[ Page 1715 ]

CONTENTS

Presenting Petitions

Pacific Command of the Royal Canadian Legion.

Mr. Davis –– 1715

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Incorporate the Institute of Accredited Public Accountants (Bill PR401). Mr. Segarty.

Introduction and first reading –– 1715

Pension Plan (I.W.A.-Forest Industry) Merger Validation Act (Bill PR402). Mr. Segarty.

Introduction and first reading –– 1715

Oral Questions.

Bank of Canada interest rates. Mr. Howard –– 1716

Administration of justice. Mr. Macdonald –– 1716

Air fare for Pearson Hospital technician. Mr. Cocke –– 1716

Rental problems of welfare recipients. Ms. Brown –– 1717

Trolley bus safety. Mr. Lauk –– 1717

Kenney Dam water level. Mr. Howard –– 1717

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office estimates.

On vote 9.

Mr. Lea –– 1718

Mr. Levi –– 1719

Hon. Mrs. Jordan –– 1723

Mr. Barber –– 1724

Mr. Ritchie –– 1727

Mr. Cocke –– 1730

Division on the motion to rise –– 1731

Mr. Cocke –– 1731

Mr. Mussallem –– 1732

Mr. Lockstead –– 1733

Mr. Segarty –– 1734

Mr. Lauk –– 1734

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1736

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1737

Tabling Reports

British Columbia Railway financial statements for year ending December 28, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1739

THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. MAIR: In the House today are a number of students from Brocklehurst Junior Secondary School in Kamloops. I'm very proud to say that all of my four children attended this school. They're here today accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Doug Butler and Mr. Ian Strachan. I ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. NICOLSON: I think this is the first opportunity I've had this year to introduce constituents of mine in the gallery. I note that the federal returning officer, Helen Fairbank, is in the gallery, along with school trustees Jack Martin and Bill McNown. I ask the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We have international visitors to the House today. I'd like to have the House welcome, first of all, Mr. Chuck Hoffman, who is here from San Diego, California, on his very first visit to British Columbia. Secondly, I'd like the House to welcome Mr. Urs Burri and Mr. Urs Henner from Muttenz, Switzerland, who are both in British Columbia for the first time. Some of the members on this side of the House served them during a McHappy Day yesterday — the McDonald's effort to raise money for crippled children. Finally, we have visitors in the gallery who are new-found friends of just today. I met Mr. and Mrs. Avraham Huri and their sons, Eyal and Alon, in the corridors today. They are here from Israel as exchange teachers to Alberta. Please welcome them.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, from. the first capital city — New Westminster, for those not so well informed — I'd like to introduce Michael Ewan, a school trustee here in Victoria for a seminar.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, today and tomorrow in this gallery are some 80 new school trustees who were elected for the first time in December. They are visiting Victoria and the legislative buildings as part of a new trustee orientation program. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on this very special day I'd ask the House to express its appreciation for the fact that the press, for unspecified reasons, had to work overtime last night. We appreciate their efforts.

HON. MR. McGEER: I don't know who looks in better shape today, Mr. Speaker!

In the members' gallery today we have a distinguished international scholar, Professor A.H. Birch, a former vice-president of the International Political Science Association. He's now teaching at the University of Victoria, and I'd ask the members to make him welcome.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, also in the gallery today is one David Vickers, who was the Deputy Attorney-General under two administrations and served the people of this province well and impartially under both administrations.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have a lady who is very dedicated to the community on the North Shore. I'd like the House to welcome Mrs. Margaret Jessup.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, it my pleasure indeed to express thanks on behalf of the Social Credit caucus to the press gallery for a beautiful evening. I understand that it went very well indeed, although I had to leave early, but I've had an excellent report on the meeting from that time on. Thank you very much.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery or in the precincts this afternoon there are two gentlemen I'd like to introduce: Mr. Wally Brogan, the mayor of the village of Oliver, and Mr. Dennis Back, who is the municipal clerk of Oliver, but who was my executive assistant for some three years. I'd just like the House to bid them welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: I want to thank all the hon. members for keeping their introductions very brief. I also noticed there were many names which not only were difficult to pronounce but may even be almost impossible to spell — having only heard them. So I suggest that the little slips you find in your desks addressed to Hansard be used so that my staff in Hansard will not be frustrated.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I spied an old acquaintance, Mr. Speaker, a friend of many people in this Legislature, Mr. Doug Strongitharm. I'd like to bid him welcome.

Presenting Petitions

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. DAVIS: It is the petition of the Pacific Command of the Royal Canadian Legion praying for the passing of an act intituled An Act to Amend the Royal Canadian Legion Act. I move that the rules be suspended and the petition of the Pacific Command of the Royal Canadian Legion be received.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO INCORPORATE THE INSTITUTE
OF ACCREDITED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

On a motion by Mr. Ree, Bill PR401, An Act to Incorporate the Institute of Accredited Public Accountants, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills.

PENSION PLAN (I.W.A.-FOREST INDUSTRY)
MERGER VALIDATION ACT

On a motion by Mr. Segarty, Bill PR402, Pension Plan (I.W.A.-Forest Industry) Merger Validation Act, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills.

[ Page 1716 ]

Oral Questions

BANK OF CANADA INTEREST RATES

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. Inasmuch as the bank rate today went to 15.49 percent, an increase of almost three-quarters of a point since last week, taking into account the injurious effects this will have upon homeowners, consumers, small businessmen and the economy generally, would the minister, reflecting what I'm sure would be the unanimous view of this House and certainly the view of residents and citizens in British Columbia, on our behalf communicate to the federal government our displeasure at this continuing escalation in interest rates and ask them to return to the process of administered interest rates rather than the float that is taking place at the moment?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member, the question of interest rates and the tremendously rapid increase in interest rates is of tremendous concern to the government and to the opposition, and I think to every person in this province. I can assure you that we are going to make our voice heard at the central government concerning this issue. I'm also of the view that at the previous Western Premiers' Conference the head of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Bouey, was requested to make an attendance. I think that's a measure that will be given consideration to at the future Western Premiers' Conference to be held in Lethbridge in April.

MR. HOWARD: The question was, really: would the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations today communicate the view of this Legislature, the province of British Columbia, and the people in B.C., and our displeasure at this escalation in interest rates, and not wait for the Western Premiers' Conference?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister may wish to make an undertaking but he's not obligated to do so.

HON. MR. GARDOM: There's already been communication between the government and Ottawa officials concerning the point in question.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney-General. I want to ask the Attorney-General whether anyone relating to the case — not a case, the question — surrounding the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) and whether anyone in the RCMP contacted the hon. Attorney-General or someone in his department asking that the RCMP report and the evidence therein referred to be reviewed by independent counsel. This would be following December 18 after the decision had been announced, Mr. Attorney-General.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, not to me, and I'd be happy to take the question as notice with respect to anybody else in the ministry.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a short further question. I ask the Attorney-General, who replied on March 10 that he had not read the RCMP submission on this particular matter, whether he has now read it. Because he said at that point that he would come back to the House.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I haven't yet received the information and the material to which the member refers.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, this question is also to the Attorney-General. On December 14, 1979, the Attorney-General asked ministry officials for a written report on whether, in their opinion, Dan Campbell breached the election act by failing to report $65,000 he handed out in cash during the election campaign of 1979. Has the minister received the written report as yet?

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

AIR FARE FOR PEARSON HOSPITAL TECHNICIAN

MR. COCKE: I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. At Pearson Hospital in Vancouver, roughly 5 percent of the patients require respirators for their survival. The hospital has recently purchased several advanced machines for the purpose of looking after their patients. However, in order to keep these machines in good repair, their chief technician should take a course that's offered by the manufacturers in Colorado.

MR. KEMPF: Question!

MR. COCKE: The member for Omineca is in a hurry, Mr. Speaker. Pearson Hospital requested $282 for air fare for the technician and the Treasury Board turned them down. Will the minister assure the House that the mistake of this government will be corrected in the immediate future?

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all I don't have a written answer to the written statement and the written rhetorical question of my friend opposite, and I don't, by taking this question as notice, acknowledge the remarks that he made at the end. But if he's asking me whether or not I will look into this situation, the answer is yes, and I'll take his question as notice. If he's asking me to acknowledge any of the sins which he alleges, the answer is that it is totally improper and I refuse to accept that as a question.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I hear voices, but I don't know of anyone that's been recognized. The member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: It's odd, Mr. Speaker — I just had the same experience.

A question to the Minister of Health. He just said that if the member for New Westminster is right, it's a sin. In other words, if he finds out that what the member asked is true, he's admitting now that it's a sin. Is that correct?

HON. MR. MAIR: It's certainly a sin to tell a lie, Mr. Speaker. I don't know of any other sins.

I think the best answer I can give the member opposite to

[ Page 1717 ]

his rather unusual question is that I will carefully examine the Blues and look therein for some sort of a question that the member for New Westminster wishes me to answer. Finding one, if I do, I will come to this House with the answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, let's not let the purpose of question period escape us.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, this question has been very carefully checked out. Just so the minister completely understands, I'll rephrase the question in the following manner. The suppliers of certain life-saving and life-giving equipment used at Pearson Hospital offer a free course; they pay all the room and board. and all that is required is to fly the technician to Colorado to take the course. The Treasury Board turned down the request of Pearson Hospital for the $282. I'm asking the minister: would he kindly correct this rather sad affair?

MR. SPEAKER: The question, in its present form, is not in order. But the minister wishes to answer?

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to establish the precedent of answering questions that are out of order. However, there are very few others that are asked in this House, so I guess I'll have to attempt it.

Mr. Speaker, I will look into the situation and find out, first of all, if it is as the member has stated — not that I'm suggesting he would state something untrue, but he may have his facts wrong. If his facts are correct, then I will look into the matter and report back to the House.

RENTAL PROBLEMS OF WELFARE RECIPIENTS

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the Human Rights Code. Presently the Code does not offer people on welfare any protection against discrimination in seeking housing and rental accommodation. Would the minister be willing to open the Code and insert an amendment to give this particular group of people that kind of protection, since the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has failed to protect them?

MR. SPEAKER: The question has a tendency to be argumentative. Does the minister wish to answer? Is there a further question?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the Human Rights Code. At present the Human Rights Code does not protect people on welfare against discrimination in housing and seeking rental accommodation. Because of the very tight housing situation, landlords are refusing to rent accommodation to people in receipt of welfare. Is the Minister of Labour willing to give these people protection under the Human Rights Code?

MR. SPEAKER: Has the member for Burnaby-Edmonds a further question?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I think I'm probably not being very clear, so I'll try that one again, if it's okay with you.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the minister has the question.

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the Human Rights Code. At present the Human Rights Code does not protect people in receipt of welfare in this province against discrimination in seeking housing and rental accommodation. In view of the very tight housing situation in this province, landlords are beginning to refuse to rent their accommodation to people in receipt of welfare. Is the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the administration of the Human Rights Code, willing to open the Code in an attempt to protect this particular group of people?

MR. SPEAKER: Any further questions, hon. members?

MS. BROWN: Is the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the Human Rights Code, willing to amend the Code so that it will give protection to people on welfare who are being discriminated against when they seek housing accommodation?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the minister has the question. We have to leave it with him.

TROLLEY BUS SAFETY

MR. LAUK: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is in charge of the Urban Transit Authority. The poles on trolley buses in the city of Vancouver are so brittle because of age that they are breaking with great regularity and endangering both pedestrians and passengers. In 1979 there were 398 reported accidents of poles breaking and bending beyond repair. Two breakages resulted in serious injuries to passengers, because when the poles break they have a tendency to crash through the rear windows of the buses. Buses with defective equipment still attached are operating in the city of Vancouver. What action is the government taking through the Urban Transit Authority to ensure public safety?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The first new trolley buses in 12 years were recently ordered by the Urban Transit Authority with the approval of this government.

MR. LAUK: These buses were condemned as inadequate several years ago, when the NDP administration ordered and had already been placing new trolley buses on the system. So the minister's statement is totally inaccurate. What immediate action is being taken to protect the safety of the public riding these vehicles in the city of Vancouver?

MR. SPEAKER: The purpose of question period is not to enter debate. Has the minister an answer?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to distinguish between diesel buses and trolley buses, but I will take the question as notice in any case.

KENNEY DAM WATER LEVEL

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Environment. Inasmuch as the federal

[ Page 1718 ]

Department of Fisheries has expressed concern that water levels in the Nechako River system below the existing Kenney Dam there last fall were inadequate to protect salmon runs, could the minister advise the House what action his department or he, himself, has taken to ensure that there will be a sufficient water flow in that river system to maintain and enhance the fisheries?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I will speak to the comptroller of water rights today to find out and will bring the answer back to the House. I haven't a specific answer on that particular river.

MR. HOWARD: I will direct a question, then, to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Given the fact that the water levels referred to in the Nechako River in the system below the Kenney Dam were low because power in excess of the Aluminum Company of Canada's requirements for its Kitimat smelter plant was generated to supply B.C. Hydro, would the minister make some representations to B.C. Hydro, requesting it to reduce its purchase of electrical energy from Alcan in order that sufficient water flows can be maintained in the Nechako River system?

MR. SPEAKER: If the question is, "Has the minister made representation?", it's in order.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, if that's the question, no, I haven't, but I'll take the question as notice.

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: I think the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) put it rather well. He said it's a sin to tell a lie.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, Fats Waller said it.

MR. LEA: Well, I'm glad to see you carrying on the tradition.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday and the day before, in this discussion of the Premier's estimates, we asked a number of times for the Premier to clarify what transpired at a meeting in Europe in 1979, when the Premier, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and the now Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), who was at the time of the meeting the Minister of Finance, met with the Commission of the European Communities in the office of the president. For two days we have tried to find out whether or not we have been misinformed by the secretary to the president of the Commission of the European Communities.

I would like to outline exactly what it is that we have been told by letter by the secretary of the Commission of the European Communities. In 1977, while visiting Europe, the present Premier of this province visited the office of the president of the Commission of the European Communities. That much we have ascertained. The Premier admits that he was there. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development admits that he was there. I would assume that the Provincial Secretary will admit that he was there. But then the contradictions start, because the Premier, in this Legislature, said that while in that office, he did not discuss the sale of uranium nor did he try to sell uranium to the European community.

I would like to refresh the Legislature's memory, because here are the contradictions. Mr. John Mika, who works as a researcher in the office of the Leader of the Opposition, phoned Brussels and asked that commission whether or not, when the Premier and his delegation visited them on behalf of British Columbia, the Premier endeavoured to sell uranium to the European Economic Community. Remember, Mr. Chairman, the Premier has denied trying to sell uranium while on that visit.

The letter to Mr. Mika, dated December 6, 1979, reads as follows:

"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, the Prime Minister underlined the concern of his government to find markets for the province's products and listed, among others, uranium. In reply to a question put by President Jenkins..."

Surrounding this province through its Premier's desire to sell uranium!

"...the Premier explained that natural resources were under provincial jurisdiction but that the Federal Minister for Mines and Resources was exercising export control on uranium."

Now I'd like to tie that into a statement made by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. This is from a press release dated Friday, September 16, 1977 — after the trip. "Phillips told top EEC officials in a separate meeting to 'come and be our guests' in the exploration of B.C. for uranium. But he warned they would have to 'take their chances' whether the federal government would take the embargo off uranium." In the same press release, the Premier is quoted as saying: "'They want it, we've got it,' Bennett said of B.C.'s unmined uranium deposits." Now, armed with this press release quoting both the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and the Premier, tie that to the fact that the secretary to the Commission of the European Communities said that when they were there they tried to sell them uranium. Tie that to the fact that the Minister of Economic Development said: "Come on, be our guests in the exploration for uranium in B.C."

I think, Mr. Chairman, that any common-sense person, looking at the evidence — and it isn't even circumstantial evidence; it's cold, hard facts in black and white — would have to assume that one of two things is happening in this Legislature at this time. Either I am holding in my hand a letter in which Mr. Reuter has lied to Mr. Mika.... Either Mr. Reuter has lied to Mr. Mika, and Mr. Bennett didn't try to sell uranium when he was in Europe, or Mr. Reuter is telling the truth, and the Premier did try to sell uranium while visiting the European Economic Community. Before we had the proof we said to the Premier: "Did you try to sell uranium while in Europe?" He said: "No!" He yelled it across the floor. "No!"

[ Page 1719 ]

Now, since we've brought in the proof that he did try to sell uranium, he hasn't taken his place in this House and spoken about uranium. In fact, he gets his backbenchers to stand up and say: "Mr. Premier, why are you so wonderful? Mr. Premier, aw, gosh, shucks, you're so great. Would you answer my question, Mr. Premier? Why are you so wonderful? Why are you so great?" And then the Premier stands up and says: "I'd like to answer the more decent questions in the House. I am wonderful, yes, I admit it." But, Mr. Chairman, the fact remains that neither the Premier nor the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development has stood in his place in this House and made a statement on whether or not they tried to sell uranium in Europe, since we've brought the proof in that they did and since they denied that they did. They denied it before we brought the proof in.

Mr. Chairman, we've now brought the proof into this Legislature that the Premier and his delegation, in 1977, tried to sell uranium in Europe. We know that for a fact, unless Mr. Reuter is lying. We also know for a fact that the Premier and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development stood in their places in this House and said they did not try to sell uranium when in Europe. Something is amiss. We can't have it both ways. Why will the Premier not stand up and call Mr. Reuter a liar?

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the member for North Peace River.

MR. BRUMMET: I believe section 43 of the Standing Orders makes reference to tedious repetition and I believe we heard that speech at least six times yesterday afternoon. Do you think perhaps we could move on...? At least if the member could phrase it a little differently it might make it more interesting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The member does raise a valid point. I would ask the members in debate to consider that section which does really refer very carefully to repetitious debate.

MR. LEA: I also believe the member raises a valid point because I think that rule was put in there to refer to tedious and repetitious debate not designed for a purpose. It may be tedious, it may be repetitious, but it is designed to get the truth and we want the truth.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what they're worried about.

MR. LEA: Yes, that is what they're worried about, because if through tedium and repetition we can get the Premier to stand up in his place in this House and say, "Here's what happened in Europe in 1977 while visiting the office of the president of the Commission of the European Communities," then we will find that in some instances the rule that the member has cited is a rule that brings out the truth in this House.

The Premier can pretend to read his documents; the Premier can pretend a lack of interest in this debate. The Premier can depend on us to continue to press this point until he takes his place and clears this matter up. The Premier can depend on that. The Premier can pretend all he wants that it didn't happen. I know he'd like to go back and take back every word he said prior to the proof coming into this House. I know you'd like to do that, Mr. Premier. He shakes his head, no. Is Mr. Reuter lying to Mr. Mika in this letter? Is he lying or is the Premier's memory so bad that he can't remember anything that happened in that meeting in Europe in 1977? Mr. Chairman, I'm going to sit down. The Premier and his colleagues can chuckle and laugh but I think everyone in this Legislature — including deep down where they really live, the backbenchers of this government, and probably some of the cabinet — would like to see the Premier take his place when I do sit down and once and for all clear it up. Did this letter to Mr. Mika contain a lie? Did the Premier not try to sell uranium when he was in Europe? We'd like the Premier to answer that question.

MR. LEVI: We have persisted on this topic in debate because we're not able to get a number of answers from the Premier. I want to ask the Premier about the question of uranium. I want to go back over the question I put to him the other night about when he was notified about the resignation of the chief justice of the appeal court, Mr. Farris. I also want to ask him one other question in light of the fact that we're not able to, as yet, get the information on the report in respect to a former member of his staff. I have in mind Mr. Dan Campbell, who was in charge of intergovernmental affairs before it became a ministry, and his involvement in spending some $65,000.

We are, in the debate under this vote, Mr. Chairman, attempting to examine the leadership of the Premier. Examining the leadership of the Premier as head of the government involves an examination of veracity. One of the things that he has not told us — and it escapes me why he will not simply get up and tell us — is what the context was of the discussions that he had in Europe in 1977. He was over there, he suggested earlier.... Then we heard from the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) that the intent was to sell what B.C. had to offer.

Interestingly enough, when he came back in 1978 there was a long, somewhat detailed article in the Sun of September 14, 1978, by a man called John Moelaert, who is the chairman of the Kelowna branch of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility. In his article, Mr. Moelaert went to great lengths to explain exactly what was going on in the province in respect to uranium exploration. Towards the end of his article he said: "Premier Bennett said in Brussels last year that he favours selling B.C. uranium to western European countries. B.C. Hydro chairman Robert Bonner has stated that nuclear power plants should be considered as a power option for B.C." Now we know that the Premier has already put to rest the issue of B.C. Hydro and uranium, but he still hasn't put to rest for us whether in fact, when he was over in Europe, he was selling uranium. We heard from the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development that that was, in fact, what they were doing over there. Well, we have conflicting stories here. Both people say they were present at the meeting. One minister's recollection is that they did discuss it, and that the proviso about the consummation of the sales had to do with the fact that there was a federal government embargo on the export of uranium. Those facts, if we consider them to be facts, are on, the record.

We're simply asking the Premier to confirm or deny what it is that took place. He made quite a to-do about the fact that he was over in Europe attempting to sell what B.C. produces because it was to the advantage of the B.C. economy. Well,

[ Page 1720 ]

we simply want him to explain exactly what it was they were talking about; he has not done that. We're constantly getting a lot of criticism about the question of how you research whether what somebody said is accurate or not. My colleague for Prince Rupert produced the information in respect to the memo from Mr. Jenkins and his assistant that the Premier made some statements in Europe. We only have the newspaper reports about what he said. On September 16, 1977, there was a headline in the Colonist which said, "Bennett Says Trade Eggs Can't Be All in One Basket," and there was a report, on the same date, about his discussions in Brussels — in a general way, nothing specific. In that column he didn't mention any of the products. He simply made reference to the fact that they had some goods to trade, and that they were looking in Europe for some know-how which could help them, but he wasn't any more specific than that. It's a fair enough comment to say that if he gets up and tells us what took place, then somehow he has to put to rest the story told by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development who, in his usual effusive way, appears to have let something out of the bag — that in fact, yes, there were discussions about the sale of uranium. That's a fairly straightforward kind of situation which, surely, the Premier must be able to answer.

I want to move to the question of the resignation of the chief justice, Mr. Farris. We have yet to hear from the Premier just what took place in 1978 at the time when the chief justice of the appeal court resigned. The other night I suggested, and I want to again remind the Premier, as the head of the government, that I presume that that kind of discussion on that particular issue usually takes place between the heads of government, between the head of the government of Canada and the head of the government of British Columbia. The Prime Minister of Canada doesn't tell his executive assistant to phone up the Premier and tell him we're going to have to appoint another chief justice of the appeal court. I ask the Premier again if he will tell us, when he gets up to reply, if he received a call from the Prime Minister of Canada regarding the issue surrounding the resignation of the former chief justice of the appeal court, Mr. John Farris? What took place? Did he have discussions with the then Attorney-General? We now know from the report given last week by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) in relation to what's known as the Vogel report that there was some involvement in respect to a case that is known as the Wendy King case.

I raised this issue under this estimate, Mr. Chairman.... We did have some problems the other night, but you accepted that it was appropriate and we could do this because the Premier had insinuated himself into a discussion around the Vogel case after the statement by the Attorney — General. He said that he wanted to be able to....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Don't worry about him, Mr. Chairman. You've already ruled. Just let him sit back there and when he gets enough feeling about it all, he'll get up and say something. Now, Mr. Chairman, we have dealt with this issue of whether it's relevant under this vote, and it is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. We have not dealt that thoroughly with the issue. The fact of the matter is that the "Vogel situation" is presently before the courts and as such is sub judice and will not be discussed in this....

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not before the courts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is before the courts, I am informed.

MR. LEVI: No, it's not. It's not before the courts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Chair is advised that the Attorney-General did advise this House that the matter has been filed.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I don't know what you refer to in terms of any statement made by the Attorney-General. We are dealing with the fact of law, not opinion. The fact of law is that under federal statute any application for suit against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation must wait 90 days as an application before the suit is filed. There is no suit against CBC on this matter.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You don't know that.

MR. BARRETT: You don't know; I don't know. We'll deal with the facts. We both confess to the same ignorance. On that basis....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you....

MR. BARRETT: Let me finish, Mr. Chairman. On that basis there is no suit. There is an application but no suit.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: That has to be ruled on after the 90 days are up.

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

MR. LAUK: On the same point of order, irrespective of any lawsuit being commenced — one apparently has not been — the question of sub judice lies only in that evidence which is gravamen to the case, which is libel and slander, as we have seen. It has nothing to do with the evidence that may be involved in criminal actions.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Vancouver Centre has the floor on a point of order and on a very important matter before this House. I would ask members to give him the floor.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My understanding of the sub judice rule is that we should not discuss the actual evidence that may be heard before the court in a matter that is currently before the court, either by process or actual trial. The difference here is that the libel and slander action will incorporate evidence that did.... For example, the CBC used the word "alleged" in their broadcast. What was, perhaps, the truth of the word "alleged" about interference by the Deputy Attorney-General? The question that is being

[ Page 1721 ]

raised by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) is related to the actual evidence surrounding the Wendy King case, which only incidentally was alleged in a CBC broadcast as being a case in which the Deputy Attorney-General interfered.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

Hon. members, it is my duty and obligation to advise members of this House of the sub judice rule as it applies so they will not offend the rights of any party presently before the courts. The Chair will take this matter under advisement. In the meantime, I would ask members just to refrain on that particular matter until it is resolved.

Further, while I have the members' attention, I would again point out that we are discussing at this time the matters before us under vote 9, the Premier's estimates. As such, matters falling under the purview of the Attorney-General are more aptly discussed in that particular vote.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, just to be clear on what it is you have said, I made only a passing reference to that unmentionable situation. Only in respect to the role that the Premier had in relation to being informed about a new chief justice of the appeal court did I raise those questions. I gave the reasons, as I understand them, why there was a need to have a new chief justice — because the other one resigned. So I am not in any way going into that unmentionable situation. I simply want to know from the Premier whether he had discussions with the Prime Minister of Canada and whether he had discussions with the then Attorney-General regarding the circumstances of the resignation and the reasons for it. That, I think, is fair game in the discussions we're having.

To move on, I indicated earlier that the Premier, as the leader of the government, within his own ministry and his own office, employed for a period of four years an individual by the name of Dan Campbell. His job, as I understood it, was to coordinate intergovernmental affairs. We have information to the extent that at the moment an inquiry is going on by the Attorney-General in respect of whether there were any breaches of the elections act. Now I want to ask the Premier.... One of the Premier's friends, Mr. Austin Taylor, who is generally known in this province — and has been known for some time — as what is characterized as a bagman for the Social Credit Party.... A bagman is an individual who goes around raising money for political parties. This is not peculiar to the Social Credit Party; all parties have people who do that. This particular individual, Mr. Taylor, raised money for that party. During the revelation, which came from a former member of the Social Credit caucus research department, that Dan Campbell, who at that particular time.... For more than three years he was an employee of the Premier, a close confidant, previously an executive assistant when the Premier was the Leader of the Opposition. The allegation was that he was giving out thousand-dollar bills to pay for parties and accommodation.

I recall that at the time the issue was raised about what bank accounts this came from, the Premier said that he didn't know much about the bank accounts, but that in any case there wouldn't be very much money in those bank accounts. We found out subsequently that there must have been at least $250,000 in those bank accounts, because very quickly the former Attorney-General of the province under the previous Social Credit administration, Mr. Peterson, in probably the fastest investigation on record, told us that there was an oversight of $250,000 in the issue of the election expenses, and they filed an amended report. Now that Premier has to tell this House exactly what the situation was in respect to Mr. Campbell, who was being paid with public money; he was a public servant, he was involved.

You're looking at something, Mr. Chairman. Am I trespassing?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

MR. LEVI: Oh, I thought I was trespassing somewhere. You've got to be very careful with this estimate, you know. We're dealing with a Premier who's not going to get up; he won't answer any questions; he keeps whispering little asides; he hasn't made one objection yet, except through the side of his mouth, which usually reaches your chair, Mr. Chairman. I would like him to get up to make a specific objection on a point of order and tell us what it is that he's upset about. So far we haven't had that.

Going back to Mr. Campbell, Mr. Campbell was his employee, paid for by taxpayers' money. Now the Premier might tell us, when he answers the question, whether at the time Mr. Campbell was giving out this money, as reported by Miss McKay, he was being paid as a public servant. In other words, while he was in the employ of the Premier, was he also doing work for the Social Credit Party? I'm sure that that's the kind of thing that might have come to the Premier at the time when this particular case broke. After all, he was his senior official in that department; he had so much confidence in him that he was going to send him to Ottawa. During the time that the last election was fought, was Mr. Campbell on salary? The Premier should tell us that.

While the Premier is back there, thinking about what took place in the last election, perhaps he'd be good enough to tell us another thing. As the leader of the Social Credit Party, as the Premier of the province, he spends a great deal of time flying around the province in a jet plane that was not a government plane, but a plane that was either on loan or a gift or grant. What was it? Perhaps the Premier would like to tell us about that. Was that part of the election expenses that were tabled? Is that the kind of thing that was declared by his party, or was that an oversight? These are very simple questions for him to answer.

We are not moving very far in his estimates, because there is a very serious issue of getting some confusion out of the way about who was telling the truth about the uranium. I'm trying to find out from him just what took place about the resignation of the former chief justice of the province; I'm trying to find out what action he took in respect to a former employee of his, Dan Campbell, and his wholesale giving out of some $65,000. I can well imagine what would have happened if that group over there would have discovered that the NDP had given out $65 and not declared it. We're talking about $250,000, and yet we have no accounting in those statements from the Premier, and we're now waiting for the report from the government.

So from the point of these estimates, all of the questions that have been asked are valid. They can be answered simply if there is nothing to hide, because they'll continue to be asked. After all, there is sufficient proof, and if the Premier does not accept that proof, then I don't know what proof he will accept.

In the first instance, the thrust of this debate since his

[ Page 1722 ]

estimates have been up has been in respect to the sale of uranium. And that is an important issue. Because what has happened all of a sudden, because the Premier has put a moratorium on uranium — and that's okay; that was pretty late, almost three years after he was in Europe — we didn't hear a word from him. The only justification for what he was not doing, in terms of putting on the moratorium, was the fact that in 1974 the NDP issued a licence to do some exploration — some six years ago.

Well, since 1973 we've had a number of problems that we've dealt with in terms of uranium and nuclear energy, particularly the Three Mile incident, which makes the whole discussion publicly a compelling debate about the present and future safety of people in respect of this. That debate has gone on for some time. What took place in 1974 is not terribly relevant. Then the feelings about the use of uranium were not as intense as now. North America got a very severe warning as a result of the meltdown that took place in 1979 in the United States, so that became a very compelling subject of discussion. The Premier cannot continue to say that somehow there is a problem in respect to the position of the opposition in this matter.

What we are doing is simply reviewing the behaviour of the Premier and one of his ministers in respect to what he was doing overseas in 1977. Did he have correspondence with people, after he came back, about the sale of uranium? He had discussions — was there correspondence? Was there encouragement in respect to setting up in British Columbia? People have done this; there are at least eight companies in British Columbia that were involved in doing exploration, and they did not spend a great deal of money, on the basis that somehow nobody was interested or it was not going to be possible to do. We had Hydraulic Lake Resources, which is not too far from where the Premier is; we had Tyee Lake Resources, Placer Development, Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel — which is a Japanese company — Union Carbide, Union Oil, Beaverdale, we had Noreen Energy Resources, Gambeau-Chicamauga Mines, Sedimex Fund, which is a West German company, and Mickana Mining Corporation — they were all in this province developing plans and technical knowledge for the exploration of uranium. Companies like that do not do that kind of thing without some expectation that they will be able to go forward. Some of that expectation, we submit, was based on the fact that in 1977 offers were made by the touring ministers that we would sell uranium. Those are the facts as we know them. Those companies are here investing money. They don't do it to throw it away. They had some expectations that what they were developing could come to fruition and would be part of that trade — the selling of uranium.

Those are the questions that we want the Premier to answer. It's not difficult. We don't want him to tell us that because we are going after him in respect to this, somehow he is going to dig up something that took place years ago which is somehow going to deflect from this debate. We're not going to be deflected from this debate. We simply want to know the truth about what took place in 1977, what the thinking of the Premier was in 1978. We know that he suddenly saw the light about a month ago and put a moratorium on uranium. But what was his thinking prior to that? We have never had that kind of discussion from him. All we've had from him was that they go overseas and attempt to sell all the products produced in this province. We're informed that among those products uranium was mentioned. That's very straightforward. Now if that's not the case, then he should get up, very quietly, without shrieking, and tell us exactly what did take place then. That's the way it's got to happen.

What will he say, for instance, if we're able to produce another letter from somebody in Europe who says: "Yes, he did talk to us about uranium?" What will he do then? He'll probably insult those people. He'll get the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) to make an incredible defence. I listened to that member yesterday and I thought the Premier was on trial. When he says the only evidence we have is double hearsay.... This isn't a court of law. It's the highest court in this land. You don't have to be defended by an individual who is a lawyer. You simply have to get up and answer for yourself. It's very straightforward.

Just in review, Mr. Speaker, so that the Premier won't forget what I'd like him to answer — tell us about the uranium. Tell us straightforwardly about it. What was your thinking in 1978 and 1979 in respect to the possibility of uranium exports? Did you have any discussions with these companies? Did they receive any encouragement at all to continue exploration? What kind of expectations did they have? Mr. Moelaert, who comes from your area, Mr. Chairman, to the Premier, said: "Premier Bennett said in Brussels last year that he favours the selling of B.C. uranium to western European countries." That's the question we would like to have answered.

I would like to have questions answered in respect to the appointment of the new chief justice of the appeal court and what discussions took place around the resignation of the former chief justice of the appeal court. What discussions did he have with the Attorney-General? Did he make inquiries as to why this resignation was necessary? What is he privy to that he's not prepared to tell us? Let him tell us about Dan Campbell, his former trusted friend and employee, who during the 1979 election was throwing around thousanddollar bills in the most incredible way while he was in the employ of the Premier. What kind of discussions do we have there? What is he prepared to tell us about the funds that he indicated he really didn't know existed — but if they did there wasn't very much money in them, which turned out to be something of the order of $250,000? I'd like him to tell us about that aircraft he flew around with during the election. Who paid for it? Is that more money from Mr. Austin Taylor or Mr. Ian Adams? Is that part of the...?

MR. LEA: Was it money from Canada?

MR. LEVI: Yes, was it money from Canada? Did they get money from overseas? He does a lot of travelling. Do you get any money from the oil companies overseas?

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: You see, that's his answer. We're asking him whether he got money from overseas and then he says something about Washington. Do you think that really answers the question? Because that took place on one side, somehow that justifies you doing it on your side. Simply say: "We didn't get any money from them." Don't use that silly argument about "did you get any?"

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, let us address the Chair and return to the regular rules of debate.

[ Page 1723 ]

MR. LEVI: You're right, Mr. Chairman. Well, we're getting more debate from the Premier today from his seat than we are from him on his feet. So hopefully we'll get him on his feet and he'll answer some of the questions. He looks like he's ready now to go into a quiet, dispassionate answering of questions that have been put to him. The uranium question; chief justice of the appeal court; Dan Campbell giving out all this money; the jet plane — who paid for it? Just tell us those things in a very candid fashion and then we'll get onto other parts. It's a very straightforward request coming from the opposition, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, that member for Maillardville-Coquitlam who just sat down kept asking the Premier to get on his feet. I would suggest that this House would have been better off in terms of the quality of debate and the responsibilities of a member of this House to the citizens of this province if that member had stayed in his seat.

I was home on the weekend; I've just come back from Vancouver. I got three phone calls last night from people in the interior asking me what is going on in this Legislature. They're asking why, under the budget debate, the content of the budget was not debated. Now they're asking why, under the Premier's estimates, the content of the Premier's responsibilities are not being debated. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to know the same thing.

This hon. member from Maillardville-Coquitlam has set himself up, not only in this House but outside, as being the greatest proponent of the British parliamentary system, of fairness, of equity, of responsibility. He's talked in terms of the traditions of the system, the honour of the system, the decorum of the House, and the quality of debate. Yet, Mr. Chairman, nobody in this House, not only during this session but in previous sessions, has offered such an affront to those very qualities that he proposes to espouse and does espouse outside this House.

I cite for your consideration the debate we have just heard, if I may dignify it by the term "debate." What is it about? Where does that member stand? The only reason he can talk this way in this House and act this way in this House, which is the direct opposite of what he espouses outside, is that he's not getting any press and most people don't read Hansard. I would challenge, through you, Mr. Chairman, that member to go outside and wallow in the muckraking out there that he's wallowing in in this House. When it comes from a member with the record that member has in terms of his own conduct when he was a minister of the Crown, then I believe the people of this province and the members of this House have a responsibility to question him, to question the responsibility of his actions and to question whether or not he's meeting his commitment to the people of this province, for which he is being paid most handsomely.

I ask you: where do you stand, Mr. Member, on uranium mining? We've heard this muckraking. We've heard this phone call from a civil servant of a socialist philosophy from a different government in a different country, who took his leaky phone line to a paid political animal of your employ. And you ask us to give that sort of an argument any credibility? Do you ask the people of British Columbia to have any sense of concern about that sort of an argument? I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it's ridiculous.

But where does that member stand? It is your government and your party, I would remind you, Mr. Member, that is the uranium-mining capital of Canada. It is your government — the NDP in Saskatchewan — and it is you, Mr. Member, and all your members across Canada, who said: "It is our party that espouses one policy across Canada. " It is your party, Mr. Member — stand up and admit it — that is the proponent of uranium mining in this country, and you're skirting around a masquerade. You didn't tell the people that it was under your Premier's leadership — the very estimates we're now debating for our Premier — that the first uranium exploration permit was issued in this province. Did you tell the public that? Have we heard that referred to in your debate? Where do you stand, Mr. Member?

I would also say, Mr. Chairman, that it's that party that has been the leader and that says publicly: "There is money in uranium." But after that permit was issued under the NDP administration in this province, under the Premier's estimates of that day, did they set up a royal commission? Did they set up an inquiry committee? Did they set up anything to examine the feasibility of uranium mining, to look into the health and food concerns of the people? Did they do anything? No. Why don't you, Mr. Member, tell that to the public of British Columbia? If you want to talk about uranium mining, then let's stick to the facts, because it was your administration who were the ones that wanted to be the money-grubbers through uranium, not this administration, and not this Premier.

What does this Premier do? He has led health, education, and recreation policies in this province which are second to none in Canada. Do you ask questions about that, Mr. Member? Do you offer any constructive criticism about that? No way. And let the records show that, under our Premier's estimates and under the leadership we've experienced in British Columbia, it's not there.

I'd like to talk about tourism for just a moment, because the Premier of this province, whose estimates we're debating now, has done more for the people of this province, in terms of developing an imaginative new industry of the future, than any other Premier or leader in this country. It was under this Premier's leadership that a very, very troubled industry, that was suffering from the kicks of your government, appointed a Minister of Tourism who gave the industry flair and international attention, and who set the groundwork....

MR. LEA: And $500,000 worth of smile buttons.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we think a smile is of great value on this side of the House. We believe in smiling and being optimistic, and we believe in the future. Look at the mouths over there. They all turn down like sad faces. They are sad faces. If I belonged to that party, I'd have a sad face too.

Let me say for your information, Mr. Chairman — and I know you're interested — that this Premier then, through his estimates, appointed a Minister of Tourism who put together the foundation for the type of information that we have to have to develop a stable industry for the future. And it was under this government, under this leadership, that we saw the first-ever five-year development plan for tourism in British Columbia, the introduction of annual marketing plans, and the introduction of annual short-term and long-term — oh, you're leaving, Mr. Member; I'd leave too if I were you — promotional plans, and resident awareness programs, so that people in British Columbia could know the industry, understand it, and know the role they played.

The list is endless, but I would point to what's happening

[ Page 1724 ]

right now in British Columbia, in terms of the future of our people, under the estimates of our Premier. I would refer to British Columbia Place. I know the opposition don't like to refer to British Columbia Place. I don't think they even understand it, because they're so hindsighted.

One of the first obligations of a leader of this province, or of anywhere in this country, is to design a new type of secondary cash flow and a new way to create jobs for people in the future, because the world is changing — whether it has escaped your notice or not, Mr. Member — and it's under the leadership of this Premier that we in British Columbia have some of the most imaginative revenue-producing concepts anywhere in the world. Our Premier has recognized that by developing international attractions we not only create jobs in British Columbia directly through that development and that promotion, but we also generate an interest in British Columbia that will spread and benefit throughout the province. I would cite the trade and convention centre. What did the NDP leader, as Premier, do for British Columbia in tourism? Name one thing that he did that in any way contributed....

MR. LEA: The Marguerite.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Yes, that was the Titanic looking to happen, and you made it happen, my friend. Name one thing that they did under their leadership to develop a future.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: You're quite right, Mr. Member. Under the leadership of the NDP then-Premier, they told the visitors to stay home. "Get out! Go home, Americans. Go home, Europeans. Go home, Japanese. Go home, Chinese. Don't come and visit us." They also entertained a very hostile attitude, Mr. Chairman, to people of other races, and that's something we don't subscribe to. That was under the leadership, and is still under the leadership, of that NDP leader.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: It's in the paper. It's in Hansard. The minister of Tourism of that day used racially discriminatory terms in this House. If it was an accident, then how do you explain them being repeated again by the very same party and referring to the very same people? It's a shame. Under our Premier, and with these estimates, we welcome people to British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I wonder if the member would like to stand up and make a speech instead of chit-chatting all the time. Take your place. In the debate.

Mr. Chairman, in the very city of Victoria where we now stand, under the leadership of the man whose estimates we're now debating, we will open Crystal Gardens tomorrow. It's totally supported by the government of British Columbia and totally dedicated to the people of this province. It will encourage visitors to come to British Columbia, as will the Victoria Trade and Convention Centre.

It's not confined to the lower mainland. The benefits are all over the province. In Fort St. John, the northern area and the Peace River area, there are opportunities for those people to develop a solid industry that will help themselves as well as attract visitors. In the Terrace and Prince Rupert area there are benefits under the federal-provincial agreement that were signed and initiated by this Premier, this staff and this government. It gives an opportunity for people outside the lower mainland to find out what their assets are, to identify them and to develop them. Again, it is for the benefit of their own people as well as for the visitors.

Mr. Chairman, there was a report introduced in this House yesterday on a study of the British Columbia ski areas and their marketing potential. We have the 3-M study which will be introduced shortly. We had an industrial organizational study, all done under the leadership of the man whose estimates we are debating now. Why aren't the opposition asking questions or making comments about that? Why aren't they offering suggestions as to how we can take these reports and make them develop in such a way to benefit our people? What did the NDP do in the area of tourism? What effort did they ever make under their Premier to lay a foundation for this future industry? What effort did they ever make to identify where future markets should be? What effort did they ever make to identify where the revenues would be most beneficial in this province?

Well, they're awfully chatty over there, Mr. Chairman, and it makes me feel that certainly they understand one thing, and that is that under the leadership of their Premier they were a disaster. Under the leadership of our Premier, the man whose estimates we are debating right now, British Columbia has never fared better. The people have never been more optimistic, and the future has never looked brighter. We have never been better equipped to meet that future for the benefit of our people.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, when a government changes policy, there is nothing whatever wrong with that. It is their prerogative to do so. When a government substitutes a good policy for a bad one, that is to be commended and congratulated. When a government determines that its previous policy was wrong or in error for some reason or another and introduces a better policy in its place, most reasonable people would agree that's a good thing. This government changed its policy, and approximately a month ago announced that uranium mining and exploration in British Columbia will be forbidden for a period of some seven years. They announced their policy and it was clearly a change from the previous policy. There is nothing wrong with that, except...

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't agree with it?

MR. BARBER: Oh, I support it. I strongly support it.

...in this special regard, and that's what we're debating today. When a government changes a bad policy and introduces a good one, we congratulate it. When at the same time they attempt, however, a 1984 rewrite of history to try and persuade us that their bad policy never existed, then that's unreasonable and cannot be supported.

The reason we're attempting now to raise questions that clearly members opposite would rather we did not raise is because we reject the way in which this Premier is attempting to rewrite history. It was his government's policy to encourage, assist and promote the exploration and mining of uranium in British Columbia. That was his policy.

[ Page 1725 ]

He says today that it is no longer their policy and they have, in fact, for a period of seven years established a moratorium on uranium exploration and mining in this province. That is their new policy, replacing the old one. Now that's fair. There's nothing wrong with that. The new policy is better than the old one because the old one was not adequate on economic or environmental grounds, and most certainly not on health grounds either. Up to this point, Mr. Chairman, the opposition does not dispute the government's new policy. What we dispute is the pretence that they never had an old policy in favour of selling uranium. What we dispute is the unwillingness of the Premier to stand up and say: "You're right. This new policy replaces an old one. In the past our government did allow and support the exploration and mining of uranium, but we have now received new evidence which persuades us that such a policy is incorrect." A political leader of stature will be respected when he stands up and says, like another political leader of stature used to say so often: "We've taken a second look. On the basis of that second look, I'm pleased to announce this new policy, this new decision, this new creation, of government." Fair enough. The public is fair-minded. The public is honourable. The public gives credit to people who will admit that they made a mistake — for innocent reasons, I'm sure — and having made a mistake, own up to it in a responsible way and say: "This is our new policy because the old one was not adequate. It was mistaken. "

What we resent is that the Premier tries this Orwellian rewrite of history, which pretends that the old policy was never there at all.

The reason we imagine — there's no other rational approach — that the Premier is in this difficulty is because so far they have been unwilling to justify in a philosophical or logical way the new uranium policy. Rather, all they've done is announce it, attempt to take political credit for it, and make the best mileage they can from it. All governments do that. Ours did it, yours does it. There's nothing wrong with that; that's politics as usual. Where this Premier lacks stature, though, is the fact that he has been unable to acknowledge that his previous policy was incorrect, inadequate and insupportable, so much so that he's now in the current conflict that this opposition has been discussing for two days and will continue to discuss for days further. In a moment of anger, in a fit of pique and annoyance, he yelled out "no" across the floor two days ago when we asked him: "Did you ever try to sell uranium?" I bet he wishes he could withdraw that. I bet he wishes he could take that back, because in fact his credibility is now at stake.

Let me remind him, the people are fair-minded. This opposition tries to be fair-minded, but we're as partisan as you are, and we're not always fair-minded, I'm sure. We're no less, or no more, partisan than you are. But, nonetheless, the people generally are not partisan; they are rather fair-minded. They give credit to people who are big enough to admit mistakes and to announce that the new policy is better than the old. They don't give credit to people who pretend there never was an old policy. Now in this case we're dealing with a Premier who would have us believe that he never did intend to sell uranium.

Why is this Premier in so much trouble? Why do most people acknowledge that if an election were held tomorrow the coalition government would be defeated? Why is it that poll after poll for the last eight months has demonstrated in a scientific and credible way that this government would be defeated tomorrow if they had to go to the electorate?

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Well, I guess Dr. Gallup took some of those. You've seen the same polls we've seen. Come on, don't pretend otherwise.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Are you denying Gallup Polls exist too?

Mr. Chairman, most people in this province acknowledge that the coalition government is in some trouble. Their hope, of course, is that in the next two or three years, if they can postpone an election and not inadvertently cause one by failing to show up for a vote — thus we no longer have night sittings — they will be able to recover their lost fortunes and win the next election in — dare I suggest it? — 1984.

The reason they are in some trouble is because the Premier has lost credibility in the eyes of the people. When ne returns from Japan to defend his party's involvement in dirty tricks, wears a silly little red bandana on his head, smirks a silly little grin and pretends nothing happened, the Premier loses credibility. He loses credibility and stature in the eyes of the people. The Premier is losing further credibility today because apparently he won't admit that what everyone knows was their policy until a month ago has now been changed.

The political standing of the Social Credit Party is today at the lowest it has been since August 1972 when they were defeated. If the government disputes that fact, let them call an election. We would be delighted to bet money on the outcome. However, they won't do that.

Let's go back a bit and examine the credibility of the Premier and examine the atmosphere in this province in terms of the development of resource industries in 1977. In that year, the Premier led a delegation to Brussels to meet with high officials in the European Economic Community. In that year he did what he should have done. He stood up and he said: "These are our resources; this is our ability to deliver them; this is the price we look for; and this is the resource development policy we espouse. " Let me say again that we don't object to any of that. It is right and correct and proper. No problem.

In a report from Brussels that was published by Southam News Service in the Vancouver Province, September 16, 1977, was the following:

"Leading the first provincial government delegation to the European Economic Community since the Trudeau government forged a contractual link, the Premier" — referring to Mr. Bennett — "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 European Economic Community president Roy Jenkins and other top European officials had gone better than he had expected."

It is credible and it is reasonable that in 1977, on the basis of the old policy, the Premier would have gone to the EEC and told them: "Yes, uranium is present in British Columbia. Yes, it is developable. Yes, we are prepared to help develop it." That was the climate in 1977; that was the policy in 1977; that was his duty in 1977. We fully believe that is what he did in 1977. Again, fair enough. That was the policy and that was the position. There can be no dispute. However, the fact that

[ Page 1726 ]

the Premier was then encouraging the mining and exploration for uranium is a fact he prefers to deny in 1980. So you have to ask what happened in the intervening three years. You have to ask whether the new policy, which replaces the old policy, derives in some degree from the coalition government's current unpopularity with the people. We suspect it does. We suspect further that, for political reasons, the policy announced a month ago was made necessary in this province. We suspect that the Premier, who apparently isn't big enough to admit that the 1977 uranium policy has been replaced by the 1980 policy, is thereby in trouble today. His credibility is further undermined.

If he had simply said, "You're right, the new policy replaces the old. You're right, I did talk about uranium in 1977. That was the policy then, but we changed the policy today," he wouldn't be in this trouble. He wouldn't have these questions raised about his credibility. But, no, he prefers instead this Orwellian rewrite of history. He prefers instead to blurt across the aisle: "No, I never went to sell uranium." It is credible that in 1977 he did. That was the atmosphere; that was the policy; that was his duty; that's what he did. It is credible that he did it then. It is less than credible that three years later, following a new policy, he would have us believe he never did any such thing.

The same article published from Brussels by Southam News Service goes on to add strength to our case that it was credible in 1977 that the Premier attempted to sell uranium. Let me continue with the article: "European Economic Community officials told the British Columbians they were displeased at the Canadian government's halting last January of uranium exports, pending the European adoption of tougher safeguards against nuclear proliferation. "

Back to the atmosphere of 1977. The people of Canada were suspicious that Canadian sales of uranium to reactor projects in India and in Pakistan might be used for the purpose of developing, secretly and wrongly, nuclear weapons. Therefore the Canadian government wisely changed its policy, but didn't pretend that they never had an old policy. They said that the new policy would attempt to guarantee that Canadian uranium would not be used in the promotion of nuclear weapons around the world. At the time, Mr. Trudeau got a lot of credit for replacing a bad policy with a good one. He didn't attempt to rewrite history. He didn't attempt to pretend that the bad policy never existed. He said honestly: "A new situation has developed, we have evidence that this uranium is being used for the production of nuclear weapons. We will not tolerate that, as a moral people. That is an immoral use of our resources. Therefore we're going to put safeguards on it."

Returning to the quotation, Mr. Chairman: "'They want it, we've got it,' Bennett said of B.C.'s yet unmined uranium deposits. He said it was up to the federal government to decide whether uranium exports should be resumed." To continue from the article in Southam News, dateline Brussels, 1977: "Phillips told top EEC officials in a separate meeting to 'come and be our guests' in the exploration of British Columbia for uranium. But he warned they would have to 'take their chances' whether the federal government would let them take the uranium out."

Until this week there is no record that the Premier ever disputed the contents of this article. Until this week there is no record of any statement whatever from the Premier or the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development that the facts set out in this article were untrue. For three years the facts stated here in this Southam News report were acknowledged by the silence of that administration as being perfectly correct. It is credible to conclude that the report is correct, because until this week it was not politically necessary for the government to pretend that it wasn't.

Why is the credibility of the Premier being questioned? It is not because the new policy is a good one; plain and simply it is a good policy, It is because the Premier wants us to believe that in 1977 when the 1977 policy was in force he wasn't attempting to execute the policy after all; somehow he had miraculously anticipated the 1980 policy. The Premier can't have it both ways. That's why his credibility is being diminished by his behaviour in this debate. That's why that sudden "no! " shouted across the aisles makes him out to be a little less than candid with this House.

Only this week has the government found it necessary to wonder whether or not this three-year-old news report was accurate. Only this week are they now challenging the credibility of Etienne Reuter, the secretary who took notes and prepared in writing a statement of what the Premier said in private in 1977. Only this week does the Premier apparently find it necessary to try the Orwellian rewrite of history that he should never have attempted. There is no other rational explanation of the Premier's behaviour; unless of course you are to begin to conclude that the Premier is an irrational man. But we wouldn't want to do that; we need him in his current position more than their party does. We over here need him there more than they'll ever know.

What would happen in this province if the Premier, whose estimates we are debating, had the stature to stand up and say: "I've taken a second look. I agree we were misinformed. I agree we were badly advised. I agree we have mishandled the issue of the allocation of the Rupert, the Surrey and the Marguerite."? A man of real political stature and real political courage would do that, and the people would admire him for it. The people would give him credit for it; they would say: "Thank God there is a Premier who is willing to admit that from time to time, like any other mortal person, he makes mistakes." With the apparent exception of that cabinet and its backbenchers who want to be in that cabinet, virtually every person in greater Victoria knows for a fact that they have mishandled the Marguerite issue. Everyone knows it, everyone acknowledges it, and everyone except the Premier is willing to give the Premier's government a chance to put in a new policy and to allocate the ships where they correctly belong.

If the Premier had the stature and the courage to admit that maybe he was misadvised, ill-informed by devils somewhere or other, who tricked him, he would today receive a lot of credit. If the Premier today said, "You know, it is credible that in 1977, I was promoting the 1977 policy; it is credible that in 1977, I was trying to sell uranium, because that was our policy; it is possible that in 1977 Southam News got the story right out of Brussels; it is credible that Mr. Reuter has no reason to distort, no reason whatever to misrepresent the conduct of that meeting; it's credible — why should you suspect otherwise — that I would support my own government's policies in 1977, and therefore I was wrong to have blurted out a sudden 'no' — " if the Premier would do that, this aspect of his estimates debate would be over. I don't know how you can put it much more clearly. They've changed their policy; the new one replaces the old one, and that's a good thing. But for the Premier to attempt to misrepresent the old policy and his advocacy of it is not fair and not reasonable.

[ Page 1727 ]

Why isn't he big enough to admit that what he did in '77, trying to sell uranium in Europe — consistent with his policy then — is not consistent with his policy today, and therefore the famous "no" he shouted out was inappropriate and misleading. If he did that very simple thing, this part of his estimates would be at an end.

However, I promise him this: if the Premier is unable or unwilling to clear up this massive contradiction about the public facts, the public evidence, the clear reports of his 1977 policy and his advocacy of it, we will be on this subject for some days to come, because the people of British Columbia do not want to be led by a Premier who cannot, it appears, distinguish between — one has to watch one's parliamentary language — the truth that everyone knows and the rewrite of it that no one will believe. The Premier can't have it both ways. Old policy replaced by a new policy — fine; he advocates an old policy three years ago — fine; he advocates a new policy today — fine. What we resent, what we object to, what we reject in every way, is any attempt to mislead the people about his responsibility for the old policy.

Any attempt to so mislead the people will only do further injury to an already badly injured Premier and a badly injured Social Credit Party in this province. And quite why the government doesn't see that, I don't know. They know they're in political trouble with the electorate of British Columbia. That trouble will only worsen as long as they continue to stonewall, to attempt to deceive, to mislead, to misrepresent the facts regarding their old uranium policy, the Premier's advocacy of it then and his denial of it now.

It's a simple matter for a big man, Mr. Chairman. A big man stands up and says: "Yes, you're right. I shouldn't have shouted out the 'no,' it wasn't right. I do support the new policy, it is superior to the old, and I trust the opposition does as well." That would be a fair reply for a fair-minded Premier to make. Quite why the Premier, now going into the third day, has refused every opportunity that has been offered him to clear the record, to make a clear and forthright statement, consistent with the facts surrounding his 1977 policy, we find hard to comprehend. He's got a simple out; it's the out all leaders of political courage have; it's the out his father had: "You're right, we took a second look. You're right, our previous policy was not adequate. You're right, new information gives a new policy which is adequate. Here it is."

One of the reasons his father lasted 20 years as Premier is that the people of British Columbia admired that kind of candor and that willingness to take a second look. One of the reasons that that Premier's son is significantly less in favour with the electorate is that he doesn't know, it would appear, how fair-minded the people are and how willing they are to give credit to a man who stands up and says: "I made a mistake."

There is one precedent that I would draw to the Premier's attention, one recorded instance where he admitted that a mistake was made, one occasion only during his entire Premiership where he was big enough to admit that his government goofed, and goofed badly, It was the Seaboard Insurance fiasco. Clearly the government made a stupid mistake. They didn't do it on purpose; they did it by error. They didn't do it maliciously or malevolently; they didn't plot to drive a legitimate company out of business. They did it by accident. That night, toward the end of the debate — you may remember we had night sittings then, Mr. Chairman — the Premier was man enough to stand up and say: "I accept responsibility on behalf of my government for this foolish error." What happened when he was big enough to do that? Was he embarrassed? Did people attack him for it? Was he humiliated across the province for having stood up and been responsible for his government's Seaboard Insurance blunder? Not at all. Rather, the Premier, in the eyes of people who observed what he said, in the eyes of the electorate of British Columbia who said: "That's a good thing that he admits that he is responsible and he was wrong...." I expect the Premier would find a similarly positive result if he was big enough today to admit that what he said two days ago was not correct, was not justified by the facts, and I invite him to take the opportunity to do so now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the member for Central Fraser Valley, who was on his feet first.

MR. RITCHIE: It's really disgusting, annoying, very deceiving and frustrating to sit here and listen to attack, attack, attack, continually — day after day, attack. I just wonder exactly what we can expect next from that group over there. Disorganized attack, organized attack, but attack nevertheless. Mr. Chairman, I find it very difficult to accept their approach to politics. Disgusting! Personal attacks, experts at fabrication.... Name it and they will fabricate it. We've heard all this talk about uranium mining. How about the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson)? What is his position on uranium mining? What was his position on uranium mining? You tell me that. Get him in here and get him to stand up and tell us that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, again, if we would address the Chair in our remarks, it does tend to help the order of debate.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I apologize. You will excuse me, but like I said earlier, sitting here day after day listening to this garbage does nothing but annoy me and get me frustrated, and I cannot help but bring out my feelings and express to the people of this province my feelings about that opposition over there.

We listened a little bit to the member for Maillardville Coquitlam (Mr. Levi). Well, he talked about a thousand dollar cheque that was spent by someone in our party. Can you remember the $100 million mistake? How did that happen? He didn't even know that it happened.

HON. MR. HEWITT: A bookkeeping error.

MR. RITCHIE: A bookkeeping error of $100 million.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: What about his wife's bank account? Do you remember that?

MR. RITCHIE: I don't know. Is there something about his wife's bank account? I don't know anything about that. He made a $100 million mistake, and here he is wasting the time of this Legislature about a thousand-dollar cheque.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The first member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: The point of order is this: the kind of scurrilous innuendo just dropped by the member whose reputation is still impugned is most unacceptable.

[ Page 1728 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It is extremely difficult for the Chair, when hearing one point of order, to understand how another matter could be raised during a point of order which in itself would constitute a point of order. Nevertheless, again I would remind all members, if I might just read at this time.... "Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language. Parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of his opponents in debate." I would ask all hon. members to bear that in mind.

Again, the member for Central Fraser Valley has the floor.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I have to consider the source of the comments in respect to myself, but my record will speak for itself. It has in the past and it will in the future. I would say that that widget from Vancouver Centre is going to learn that as time goes along. Let me tell you about your credibility, Let me tell you about private schools.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The member will take his seat.

The Chair has an obligation to uphold the rules of this chamber and will caution members on both sides of the House about those rules and will ask for the cooperation of those members in upholding those rules. When that advice is not taken the Chair is left with only one option, which it is most reluctant to carry out. I would again ask the member for Central Fraser Valley to continue in good temper and the members on the other side to respect the fact that he has the floor and keep those interjections to themselves.

MR. RITCHIE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize, and again I say that it's an expression of my frustrations over the conduct of the members on the opposite of this House.

I was merely going on to talk about the credibility of the opposition party, as they are discussing the credibility of our Premier. In doing so, I'd like to draw the attention of the House and the public of British Columbia to the position of that opposition party whenever we were voting on a question of independent schools. We're talking about credibility here.

I can recall I joined another group on a television program in Vancouver and the question of private schools came up. The opposition party was well represented there and they were asked: "What is your position?" The member for New Westminster — I believe he was the member for New Westminster at the time — very nervously passed the buck to another candidate who they knew wouldn't have a chance of making it. The candidate said: "Well, we are opposed to private schools." Yet I had a letter in my possession from the member for Vancouver Centre stating quite clearly that if they were re-elected they would support private schools. That's credibility?

MR. LAUK: A letter from me?

MR. RITCHIE: Yes.

MR. LAUK: To you?

MR. RITCHIE: To the private school system.

MR. LAUK: Say so.

MR. RITCHIE: It's in Hansard, dear member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On to vote 9, presently before us, hon. member.

MR. RITCHIE: Yes, on to vote 9, Mr. Chairman.

We're speaking about the leadership of this government. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) talked about expenses. I wonder, if we really did an accounting of the expenses of that particular member when he was in office, just how much we would find out.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. If the member wishes to canvass the validity of another member's expenses, there are parliamentary methods of doing that. I would call to your attention that the member should confine his discussion to the vote that's before the House. I also would like to caution, through you — perhaps with your advice, Mr. Chairman — that any aspersions related to expenses of members should be dealt with by substantive motion rather than offhand accusations that may be misinterpreted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition is a most valid one in this circumstance. Again I would ask the member for Central Fraser Valley to get back onto vote 9, which is the Premier's estimates.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, this is the second time in this session that I have had the opportunity and the privilege of responding to the opposition's attack on our Premier. It makes my job much easier when the opposition focuses our debate on the issue of leadership. It's not a difficult one at all to discuss because leadership is just what our Premier has given this province — sound leadership.

Consider the performance of the economy under our Premier's leadership. Since his first full year in office we have seen employment up, the gross provincial product up, personal income up, wages and salaries up, average weekly earnings up; and retail sales up. That's leadership! That is the sort of strong guidance and good management that British Columbia cried out for during the three years of the NDP government.

The opposition knows it can't attack our Premier on facts so it stays on this other nonsense — better known as garbage, in my opinion — just to try and detract from the real facts of life. It knows it can't attack our Premier on solid ground, because I have yet to hear any sound debate coming out of the opposition in respect to the programs of this government. All we hear is: "It's no good; it's terrible; it won't work"; personal attack; doom and gloom — you name it, but nothing constructive at all. No, the opposition has to create non-issues — and I mean non-issues. You know, you give me the very distinct impression that for months you sat back and just gloated over the great possibility that we would be forced into an election soon, and you would sit back and count the spoils, and become government again. God forbid! Anyway, you leave me with that impression, because it seems to me you are having to modify, and use in another way, the research that has been done for you because it certainly isn't designed to properly debate our Premier's leadership, his estimates, or

[ Page 1729 ]

even the budget of this province. Not at all. It seems to me they get together in caucus each day and dream up the non-issues of the day. It's terrible. Why don't you stick to the facts and do something constructive, and let the people out there realize that we do have constructive opposition that is quite willing to deal with the true issues of the day and not continue to look for skeletons in closets? Why not admit that the Premier has succeeded where their leader failed? Their leader had an opportunity for over three years, and he failed. The only good decision he made was to call an election, and even then he didn't have the support of his party.

HON. MR. HEWITT: And he failed again.

MR. RITCHIE: And he failed again, and he continues to fail. Why he's sitting here now with very little to say, I don't really know. I'm expecting to see some fireworks take place any time....

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: Well, that could be, because he's got a couple of strong members over there, with different personalities. The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) I think would be a real swinger all right. Mind you, when it comes to economics, I don't think you could punch your way out of a wet paper bag.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm afraid of that wild man from Kamloops.

MR. RITCHIE: That could be. Then of course, we have the legal beaver from Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), who I think gains a great deal of respect out there. I'm going to tell you, I've been getting messages lately asking: "Where is the Leader of the Opposition?"

HON. MRS. JORDAN: They haven't got one.

MR. RITCHIE: Well, they have one, all right. But they're asking me: "Where is he these days?" All we hear is "Leggatt," and all we hear from is the member for Skeena. And speaking of their leader, I'm a bit surprised that the Leader of the Opposition didn't prevent his colleagues from bringing up this non-issue on our Premier's honesty and integrity. I can't understand why the Leader of the Opposition has allowed his members to continue in this vein at all. I'm a bit surprised because the Leader of the Opposition knows that his own record is tarnished. Yes, I repeat, the Leader of the Opposition's record is tarnished, just as he knows how ridiculous the allegations are they throw at our Premier. Or has the Leader of the Opposition forgotten the case in which a supreme court justice contradicted a statement made in this House by the Leader of the Opposition when he was in power? Let me refresh the hon. members' memories. I quote from the Vancouver Province of February 4, 1975. The story is headed: "Judge Concludes Barrett Involved." It reads: "On two days last February, Premier Dave Barrett rose in the B.C. Legislature and denied that he had intervened on behalf of the northern egg producers in a quota war with the B.C. Egg Marketing Board." He denied it. "I wouldn't do anything like that. No, not me. I'm honest Dave. No way." But: "On Monday, Mr. Justice E. Hinkson handed down a judgment in the B.C. Supreme Court in which he concluded that Premier Barrett had intervened in the dispute."

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: What? You're admitting to it? Well, I give you credit.

AN HON. MEMBER: Common ground.

MR. RITCHIE: Common ground. That, Mr. Chairman, is clear and simple, and quite an embarrassment to the opposition. I wonder, are you all fully aware of that? This case involves a clear statement by a supreme court judge. The nonsense which the opposition has thrown about for two days involves one flunkey writing to another flunkey. Compare the two cases, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the member to withdraw the word "flunkey." It does not apply to any civil servant, regardless of where they work in the province of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member withdraw the term used?

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, where it may apply to a civil servant, I will withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's what was asked, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, I want an unequivocal withdrawal of the word "flunkey" as it relates to any employee or any person working for the opposition or government.

HON. MR. MAIR: Surely this point of order only applies to members of this chamber or of this committee, not to people outside it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the fact of the matter is that, first, the word does not appear in our list. Secondly, the asking for a withdrawal of a word has generally not been used by legislators in this assembly against other legislators, and it would be very difficult for the Chair to make a firm ruling; however, I would ask the member, in view of the fact that he has been asked to withdraw a word by another hon. member, that he give that matter consideration and respond accordingly at this time.

MR. RITCHIE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I agreed that where it would apply to a civil servant, I would be very pleased to withdraw it. If in fact it is making the Leader of the Opposition edgy, and I touched a nerve, then, okay, I'll withdraw.

MR. BARRETT: On a further point of order, Mr. Chairman, the rules of procedure in debate do not make anyone nervous. It is one area of civility left in the House, and when I asked for an unequivocal withdrawal as an hon. member, I expected it to be unequivocal. If other behaviour is expected, perhaps he can copy that of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) in the corridors.

[ Page 1730 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, hon. members, I must point out that the Chair has no authority to insist on the withdrawal of a word that does not refer to another hon. member. I again ask the member for Central Fraser Valley, in view of the fact that an hon. member has risen in this chamber and taken offence at a term used, for an unequivocal withdrawal at this time — if he would so assist the Chair.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I am now convinced that the opposition party believes in the old saying, "Don't do as we do, do as we say."

I will withdraw the remark, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask that the Leader of the Opposition have a little better control over his members, when we have them stand up there and suggest that our Premier is lying, and get away with it. "Don't do as we do, do as we say."

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I want to draw to your attention, and to that of the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley, that during the last session of this House, with Mr. Speaker in the chair, a member on this side of the House inadvertently — and he apologized for it afterwards — referred to Mr. Helliwell, the president of the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, as a flunkey of the government. Mr. Speaker asked that that be withdrawn, and it was, immediately, without equivocation. So I think you can find in a precedent ruling by Mr. Speaker Schroeder, just in the last session, that that word applied to somebody outside of this chamber was considered to be unparliamentary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. I would point out that the member did withdraw the word.

MR. HOWARD: After a lot of torture.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I ask this House to compare the two cases. One involves the Leader of the Opposition's word against a justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia; the other involves a letter written by someone in a foreign country to some NDP researcher. The people of the province will know whom to believe; I'm sure they've already made up their minds.

They know how this Premier brought B.C. back to prosperity after your term in office. They've seen the budget too, and they know where leadership lies. Yes, the budget is prime evidence of the superb leadership we have in British Columbia. This is not just because it's a good budget, Mr. Chairman — and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) gets his share of credit for that. But the steady and the strong guidance of the Premier is the reason that we have (1) a commitment to a balanced budget, (2) revenue surpluses from good management, and (3) a brave and intelligent social program. That's leadership, Mr. Chairman.

That's why each and every member of our party is solidly behind our Premier, which is what we all would have stated earlier in this month, except that we were prevented from doing so by the opposition. In this debate our support for the budget is wholehearted; it is wholehearted endorsement of the policies and plans of our leader. Mr. Chairman, the opposition is doing one good thing by making the Premier the centre of these debates. The opposition is letting us put our support for our leader on the record. That must be bothering them; I'm sure it is. During the debate on the budget, the Leader of the Opposition — he must not be listening to what goes on this House — made the amazing suggestion that government members were not speaking out in support of the Premier. That won a prize for sham. The opposition cut off the very debate during which every last member had intended to rise in support of a fine leader and an honourable gentleman. What happened? They cut us off, and then said we weren't standing behind our leader. Well, I'm glad to have this second chance to put the facts before the opposition. Perhaps some day, before the session ends, we can actually discuss issues with the opposition; I mean real issues, not all this sham and nonsense. But until they are ready, government members will have no trouble finding material for speeches, because it's so easy to get up and respond to the garbage we've been listening to over the past few weeks.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: We'll be glad to talk about leadership and integrity until the cows come home. My friend, what I'm talking about here would make you look like a real dunce. You may be a good bar-room brawler, but I'm going to tell you, brother, when it comes to economics you couldn't punch your way out of a wet paper bag.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Could we continue to address the Chair, please?

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, our party has a leader who is a true leader, a leader who can run a province; that's much more than the opposition can say. He had his chance. How long did he last? He panicked, called an election, got what he wanted — defeat — and now, lo and behold, he's trying to come back again. Heaven help them if the House ever spends as many days debating the NDP leader as we have spent on the Premier this session. Even a two-day debate on the NDP leadership would be quite an affair, indeed. There'd be some great, long, embarrassed silences in, that debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Prior to recognizing the member for New Westminster, I wonder if I could point out the fact that we are on the estimates of the Premier; this is as much for the benefit of those about to speak as for those who have just spoken.

MR. COCKE: I noted the thunderous applause for the last speaker, who, I understand, was speaking on the Leader of the Opposition's estimates, speaking on the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam's (Mr. Levi's) estimates, and, it would strike me, he was speaking under instructions, and seeking his level. We have suspected for some time what his level might be. I must confess I'm ashamed to have had to listen to a member debate in this House, using not only the language that member used, but also making the charges that member made, with absolutely no foundation whatsoever.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, we are speaking on the Premier's estimates. I think that one of the problems we have with the Premier is the contempt he has shown for this estimate. He

[ Page 1731 ]

has insisted that his backbenchers and his cabinet people do the talking. It reminds me of that telephone book: "Let your fingers do the walking." I suggest that that Premier isn't taking his place in the House because of his contempt. Does that surprise me? No, it doesn't surprise me.

I remember when he first took the Premiership of this province, sitting in the first Legislature to which he was responsible for that position. The opposition that day wasn't meeting his satisfaction. I recall what he said, in a loud stage whisper across the floor. Do you recall, my good friends and colleagues? I recall vividly. He said: "It took me two weeks to train my dog." I bought a little present for the Premier; I had to go as far afield as Toronto to get it — "How to Train Your Dog in Six Weeks" — and I'm going to send it to him later. That is the kind of contempt we have seen during this debate. This is the kind of inspiration that that Premier brings to his backbenchers, to produce the kind of work we've just seen in the last few minutes.

I listened very intently to the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan). I listened to the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) being prompted by the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) to say this, say that, say the other thing. But, Mr. Chairman, after having listened to all of that, for example the member talking about fabrication, talking about $100 million overrun in the face of their $250 million, a record this year....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: My colleague informs me it is $275 million. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one thing perfectly clear, and that is the position of our party on uranium. I listened to a number of speeches this afternoon about how we are and how we feel about it. Let me tell you what we did at our last convention with 1,100 delegates in Vancouver. Don't tell us about Saskatchewan, Ontario, England or anywhere else. Let's talk about British Columbia and the Leader of the Opposition, if that's what you want to talk about. Those 1,100 delegates listened all afternoon to experts brought in from all over the world, experts on the whole question of radiation. At the end of that discussion resolutions were brought up with respect to our position on that. It was totally, completely and absolutely confirmed that we were violently opposed to exploration, mining or nuclear power. Period. Amen. Now that has been our caucus policy for some years, but that was our party policy produced that day. So I don't like to see these members rushing around trying to inform us what our policy might be.

But I think that things are a little bit hot in the House at the present time. We listened to a speaker who I think needs some time to cool off. We need to give the Premier time to reflect upon his position with respect to whether or not he did have discussions in Europe in 1977 around the whole question of uranium. In order to give him that time, I move that the Chairman do now leave the chair.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

NAYS — 29

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

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I reminded the House about an early aside by the Premier in terms of his contempt for the opposition. At that time he said: "It took me two weeks to train my dog." I'm going to send this book to the Premier. It gives him six weeks to learn how to train his dog. This says a lot, Mr. Chairman, in terms of how I feel as opposition and how his members must feel with the kind of leadership shown by that kind of contempt for this particular institution and for the members in it. I would just like to remind him continually about that crack and remind him of his contempt for this House, for the members and, unfortunately, in this situation, for the truth. We could have proceeded with this debate on the Premier's estimates two and a half days ago if we had had the answer to a very simple question — a question in conflict, and that's all it is.

So. Mr. Chairman, I would ask one of the Pages to take that across to the Premier. Hopefully he'll read it, every word of it, and hopefully he won't put us through the continual defence mechanism that seems to have been built up over there, in having others answer the questions for him.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that we have a problem in this province over uranium. We have a problem in terms of an understanding of the whole question. I was in touch with people who are very much involved with the Bates commission, and they are so angry, first that it was called off and secondly that they're only allowed five months to put together what can only be a report on the present testimony.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Do you ever do research?

MR. COCKE: Don't you talk to me about research. You're the most uninformed person that I've ever run into. Fortunately you've got a department working for you.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, what are the people saying about this whole question of the Bates commission? They're saying, first, that most of the testimony around social impact has not been heard and will not be heard under the present circumstances; secondly, that most of the testimony around

[ Page 1732 ]

environmental impact has not been and will not be heard. The technical information that is in to date leans very heavily in favour of those people prepared to put it forward early — the mining companies. If the Bates commission report is to clearly give us an impression of what's right and what's wrong around uranium development, surely we'd want to hear all the testimony. I must confess we weren't all that impressed when you set it up in the first place, because as I have said, the development of uranium or nuclear power is totally in opposition to our party. But having done it, and if you're going to....

MR. REE: Which party? The national party?

MR. COCKE: Our national party. I was at the last convention, and we passed the identical resolution. What do you know about it, sitting there with your glasses on the end of your nose, chewing candy? Get informed before you make cracks like that across the floor. Mr. Chairman, we have that position, and it's our position here.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Ellen McKay was at that convention. I saw her there drinking our free coffee. I suspected that....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I didn't know it at the time. I expected that she was on a rather lean expense account. But as it turned out, we found out that Dan was as generous as could be; he didn't even ask for receipts.

Mr. Chairman, let's get on with the debate. Let's hear from the Premier. Let's give him a chance now. Let him stand up and tell us all he wants to tell us in terms of his position at that European conference, and then let's go on to debate his estimates.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for New Westminster says, "It took me two weeks to train my dog" — alluding to the Premier. He's brought this up many times in this House, whether or not it was a truthful statement. But in the context of the time, the vilification and the insults across the floor, I think it was a very apt statement indeed. I would say to the hon. member for New Westminster that if he's so fond of that statement.... [Laughter.] I don't know what's so funny about that. Don't go away, Mr. Member for New Westminster. If the hat fits, wear it. It must fit.

I want to ask the hon. members of the opposition: where are the Coldwells, the Woodsworths and, yes, the Winches of another day, of that once proud party? What's happened to the NDP? What's happened to the remnants and ragtag divisions of people that have lost the parliamentary aspect — and for one word: uranium. We want the answer to the uranium. Did the minister and the Premier talk about uranium in Europe? What is the consequence of this statement? I don't know what it is. I don't understand that.

MR. BARRETT: Sit down and I'll tell you.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Yes, Mr. Leader, you asked to tell me. I'll tell you, too. Because this opposition made mistakes when they were government is no reason why we should make them, and we do not. I want to tell you the feelings that I had, of frustration and of chagrin, when we had the reports in those three years about the incompetence of that leader and that opposition.

MR. BARRETT: The Marguerite.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I'll just pick two or three of those points out. The Marguerite was a Sunday school class by comparison. There's nothing wrong with the decision on the Marguerite. In due course you and the people of Victoria will find it was a proper decision, because we're looking to the future, and not just for today.

I want to quote about the hon. leader, who is so smart at quips. Let me make a few remarks on what he said when he was Premier — not to say we should do it, but the feeling of regret that we had, this great, proud province of British Columbia. In Allan Fotheringham's column of April 10, 1975: "One thing an observer finds at yet another of these Confederation wrangles is that the general attitude for the B.C. delegation is not what you would call one of great respect." That was what he said, and he goes on: "Before the recitation had gone very far, a luminary from the Globe and Mail got up from his seat, walked over to me and said: 'Your Premier has become a bore.'" I'll tell you this. They never said that about our Premier, and they couldn't. It does not allow for comparison. I’m just saying this opposition must be ashamed of its position.

Let me go a little further, Mr. Leader who is so good at quips. Let me bring back home some of the remarks you made, which we have refrained from making. It's no excuse to say how bad they've been, but I want to show you the regret and the shame that we held as British Columbians during the three years of the NDP administration. Marjorie Nichols said on Friday, April 11....

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, listen to this. I want you to hear it.

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

MR. MUSSALLEM: There's no doubt about that, Mr. Chairman, but you have to talk in between their interruptions. That cyclical sound from the other end doesn't bother me a bit, but I want to get these words across.

I quote from Marjorie Nichols' column of April 11, 1975: "Dave Barrett is concerned about his image of clown of the nation." Now that wasn't very high praise. That was a situation this government found when it came into office in 1975.

We have serious business in this House today. We have the business of questioning the Premier on his office for three days. I shouldn't be here speaking. There's no need of it. The Premier can answer the questions if you would make questions and would get down to the issue — if you would ask questions on the constitutional rights of maintaining our resources. Ask questions on these matters. The Premier works on that.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the minister that question period is another thing. In my 11 years in this House I've

[ Page 1733 ]

never seen an opposition so absolutely devoid of questions in question period. They are so happy when the bell rings, it's shameful. They just wait for that bell, and then they say: " Oh, it's over for another day!" It's regrettable. Where are the Coldwells, the Woodsworths and the Winches? Where are they? Certainly not here. It's a matter of deep regret.

There are so many things we can ask the Premier, so many things of importance. What about trade in the Pacific Rim? What about the federal — provincial problems? What about all these things? What was his presentation? I'll tell the leader, if he wants to hear, Mr. Chairman, that we were proud of our Premier on two separate occasions: when he brought to Ottawa the only factual presentation on the proper association and determination of Canada's future — the only one of all.

I don't have to praise the Premier; he doesn't need any praise from me. But we're proud that we have a man who was reported right across the country, but not as the clown Prince of British Columbia, as was the leader of this opposition. Our Premier is a man who showed direction to our province.

These are the questions they can ask. What about the negative income tax that they're so fond of talking about? Our Premier has suggested the possibility of this, if it could be on the national scene. Would they ask that question? Would they ask how far we can get? Those questions could be asked. We could be asking questions of the Premier and concluding this debate, but we do not even reach it — we do not even approach it.

They talk of credibility. The credibility is on our side; the lack of it is there. It is time we buried this uranium nonsense, because those are the nuclear experts. The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) is the nuclear expert. He has left; he can't take it. The member for Nelson-Creston is the nuclear expert of this House; he's the one who is interested in uranium. If I'm correct, we have a moratorium on uranium exploration and mining. That's not the point; that's not the issue. It's not the Premier's office. I say that the opposition have shown very little imagination, have shown no effort, have shown no intention to interrogate the Premier; they've just sat there and occupied the time of this House. I'm telling you this, and I'm telling them that, Mr. Chairman: the public is hearing the story.

They will take any satisfaction in the so-called polls that would be collected. As the member for Victoria said: "If we had an election tomorrow, we would be elected." I'll tell you, that group over there, my honourable friends, are great wishful thinkers, If there were an election tomorrow, they would not be elected. Polls are not the issue. The issue before the House today is the Premier's estimates, and unless you start asking the questions that are fitting and proper, we're not going to get anywhere.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) returns. All he could talk about, really, was training my dog, And he sends a book — what nonsense! What shame has this House descended to, when we're here on serious people's business and we've got to listen to this playacting. No wonder they refer to this Legislature — and they're not referring to us, I can tell you — as people in a playpen. That's where the playpen is.

Let's get serious. Let's ask the questions. Let's complete this investigation. Let's get through with the Premier's office — and it can be done this afternoon. You know he's the greatest Premier this province has ever had. Well, I've got to modify that — except one, and it's not Barrett. Let us get on! The business could so easily be done. We're not accomplishing anything. We could go on with our work. I beg the opposition to get off this silly attack, and let's get rolling in this Legislature.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I'll just make a brief remark on a comment by the member, who just spoke, who remarked in passing that this was a very serious business. It is, Mr. Chairman, an extremely serious business. I think this province should have a Premier who is prepared to stand in his place and just tell the people of this province that he was wrong.

You know, for some 10 or 12 years — you're going to miss the good part, Mr. Premier, don't leave — I used to be a Boy Scout leader, believe it or not, and I used to tell those little guys: "Tell the truth, and don't let me catch you smoking." [Laughter.] I am trying to be very serious here, Mr. Chairman, but I'm really upset about this whole thing. Now I go back and visit those little fellows and I say: "Remember to always tell the truth." They say: "But I don't want to tell the truth. I want to grow up to be Premier someday." Now, is he setting a good example for the people of this province?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is impugning a member's reputation, Mr. Member. Please, if you could refrain from that type of comment.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I am in no way attempting to impugn any member's reputation, Mr. Chairman, and I withdraw those words without a big hassle. In any event, what I'm asking of the Premier, I think, as the chief executive officer of the government.... He should, in my view, set an example for the other people of this province.

For a moment, just so it's in the record, I want to refer to this correspondence from Mr. Etienne Reuter. I'll tell you later, Mr. Chairman, why I am referring to this letter again. It says in part:

"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 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."

It's quite clear that the Premier discussed the export of uranium with the Commission of the European Communities in 1977.

Mr. Chairman, this was not the only time the Premier was not candid with people in this province. A short time ago, about the middle of February of this year, the Premier met in his office with residents of Ocean Falls, primarily members of the Canadian Paperworkers International Union. By the way, I was not invited, even though I was here in Victoria and prepared to go to that meeting, as the MLA for the area....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Do you live in Victoria?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, Mr. Premier. Part of the time — I find it very expensive. However, I do have a very nice

[ Page 1734 ]

home in Powell River, which is part of my riding, and constituency offices, by the way — I'll give you the addresses and phone numbers — in Ocean Falls, Bella Coola, and Gibsons.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, on or about the middle of February the Premier met in his office with representatives of the union, and he told them in regard to any decision made about the future of that community: "You will be the first to know. Before anyone else, we will let you know what the future of your community is going to be, and the decision we make as government." What happened? The fact is, the first the people in that community knew that they were going to be shut down — unemployed — within the next few months was by a newspaper publication which appeared on the morning of the following Friday, March 7. That's the first they knew what their fate was going to be, in spite of a promise made in front of all kinds of witnesses by the Premier of this province that they would be the first to know. There were lots of rumours around. I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, the people up there aren't very happy with that.

But guess what? The Premier didn't stop there. He made a further promise. He said: "I will come up to visit you on April 1 of this year." Yes, appropriate. Mr. Chairman, the Premier's going to be up on his feet shortly, I presume, owning up to the discussions of the sale of uranium to Europe, and so he can answer this one little question: is the Premier going to visit Ocean Falls on April I? Is the Premier going to go up there as promised to visit those people in Ocean Falls and tell them how they are supposed to survive in this sick economy that we have in British Columbia? Where are they supposed to get jobs? They might find jobs for 150 of those people, but certainly no more. So I would like the Premier, when he has the opportunity to speak in this Legislature, to answer that very simple question and restore the confidence of the people of this province in the Premier. That's what he should do: stand up there like a man, admit he was wrong, admit he told a little teensy fib, and say: "Look, it could happen to anybody."

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I withdraw the word "teensy," Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, Mr. Member, you cannot suggest imputations of falsehood that are by a member against another member.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I withdraw the word "fib" Mr. Chairman — or "teensy."

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is offensive to the Chair.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Which one, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any word that would impute a falsehood.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Okay, I withdraw the word "fib" and leave the word "teensy."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, that is acceptable to the Chair.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Just to reiterate, I'm asking the Premier...I know he didn't keep his word to the people in Ocean Falls regarding the announcement of the closure and that they would be the first to know. They want to see him up there; they really do. I want the Premier to tell us in this House today that he is going to go up to Ocean Falls, as promised — because I want to know that our Premier keeps his promises — and talk to the people up there personally. I know they would love to see him. I got a great welcome when I went up there two weeks ago. I'm sure the Premier will receive that same welcome.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I worked in the forest industry for many years before I came to this Legislature, and was a member of the IWA. I was hoping that we would have some useful discussion during this session of the Legislature, something positive perhaps, so that we could go back to our fellow workers and say that we had really done something labour-intensive, satisfying their needs and perhaps providing job opportunities for young British Columbians in the form of an apprenticeship training program based on a sliding subsidy to industry as outlined in His Honour's speech. Or I thought perhaps we would like to make changes to the Workers' Compensation Act in order to prevent the slaughter of dozens of British Columbian loggers in the forest industry. But so far that hasn't happened. I'm disappointed that the opposition hasn't taken advantage of the programs outlined in His Honour's speech and in the budget debate, so that we could get on and get to these programs, discuss them and bring in some good legislation — get a good discussion going back and forth on how we can solve some of these problems.

I just want to talk a little bit about the Premier's estimates. The free BCRIC shares that were distributed to all British Columbians who were eligible for the shares — this was a really unique and successful experience and involved all British Columbians in the resource development of the province. I have some concern that there are 250,000 shares that have not been distributed in the province and I was wondering what plans the Premier had to distribute these shares. I realize that two deadlines have passed already but I believe a further opportunity should be given to British Columbians to avail themselves of those shares.

I also have some questions for the Premier with regard to making himself more available to the citizens of British Columbia. I know that the people of the interior of this province would like to see more of the Premier and the government. I would like to see an opportunity whereby the Premier could get away from the administrative role of the Premier's office and get into the interior of the province, have some frank discussions with the people of the interior, people in the mining industry, people in the forest industry, and discuss our policies face to face with British Columbians.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the remarks from the member for Kootenay. All over this province the Premier has been hiding from ordinary people. He should be getting out more and talking to people. I think he should come to my next constituency meeting because they have some questions to ask him on very important issues, not least of which is credibility.

Do you know that one of the problems here this week is that some people, particularly on the government side, do not understand what we are worried about. The Premier may

[ Page 1735 ]

have his facts wrong with respect to a meeting in Europe, with respect to the previous policy of the government to sell uranium actively in Europe and other places. Why is everybody so concerned about something that minor? Because we've got Lettergate, we've got the Vogel affair, the Ritchie affair, all kinds of affairs going on that may make this look not too serious.

But it does involve the first minister and I say this: the first minister of this province is one of the most important figures in our system — economically, politically and socially. It is his stature that everyone must look to as an example. Following disaster upon disaster, the Premier's credibility has been called into question since 1976 on many major issues. During the election campaign of 1975 the Premier was in possession of a stolen telegram and used it during that campaign. He thought the seatbelt thing was minor. But why do you think people think that's important, Mr. Chairman? They think it's important because the man who occupies the highest office in this province should be totally and completely above reproach when it comes to credibility. He is the man who is the chief executive officer of that cabinet which controls $5.8 billion of our money. He is the man who presides over a cabinet that educates our young and collects our taxes; it's supposed to stimulate our economy, enforce our laws and care for our old and our sick and our poor. He's the first minister. That's why any doubt about his credibility is a major issue, and should be a major issue in this province.

Now to the uranium situation. Is it just a question of the Premier denying that he was talking uranium in Europe? Is that the question? Are we all going to jump up and say, "Aha, we caught you in a lie!"? — and then you say, "Oh, I didn't, I didn't," or something like that. No, that's not the issue. That's not why we're trying to get the Premier to come clean with the Legislature, with this committee and with the province. It's because there was a consistent program to flog uranium up until recently when that policy was reversed. It's not enough to just call a moratorium; there must be an explanation by the Premier of this province, and by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, as to why they changed their policy to coincide with ours.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) says it's untrue. I'm about to prove it's true. If he'll clean out his ears he can hear. There was a consistent policy on the part of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, on the part of the Premier, on the part of the former Minister of Finance and on the part of that entire government to sell British Columbia uranium in Europe and in Korea. One of the major purposes of the recent trip to Korea by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and the Premier was to sell uranium. Does he deny that?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Did you say that's a lie? You say it's a lie.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. LAUK: No, I'm not asking him to withdraw; I'll ask that later. And I may ask something more of that member, if he has the honour.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps, Mr. Member, I'll instruct Hansard not to take from your time, as I once again read from that paragraph from page 419 of the eighteenth edition of Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice:

"The same right to claim courteous treatment in debate 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 usually been met with the immediate intervention of the Chair...."

Perhaps, with that in mind, I will once again ask the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre to continue the debate on vote 9.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I'm not asking the minister to withdraw it at this stage.

I refer to a letter from the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development, dated February 1, 1980, addressed to persons who received, under cover of this letter, a certain pamphlet: "Herewith please find enclosed the latest issue of 'Industrial and Commercial Expansion in British Columbia.'" This letter gives authority for the copies of the pages I have here. This publication, under the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development, refers back to a pamphlet called "Industrial and Commercial Expansion in British Columbia between January I and June 30, 1979." I ask the committee to mark those dates, because subsequent information will show that those dates are absolutely crucial.

On page 50 there is reference to a company called Noreen Energy Resources Ltd.; and the location of their mining project is in Kelowna, British Columbia. I want to note, and draw to the committee's attention, the type of project description given in the report, as related to the other descriptions of other mining projects given in the report — for example, Teck Corporation's, $25,000-t.p.d. copper-molybdenum mine; and the others refer to molybdenum, copper, lead, zinc and so on. This is the only one that does not refer to the type of ore under exploration and development. This is economic region 3, in Kelowna, British Columbia. The description of the project for Noreen Energy Resources Ltd., prior to June 30, 1979, was as follows:

"Exploration activities are being carried out on an estimated ore reserve of 2,100,000 tonnes. Production of this mine could lead to employment of up to 140 people. It would take approximately $45 million investment to bring this mine into production. "

We have learned that that's 2,100,000 tonnes of uranium ore. It appeared in a pamphlet under the direction of the Ministry of Economic Development as one of their major projects in the first part of 1979. It's given here in the committee to prove conclusively that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development's ministry and himself were aware of this project on June 30, 1979. They had access to information from Noreen development in Kelowna, British Columbia, and they knew about their intentions to mine 2.1 million tonnes of uranium ore.

The next piece of evidence.... Now is that troublesome? Obviously not. But let's look at the press release from the office of the Premier, September 25, 1979. "Premier Bill Bennett will leave Friday for a two-week trade and economic mission to Japan and Korea." What's he doing? He's going with the Minister of Industry and Small Business Develop-

[ Page 1736 ]

ment, Don Phillips, and other members of the Premier's staff and members of the minister's staff. The group will return by October 12, they tell us. From the third paragraph, I quote: "Bennett believes it is vital that the British Columbia position on trade, foreign investment, technological changes, upgrading of resources and" — take special note — "longterm resource supply be understood by the Korean government leaders and industrialists." Let me go to page 2: "The basic objectives of the trip are to advise Japanese and Korean industrial leaders of British Columbia's position on resource supply, upgrading of resources and foreign investment."

Now let's turn to the itinerary of the Premier and the minister. On the afternoon of Wednesday, October 10, he had a meeting with Mr. Chang U Juhn, Minister of Energy and Resources. Thursday, October 11, he had a meeting with Mr. Kim Yung Juhn of the Korean Electric Company. Here it says: "potential buyer of B.C. thermal coal." Now I want you to note that statement: "President of the Korean Electric Company, Kim Yung Juhn." We then find, on November 23, 1979, the following release in the Toronto newspaper: "Norcen Lecana E&B win South Korean uranium contract. The mining companies and Korea Electric officials have declined to disclose contract price and escalation terms." I'll quote from one of the paragraphs:

"Norcen, together with Ontario Hydro, form the Norcen joint venture group which is set to develop the Blizzard uranium deposit near Kelowna, British Columbia. Exploration results indicated a uranium deposit of 2. I million metric tonnes and a total reserve of 10. 5 million pounds of uranium oxide. The Noreen Lecana spokesman said that completion...."

Please pay close note to this. This guy with the Norcen company must know what he's talking about, Mr. Chairman, when he says this in the press: "The Norcen spokesman said that completion of the contracts depends on the commission's rulings" — referring to the Bates commission — "but he did not expect any problems to develop."

Here's a letter dated January 11, 1980. I'm informed that the name and title of the official signing for the Korea Electric Company is Geng O Sung, the director and vicepresident. The sale was on November 16, 1979. What is a reasonable, right-thinking person to think when we see those facts accumulate? We have to assume that up until the moratorium declared by the government, the Premier and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development — who said that I was lying to the chamber — were actively engaged in discussing the sale of uranium to the Europeans and the Koreans. We have to assume that. We have proved it in the case of the European Economic Community. Now I ask the Premier of this province to deny that he was discussing the sale of uranium with the official from Korea Electric. I ask him to stand in the committee and deny it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I just want to rise and make a few comments regarding the opposition's attack, which really moves around the word "credibility," which they've been discussing this afternoon and yesterday. They tie it into uranium and a trip to Europe by the Premier and the Minister of Economic Development in 1977. The first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) talked about it and mentioned a massive contradiction. I'll give you a massive contradiction. It's like a New Democratic Party in the province of British Columbia that's opposed to uranium mining, and a provincial government in Saskatchewan that wants to be the uranium capital of the world. This party over here keeps talking about national policies — the New Democratic Party is alive....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Listen to what we say, but not what we do.

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's very true, Mr. Premier.

Saskatchewan is the uranium capital of the world, if they wish it to be — national policies that apply to all — yet they can stand up and say: "Isn't this a terrible thing!" — imply that it was a terrible thing in 1977. Barber calls it a massive contradiction. You should be ashamed. You should be crusading in Saskatchewan, getting that government to change their ways.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The member for Vancouver Centre says that a leader of a government, or a Premier, should be totally and completely above reproach. There again, that party over there talks about uranium mining and stands up and complains and says all these terrible things, and their government in Saskatchewan is going on and mining uranium and saying it's the uranium capital of the world. Now how could you stand up and carry on that type of attack when your party — the only provincial NDP government — is mining uranium to a fare-thee-well? That's credibility? I doubt it.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about nuclear power, Jim?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, then we have "Nick the Nuke" — the member for Nelson-Creston.

Let's talk about credibility, Mr. Chairman, just briefly in regard to this government and its leadership. Let's go back to the statement that was made by the opposition House Leader (Mr. Howard) when he said.... I think it was in the throne speech debate — he was the first speaker in the throne speech debate — where he made that statement which I hope every citizen of British Columbia will hear at some point in time: "The private enterprise system is a heartless system. " That was the statement he made in this House and, of course, to the people of this province.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What does Esquimalt say?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I wonder what Esquimalt says.

But under this Premier, and with the private enterprise system in this province, this government has reduced the sales tax of the province, we've assisted small business in this province, and we've reduced the capital tax in this province — all those things through a private enterprise system to assist the economy of this province. At the same time, in doing that, in encouraging development of the province, we've been able to provide additional social services to the people of the province through hospital construction programs, through long-term care, through dental-care programs, etc. All those things are to be done by a government and a party that believes in the private enterprise system which the opposition says is a heartless system. That says something, I think, for the credibility of this government in what we've done and in the programs we've put in to assist that private enterprise system in providing the revenues to supply those social services.

[ Page 1737 ]

Let's talk about credibility in regard to the federal-provincial relations that went on. Do you remember between 1973 and 1975? They called it "the clown in Ottawa." The clown went down to Ottawa — you remember that. He clowned around down there, had a great time, got a lot of laughs. You can remember that. The press remembers it. It was on TV. It was in the newspaper — how that former Premier went down and clowned around in Ottawa.

What had to happen? In 1975, in December, we were elected and, I think, if I remember the dates, within a few days of the election this Premier took members of his cabinet and went down to Ottawa to try and mend some of the damage that was done by that former Premier of this province. We went into constitutional discussions. We developed a DREE agreement, an ARDSA agreement for this province, and various other agreements to assist industry and small business in this province. That's credibility, Mr. Members.

We talk about credibility again between 1973 and 1975. You remember when we were elected, and we appointed a committee to select an auditor-general. When we brought in the legislation, they said: "Well, we were going to do that, but...." Remember? Well, we did it. We did it on this side of the House. The same with the ombudsman — they were going to do that too.

So you can see, Mr. Chairman, that I suggest that the lack of credibility is on that side of the House and not on this side of the House. You can see the results that we've produced.

Let's talk about credibility in regard to financial management and or mismanagement, if you want to look between 1973 and 1975. The $100 million mistake, or bookkeeping error, that was made; the massive deficit that was left — that indicates to me that the other side has some lack of credibility as opposed to having credibility.

What happened when this leader came into office, when this government came into office? We brought in balanced budgets; we brought in quarterly reports; we brought in the Crown corporations committee to review the actions of the Crown corporations. That's an indication, I think, of the credibility of this government, because we brought in things such as the auditor-general, the Crown corporations committee and the quarterly financial reports, to allow people to look at what government was doing. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis).... But I don't want to use you as a reference; I'll use the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom). The best accountability in this country.... The reason I didn't use the Minister of Finance is because they might think he was biased, you see, so I was not referring to the Finance minister.

That indicates credibility to the people of this province. How you can get up, how you can make comments about lack of credibility of this government, of the leadership of this party and of this government, totally amazes me.

We've had four years of this government's administration, this party's administration, and we have a government that has given direction and leadership with a Premier who is dedicated to the betterment of this province and the people of this province. We have turned around the lack of credibility of the former administration, with their deficits, with their mismanagement, with their conflict with national party policies in regard to the mining of uranium. Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to comment that it seems to me that the party opposite should sit very quietly and allow the Premier's vote to go through with very little debate, because they lack credibility.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, a number of questions were asked yesterday and today relating to policies of the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: And uranium mining.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, some of the people have mentioned uranium mining. I would remind this House that there has not been any uranium mined in this province ever, and now there is a seven-year moratorium on the exploration and mining because of this government. I would remind them that we have never had any uranium mines operating in British Columbia. There are no uranium mines operating, although the Mines department of the New Democratic Party, when they were government, did sign a particular memo or authorization specifically for uranium mining to take place. That's the only one that I have seen.

But that is consistent with their party when they become government, because in Saskatchewan where they are government, of course, they not only believe in exploration for uranium but uranium mining, and that's their decision. I know that if the members of the opposition here, the New Democratic Party, are sincere in their concern about uranium mining, they will request the government to adjourn the Legislature for a week so that they can go to Saskatchewan while the Legislature is sitting and convince their colleague Allan Blakeney and the New Democrats there to stop uranium mining. If such a request is made, our party would consider it, Mr. Chairman. I say that if they'll send them a wire now, we'll give them the time to go.

I expect one or two of the New Democrats who tried to use the genuine concern of British Columbians, the protest of British Columbians — a few New Democrats did in my constituency.... I would expect them to now, because they're not tied down in the Legislature — well-known names like Frank Snowsell.... I know that even now Frank will be in Saskatchewan talking to his good friend Allan Blakeney. I know one thing. Frank, if he believes it, certainly will be there. I don't think he would be so political as to be inconsistent and only be against it in British Columbia. So I know that when I go home in a few weeks from now Frank won't be there, or else he'll already have been successful in having convinced his colleague and friend Allan Blakeney not to carry on any more uranium mining, because it's a matter of principle with them. If they're against it here, of course, I know they're against it in Saskatchewan, and I know they will welcome the opportunity to go there, talk to their colleagues and stop them.

HON. MR. MAIR: They're men of principle.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, we know they're men of principle.

Mr. Chairman, others have asked me questions too. The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) is not in the House but I know he has the opportunity to read the Blues so I will respond to some of his concerns. He did mention a meeting that I had in my office with some representatives from the community of Ocean Falls. We had many discussions about what would be the future of Ocean Falls. We couldn't give an answer at that time, because all of the things we are trying to do in a positive way for not only Ocean Falls but the lumber

[ Page 1738 ]

and timber on all of the middle coast were not yet complete. The course was not yet set. I suggested a number of things. Some of them felt it wouldn't help if I came in the first part of April to visit Ocean Falls to talk to the people. Whether it was a solution or not, some felt it wouldn't help.

I'm still prepared to go. When the formal agreement on pairing is worked out in the House, I'll be pleased to go. The first part of April and I'll be off. I would hate to have to tell them that because you're so small on the other side of the House and you won't accommodate the usual courtesies to one another — that of pairing, which is a part of the parliamentary system — I can't go. What I will do, if they won't accommodate me by allowing pairing in a formal and continuing way, is, of course, send a representative to talk with them. This is a good opportunity for the opposition to formalize the pairing agreement. It's a good opportunity to request that we adjourn the House so they can go to Saskatchewan and convince their colleagues in Saskatchewan not to mine uranium.

Let me just say that what is taking place at Ocean Falls will have ramifications far beyond that community when it is successful. I trust it will be, and I am confident it will be. It is a forward-looking decision. It is an opportunity to rationalize timber that so far has not been considered part of the provincial inventory.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) keeps interrupting me. I wonder if you could just caution him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Premier. To the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre, this is the fourteenth time that the Chair has heard.... On the fifteenth time...I hope that doesn't arise.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the Premier clearly indicated that he was willing to go to Ocean Falls. We said: "Why don't you go with Don Lockstead if you're worried about pairing?" He ignored it completely.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That is....

MR. LAUK: Did he talk to Korea Electric? That's what I want to know.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Is the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) showing complete disregard for the Chair?

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. LAUK: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for allowing me to retake my place in the House. I thought perhaps the first member for Vancouver Centre was using a fictitious point of order to gain the floor in an unfair way.

I've made a number of suggestions to do with Ocean Falls and mid-coast timber. I want to talk about it because the member for Mackenzie has brought it up. I know if that member were in the House he would concede that the best decision for all that area is a decision that works and will keep on working, not a decision that will put a tremendous cost burden on the provincial taxpayers year after year. Unfortunately, that's what was happening with the newsprint facility. They tried and it wasn't viable. The cost to the people of British Columbia was in the millions of dollars, and the projected losses would have meant millions and millions more.

There are two options open to a negative government. They would have closed it down and said, "that's it," or they would have kept it operating, afraid to close it down, and pumped in hundreds and millions of dollars of public money. What we did was look for a positive solution that would not only help that community but would utilize the forest resources that have not yet been harnessed and put to use. This could stimulate the small businesses, the small loggers and sawmills that can be developed up the mid-coast and, indeed, including Stewart, British Columbia. Stewart is a community that needs some stabilization and a broadening of its base. Now that this government has seen Stewart revived with Granduc we want to see the broadening of its base as well.

Looking into the area of this timber which could be utilized in facilities such as the experimental one being developed at Ocean Falls could mean the development of many such sawmills cutting flitches, and feeding them into remanufacture elsewhere in the province. It means employment. It means encouragement to new small business. It actually means increasing forest opportunity; heretofore that resource was not considered merchantable or cuttable or usable. Today we'll get two things: we'll get value out of it and we'll get employment out of it; and it will be good forestry practice, because it will help in our program to get rid of decadent, unusable timber and have proper reforestation and management.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, we didn't opt for either of the two negative solutions which could have been developed for the mid-coast. We did what a positive government would do: we waited until we could see a clear-cut opportunity to be positive and to undertake this program.

That is why there should be optimism, and why I would be pleased to visit not only Ocean Falls, but all the communities and areas of the middle coast to look at the opportunities which this new, imaginative, far-reaching program, which is being tried there first, will bring to the the people all up and down that coast as well as to the forest industry. We're not just looking at a single community; we're looking at a number of communities. I know that the member for Mackenzie knows that there are many parts of th6 coast, right up to Stewart, that could utilize small milling facilities which could cut these flitches. We know that if it's successful, we could then look at further expansion of pulp facilities at Ocean Falls. That's what we want to look at; we want to look at opportunities.

Interjection.

[ Page 1739 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: I know that the member for Vancouver Centre has just leaned over to the member for Mackenzie, and not being able to yell himself — having been cautioned by you, Mr. Chairman — he's instructed the member for Mackenzie to yell from his seat. So, Mr. Chairman, he's encouraging others in the irresponsibility you've asked him to stop.

That's what we've done about Ocean Falls. That's what we've done about our forest industry. That's what we've done about a part of our forests that was not considered part of the inventory. That's what we've done to bring to the coastal forest industry the type of utilization that has taken place in the interior of British Columbia. It really is a major step forward to the type of close utilization that took place in the interior. Now we can have the same type of development, looking at what wasn't considered inventory in a useful and prosperous way. Mr. Chairman, that's the type of government this party is providing — positive government. Not reckless spending, not reckless preservation, but positive preservation that has on its balance sheet both the human values and the people, and what contribution it can make to the economy, and further that it not be a cost to the economy. What we're doing there, Mr. Chairman, covers these three criteria: a concern for human values and people; a concern for the future value to the province; and, of course, a concern for the mounting costs to the province. That's what was being done.

One of the members mentioned the BCRIC distribution. Mr. Chairman, I would like your guidance on this because it isn't my responsibility, The distribution, up until now, has been carried out through the Ministry of Finance. Could you advise me on that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: History has demonstrated, hon. Premier, that when.... Excuse me just a moment, please, hon. member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Was that the Leader of the Opposition who was making that noise, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

HON. MR. BENNETT: As usual.

MR. CHAIRMAN: History has dictated, hon. Premier, that during the Premier's estimates almost anything that the Premier wishes to cover can, in turn, be covered in reply. I think that the hon. Premier is familiar with what comes under his particular jurisdiction in his own estimates. That is the only advice that the Chair could give.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm always pleased to talk about the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation and the successful application of individual ownership that it has provided British Columbians. It is a unique distribution, really in the traditions of those of us who see a great future for this country in continuing and increasing individual ownership. That's what British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation has provided to all British Columbians. It is not now owned by government; it is not now an arm of government; it is a private-sector corporation owned by over two million British Columbians and a number of other Canadians, who as Canadians can share with us the opportunity to develop and own business and industry in our province.

It is true that undertaking something that hadn't been done before, a distribution of such magnitude to over two million people, which required them to personally apply and then of course pick up the shares.... With all of that, Mr. Chairman, obviously many had difficulty applying, and as you know we had to adjust the deadline a number of times to accommodate British Columbians, and we had to have an appeal procedure that responded to those who missed the opportunity but met all the qualifications. The same is true of those who applied for the shares and haven't picked them up. It has appeared that when we set deadlines there are a number of people, about 40,000 or maybe a little less, who applied for their shares but had not picked them up by the deadline.

The government will be bringing in changes to the regulations to allow an additional time for those people to pick up their shares and a further opportunity to encourage them to pick up the shares they applied for. Because we know that if they were interested enough, in fact welcomed this opportunity for ownership enough to go down and apply for them, there must be something — that they haven't understood the deadline and therefore haven't picked them up. So besides all the attempts to contact them, to warn them and advise them, we will be doing an extra mailing now, extending the deadline to each of those people in a registered form. I would hope that if there are names in the various constituencies of the members of this assembly, the members will do all they can to assist those people who live in their constituencies who may have applied and not picked up the shares. I think it would be useful if we all personally applied to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) to find out if we could assist — to find out if any of those people reside in our areas, and personally assist in getting the shares to those who applied for them. I think that would be a job worthy of every MLA. I know that although the New Democratic Party is officially against individual ownership in this scheme and believes in government ownership, as MLAs they would meet their commitment to their constituents to represent them during this five-year period, and treat all people as constituents, not just those who voted for them, and consider it their responsibility to help them get their shares. So, Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to discuss BCRIC.

There are a number of other questions that I want to get more detailed answers to, but I will bring them later.

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. Phillips tabled the financial statements for the British Columbia Railway for the year ending December 28, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:51 p.m.