescriptions are filled. As well, pharmacies display ministry brochures outlining the benefits available through the Universal Pharmacare Program. Information about the Pharmacare deadline is also distributed through the private insurance carriers. About 50 percent of Universal Pharmacare claimants are also covered by private prescription plans. The CU&C and the MSA claim forms carry a paragraph reminding claimants to submit their Universal Pharmacare claims by March 31.

This year, Mr. Speaker, the ministry undertook a study to determine the effectiveness of the advertising campaigns of the previous two years. Comparisons were done on the number of claims received in the first three months of 1978 and 1979, and on the number of claims received in January 1980. The analysis showed that while the 1978 pattern of claims showed an increase with the airing of the commercials, the 1979 claim pattern was not affected by the advertising campaign. This was seen to indicate that those with high prescription drug costs who claim under the Universal Pharmacare Program were aware of the claim period and the March 31 deadline last year. The two largest private insurance carriers were also consulted and confirmed that the advertising campaigns show no significant change in the number of claims received.

A decision was made, therefore, not to proceed with another advertising campaign for this particular program in 1980. The omission of the campaign this year does not seem to have adversely affected the number of claims in January and February. In fact, figures on claims for 1980 show an increase in the number of claims received in January and February over those received in the same period in 1979. This, Mr. Speaker, has confirmed my ministry's decision not to spend a further $100,000 on the information campaign for 1980 for this very great program.

FERRIES

MR. BARBER: I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Is it true that B.C. Steamship Company has spent funds on refit drawings for the proposed use of the Queen of Surrey on the Victoria-to-Seattle run?

HON. MR. FRASER: You have to come with that question again, please. I don't understand the question.

MR. BARBER: Is the minister aware that the B.C. Steamship Company has spent funds on refit drawings of the Queen of Surrey for its proposed use on the Seattle-to-Victoria run?

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

MR. BARBER: It's of some value to know whether or not the minister is in charge of that corporation. I wonder if it's true that the minister or his colleague, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), are aware that the firm of Marine Design Associates Ltd., 493 Garbally Road in Victoria, was awarded in a confidential letter dated September 26, 1979, a contract to provide all necessary ship drawings to refit the vessel Queen of Surrey for the Victoria-to-Seattle run. Were you aware that decision was taken by the corporation on whose board of directors you sit?

HON. MR. FRASER: I had no responsibility whatsoever for the B.C. Steamship Company on the date you referred to.

MR. BARBER: I would ordinarily put it to his colleague, but I know what happens with those questions. Let me continue with another question to the same minister. This secretly awarded job is listed as number 3939 in B.C. Steamship Company accounts. Marine Design Associates Ltd. submitted invoice A5563 for its October 1979 work on the Queen of Surrey. The claimed amount of $24,656 was then paid. Is the minister aware, or has he been made aware since joining the board in December 1979, that some $24,000 was thereby spent — or, if you will, wasted — to redesign a vessel the corporation never used?

[ Page 1693 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware at all, and I haven't been advised since I joined the B.C. Steamship Company on, I believe, November 30, 1979. The annual statement for 1979 has been filed in the Legislature as well.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I will shortly be tabling these invoices that the minister seems unaware of. The same invoice lists the name of nine Marine Design Associates employees who worked on this secret little job. The invoice records a claim of fringe benefits of some 25 percent and a further noted — in their own language — markup of 220 percent on that contract for the October 1979 work. Is the minister aware that the board on which he sits pays contracts which call for a markup of 222 percent?

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, Mr. Speaker, it goes back before my time, and I'm not at all aware of the statements that have been made.

MR. BARBER: I have a question to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. Marine Design Associates, by invoice number A5582, subsequently submitted a bill for its November work on the vessel Queen of Surrey. This bill, for a ship never used, was also paid — specifically, in the amount of $30,078. Can the minister, who sits on the board and sat on it at the time the confidential letter was sent to Marine Design Associates, inform the House why B.C. Steamships would have found it necessary to spend a further $30,000 to redraw a ship it was not permitted to use?

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: A further question?

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

...to redesign a ship they were never permitted to use. Can the minister tell us why the board, on which he sat — and sits — would have made such a decision when, apparently, they were never given the Surrey in the first place?

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

MR. BARBER: To the current Minister of Transportation and Highways, has the board of B.C. Steamships made any attempt to recover from the government the money it wasted on these contracts to redraw the Surrey, because the government — I don't want to say misled — misinformed them about a commitment that they might have the Queen of Surrey for 1980? Has the corporation made any attempt to recover the $54,000, at least, from the government, which made the obvious mistake?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to get that information. I can't answer the question at this time.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney-General. On Monday last, the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) asked the Attorney-General for a list of the people, other than those named in his statement, whom he interviewed personally. Has the minister got that list of the other people interviewed in the miscalled Vogel affair?

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

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

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm not getting anywhere, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is in order.

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

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, one Greg Cran reported that he had advised the Boundary justice council to lie low and not rock the boat with respect to the case of Mickey Moran, with which the Attorney-General is familiar. May I ask the Attorney-General: did he or anyone from his ministry interview Greg Cran in connection with this affair?

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

MR. MACDONALD: On a supplementary, will the minister check and assure the House? He just said: "To the best of my knowledge, no."

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I said no.

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

My next question is: is Greg Cran now employed by the Attorney-General's ministry, and if so, in what capacity and since when?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The answer to the question is yes, Mr. Cran is still employed by the Attorney-General's ministry. As to when he became employed, I can't give that information. He is occupying the same position now as he occupied at the time in question.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in phrasing or in constructing questions, I would caution all members that they must at least review section 171(l) of Beauchesne's fourth edition, in which it is stated that questions which are in order in the House are questions which are not constructed in such a way as to bring information to the House for purposes of argumentation. I did not wish to interrupt question period itself, but I trust that all members will take that advice.

MR. BARRETT: I think it's appropriate, if I recall that particular passage in Beauchesne, that it applies to answers as well, such as the answer read by the Minister of Human Resources today.

MR. SPEAKER: That section of Beauchesne refers to questions.

[ Page 1694 ]

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I think it's fair that I should respond to the Leader of the Opposition, who has made a suggestion regarding my answer.

MR. BARRETT: That's not a point of order. I'm referring to Beauchesne.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have your advice. I take it that when a question is asked in this House orally, it should be responded to in the same manner as I did in response to the member for Coquitlam-Moody. If members on the opposite side, however, wish to commit a question to the order paper, I take it that we answer through the order paper system.

MR. SPEAKER: The practice of the House is this; I'll review it for you: questions are asked in question period; from time to time questions are taken on notice; it is acceptable during subsequent question periods to answer questions taken on notice; if the question requires a lengthy answer, it is the option of the minister to ask for leave to answer the question at a time other than question period, but this is only a courtesy and is at the option of the minister. If the question is of such a nature that it requires a lengthy answer, perhaps the best way of a return is to have the answer on the order paper itself, as though the question had been a written question.

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

MR. LAUK: In dealing with question period, Mr. Speaker, I would also ask your view with respect to answering questions of members who are not present at the time the answer is given. It seems to me that a courtesy could be extended to wait until the member is...if the matter is not so urgent. The question was asked over ten days ago. This is the first day the member for Coquitlam-Moody has not been in the House. I wonder if the ministers couldn't extend the courtesy to answer questions when members are in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: In responding to the point of order, it would be delightful if the Chair had such powers. The fact of the matter is that it is incumbent upon every member to be in attendance in the House; as a result, it would have to be a courtesy that would be acknowledged only by the members and not by the Chair.

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

MR. BARBER: I ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to table certain documents: one of them, signed by Mr. Arthur Elworthy, dated September 26, marked "confidential," directed to Marine Design Associates of Victoria; another, an invoice from Marine Design Associates dated November 20, 1979; and the final, another invoice from Marine Design Associates dated December 6, 1979. I ask leave to table these documents in the House.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

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

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take some time with the committee today to review some of the remarks that were made yesterday. I'll be referring to the Blues from yesterday afternoon, dealing with the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition in yesterday's debate as to whether or not the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) ; the Premier, the member for Okanagan South; and the former Minister of Finance, the Provincial Secretary and second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), when they travelled to Europe on a trade mission — whether or not the government, through those three ministers and members of this Legislature, endeavoured to sell uranium to the European countries or the European communities. During the debate yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition put it to this committee that the Premier and his delegation, while visiting the office of the president of the Commission of the European Communities, did, in fact, tout and push the sale of uranium.

I'd like to go through some remarks surrounding that conversation yesterday, that debate in the House.

After the Leader of the Opposition queried the Premier and the government as to whether they had indeed tried to peddle uranium, to sell uranium in Europe.... I'd like to take you to page 846-2 in the Blues of yesterday afternoon. At the bottom of the page where it indicates the Hon. Mr. Bennett, he began his remarks, after being queried as to whether or not he tried to sell uranium while in Europe, by saying:

"I always enjoy the Leader of the Opposition and I wish him continued success in tha trole. He" — Mr. Bermett was referring to the Leader of the Opposition — "was incorrect in a large number of things. I'll deal specifically with the uranium question in Europe. Number one, this government did not go to Europe selling uranium. The government was not actively concemed about developing B.C.'s uranium resources."

I'd like now to refer you, Mr. Chairman, to a letter addressed to Mr. John Mika, Office of the Leader of the Opposition, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, signed by the Secretary to the Commission of European Communities, a Mr. Reuter, and I'd like to read the letter. It says:

"Dear Mr. Mika,

"I refer to our telephone conversation of last week relating to Prime Minister Bennett's visit to the Commission on 15th September 1977. During the conversation between President Jenkins and Mr. Bennett, which was mainly devoted to Canada's constitutional problems and the political situation in Quebec...."

I'd like to break here for a moment and take us back to 1977 when the Premier, before going to Europe, said that they were going over there to try to sell commodities that we produced in British Columbia. The Premier has been quoted in 1977 as saying they were going to Europe to sell British Columbia commodities in Europe. Strange that when he got there all he could talk about was Quebec and Canada's

[ Page 1695 ]

constitutional proberns. And it makes you wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether the conversation around those constitutional problems didn't surround the issue of Canada's ban on uranium, or else why speak about constitutional problems with Mr. Jenkins?

Now I get back to the letter:

"The Prime Minister" — that's Bill Bennett — "underlined the concern of his government to find markets for the province's products and listed, among others, uranium. In reply to a question put by President Jenkins, he" — Bennett — "explained that natural resources were under provincial jurisdiction but that the federal Minister for Mines and Resources was exercising export control on uranium."

Why would Mr. Jenkins ask the question about Canada's ban on uranium exports if it hadn't been raised by the British Columbia delegation, as indeed Mr. Reuter points out in his letter to Mr. Mika?

And I'd like to say, once again, Mr. Chairman, it says: "The Prime Minister" — that's Mr. Bennett — "underlined the concern of his government...." He didn't just mention it, he "underlined the concern of his government to find markets for the province's products and listed, among others, uranium." Now I see no reason, Mr. Chairman, for Mr. Reuter to lie in a letter to Mr. Mika. I think we can assume Mr. Reuter did not lie. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) laughs, insinuating, I suppose, that Mr. Reuter did lie. Now let's go back to the Blues from yesterday.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I always enjoy the Leader of the Opposition, and I wish him continued success in that role. He was incorrect in a large number of things. I'll deal specifically with the uranium question in Europe. Number one, this govemment did not go to Europe selling uranium.

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

We go on in yesterday afternoon's Blues where Mr. Barrett said to the Premier: "You didn't talk to them about selling uranium from B.C.?" Mr. Bennett answered:

If the Leader of the Opposition would listen, Mr. Chairman, I was there also as a Canadian and one thing the Leader of the Opposition, with his limited exposure to international affairs, doesn't realize is that when you're there they treat you, and expect you to respond, as a Canadian. They don't care that your mind might be preoccupied with some small piece of the country.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the Premier was there as the Premier of British Columbia and he went with a selling list, according to Mr. Reuter. On that selling list was the product uranium, according to Mr. Reuter. The Premier was there trying to sell uranium.

Also yesterday afternoon there was an interjection in the debate by Mr. Macdonald, where he asked: "Did you sell uranium? Were you trying to sell uranium in Europe?" And the Premier yelled: "No, I was not trying to sell uranium in Europe." Mr. Reuter's letter states categorically that the Premier and his delegation, Mr. Phillips and Mr. Wolfe, were there trying to sell uranium. The Premier yesterday denied even discussing uranium, denied it in this House, to this Legislature, and therefore to the province of British Columbia. Either Mr. Reuter has lied to Mr. Mika or the Premier has not got a very good memory — one or the other. Did Mr. Reuter lie to Mr. Mika, or does the Premier not have total recall? We could suggest otherwise, but I know it would be unparliamentary. We have to assume that the Premier would not lie to this House, and that he only has a poor memory and possibly can't now remember being in Europe, I would also like to refer to yesterday's Blues, when Mr. Phillips jumped to his feet to defend the Premier. The Premier had said that no, he did not try to sell uranium in Europe. He says he didn't even discuss it. That's what he told the House. Then Mr. Phillips jumped up and said, "I happened to be with the Premier on that trip to Europe," and insinuated that because he was on that trip he might have some idea of what was said on that trip. On page 862-2 of yesterday's Blues, Mr. Phillips says:

Mr. Chairman, it is no wonder that politicians in British Columbia are ill thought of, and no wonder this Legislature is receiving very little report in the press — just because of the type of thing that has been going on here this afternoon.

He doesn't make it clear if he's referring to the Premier's remarks or to the Leader of the Opposition's, but I have to assume that he was referring to the Leader of the Opposition, where the opposition had said to the Premier, "You were over in Europe trying to sell uranium," and the Premier denied it. So I have to assume that Mr. Phillips was referring to the Leader of the Opposition, accusing the Leader of the Opposition of not doing his job in the House.

We then have, from the Vancouver Province, Friday, September 16, 1977, Mr. Phillips being quoted: "Mr. Phillips says that he told EEC officials in a separate meeting...." Now we know that in the first meeting — or at least maybe not the first, but in the meeting where the Premier was there — that the Premier put forward his selling list to the European Economic Community. We know that for sure, because we have Mr. Reuter's letter saying that the Premier of this province was over there trying to sell uranium — denied in the House yesterday afternoon by the Premier. We then have Mr. Phillips jumping up to defend the Premier, saying that he was there, and that they didn't try to sell uranium. Again, we have Mr. Reuter's letter saying that the delegation made up of Mr. Wolfe, Mr. Bennett and Mr. Phillips was in that room trying to sell uranium. Now we have both the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and the Premier denying in this House that they were trying to sell uranium.

Mr. Chairman, I can't help but think that a number of things have to happen now. Either the Premier has to deny the facts of Mr. Reuter's letter — also the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development....

Let me go over this letter just one more time. We now have ascertained from the Blues that the Premier and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development denied trying to sell uranium in Europe in 1977. We have Mr. Reuter, in a letter to Mr. Mika, saying that they did try to sell uranium when they were in Europe. Mr. Chairman, somebody is lying.

I think what we have to do is examine the evidence and ask: "Who would have a reason to lie?" Would Mr. Reuter have a reason to lie? We have to examine that and ask what possible reason Mr. Reuter would have for lying to Mr. Mika in his letter dated December 6, 1979, sent from Brussels. What happened is that Mr. Mika, on request from the Leader of the Opposition, phoned Brussels to find out whether or not the Premier and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development....

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Mr. Mika made the phone call, Mr. Minister, and out of that phone call Mr. Mika received a letter from

[ Page 1696 ]

Brussels dated December 6, 1979. It says:

"Dear Mr. Mika:

"I refer to our telephone conversation of last week relating to Prime Minister Bennett's visit to the Commission on September 15, 1977. During the conversation between President Jenkins and Mr. Bennett, which was mainly devoted to Canada's constitutional problems and the political situation in Quebec, the Prime Minister" — that's Bennett — "underlined the concern of his government to find markets for the province's products and listed, among others, uranium. In reply to a question put by President Jenkins, he explained that natural resources were under provincial jurisdiction, but that the federal minister for mines and resources was exercising export control on uranium.

"I hope that this information will be of some use to you. Do not hesitate to contact me again if you need further clarifications. "

It is signed by Etienne Reuter, the secretary to the Commission of the European Communities.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, there is no way that that kind of remark is at all parliamentary, and I would ask you to withdraw any imputation of lying by any hon. member in this House. Would the hon. member please withdraw the remark.

MR. LEA: I did not make the charge that someone was lying, Mr. Chairman. I said that someone is lying; it could be Mr. Reuter, and Mr. Reuter is not a member of this House. Now if Mr. Reuter is not lying, the question then is: who is?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. member please withdraw any imputation that any hon. member of this House was lying.

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

MR. LAUK: Do you mean we have to assume that he has never lied in his whole life?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm asking the hon. member to withdraw any imputation that any member of this House was lying.

MR. LEA: Yes, I withdraw that. It could have been Mr. Reuter who was lying to Mr. Mika in his letter dated December 6, 1979. But it's for sure, Mr. Chairman, somebody's lying. I think this Legislature and the province deserve an apology from the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and from the Premier.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Well, either Mr. Reuter lied or somebody else did. You can't have it both ways, Mr. Minister of Health.

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

MR. LEA: It must have been the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie). Somebody over there on the government side....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Prince Rupert has the floor.

MR. LEA: If either the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development or the Premier has something to say to this Legislature now, I will relinquish the floor. They have to do one of two things: they have to call Mr. Reuter a liar or they owe this House an apology — both of them. You can't have it both ways. That is the cold, hard fact: either Mr. Reuter lied, or this House deserves an apology from the Premier and from the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. Which way is it? Is the House going to get its apology — and, therefore, the people of this province?

I suppose the Leader of the Opposition is responsible for trickery, because previous to making this letter available he asked the Premier whether the Premier had tried to sell uranium, and the Premier said no. Now the letter says differently. The Leader of the Opposition didn't make this letter available until after the Premier had answered the question, that he hadn't tried to sell uranium. The Leader of the Opposition didn't make this available until after the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development got up and defended the Premier and said they hadn't tried to sell uranium in Europe.

The official opposition requests that the Premier and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development apologize to this House, or that they call Mr. Reuter a liar. Which way is it going to be? It's a matter of conscience, I suppose. But it's not going to rest here, because in the last paragraph of Mr. Reuter's letter, he says: "I hope this information will be of some use to you. Don't hesitate to contact me again if you need further clarification."

I noticed yesterday, when most of this conversation was going on during the debate, that there weren't many people from the media to listen to it. But if we don't receive an apology from the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development or from the Premier, I would be encouraged if I found out that the media were to get in touch with Mr. Reuter in Europe to see whether Mr. Reuter lied or whether this House deserves an apology from the Premier and from the minister. We cannot have it both ways. Either Mr. Reuter lied, or we get an apology from those two ministers for contradicting Mr. Reuter in this House. Of course, that was before they knew they were going to contradict Mr. Reuter; that was when they were denying being in Europe selling uranium. We now know that what those two ministers told us is not the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, again I draw to your attention that that type of inference in debate not only is not parliamentary, but is not allowed in this chamber. Again I would ask you to withdraw the words "not the truth."

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, either Mr. Reuter is lying or we didn't hear the truth in this House yesterday.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I have asked you to withdraw. If the hon. member will come to order for a moment, I will quote Sir Erskine May's eighteenth edition:

"The right to claim courteous treatment in debate

[ Page 1697 ]

is due alike between both Houses of Parliament, and abusive language and imputations of falsehood uttered by members of the House against members of the House have been met by the immediate intervention of the Chair to compel the withdrawal of the offensive words or, in default, by the punishment of suspension."

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

MR. LEA: I certainly do withdraw and I am not implying that the minister has lied. I am saying that either Mr. Reuter lied or we are not getting the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, again, to state what has already been stated in another manner is, alike, not acceptable in this chamber. I would caution the member, please....

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I of course withdraw. It could have been Mr. Reuter. What I am asking is for the two ministers to take their places in this House and clear it up. Was Mr. Reuter lying? Did they indeed try to sell uranium when they were in Europe? The fact that they denied....

We have to know the truth. Did Mr. Reuter lie to Mr. Mika? If he did not, then this House deserves an apology from the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) for his speech yesterday and from the Premier for his speech yesterday. Because either Mr. Reuter lied or this House deserves an apology from both the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and the Premier, Mr. Chairman. And if we don't get it, we will know who lied.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Health.

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

HON. MR. MAIR: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My health has never been better. I am very grateful to the member opposite for inquiring.

I note that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has not chosen this to be the moment that he is ejected from the chamber to draw the television cameras and attention to himself and to his fictitious issue. No doubt we will be seeing that in due course.

I would like, if I may, to deal with the question of leadership, because that's what the Premier's estimates are all about. I'd like to make something clear to this chamber that does not need any clarification to my colleagues or to the Premier. That's that he has my complete and absolute dedication and loyalty, and that his leadership is the leadership that every British Columbian follows, I think, with pride. I want to talk for a few moments about some of the reasons that the people of British Columbia do have pride in our Premier's leadership. I want to talk about something where our Premier has taken leadership that no one else in Canada has taken, and leadership for which the rest of this country will have every reason to be grateful in the months and years to come.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that this country is in the midst of a constitutional crisis. I don't want anybody to misjudge that. I notice that the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) — the member who came up from a life of privileged private schools and college fraternities and now clucks his tongue about privilege from his safe perch in Point Grey — doesn't concern himself with the constitutional crisis which does indeed beset our country.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that when you have a country of which one-half geographically and one-third economically and population-wise is disfranchised by reason of choices they made in a federal election, when you have a country of which the largest province geographically and the second largest in terms of population and economics — at least in terms of its governing party — wishes to withdraw from the country, when you have a situation where political leaders from as lofty a position as the Leader of the Opposition in Saskatchewan and one of his colleagues wish to withdraw from their parliamentary process in order to lead western Canada out of Confederation, when you have political leaders of the acknowledged stature of Premier Blakency of Saskatchewan being concerned about this matter, then you've got a constitutional crisis. It's a constitutional crisis that demands leadership and it's a constitutional crisis that has found leadership in the Premier of the province of British Columbia.

I'd like to take this chamber back a little way, if I may, to the beginning of our mandate. In the fall of 1976, in the meeting in Edmonton, the first proposals for constitutional reform were placed by this government before our sister provinces. I'd like to remind this chamber of the leadership of our Premier, not only on that occasion but on occasions of Western Premiers' Conferences. I would particularly like to draw the attention of this chamber to the western Premier's task force, which I have had the honour of chairing for the last four years.

I'd also like to say that one of the first things this task force did was discover 60 to 70 separate pieces of federal legislation which clearly impinged upon provincial responsibilities. That would be, I would think, accomplishment enough, were it not for the fact that in subsequent years, by reason of our negotiations and discussions with the federal government under the leadership of the Premier, a great many if not most of those were eliminated.

What this chamber must now know, when the NDP calls into question the leadership of the Premier, is what the concern of the opposition is on this constitutional crisis that we now face. I tell you that the public of British Columbia have a right to know where the NDP stands on these issues. Mr. Blakeney, as I've already indicated, being the only socialist leader in Canada, to give the man his due, has already declared himself as being extremely concerned about the constitutional crisis that we're faced with. Now when is the opposition going to recognize that we have this very serious problem in our country and when is it going to tell us what its solutions are?

I have some questions, Mr. Chairman, which I think the opposition must answer if they're going to be critical of the leadership provided by this party and by our Premier, because they have no right to ask the questions they've been asking unless they are prepared to answer a couple themselves.

Let me first of all ask them whether or not they stand for a federal state. Do you believe in a federal state? Now that's not a very difficult question, and one would have thought that it would have been answered a long time ago, but it hasn't.

MR. LAUK: The answer is yes.

[ Page 1698 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: Thank you. So you're not in favour of a unitary state? Do you speak for the party, by the way, Mr. Member?

MR. LAUK: I speak for the party.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, as I develop my remarks, I think that you will see that the members opposite will only agree with the federal system provided it's a socialist state. I'm prepared to argue that the unitary state is indeed what they want, and that they don't care about provincial powers, provincial rights and provincial responsibilities, but they are simply prepared to have a unitary government under socialist leadership — and that's their only goal.

MR. LAUK: Explain the difference.

HON. MR. MAIR: A Regional District of British Columbia would suit them very well.

Now if you are federalists, if you do believe in the federal system — Mr. Chairman, I ask the members opposite through you — do you agree with the division of powers between the federal government and the provincial governments? If so, what should those powers be?

Let's talk about natural resources, because as I said to you before, Mr. First Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), before you question the leadership of our Premier, let us know where you stand on these issues. If you are talking about natural resources, do you believe that they belong to the provinces? Or do you believe that they only belong to the provinces unless they are nationalized by the national government, in which case they belong to the federal government? Where do you stand on the ownership of our coal? Where do you stand on the ownership of our water, our lumber and our minerals?

I want to, if I may, Mr. Chairman, remark with some approbation upon remarks made the other night by the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), who said some words on the federal banking system with which I personally have long agreed. I certainly agree with him when he has said that the banking system in Canada does no credit to the nation and certainly is of no assistance to the regions of this nation. But I'm going to say this, and make no mistake about it — the surest way to perpetuate the inequities of our central banking system is to perpetuate a political system that does not adequately address regional concerns.

So I ask this of the members opposite. If you are federalists, are you prepared to stand up and speak for British Columbia? Are you prepared to agree that British Columbia ought to have representation on the Bank of Canada, the CTC, the CRTC, the Wheat Board and all of those boards thatfall within federal jurisdiction, or are you prepared just to let it all be run by central Canada? Are you prepared — I ask this question through you, Mr. Chairman — to speak for British Columbia?

I've heard some very disturbing things lately about the national New Democratic Party: "We're all one — one for all and all for one. " Blakeney and Barrett and Broadbent all speak with one voice. Well, let me ask you this question, because I think before you question the leadership of our Premier, you must answer this. What if, God forbid, you were the government of this province and also the government of Canada? Where would you stand then? Would you stand up and speak for British Columbia in this chamber? Or would you go back to Ottawa and kiss backsides and give away natural resources? What would you do?

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: Do you have a provincial policy? Because if you have one, how do you get one if you only have one party? How do you get one? The only policy that I know of that you have is to take money from people who want to contribute to your federal campaign and spend it on the provincial campaign. That's the only policy I know of. What do you do in this "one for all and all for one" situation — this happy-go-lucky socialist scheme that you're going to put in? Who speaks for B.C. when you go back to Ottawa? What is it — just one great big cocktail party where you carve everything up? Or does somebody, as it has to happen, put their fist down on the table and say: "No. I speak for this province. I'm a Canadian, sure, but I'm a British Columbian as well"? This is what you're going to have to tell us before we're prepared to listen to you criticize our leader who's gone back and spoken for British Columbia for going on five years.

There is a crisis in Canada, and I know that the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) likes to laugh and giggle about these things — because, of course, he gets his advice from an academic exile who is supposed to be a law professor, but can't find a law school to be a professor at. There is a crisis. We have an inherent weakness in our system. Make no mistake about that. Any system that will allow one half of the country to be disfranchised has got to have inherent weaknesses. There is no question about that.

There are unresolved inequities in this country. Make no mistake about that. We are threatened from within, and not just in the province of Quebec; we're threatened from others. We read about it in the papers and see it on television every night. There are people — and, I would say, of more and more political respectability — now taking up the mantle of separatism. God forbid, but that's what's happening. It's up to us in this chamber and in this government to help save Canada. And what I'm saying to you is: tell us what you're going to do; tell us what your position is; tell us where you stand.

Now I may be wrong, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps there is no crisis. Perhaps everything is just tickety-boo, and there is no problem whatsoever. But if I'm wrong, it does no harm at all to make the system more modern and improve it. But if I happen to be right, if the former member for North Vancouver–Capilano happens to be right as well, that we're in grave danger of not seeing the twentieth century as a united country, then for God's sake let's do something and let's hear what they have to say about what ought to be done.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let me just ask acouple of questions of the members opposite before I finish. What would I do, I am asked. What I would do is recommend that you read British Columbia's constitutional proposals for the first time. I know the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) has read them, and I think the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has. As a matter of fact, I heard a thoughtful speech by the member for Prince Rupert — it was the only one he has ever given in this House, I'm sure — concerning this matter. I agree with him. I thought it was a good speech, and I wish more of you would do it. I'm sure that the member from Coquitlam-Moody has read them too. But none of the rest of you have, or if you have, you haven't paid any attention.

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

[ Page 1699 ]

wrong, is stand up and not only say so, but say where they're wrong and where you would improve them. What would you do? These proposals aren't put out by the Social Credit Party in caucus or convention, or only by the government; they're put out by academics, business people, and people from the labouring field — everywhere. This is a composite of what we think is the thinking of British Columbia. If we're wrong, tell us we're wrong and show us where we're wrong, because we'd like to hear. We'd like to listen. My God, we're all British Columbians trying to save the country, not trying to tear it apart for political advantage.

So I ask the members opposite — through you, Mr. Chairman — first of all: do you have a philosophy on the Canadian nation? If so, tell us what it is. Do you have a way of achieving that? If so, tell us how. Do you have a way of resolving the difficulties that now beset this country — the very serious difficulties that threaten to tear it asunder? Do you have a solution? Is it better than ours? If so, tell us about it. Work with us. But at least tell us, and tell the people of British Columbia where you stand and what you intend to do, because I can tell you this: either the New Democratic Party has no position whatsoever, simply has not addressed itself to this serious situation, simply doesn't care whether the country stays together, simply doesn't care how it stays together if it does stay together, or it's keeping it all a big, deep, dark secret, because nobody in British Columbia has yet heard of it. So, Mr. Chairman, I say to the members opposite....

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you vote?

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes, I voted on every issue in this House, including the independent schools question, which I was sent here to vote on.

I say this, Mr. Chairman, before anyone in this chamber, regardless of party, has got the right to challenge the leadership of this Premier, certainly on questions of keeping our country together and constitutional reform, he had better have some answers of his own. They haven't given us any answers, and I suspect they don't have any answers.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, before we get back to the Premier's estimates, which I thought we were on today, I want to make a couple of comments regarding the presentation of the minister of diversions this afternoon. I thought he made some very revealing comments.

In the first place, I want to say that no one associated with the New Democratic Party, either at the provincial or at the federal level, has ever offered any encouragement to separatism in the province of Quebec or, indeed, in western Canada — no one in elective office. The only national political figure I am aware of who has indeed endorsed separation in Quebec and indicated he will vote for the referendum to separate is none other than Fabien Roy, the national leader of the Social Credit Party.

As I recall, Mr. Chairman, a few years ago Fabien Roy had a very tough competition with the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) to see who was going to be the national leader of that party. The member for Columbia River, who is now a cabinet minister, indicated that he was somewhat interested in the national leadership, but he decided to stay in the province instead. I wonder if their views were synonymous on this question of separation. Fabien Roy is the only one. They may try to discredit and dissociate themselves from their parent organization, but they're all tarred with the same brush, Mr. Chairman. They get up and give pious speeches about our dedication to Confederation.

The minister made another important and very revealing statement. He said: "In the unlikely event that the NDP were elected in Ottawa and also in British Columbia, how would we be able to negotiate? How would we be able to accomplish that when we're all one party?" Well, that reveals an interesting conception of negotiations within Confederation. The minister apparently feels that there has to be great hostility and complete polarization at the bargaining table before any good-faith negotiations can be undertaken. Mr. Chairman, we reject that proposition completely. We feel that in a democratic state we have a duty as citizens, certainly as politicians, to respect the mandate which the people of Canada give to a government of any stripe in Ottawa,, and we would be willing and ready to sit down with the duly elected government and to negotiate on British Columbia's behalf in good faith.

We do not believe in alienating whatever governmem is elected in Ottawa. That's why we were hurt, ashamed and embarrassed when the Premier of the province of British Columbia refused to do his duty as a citizen and vote in the last federal election. We think that was a poor move on British Columbia's part. That is the individual who is now going to go to Ottawa and try to negotiate on British Columbia's behalf — the man who didn't even take the interest to vote in the federal election. In our view that doesn't do a great deal to cement this great nation together — showing that kind of contempt for the parliamentary process, the democratic process as it applies federally.

The minister then said that a great many people were disfranchised by the results of the federal election. What a shallow understanding of democratic elections. The only person who was disfranchised, that I'm aware of, was the Premier, who disfranchised himself. He refused to vote. That's to his shame. Let him justify that however he feels most appropriate. I doubt that he'll face the issue squarely. He hasn't faced many other issues squarely before the people of British Columbia.

Western separatism. Nonsense! Our leader indicated loudly and clearly in his introduction to this debate that we think that's a danger. We think it's ill-advised and foolish. Surely the Premier's conduct and the minister's statements about being disfranchised in the west simply because the majority of people chose to vote Conservative and NDP rather than Liberal feed the concept of western separatism. It justifies those people who are trying to peddle the line that you have to have a government member before you enjoy representation. If you follow that line through to its logical conclusion, that means the abolition of opposition. That means totalitarian government, and that is a dangerous and alien concept in this nation of ours.

Mr. Chairman, we are talking about the Premier's estimates, and we are talking about the Premier's credibility. That is an important and fundamental issue in this province. Before we can have any confidence in the Premier of this province travelling to Ottawa to represent us or travelling again to Europe to represent us, I think we have a right to know about the conflict in his statement raised yesterday. At one of the meetings that he attended in Europe, the secretary who was taking minutes of that meeting reveals that the Premier was out flogging the sale of uranium to the European Common Market countries. He came back here and said: "No, no. We wouldn't sell uranium. The NDP are the devils.

[ Page 1700 ]

They're the ones who want to do that." But, lo and behold, after disclaiming that he had ever attempted to flog the sale of uranium from British Columbia, we find the minutes of the meeting containing this passage:

"During the conversation between President Jenkins and Mr. Bennett, which was mainly devoted to Canada's constitutional problems and the political situation in Quebec, the Prime Minister underlined the concern of his government to find markets for the province's products and listed, among other things, uranium. In reply to a question put by President Jenkins, he explained that natural resources were under the provincial jurisdiction, but that the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was exercising export control on uranium."

Mr. Chairman, I'm cognizant of your ruling, and I know that some people might say that that was an untruth, because there's obviously a conflict there. I wouldn't say that, because I know it's against the rules of this House. But I want to tell you it strains my credulity. I have great difficulty understanding how the Premier, the first minister and chief executive officer of this government, who presumes to represent us on the world scene, much less the national scene, has a problem of credibility on basic truth in this House.

He made a statement, clear and simple, listed and recorded in Hansard, the verbatim record of the proceedings in this House. He said he had not tried to sell uranium. Here is a résumé of the minutes of a meeting which he attended along with his small minister for development. Obviously they tried to sell uranium in Europe.

The least we can expect from the Premier, if he wants a serious and mature discussion about Confederation or about the very broad financial responsibilities and administrative responsibilities that he has as first minister.... The very least we can ask is that he get up and clarify to the House's satisfaction the apparent variance which exists between his version of the truth and the truth as contained in the minutes of that meeting that he attended. If the Premier hasn't got enough respect for his own office to want to clear up that doubt and that kind of cloud that hangs over the credibility of the Premier's office, then I have to say that I'm absolutely appalled and I think it is a shameful day for British Columbia.

MR. RITCHIE: You know, over the past couple of days we have heard so much about credibility. We have witnessed close to two weeks of complete negative nonsense from the opposition, and yesterday was a classic example, I think, of what they have to offer. Absolutely nothing! How about your credibility? I'd like to talk a little bit about your credibility.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday I picked up on the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition ridiculing our leader. He was getting into some real deep stuff that he apparently doesn't understand too much about, or he has forgotten some of his past actions and words.

Yesterday when I checked the Blues I read that the Leader of the Opposition had touched on the question of the proposed industrial park on the Gloucester property in Aldergrove. He said: "I didn't like that land being removed." He and his colleagues held a political rally on that land in Aldergrove simply to make political points. It's quite obvious that their land preservation policy depends entirely upon their political needs at the time. When they are in power, they say: "Do it our way and like it."

What about Tilbury Island? It was 700 acres of class 1 soil. It was all prime agricultural land. How about it? It was converted to an industrial park against the wishes of the Agricultural Land Commission of the day.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: It was engineered, I believe, by the then minister of economic destruction.

MR. KEMPF: Bob Williams.

MR. RITCHIE: No, it was the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

There was 720 acres of class 1 land converted to an industrial park, and the Leader of the Opposition said: "I didn't like that land being removed in Aldergrove."

What about the Sterling development within the agricultural land reserve? How about that one? It's the oldest farm, with highly productive land. It is situated in one of the most valuable land areas in the Fraser Valley. When they moved the equipment in to break up that land for residential development within the agricultural land reserve, I called the spokesman for the professional pickets — you know, that group that travels around the province picketing any decision concerning land if the opposition think they can make political points on it. I called their attention to it, and they said: "It is not in our area." I think they were headed by someone by the name of Fontaine, an NDP candidate in the federal election. I don't know how many times he ran. They said that property was not in their area, and yet it was dead centre between Chilliwack and the Aldergrove property that they had their pickets demonstrate on. What they really meant when they said it was not in their area was that the decision would be an embarrassment to the NDP. They should really not picket there, because that wouldn't bring about the result they wanted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must ask you to be a little more specific in the estimates presently before the House. It's difficult for the Chair to relate this to the Premier's estimates that are presently before us.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition chose to delve into this particular matter. Almost all of the discussion up to this point has revolved around credibility, and I'm dealing with the credibility of the opposition party and the defence of our Premier and his estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Nonetheless, this could possibly be better discussed under the appropriate section of the land bill under which it would fall. I must ask if we can get back more to the administrative responsibilities of the Premier.

MR. RITCHIE: Well, I find this very difficult to respond to, Mr. Chairman. After all, I picked this out of the opposition's statements, right in the Blues. It has to do with the Premier's estimates. It's all part of the total discussion that's been taking place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: While passing reference is in order, detailed argument or debate is not. Again I would caution the member on that aspect.

[ Page 1701 ]

MR. RITCHIE: Very well, Mr. Chairman, I will attempt to keep as close to the Premier's estimates as possible.

But while I'm on the question I'd like to ask: how about the park at Kamloops? How about the recommendation of the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace)? Does our Leader of the Opposition resent land being taken out of the land reserve in Aldergrove and at the same time agree that it may be taken out elsewhere as long as they sign a 99-year lease? That is not the preservation of our agricultural land that they're talking about. That's control of people through control of their land. How about the statement by the executive assistant to the then Minister of Agriculture, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who said people do not require to own their own land? That's not preservation of agricultural land; that's socialism at work through the control of land.

So I think it is high time the opposition stopped playing games with our agricultural land, and I'm really disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition brought up the question during his debate in the Premier's estimates. Stop playing politics with people's livelihood. Our government believes in the preservation of agricultural land strictly to preserve the ability to feed ourselves in the future. We also recognize the need for residential and industrial development in a way that has the least impact on agricultural land. The Leader of the Opposition should stop playing games unless he is prepared to talk about some of the decisions that his government made when they were in power.

Mr. Chairman, I expect that I'll have more to say on this as the debate progresses, but I just wanted to take this opportunity, when we're talking about credibility, to point out the lack of credibility on the opposition benches by responding to the remark by the Leader of the Opposition in his comments of yesterday.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, greetings. It's the first time I've had an opportunity to greet you officially.

That's outside the estimates; so far everything that's happened over on the other side of the House has been. This is probably the most blatant diversionary tactic I've ever seen. I hope somebody will brief that member for the Central Fraser Valley on how you deal with estimates, some time later this afternoon.

MR. BARRETT: Send him an affidavit.

MR. COCKE: Yes, and at the same time he may reread that affidavit when he's talking about credibility and bring some news to the House.

Mr. Chairman, what the member might be doing is anticipating the next election. He was dealing with the estimates of the Leader of the Opposition, I gather. We don't have room for that in our orders of the day at the moment, but after the next election I'm sure he'll be able to make speeches — if he's still a member — in the new Premier's estimates. He may or may not be here to do that, but in any event he should reserve that sort of talk for then. I'd just like to remind him of one thing, dealing with the estimates of this Premier — the one that we have now. When he starts talking about land and who was in favour of retaining agricultural land, if people in this province haven't got enough memory to recall the fight we had to put on and the viciousness of the Social Credit opposition.... I recall the Premier, then Leader of the Opposition, voting against that bill. So don't give us any of those pious statements about your concern over land and a retention of agricultural land. We remember. He wasn't in the House, but leather-lungs was, the minister of small whatevers, and he....

AN HON. MEMBER: The minister of little development.

MR. COCKE: At that time the minister of little development did a great deal of talking; as a matter of fact, he filibustered against it, warned the people of the province how they'd lose their watches and so on. But now we're talking of this estimate of that Premier, and the minister of small business, and the lack of credibility that is occurring. We view this as a very, very serious matter. The British parliamentary system was built on a structure demanding that ministers are candid and up front with all the information that they can possibly extend to the public of their particular jurisdiction.

Mr. Chairman, we have not seen in this committee any kind of direct answers to any questions put to date. The most serious question is the question of whether or not the Premier and his assistant at the time — his right hand, his lieutenant who went to Europe — came back and reported faithfully what occurred during that meeting. We have heard from the minutes of the meeting one thing, and we have heard from the first minister and from his lieutenant at that meeting something quite contradictory. Mr. Chairman, these ministers can clear up the whole situation, and then we can get on to a number of other questions around the first minister's estimates. But how can we as an opposition possibly ask questions when we can't even get an answer to the first question that we asked with respect to this particular trip?

The first minister has decided this afternoon not to stand up and discuss the matter. He has asked the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), he has asked the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), and no doubt there will be others standing in his place, diverting the question from the public of British Columbia. That's what we're talking about here, Mr. Chairman. There is a question here about the whole parliamentary system; this is a system to protect, a system to cherish, but a system that cannot be tolerated if, in fact, ministers don't respond to their obligations.

The opposition is here to criticize. That's our whole job; that's our obligation. There shouldn't be all that great concern over there about the stridency from time to time of our criticism, particularly if you have any kind of memory about the stridency of the old Socred opposition, as I do. Those ministers must respond to the question that's being asked, and the first minister has an obligation to this House this afternoon to get up and tell us the whole story. What occurred in Europe? Why is there one account from one person and one account from another person? That's all we're asking — let's get on with it! Let's get on with the debate!

Mr. Chairman, it's not that difficult, and it's certainly frustrating for an opposition standing here asking questions, having the first minister conferring with his colleagues, discussing irrelevancies, answering his mail, and not even to date, an hour and a half into this debate, having the courtesy to get up and answer a very simple question. What happened in Europe? What happened at that meeting? It's simple enough.

One of the reasons we want that question answered is because of the pious contempt for the opposition that's been going on in terms of this whole question of uranium. The

[ Page 1702 ]

minister has been running around the province hinting that maybe we're in favour of this development, when we have never been. Probably the most outspoken person in this province on that question is the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), and that's been going on for a long, long time. Suddenly, in a moment of political terror, the first minister comes charging in and says, "There will be a seven-year moratorium," as though he had always felt that way. Nonsense.

And then they dig up some remarks or some occurrences that occurred when we were government, around the Minister of Mines.... Mr. Chairman, we want this one question answered, and it's in his estimates that we want it answered. I'm not going to review the occurrences of yesterday; we all know them only too well now. We can all refer to the Blues; and I'm sure in due course a lot of the people in the province will be referring to Hansard. It's the only place they're going to find it, but I'm sure that they're going to find it there. And they're going to find one heck of a conflict. Mr. Chairman, can we settle it now at 3:45 in the afternoon of his second day of estimates? We'd be delighted, and then we can go on with this first minister's estimates.

MR. HYNDMAN: The preceding speaker has made a couple of sermonettes about the function of the parliamentary system; and I'm happy to take my place in these estimates of the Premier's office, Mr. Chairman, because the estimates are also a time for government members to raise topics falling within the Premier's bailiwick. In a few minutes I'm going to raise a number of topics with which he's been associated, and ask for his further and expanded comments on them, because I think those topics and the Premier's response are going to be of interest to the people of British Columbia. But along the way a couple of issues have been raised by opposition speakers which are relevant to this debate — having been made so by opposition speakers — and deserve some comment.

Much has been made about the topic of voting and the topic of participating in debate. Let's think back to June of 1977 in this assembly, a time when one of the most important concepts and pieces of legislation, and one of the most important pieces of philosophy ever considered by this assembly, was brought to it by this government, headed by the Premier. That was the question of financial aid to independent schools — a difficult concept, a concept of much debate over the decades in this province, a concept about which the traditional political advice across Canada has been: "Stay away from it. It's a no-win situation; it's a tough one." And I think it's to the credit of this Premier and his government that he had the courage, and the sense of responsibility as a provincial Premier, to feel that it was timely to bring forward for consideration by this assembly, a modern debate, a modern look at the question of financial aid to independent schools. This is a question upon which there had been growing debate throughout the province. It would have been irresponsible, although much easier, for our Premier to simply ignore that topic and not bring forward the legislation; but he did.

And so in June of 1977 there was brought forward for debate and vote in this assembly a bill providing for a limited form of financial support for independent schools. To your left, Mr. Chairman, is a group in opposition, headed then by the same Leader of the Opposition who now heads that group, and who has sermonized in this House on voting and participation in the parliamentary process of debate. What did that Leader of the Opposition have the entire opposition do when that important piece of legislation was called for second-reading debate and second-reading voting? He led a walkout. That's how much he thought of the importance of the process of debate and the importance of voting — on second reading on financial aid to independent schools he led his benches in a complete walkout, not just from the second-reading debate, but also from the second-reading vote.

HON. MR. BENNETT: They didn't walk; they ran.

MR. HYNDMAN: They probably ran. They ran and hid in their caucus rooms.

They had a couple of problems. What the Leader of the Opposition wanted was six months to think it over — put the finger in the wind and decide what to do. And we're told there were also problems in the NDP caucus — differing points of view. Well, three months passed fron second-reading debate and second-reading vote. By that time the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues had had a chance to put the finger in the wind and patch up their differences, and three months later, in September, when third reading came, they appeared and they voted.

So I'd like to just compare that walkout — that boycott of debate, that conscious fear of voting, that abstinence from voting — with some of these quotes from yesterday's Blues of the Leader of the Opposition, who makes so much of the importance of the vote and of participation in the political process. The Leader of the Opposition had this to say as he lectured the House yesterday — this from the man who led his benches in a walkout on second-reading debate and kept them away for second-reading vote: "...citizens who expect political leadership from people who are in political leadership positions, and who expect articulate debate on those decision-making processes and the various points of view that make" them "up...." People like this have no time for those who say, "'it's beyond me, there's no use in my even voting....'" The Leader of the Opposition told us yesterday: "I have never run away from the ballot box." Well, it seems to me he once did — in this assembly.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Now who are we to believe, Mr. Chairman? The Votes and Proceedings of this assembly, or the Leader of the Opposition, who said yesterday: "I have never run away from the ballot box"? Votes and Proceedings of this assembly tell us that he ran away from the ballot box on second reading on financial aid to independent schools, and he led a runaway from the debate on second reading. He said this to us yesterday in his lecture: "The first responsibility of any citizen in Canada is to participate in the political system." Isn't that terrific? That's great participation on second reading in this assembly on financial aid to independent schools.

Then we have raised in this debate the case of the Reuter letter. Mr. Chairman, I've heard of Reuters news dispatches, but until yesterday I hadn't heard of a Reuter letter. Let's just get a couple of things clear for the record about this letter. Some members of the opposition have called this letter minutes of a meeting. That letter does not constitute minutes of a meeting. It does not constitute an extract from minutes of the meeting. Indeed, it makes no reference to minutes at all. It's a letter, all right, and who's it from? Is it from Mr. Roy Jenkins, who was the other party to the conversation? No.

[ Page 1703 ]

It's from a staff member in Mr. Jenkins' office who, we are told, was taking some notes.

Who was the letter to? Well, the letter is not to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Chairman, as inferred by the Leader of the Opposition. It's to a Mr. John Mika. Mr. John Mika, I'm told, now is employed in the NDP caucus rooms, but also ran and was defeated as an NDP candidate. So this is not any kind of an official set of minutes, but a letter from a secretary in Mr. Jenkins' office to a defeated NDP candidate in these buildings.

What's in this letter? There's no reference to minutes. The letter is an answer to a telephone call. Now isn't that interesting. It's not an answer to a letter. Unfortunately the much-vaunted research team of the opposition of this assembly didn't want to transcribe their requests to print, presumably, so they might be tabled with the reply. So the setting, Mr. Chairman, is that Mr. Mika telephoned somebody in Mr. Jenkins' office, and we have not had disclosed to this assembly what was in that conversation.

Some questions are asked about something that happened two and a half years ago. It's very interesting that what is requested and is sent back is not an official set of minutes, is not a statement by Mr. Roy Jenkins, but is a very brief and carefully worded reply to a mysterious phone call. The document in question is the interpretation of a minor functionary in Mr. Jenkins' office in response to a telephone request about something that happened two and a half years ago. One might say that's really hearsay. Well, it's not — it's double hearsay. It's worse than that. No self-respecting lawyer in the opposition benches would tolerate that kind of sham evidence being introduced in any kind of a court of law.

Mr. Chairman, I'm just a little amazed that that group to your left who have prattled for two weeks on the Vogel matter about justice being done, and confidence in the justice system, and the appearance of justice, would flog that letter as some kind of evidence. If those members on your left want to produce a statement certified by Mr. Roy Jenkins that says the Premier was flogging the sale of uranium, then we'll have something to debate. But short of that, you should be ashamed of yourselves — absolutely ashamed. It's double hearsay, and if you can't produce from Mr. Roy Jenkins a direct statement backing up the phrases you've used, that the Premier was advocating flogging uranium, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Produce it or be ashamed. That's what I say. Don't, Mr. Chairman, let us suffer any more of this sermonizing from that group on your left — one week about justice being done and the appearance of justice and crossing the i's and dotting the t's, and the next week trotting in some carefully crafted response to a long-distance call and passing it off as official minutes in evidence. My heavens, Mr. Chairman, we're just a little more astute than that.

Question number one from Mr. Jenkins was: "Mr. Premier, tell me about your mission." The Premier answers: "We're here to promote the export sales of British Columbia's products." Question 406 two hours later was: "Tell me, Mr. Premier, what are all the products that might be produced in B.C.? And there's a list of 55. You call that advocating the flogging of uranium? You should be ashamed of yourselves. We'll watch how many members of the bar who occupy those benches get up sincerely and with vigour and advance that letter as a substantial piece of evidence.

May I direct myself to some of the matters with which the Premier has been quite properly involved in policy areas since his last estimates, and leave with him, on behalf of the people of Vancouver South, a number of comments and queries which, I think, deal with topics of interest to our citizens. I'm sure in the course of the Premier's remarks he'll give us the answers to these.

First, dealing with the Premier's trade mission to Japan in the fall, a mission which regrettably hasn't really had the review in writing that many of us would have hoped upon the Premier's return, there were a couple of questions upon which I think people in Vancouver South, who have some very real interest in our export trade, would value the Premier's comments. The first is the general question of the relationship between the slightly changing value of the Canadian dollar and the effect on British Columbia's exports. Mr. Chairman, a question which I often encounter talking with people in Vancouver South, who are quite interested in the comings and goings of the Canadian dollar, is along the lines of: at what stage, if the dollar starts to rise, is there going to be a quite serious negative impact on British Columbia's export trade? Or, alternately: because of the quality of our products or the demand for them, can British Columbia in a sense rest easy that the Canadian dollar can rise, perhaps approaching the American dollar, before we're going to see some real pinch in our export situation? So to the degree the Premier is able, I'd value his general comments on these questions: the relationship of the Canadian dollar; and, should it start to rise steadily in value, at what stage, if that happens, British Columbians are going to have to start to look very carefully at the impact on our export trade.

The second question I have for the Premier, Mr. Chairman, is in the general area of federal-provincial relations, an area in which, to his credit, the Premier has heavily involved himself. I have four thoughts here which, in my submission, are ideas which would go some distance towards making western Canadians feel somewhat more a part of the fabric of the Canadian economy. Rather than advocating them or necessarily calling for them, I'd like to toss them out, and in the fullness of time I'd be interested in the Premier's comments as to which of those might be advanced at forthcoming conferences.

Dealing first with representation for western Canada on the Bank of Canada, which the Premier has advocated, I want to say to the Premier that that's a particular concept that in my travels in Vancouver many people identify with. I think many British Columbians are very much with you on this concept of giving the west, particularly British Columbia, some representation on the Bank of Canada. But I'd like to take it a step further. You know, the Bank of Canada is called the bank of the bankers, functioning as a central bank in our monetary system. I wonder if some better feeling towards it might be developed if the federal government moved the central bank to central Canada, perhaps choosing Winnipeg, where I gather the mint has now been moved. But it seems to me people in the west might feel a little more comfortable and a little more satisfied that central bankers really understood some of the west's aspirations if the central bank was moved. Mr. Premier, I know the central bank now occupies a brand new office building in Ottawa — I understand it's a glittering affair — but I'd be interested in your observations as to what chance there might be for arguments from the western perspective that say: "Let's move the central bank into central Canada."

While we're on the topic of the central bank, Mr. Premier, I'd be interested in your comments on the following proposition. The governor of the central bank, the Bank of

[ Page 1704 ]

Canada, Mr. Bouey, is a gentleman whom many of us read about virtually daily. He's talking about interest rates and inflation, and he certainly speaks for the Bank of Canada. Still, because most of his speaking is done from Ottawa, I think many western Canadians feel he's some distance away. I wonder what the reaction of the governor might be — and perhaps, Mr. Premier, you're aware of this — if he was invited by this Legislature's Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs to appear before it. Let's remember, first of all, that our public accounts committee also has the title "economic affairs." I appreciate that that committee can do no business not first initiated by this assembly. But if we had some reading that the governor of the central bank might be prepared to come here for a day or two and appear before our Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs to have a dialogue with members on both sides, I think that would be very useful and helpful to British Columbians. If we could obtain a reading that Mr. Bouey might be receptive to such an invitation, I then would like to ask that we all consider, perhaps from this assembly, asking our Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs to issue such an invitation.

I have two other comments on federal matters, Mr. Premier, before I sit down, both dealing with the organization of federal policy-making bodies. The first is CMHC, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, very much a major instrument in influencing housing policy, rental accommodation policy and apartment construction policy in Canada. I think as we enter a phase of our Confederation during which western Canada is going to be growing at a stronger rate and in different ways than eastern Canada the argument can be made that the housing needs of the four western provinces may be much different than those of central and eastern Canada. That being so, I wonder about the wisdom of taking CMHC and dividing it into two wings, CMHC West and CMHC East, having the head office of CMHC West somewhere in western Canada and having them both report to the minister responsible. But it seems to me the argument can be made that the housing requirements of heavily built-up and developed central Canada and of the Maritimes are going to be much different than the forthcoming accommodation requirements of western Canada. I personally would like to pursue the possibility of having CMHC for western Canada, from the Lakehead west, organized in western Canada to deal with western Canada.

Finally, Mr. Premier, I wonder if you can once again beat the drum for western Canada on a promise made by Prime Minister Trudeau some years ago; I think it was 1974 or 1975. It was a promise which, I think it is fair to say, has not been substantially fulfilled. If it were now to be genuinely fulfilled, in an era when the Prime Minister has said he really wants to do the things that matter to the west, this would be the time to do it. I refer to the establishment of the real head office of the Canada Development Corporation in Vancouver. We know that in response to a campaign pledge the CDC did open a titled head office in Vancouver, and it can be said that the head office of the Canada Development Corporation is in Vancouver. But I think it's fair to say, Mr. Chairman, that the facts are that the real head office activity of the, CDC still takes place in eastern Canada. I would make the suggestion that if the Prime Minister is currently looking for things to do which genuinely show a new desire to make peace, spiritually, with western Canada, to show that there's a new desire to have a working accord, now is the time to make the CDC office in Vancouver the real, substantial head office. I would be most interested in whatever comments the Premier might give us as to what success advocates of that concept might have out here.

In closing, may I simply say to the Premier, who has been forced to listen to several days of substantially personal attack through his estimates, that in my travels in Vancouver South, an area I have the honour to represent which travels all the way to the Burnaby border and takes in all kinds of people, housing and ethnic groups, one of the things that you do, Mr. Premier, that our people take the greatest pride in is your work in federal-provincial affairs. Although for good reason we now have a separate Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations, I think many citizens of our province hope that in spite of that you will also continue your active interest in those matters.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, as I always do, I listened with a great deal of interest to the second member for Vancouver South speak on behalf of the Premier. But then that's appropriate, because the Premier isn't speaking on his own behalf, and I suppose the member for Vancouver South felt obliged to. But listening carefully to the hon. member's comments, I can now see quite clearly why the Premier didn't take him into the cabinet.

The second member for Vancouver South made reference to something he laughingly referred to or identified as the Reuter letter, saying that he'd heard of the Reuters news agency but not of this particular person. That probably indicates a sort of disdain on his part for anything that might be contained within that letter. He made fun of the person to whom it was addressed, Mr. John Mika. For some unknown reason the member for Vancouver South drew into the debate the fact that Mr. Mika had run as a candidate for the NDP and lost. Well, at least Mr. Mika stayed with the same party, unlike the member for Vancouver South, who ran twice for the Tories and then decided to abandon them, hoping that by running for the Socreds and by sucking up a little bit there he might get into this House and into the cabinet. But he has only got partway there, and he will never make the second step.

There's nothing mysterious about the telephone call. The telephone call to the Commission of the European Communities was occasioned because some information had appeared in the press. As was pointed out yesterday, there is a necessity and indeed an obligation on the part of the opposition, when it reads matters attributed to the Premier, to doublecheck them to see whether they are in accordance with the truth. That was the reason for the telephone call — nothing mysterious. It was an attempt to find out what really took place there.

I'm presuming that the member for Vancouver South was again speaking on behalf of the Premier when he intimated he or the government would like to get a letter signed by President Jenkins. If we had that kind of letter, that would really be something worthwhile. I suppose it's not impossible to get such a letter. I wonder if the second member for Vancouver South, who in speaking on behalf of the. Premier was so careful to cast ridicule upon this letter from Etienne Reuter, would be prepared to tender his seat in resignation if we get a letter from Roy Jenkins saying substantially what this does. In the time-honoured tradition of parliament, will he back up his comments and his aspersions against the authenticity of

[ Page 1705 ]

the writer of this letter? Or was he just intent on muddying the waters and casting aspersions about the situation?

In the few short weeks I've had occasion to sit in this Legislature, both now and during the last session, I've come to understand one thing: that the age-old concept — maybe it's old-fashioned, by some people's standards — that says a man is as good as his word and that a man should be taken at his word doesn't apply to this Premier. I've come to appreciate that.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair must remind the hon. member for Skeena, as the Chair has mentioned earlier today, that we have rules concerning imputation of falsehood uttered by members in the House. Perhaps if we could be reminded of doesn't apthat in our speeches the proceedings would carry on quite nicely.

MR. HOWARD: It's a foundation in the British parliamentary system too. I'm sure you know the references far better than I do, Mr. Chairman. In all the works written about this system that we inherited and which we seek to advance, the foundation is a question of honour, of trust and of faith — that what one says in the chamber is to be taken as the....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Skeena has the floor.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I don't mind the interruptions, catcalls and whimperings from members on the other side of the House. I would ask, though, please, that you keep your eye on that wild man from Kamloops, because I've seen him in action, and I don't want to be subjected to any more of that volcanic emotion that he has, no matter how lightly he tried to treat a certain matter on an earlier occasion of debate in this House. So apart from your protecting me from the wild man from Kamloops, Mr. Chairman, I don't mind the interruptions at all.

There is conversation in this debate about the leadership of this government. Members on the other side have lauded the activities of the Premier in his capacity as leader of this government and his dealings in that capacity with the government in Ottawa; how they marvel at how successful he was, and how they so much look forward to the future and having the Premier go again and again to Ottawa to represent British Columbia and do our negotiating for us. I've had one example of that Premier negotiating on behalf of British Columbians, and it tells me that I don't want any more of that kind of activity. What the Premier did was prove that he was totally incompetent to protect the interests of British Columbians, especially coastal British Columbians. When he went to a meeting with Otto Lang, minister in charge of nearly everything in the federal government at that time....

HON. MR. BENNETT: When was the meeting?

MR. HOWARD: When was the meeting? Well, the Premier has an awfully poor memory. Perhaps the Premier, instead of asking me to refresh his memory about a particular meeting, should get up and tell us the truth about that meeting he had in the European Economic Community. I'll gladly yield the floor to the Premier if he wants to stand up and participate in the debate and say to this House truly what the case is with respect to this letter from Etienne Reuter. Is that letter true, or is it false? That's all. It's a simple question. Is it true or is it false?

He wants to continue to write his letters, etc. It's entirely up to him. But in a particular conversation with Otto Lang the Premier said that he, the Premier of this province, representing the interests of British Columbians, was quite prepared to sign away the federal government's right and obligation under the constitution to provide coastal shipping to this community. He sold us down the creek — or sold us along the tide. He gave away what has been traditionally, since British Columbia entered Confederation in 1871, the responsibility of the federal government under the constitution, to provide coastal shipping facilities on this coast, as they do on the east coast.

MR. BARRETT: It was his father's position.

MR. HOWARD: Certainly it was his father's position.

MR. BARRETT: It's my position.

MR. HOWARD: And the position of the first member from Vancouver....

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: If the Premier wants to interrupt across the floor, perhaps he'd interrupt and tell me about this Reuter letter here that we're waiting for an answer about.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Never mind heckling, Mr. Premier. How about answering the question about this letter. How about dealing with your responsibilities as the Premier, instead of heckling?

The member from Vancouver East, when he was the Premier of this province, had a consistent view about what coastal transportation should be. He laid it heavily on the federal government about what their obligations were, and insisted on the continuation of them. The man who was Premier in this province longer than any other person — a person who has gone from this world, but who was admired tremendously in this province by many people — never once abandoned his responsibility to the people of B.C. But not so the present Premier.

He put his name, as the Premier of this province, in signature. "W.R. Bennett," it reads here in written form, and I'm assuming it was the Premier who signed this document, and not somebody long gone from the research department of the Socred caucus. This particular document, signed on the other side by the federal government by a signature that I'm sorry I cannot decipher — one of them is Otto Lang — signed away the traditional responsibilities of the federal government to provide coastal shipping. It says right in the preamble to that document that "the province" — this is our Premier, Mr. Chairman, negotiating for us, protecting our interests with those terrible Ottawa people — "agrees to assume sole responsibility for deciding which services should receive financial assistance and to provide all such

[ Page 1706 ]

future assistance...." As a result of that the federal government pays them $8 million per year with an indexing escalating clause in it that I think resulted in last year's payment being $8.6 million.

The Premier looks up in dismay at that. Is he questioning the $8.6 million? What is the correct figure, then? In the first year it was $8 million; in the second year it was $8.6 million. So research people tell me. Write it down, Bill.

While you're at it, Mr. Premier, write down your answer to this letter from Etienne Reuter. Write down your response to that, and level with the people of this province. Stand up as a Premier should — as a man should — and say that the contents of that letter are not accurate or that they are accurate, whichever the case may be. That's the simple question that needs to be answered in this House. It's one of the credibility of the Premier, who has said one thing with respect to what happened at that meeting with the European Economic Community, but is quoted in the press as saying something else.

He's quoted in the press as saying, almost gloatingly, "they want it, we got it" — "they want it" meaning the European Economic Community, "we got it" meaning uranium. Of course, he did say, which was truthful, that the federal government prior to that time had placed a moratorium or an embargo upon the export of uranium to countries which didn't satisfy the safeguards for nuclear proliferation and the misuse of uranium from peaceful purposes for military purposes. But he did say, "we got it and they want it" — rubbing his hands, almost, in the process. He has an obligation to the House, especially since the commission of the European Economic Community, in a letter of December 6, 1979, from the office of the president, says just the opposite. It has been tabled in the House and reference was made to it yesterday, but we have had no comment at all from the Premier as to whether or not that particular letter factually and truly represents what took place there.

I think, in the time-honoured tradition of parliamentary activity, that where such conflicts do exist where one member says something and there is some material presented which says something else, the member whose remarks are in question is duty bound to follow that along — especially the Premier — and identify clearly what the factual situation is. As long as we have an absence of intent on the part of the Premier to proceed in that time-honoured tradition and pay respect to the British parliamentary system that we have inherited, seek to advance and like to work in — as long as the Premier remains aloof from that — then just so long will there remain the suspicion in the public's mind that maybe the Premier wasn't fully telling it the way it was.

He isn't the only one, of course. The small minister of development is in a similar situation, having said one thing in this House and being quoted in the press as saying something entirely different. That needs to be clarified. It should have been clarified yesterday when the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) brought that newspaper clipping and that quotation to the attention of the minister of small development. He had an obligation then, when the newspaper reference was drawn to his attention, to stand in the House as an honourable minister — instead of sitting there shamefacedly like somebody caught with his finger in the cookie jar — and say: "That attribution to me is not correct."

That is the standard, traditional position people take when misquoted; they identify before their peers and the general public in this chamber that whatever was said in the press does not in fact represent what was said. As long as there is silence from the benches about the two phases of this particular matter — one affecting the Premier and one affecting the minister of small business — there are going to be continual doubts in the minds of the general public as to whether or not the Premier can be trusted as a man of his word.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, and all other members present, the Chair has twice cautioned this House now about our rules, which do not allow for imputations of falsehood and do require that courteous treatment in debate is due alike both sides of the House and both Houses of Parliament. Perhaps if we could remember those comments we can continue.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I wish Mr. Reuter were living in B.C. Then I think we could clear this matter up because we could go out in the hallway and call Mr. Reuter a liar, he could sue us and then we'd possibly get the Premier in court and see what really transpired in that meeting in 1977 in Europe.

But we're talking about the leadership of this government, this province and Social Credit. I suppose what we have to do when it's necessary is review that leadership. I think we can even start prior to the Premier being Premier, when he was Leader of the Opposition and the Social Credit was on this side of the House. At that time, as Leader of the Opposition, he had working in his office one Arthur Weeks. It came to light at that time that, prior to giving some cheques to Marjorie Nichols of the Vancouver Sun, Arthur Weeks had forged on the back of those cheques.

Let's consider this for a moment. Arthur Weeks worked in the Premier's office when the Premier was Leader of the Opposition. Arthur Weeks forged some things on the back of some cheques before handing them to a reporter, pretending those things hadn't been written by himself, Arthur Weeks, but by others. He worked for the Premier. Then, after winning the election, Arthur Weeks worked in the Premier's office before working in the office of the minister of small development. The Premier denied Arthur Weeks worked in his office before working in the minister's office. That's not true. Arthur Weeks worked in the Premier's office before going to work for the minister of small development, but the Premier denied it. We all know that it's true but the Premier denied it. We also know that prior to being Premier the Premier had a telegram that was stolen, which he waved around and talked about. Now he doesn't believe in confidential memorandums or letters being used; he finds it shameful, even though he did it himself.

MR. LAUK: He used to find it glamorous.

MR. LEA: That's right. He found it glamorous at that time.

We find, as we go through the political history of this Premier's career, that over and over again he has made statements that we have since found were not true. He said Arthur Weeks didn't work in his office after he became Premier. That's not true; he did. He said he didn't know where that telegram came from, which he used in 1975. We still don't know the truth of that, but we do know that it was stolen and it ended up in the Premier's hands when he was Leader of the Opposition. We also know that when the

[ Page 1707 ]

Premier was questioned about the practice of sending letters to newspapers and signing phony names, he said he didn't know anything about it. We now know that the Premier wrote letters to Social Credit members urging them to do just that. Where does it begin and where does it end — this desperate grab to get power, and this desperate bid to keep it? Will they say anything? Will they do anything? It appears so.

Now we have one of the latest scenarios, and it surrounds a visit in 1977 of a trade mission to Europe. On that trade mission were the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and the Premier. Let's just go back to the press release of Friday, September 16, 1977. It says: "Premier Sees Potential for Deals with EEC."

"Brussels.

"Premier Bill Bennett said Thursday he is encouraged that B.C. can flesh out the bare-bone framework agreement signed between Canada and the European Economic Community a year ago. Leading the first provincial government delegation to the EEC since the Trudeau government forged a contractual link, the Premier said he was not trying to drum up business for today. He said he had come to create a climate in which deals would be signed, and that his talks with EEC president Roy Jenkins and other top European officials had gone better than he expected. Full of compliments for the federal officials who assisted the provincial mission, Bennett said such a meeting with the EEC might not have been possible before last year's formal agreement between Canada and the Community."

We have the Premier admitting that he did go to Europe. We know that. Also, we have a letter from people in Europe which says that they saw him there. So we know, probably — I can only say "probably" — that he went to Europe. If it weren't for the letter from Europe, I don't think I'd believe that he even went. But we know he went, and we know, also from this press release, that they went to sell British Columbia goods. We also know that yesterday in this chamber the Premier denied that they tried to sell uranium in Europe. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development got right up behind the Premier and denied it too. We now know that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development went to two meetings, trying to flog uranium, not just one. We know the Premier went to one to try to flog uranium; but we know the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development went to two meetings, trying to sell uranium. And he denied going to any meeting to try to sell uranium.

Mr. Chairman, the question is: was the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development telling the truth yesterday? The question yesterday and today is: was the Premier telling the truth when he said that they didn't try to sell uranium? Or is Mr. Reuter lying in this letter? Those are the questions for this Legislature. And isn't it strange that yesterday you couldn't keep them down. They were jumping up and down — the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and the Premier — telling us everything, until finally they got caught in their own web. They haven't been up since. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development is reading reports. That's all he's been doing today.

MR. LAUK: Last year's reports.

MR. LEA: Maybe 1977 reports. Maybe he's trying to find for himself if went to Europe to flog uranium. I think we can take it for granted.

All the facts are in. We have the letter from the office of the president of the European communities' commission, from the secretary of that commission, telling us that, yes, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, the Premier and the Provincial Secretary, when he was the Minister of Finance, went to Europe and tried to sell uranium. Yesterday, before they knew of the existence of this letter, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and the Premier denied going to Europe to try to sell uranium. How can they deny it in the face of this letter, Mr. Chairman? During the conversation between President Jenkins and Mr. Bennett, which was mainly devoted to Canada's constitutional problems and the political situation in Quebec, the Prime Minister — maybe he called himself that over there; but, indeed, Mr. Reuter calls him that; that's Mr. Bennett — underlined the concern of his government to find markets for the province's products, and listed among others, uranium.

Where are these defenders of the leadership of government now? Since the existence of this letter has been made public in this House, we've had the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) get up and talk about all of the constitutional pitfalls that we might be falling into in the coming years. We've had the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) get up and talk about everything else, but not about this letter and not about whether the Premier and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development tried to sell uranium when they were in Europe in 1977. They'll talk about anything, but they won't talk about this. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development knows very well that when he was in Europe with that delegation they tried to sell uranium. The Premier knows that they tried to sell uranium. Mr. Reuter confirms that they tried to sell uranium, and yet the Premier and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development deny, in this House, trying to sell uranium.

What cin you conclude, Mr. Chairman? You have to conclude that we have to take an honourable member's word, which means that Mr. Reuter is a liar. If we take the word of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and the word of the Premier, then the secretary to the president of the Commission of the European Economic Communities is a liar. That's the only conclusion we can come to.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

If Mr. Reuter is not a liar, what conclusion can we come to? If Mr. Reuter is telling the truth in this letter, and that delegation of the provincial government in 1977 did try to sell them uranium, then what conclusion can we come to as members of this Legislature? Regardless of political party, regardless of whether you represent Dewdney for the Social Credit and regardless of whether you represent North Peace River for the Social Credit, what conclusion can you come to? This is an important question. I want some time for everybody to think it over before they stand up and speak again.

Mr. Chairman, I move that this committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

[ Page 1708 ]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 29

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

MR. LEA: I wonder what the new members and ministers — the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), the new member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), the new member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty), the new member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Ree), the new member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) and the new member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) thought before they came to this chamber as elected members for the Social Credit Party. They probably had a far different view of the Premier and of present cabinet from the view they have today. I'm sure that when they spoke with the Premier prior to the last election they believed him. I'm sure they thought he was the kind of person they wanted to lead them into the 1980s. It would be interesting, Mr. Chairman, if those new members would take their place in this House and tell us what they think happened surrounding this uranium question and whether the B.C. delegation in 1977 tried to sell uranium to the European economic communities. It'd be interesting, Mr. Chairman, to hear what the member for Kootenay has to say.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Do you want to? It would be interesting, Mr. Chairman, to find out just exactly how they would explain how this letter from Mr. Reuter saying that the Premier and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development were in Europe trying to sell uranium. Mr. Member for Kootenay, you heard the Premier say he didn't. You did hear that. He shakes his head; yes, he did hear that. He heard the Premier say that he didn't try to sell uranium when he was in Europe. Did you also hear it when we said, Mr. Member for Kootenay, that this letter from Mr. Reuter says he did? You didn't hear that?

MR. LAUK: We'll repeat it.

MR. LEA: Well, maybe I should repeat it for the member for Kootenay. Mr. Reuter said: "During the conversation between President Jenkins and Mr. Bennett, which was mainly devoted to Canada's constitutional problems and the political situation in Quebec, the Prime Minister" — that's Mr. Bennett — "underlined the concern of his government to find markets for the province's products and listed, among others, uranium." You've heard it now, Mr. Member for Kootenay. How would you, Mr. Member, explain that Mr. Reuter says that when the Premier was Europe he was trying to sell uranium and the Premier says he wasn't and didn't do it? Mr. Chairman, it would be interesting to hear the new Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), who's an expert in these sorts of things.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Health gave his speech.

MR. LEA: The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) gave the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations' speech, because, even though the Minister of Health has a heavy portfolio, he knows that he has to help out the minister "he wasnwith this very heavy portfolio.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You guys are really making points.

MR. LEA: Well, I'll tell you the point we are making, Mr. Minister. We are making the point that the Commission of the European Communities said that Premier Bennett was in Europe trying to sell our uranium and the Premier denies it. Somebody is lying. Is it Mr. Reuter?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, on several different occasions this afternoon you have been cautioned about the impugning of characters of hon. members. I would caution you once more to use language in the best parliamentary tradition and to please refrain from contravening those long-standing principles of this House.

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order, I appreciate the reference to the best parliamentary traditions, Mr. Chairman, but we are dealing here not with a light matter but a very serious matter. And in those best parliamentary traditions, when there is a clear discrepancy of statements, are not the ministers of the Crown obligated to the legislative body to give an explanation as to what happened at that meeting? I'm asking whether that's not the case.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not a point of order. I'm sure you know full well that questions may be asked of ministers, but we may not insist on replies.

MR. LEA: We're not arguing that the Premier did not reply; he did reply. But what he said is in contradiction to what Mr. Reuter said in his letter to John Mika, dated December 6, 1979. It isn't that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development didn't reply; he did reply. He also was in contradiction of the Reuter letter. I have not called those two ministers liars; I've said that if they're telling the truth, obviously Mr. Reuter is a liar. That's quite different, and I invite both those ministers to take their place in this House and confirm or deny that Mr. Reuter is a liar.

[ Page 1709 ]

MR. HOWARD: You don't hesitate any other time.

MR. LEA: No hesitation at all at other times. But today it seems strange, Mr. Chairman, that neither the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development nor the Premier is willing to call Mr. Reuter a liar. And you know why? I believe that Mr. Reuter is telling the truth, and probably everybody in this chamber believes that Mr. Reuter is telling the truth, and it is in contradiction to what the Premier and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development have said in this House. Now do we get an apology from those two ministers? And I don't mean the NDP; I mean every member in this House, other than those two. Do we get an apology from them?

Where are all the pious statements from the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) ? Where are they now? They're sitting there now, talking with one another, pretending it didn't happen. It did happen. Mr. Reuter's letter has been filed in this House. It is in contradiction to what we were told, prior to that letter, by the the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and the Premier.

Every member in this House, regardless of political party, deserves an apology, or a declaration by those two ministers that Mr. Reuter is lying in his letter to Mr. Mika. That question is not going to go away, because until it's answered we don't know whether two ministers of the Crown are levelling with us. We don't know for sure whether Mr. Reuter is telling the truth. I believe he's telling the truth.

Is there anybody else in here who believes Mr. Reuter is telling the truth? Raise your hands, everybody who thinks Mr. Reuter is telling the truth. Even the press gallery can join in. The gallery's got their hands up. Everybody is taking part in this. Everybody believes that Mr. Reuter is telling the truth. Does the Premier believe Mr. Reuter is telling the truth? We deserve to know.

MR. BRUMMET: I believe the member for Prince Rupert raised a question as to what the new members thought about some of the goings-on here. I can tell you quite frankly, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert, this new member is not impressed, not with the tactics I've seen here this afternoon to prolong a debate, or the number of ways that member tried to call somebody in this House a liar and skirted around it in various ways without ever coming out and saying so. In my whole school career I don't think I've ever seen a performance like that one. As a matter of fact, a student at the elementary level would have gotten a D-minus or an E for trying to develop a case on something as those members have done this afternoon.

I'm quite happy and very pleased to support the Premier of this province because of the leadership he has shown. If I may refer to the estimates, I'm also glad the Premier is travelling and selling the products of this province; that he's trying to sell British Columbia and trying to build up the confidence those members over there destroyed in two or three short years. The Premier is building confidence in British Columbia, and he is selling British Columbia's products. All you have to do is look at any economic indicator, and you'll see that the province is doing very well.

I'm going to quote a few phrases from the A.E. Ames and Co. research: "The strength of the B.C. government's financial position enabled Mr. Curtis to bring down a budget containing no tax increases." I think that was brought about because of the leadership of the Premier of this province. To continue: "One development of note is that the B.C. governnient has made an ongoing commitment to fund the interest costs and debt retirement of the historic debt of the B.C. Railway Company." Of course, because of the policies in effect in this province it has been economically possible to do that. That affects my area particularly, so I am pleased with that. I'm also pleased with the conclusion: "British Columbia is in the enviable position of being able realistically to face a likely softening of its economy without resorting to deficit spending." I don't know how many jurisdictions there are in the western world where you can say that. That again is because of the leadership we have had in this province.

We've been accused of a number of things. Probably the greatest condemnation we've had from members on that side has been because of our successes. Our greatest sins are in not being able to keep up with providing services, amenities and facilities that have been brought about because of great economic development.

In 1976 the Premier of this province quite clearly enunciated the plan for taking stern measures to straighten out the mess that had been created in a few years, and to encourage private enterprise to develop industries — that has certainly worked — and to use the revenue generated to improve services to people. Those services are now in place and are benefiting the people of British Columbia.

We have been accused of not returning the tax money to the people of British Columbia. That is ridiculous. The people of British Columbia have received more benefits and more services back from the development that is being encouraged in this province than they ever have at any time before in history.

MR. LAUK: You don't believe that, do you?

MR. BRUMMET: Yes, I do believe that. I believe that our prosperity is not luck: it's a responsible plan which has come true.

Ironically, now those members try to capitalize on this prosperity built by this Social Credit government. I think the people in British Columbia must know that at one time those members in the opposition did get into the position of running this province. How long did it take them, starting out with a good supply of money and their policies...? Oh, yes, they have some wonderful philosophies. I don't argue that; they've got some nice philosophies. But when they had the opportunity to put it into any policy, within two or three years they ran the province financially into the ground. Now it's been built up again, and they want to capitalize on that. I don't think we need to apologize for the surpluses, because those surpluses have been created by private industry and by economic development. Those surpluses are being put back into the economy of British Columbia to encourage greater revenue generation and to provide more services to people. I don't think we need to apologize for that.

MR. LEA: What about uranium?

MR. BRUMMET: That's rather interesting. Perhaps I could conclude with the point that the opposition has been trying to build a case on. It's Mr. Reuter's credibility. When Mr. Reuter, as I understand.... I've heard it at least 17

[ Page 1710 ]

times. I've been told the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) could develop several hours of speeches from nothing, and he's certainly given great evidence of that this afternoon. I don't know how many times he read that letter. He had nothing else to say.

Over and over again he has brought to the attention of this House that Mr. Reuter has said that the Premier of this province was selling the products of British Columbia. Why would he, out of that long list of products, pick that one term "uranium" and that one only? That has to make it suspect in my mind, when he makes no other predictions.

The people of this province, I think, are also well aware that it was the Premier of this province who had the courage to put a moratorium on uranium mining despite.... I know, everybody else takes credit for it. It's easy enough to say: "We protested, and therefore somebody did it." But when you go to the mining companies that you're encouraging and expect them to go along with you and have the courage to say, "We don't need it, and so we will put a moratorium on it," I think that took courage and great leadership.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, yesterday we listened to a series of questions. We heard the Premier make a very adamant denial of having discussed the prospect of uranium exports from British Columbia when he was discussing this with the European Economic Community. We also heard the minister of little development make his usual off-the-cuff, knee-jerk response without any speaker's notes or anything. He was getting up in defence, and I think maybe he rose.... Let's face it. He enjoys a reputation in this House for having a very clear voice, one which projects and carries. He is one who is never lost for words. He is not noted, I suppose, for real in-depth research before he gets up, but for having that ability to get up in the House and make statements. In both of these cases we're left with something that is rather perplexing in terms of the contradiction between the statements of the Premier and the minister. We have a press release in one case and with a signed letter from a person of some reputation. I think it's a matter which could be cleared up very easily. I suppose one of the extreme remedies would be to bring in a substantive motion and try to create some sort of hysteria about the Premier and the minister. Obviously one remedy is to bring in a substantive motion calling for a Committee of Privileges to look into whether or not members deliberately misled the House.

The more rational approach is simply to give an opportunity for some explanation, and I think that approach has been taken by the official opposition today — to extend the benefit of the doubt, and rather than come out with accusations, give the opportunity for people to explain their remarks. Perhaps some admission that what was said might have misled but was not intended deliberately, or some sort of admission, could very easily not only clear up this matter but could also do a great deal to reinforce the system under which we operate. We operate under a system where we speak in this House under parliamentary privilege, which was originally granted in order that things said in houses of parliament would not be carried to the King and bring some retribution upon the members of the day. It later became a privilege where things said in this House could not be brought into a court of law, as the subject of bringing about damages for things said which could be thought to impugn people in the public.

With the privilege that we enjoy in this House, Mr. Chairman, we have responsibilities. I don't know why the Premier hesitates to get up in this House. If it is due to the fact that he does not trust the press or the media — he has often attacked them in the past — there is also a simple remedy which protects us as members. It's a rather old remedy. It's not very often invoked, but it was invoked at a time when something said in the House could end up in the King's having a member beheaded. That was the origin of the recourse which members have: simply to spy strangers in the gallery, upon which the Speaker or Chairman clears the House.

Now if that is the Premier's wish, he could resort to that remedy. Rather than to get up in public and explain this inconsistency, if he would prefer to do this in private, we could perhaps go a long way toward getting on with business. There are many other things which I would like to bring up under the Premier's estimates — matters pertaining to the size and the growth in his office, matters pertaining to staff and the conduct of staff in the Premier's office. But I think the Premier owes it to this House to bring some explanation. If he wants to do it in confidence, and if that's required in order to clear the air in this thing, he can resort to that remedy and other rules of this House in order that we can get by this very important question, which does impair the credibility of the first minister's office. I would urge that the Premier rise in his place to give some explanation, and then we can get on with the business of this House and the many other important questions which are to be raised under his estimates —

MR. STRACHAN: We've heard wide-ranging debate with much latitude during the Premier's estimates, and we've all taken our places on this side of the House to discuss the excellent leadership that the Premier of the province has brought since we've been sitting, since 1975. Of course, one thing we have to remember as we discuss the Premier's estimates is the fact that latitude does range throughout many portfolios and many ministers and their actions. I guess that's why we see the latitude that has developed in this House in the last couple of days.

Of course we are all aware that our Premier has led this province in the last four years, during a tremendous period of economic growth. We've said that many times, so I won't belabour it, Mr. Chairman. But perhaps we could talk about some of the unexcelled social growth, social freedoms and social rights that were introduced in this province under the leadership of our Premier.

Please consider the freedoms that are now present in our province.

AN HON. MEMBER: The freedom to tell the truth?

MR. STRACHAN: Yes, we'll get to freedom to tell the truth. Speaking of telling the truth, my colleague from Vancouver South mentioned earlier some of the legislative tactics that happened in this House during the debate on independent schools. Now, members opposite, you may have had your convictions about how you wanted to proceed in this House during the debate on independent schools and, rightly or wrongly, with respect to the convictions you held and your performance in this House, you still stuck to your convictions. Yet recognizing, of course, that that conviction you had is in fact the right of denying other people the convictions that they have — religious convictions, the conviction that

[ Page 1711 ]

they should have freedom of instruction for their children.... Did you think of that? Did you think of their convictions? Our Premier did.

MR. LAUK: Do you realize what you're saying? Be very careful about what you're saying.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Member, I am careful about what I'm saying, We supported independent schools and I'm proud to say that I am now part of the government which supported that. We did it recognizing the freedom of all peoples in our community, the freedom to have some right to instruct their children in the rights they believe in.

Interjections.

MR. STRACHAN: Well, members opposite, if you're so upset with the conviction that someone should be allowed to have instruction for their children, perhaps you might take that back to the Roman Catholic, Mennonite or Jewish members of your constituencies. Please think of those members when you talk about conviction.

We have many freedoms which are available to us now that weren't available to us prior to our government being elected in 1975. As we discussed the administrative actions of the Premier and our convictions, think of how convicted you were with the administrative actions of our Premier when he introduced more freedoms to our great province of British Columbia — the freedom to see an ombudsman and the legislation that went along with that. Were you opposed to that, members opposite? No, I don't think you were. Were you opposed to the legislation that brought in an auditor-general? That's another freedom — the freedom of right. Were you opposed to the administrative actions of our Premier that introduced the Crown corporation? You've used that with some success. But that is a freedom of the right of the people to know what's going on in our Crown corporations and our government, and our leader did that.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, that kind of misinformation and misstatement is precisely the kind of thing that's going to happen in this House and in this province as long as we have a Premier leading a government in this province who will not clear up inconsistencies in statements made by him. We are beginning already to see the fallout from that Premier's behaviour. He's setting a bad example, not just for his cabinet but for the sweet innocents in his back bench. That's what he's doing — he's setting a bad example. I'm in order, because I'm discussing the Premier's behaviour as the leader of this province. Now he has to clear up this inconsistency. He has to stand up and say to us: "Mr. Etienne Reuter lied. " He has to do that. He has to defend his own honour. He has to start setting some kind of example for the people who look up to him.

Mr. Chairman, you know, there are some things that you can't do half way. You can't be half pregnant and half not pregnant, you can't tell half truth and half untruth, you can't have an inconsistency or a half inconsistency; the opposition is caught on the horns of a dilemma. The Premier made one statement and Mr. Etienne Reuter made another. There's an inconsistency at work here, and all we're asking the Premier to do is to clear it up — to stand in his place and say: "I made a mistake. I totally forgot that I had said uranium is up for grabs. It slipped me. I have a lot of things on my mind and I forget some things." We understand that. He's human, we suspect. But we cannot let this go, Mr. Chairman.

The member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) stood up and said he is a school teacher. We agree that he is a school teacher. What would he expect from his students if he confronted one of them with an inconsistency like this? Would he accept that from his students?

MR. BARRETT: He would bring out the strap.

MS. BROWN: Of course. Precisely. He would not tolerate this. If we are not going to have the school teachers of this province tolerating this kind of inconsistency from their students, we have to start by setting an example on the floor of this House.

The Premier was given a mandate by the people of this province to lead. The kind of leadership that he establishes leaves a mark on this province. Now is this a province in which people can accept the word of their politicians, their elected representatives, or isn't it? Everybody's credibility is riding on this issue. All of us have a number of issues we want to raise with the Premier. I am curious to know why the cost of the furniture in his office went from $1,500 to $15,000; but I'm not going to raise that issue until I get this simple matter cleared up, because until that is cleared up everything that he says will he in doubt. He's got to clear up this inconsistency before we can get on with questioning him, because until then none of his answers mean anything.

So, Mr. Chairman, the opposition has no alternative but to continue to insist that the Premier do one of two things: please, stand up and tell us that Mr. Etienne Reuter lied, misled Mr. Mika in this document; or stand up and say: "It slipped my memory. Now I remember. I did say that uranium in this province was up for grabs. "That's all he has to do. Or if he doesn't want to do that, he can stand in his seat and say, "I did not say what Mr. Reuter said; Mr. Reuter is not telling the truth," and do what all of his colleagues do — go out and say: "I'm going to sue Mr. Reuter." He has that option too.

The member from Prince George told us about the great freedoms that he had just introduced into this province. The freedom to have Hansard. That was him, wasn't it?

MR. BARRETT: No, that was us.

MS. BROWN: Oh! The freedom to protect farmland. That was him, wasn't it?

MR. BARRETT: No, that was us.

MS. BROWN: Oh! Question period. That was him, wasn't it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MS. BROWN: What happened to Prince George? Who told Prince George about all these freedoms?

Mr. Chairman — through you to the Premier — this inconsistency has got to be cleared up now.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I suppose there is no place in British Columbia that appreciates good leadership like we in the Kootenays have had since 1975.

MR. LAUK: Did you bring him an apple too, Terry?

[ Page 1712 ]

MR. SEGARTY: No, I brought that for you, hoping you would shut up.

I say that because the people of the Kootenay constituency elected, for the first time in its history, a member of the Social Credit government team in 1975. They have really been appreciative of some of the programs that have been developed in the Kootenay constituency by this government under the leadership of our Premier. We have new hospital construction going on and diagnostic treatment centres and hospital expansions. We have road-building going on. The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has responded greatly to the Kootenays. The people of the Kootenays really do appreciate the work this government has done since 1975.

Interjection.

MR. SEGARTY: Leo Nimsick was there prior to 1975, He was part of the government team of that day. I'd like to say a few words about the government of that day. We've been listening to a lot of sanctimonious claptrap from the opposition benches about interfering in the system of justice in the province of British Columbia, and what our Premier has allegedly done, without producing one bit of evidence, You know, that Leader of the Opposition was the only Premier in Canada who had a record of misleading the Legislature in the province of British Columbia. A judgment handed down by Mr. E.E. Hinkson on February 1, 1975, did agree that the Leader of the Opposition had lied to this Legislature and had interfered in the system of justice with the Egg Marketing Board in northern British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've been doing your research.

MR. SEGARTY: Yes, we've been doing our research and we've been finding out an awful lot about your sanctimonious claptrap, and I've had enough of it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I wish to respond to some of the more sensible areas that have been discussed today because I know that the Leader of the Opposition, since his defeat, and since his unfortunate days in this House and the Chicken and Egg War, has wished to revisit, or reinvent some case to revisit, that type of debate in the Legislature. I have no intention of responding to irresponsible or twisted statements.

But I do wish to respond to some of the areas that are of concern to the people of this province who expect us to get on with the business of the province and the country. Some of those questions were brought up by the member for Kamloops, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), and, of course, the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman), who talked about our constitutional efforts and our willingness to strongly represent the people of this province at first ministers' conferences, with other premiers of many political hues, in trying to do something positive about the country. Now it is interesting, as the Minister of Health has suggested, that this government produced a series of very detailed papers after a lot of consultation with the academic community and the public at large to develop ways in which British Columbia felt Canada could receive and offer the type of representation and input that the people of the west have been concerned about. We felt that the proposals developed in concert with these people would be useful for other regions of Canada as well. But since we made that presentation to the government of Canada we have never had an endorsation of any of those positions from the members of the NDP in British Columbia — this opposition. We have never had them endorse it; we have never had them say one word about it. They haven't offered any alternatives which would help to strengthen this country, no proposals at all. They talk about the type of leadership that's needed.

MR. LEA: At least I enjoy being in the party that I'm in.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, we've heard of the kind of parties the member for Prince Rupert enjoys.

MR. LEA: Are you jealous?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Not at all.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to continue, because those proposals have been there. I'm sure they're not perfect. Not all of our ideas have been accepted by our counterparts, although some they have found interesting, some they have endorsed. The basis of those papers can be found in some of the very sound proposals put out by others. They were put out for discussion, for consultation. They were put out as a means to help find the ideal solution for this country, to give it representation that the people feel could be improved in the west or in the Atlantic provinces, to provide the input at the centre that we feel is necessary in establishing and developing national policy.

But we haven't heard a word from the opposition; we haven't heard any constructive criticism, and it's been over two years since those proposals were put forward. Copies are available for all members of this Legislature; in fact many people, not only in British Columbia but in other parts of Canada, have written and continue to write for copies of those proposals. They've been debated and discussed in whole and in part in every part of Canada — by most people except by that opposition, who do not seem to care about the future of this country and the part this province has to play.

I think the members asked quite seriously today, because a large part of our proposal, while looking for greater input, is the preservation of the ownership of resources by the provinces.... We know that the leader of the New Democratic Party in this province, as Premier, offered to give the oil and gas rights to the government of Canada. We know that. He did it at a national conference. We have opposed that. When they advocated proposals of that magnitude at a national conference, we opposed it. We told the people of the province we opposed it, that we would protect their historic rights, their constitutional rights to ownership of resources. At the same time, we haven't denied that we have an obligation, as part of the country, to bring a measure of equity to the people of Canada — not just great wealth for the people of British Columbia, but equity. We support, then, that there can be programs that can bring that equity among people. I do not support the status quo. I do not think that the large sums of money that are transferred have brought the equity to the people of the Atlantic region or the poorer parts of Canada. After a number of years of gigantic transfers of funds in the hundreds of millions and billions of dollars, the same regions are still poor, and the same people — the same percentage of people, to a large degree — are still poor.

So we must not only look for constitutional ways to improve and modernize the ways in which our governments

[ Page 1713 ]

work and the way our people develop policy, but we've got to concentrate on the type of economic policies in this country that indeed will help British Columbia, which does have wealth, and in owning and managing our resources are not denying the contribution that wealth can make to the country. But we also do not believe that the government of Canada could own or develop those resources for the greater use and betterment of British Columbians or for Canadians. We feel now that we make a generous contribution, but we want to make it more worthwhile. We want to see some substantial results from the type of contribution we have been making — a contribution that's growing. Many of us have our family roots in many parts of this country. It is for them and for the other people that we want to keep this country together. We want to see them have some opportunity.

Those are proposals that we have taken a number of times that the Minister of Health touched on today. They are proposals that are worthy either of opposition from the New Democratic Party or of concurrence. And if they give some support, because we like to take a position from British Columbia to our counterparts in the rest of Canada that would have the endorsement of the opposition as well, it would add strength to an argument that many British Columbians agree with, an argument that British Columbia needs stronger representation. What we want to see is better results from the wealth that we produce that is distributed in this country, We want to see something done with that wealth so that we can look in ten years' time and say "those regions are no longer poor," or "they do not continually have the same proportion of poor." I think we've got to look at ways of income redistribution that deal in positive ways with Canadians who cannot earn an adequate income. We've dealt with that in papers at first ministers' conferences and conferences at the national level — trying to encourage a better way of income distribution. We've done some preparation on the negative income tax. Programs such as these can only be carried out by the federal government. You cannot have little islands of negative income tax or guaranteed income. They can only be carried on at the national level. It's one of the best arguments I know for having a federal government with the power to do those things. Those things cannot be done in isolation in each part of the country. That is an area where there is a strong opportunity and a strong role for the federal government.

They don't need to be offered our resources by some provincial politicians, but we are willing to share the results of the wealth of our resources if they'll bring in such a national policy to provide an income level of equity that will provide equity among all Canadians. We would support that; we've advocated that. We would like support for those proposals. It's not as if they come as a surprise. Those proposals have been placed before our counterparts at first ministers' conferenczs for a number of years. They're not new. Surely after two or three years we can get some concurrence or some debate. We're willing to see if those proposals can be improved. We're waiting for some help. We're waiting for somebody positive, sometime, somewhere, to be among that group, someone who has a positive thought and would really support some of the programs that this government is bringing in.

I think — and I've heard this in other parts of the country that there is a tendency among opposition politicians of a certain party to be nothing but negative all the time, never once trying to be a part of the building team but continually gloating, if they can find something wrong or be part of the wrecking crew. I was amused to hear the Leader of the Opposition in debate yesterday and today. If you think he has insulted me in the short period I've been in public life, he did a much finer job with more furious insults on my father, who also happened to be Premier. It was interesting to hear him try to climb on his coat-tails, now that he's gone, and say he had vision. The very vision whose coat-tails he tries to ride on today he ridiculed and criticized and personally attacked. The personal attacks were something to behold. Why, he even sued him, or at least he started to during an election, and then he withdrew it after it had served its purpose; he didn't follow through. I always say that if you feel you've been wronged and you feel the need to take action, you should follow through.

There's been a lot of talk in here about privilege and protection in the Legislature, protecting your name, and perhaps it shouldn't be frivolously used by politicians. Perhaps much of the criticism the public takes with not just a grain of salt but ten grains of salt and probably ten grains of headache powder.... They consider the source of the criticism and the continuing style of slander, personal attack and innuendo. I'm no stranger to that, because when I was not a politician in elected office, I had occasion, on comments made by New Democratic Party members in this Legislature, who had privilege, to sue one of B.C.'s greatest newspapers, the great Vancouver Sun — a paper with a great tradition in this province — over the way they handled the story. It's interesting in the judgment.... We pursued that. It's never comfortable to clear your name, and I don't think that anybody.... Charges are easier to stick and stay with you, and perhaps it's only that bit of personal satisfaction that makes you do it. But you do it, and it's difficult to go through. When you're trying to clear your name, it's difficult to have people do anything they can to try to discredit you in court. But there's a lot of satisfaction when you win. I did, and we got a judgment.

I'm going to be bringing that judgment tomorrow, because in it Judge Anderson says some very telling things about the two New Democratic Party politicians who used that tactic. He made some very strong statements about their being willing not to tell the truth in order to make an unfair attack on others. He mentions that in the judgment. I'm going to bring that in, and I think I should read it once again into the record. I think it was significant. These types of attacks aren't new they were there during the days of the New Democratic Party in opposition to the W.A.C. Bennett government when the attacks were just as personal, if not more so. It's a record and a history of style which the public associates with that party. It is a record of the only style they know. There's a good reason for opposition, because we make a lot of mistakes in government, and we'll make some more. To do that, there's no need to go after people as individuals. You can criticize us, and you can differ with us when we may both feel we are right. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) nods; he knows that the things he has said in this House are always right.

I'm going to bring that in. It's interesting to listen to those very people who attack me, after their record of attack and some of the personal things they said about former Premier W.A.C. Bennett and their attempt to try to ride on the coat-tails of his vision, a vision they criticized. They made the most personal attacks on him and his government than anyone had seen, because they had more time to do it, you see; they had 20 years to practise before they got to this

[ Page 1714 ]

government. They think we have short memories. But I happen to know about those attacks, because that Premier was my father. I also know what he personally happened to think about that group, not only collectively but as individuals. Some day I may tell it in my memoirs; I won't betray now what he thought of them, but I'm going to put it down. Some of them will be very interesting, because there are some people over there whom he actually admired.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The ex-member for Vancouver, now from Burnaby, says: "Who would ever believe what W.A.C. Bennett said?" There she goes again; she's not even consistent with her leader. I have more to say, but I want to bring some of that material to the Legislature tomorrow.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Hon. Mr. Rogers tabled the second, third and final reports of the Judge McCarthy hearings for the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation.

Hon. Mr. Phillips tabled A Study of British Columbia Ski Areas and Their Market Potential, and an executive summary.

Hon. Mr. Phillips tabled an answer to a question on the order paper.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled an answer to question 3 on the order paper.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:44 p.m.

APPENDIX

3 Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following question:

Since the inception in 1966, what has been the total amount made available to the Province of British Columbia from Canada Pension Plan funds and how has this been allocated?

The Hon. H. A. Curtis replied as follows:

"$2,377,860,000 to March 10, 1980, allocated as follows:

B.C. Railway............................. $185,327,000

B.C. Buildings Corporation............. 58,386,000

B.C. Hydro................................. 897,079,000

B.C. School Districts.....................767,518,000

B.C. Educational Institute............... 58,806,000

B.C. Hospitals...............................410,744,000."

10 Mrs. Wallace to ask the Hon. the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development the following questions:

1. Were any government monies made available to Island Shake & Shingle at Lake Cowichan under the Assistance to Small Enterprise Program, BCDC, or any other agency of the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development, or any of its predecessor ministries?

2. If yes, (a) When? (b) How much? (c) By what agency? (d) Under what terms? (e) For what purpose?

The Hon. D. M. Phillips replied as follows: "No."

Queen's Printer for British Columbia ©

Victoria, 1980