[ Page 1761 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions.

Shortage of coastal ferries. Mr. Lockstead –– 1761

B.C. Housing Corporation assets. Mr. Gabelmann –– 1762

Crown land. Mr. Gabelmann –– 1762

Rent controls. Mr. Gabelmann –– 1762

Human Rights Code. Ms. Brown –– 1762

Farm income assurance. Mrs. Wallace –– 1763

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office estimates.

On vote 9.

Mr. Levi –– 1764

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1767

Mr. Barrett –– 1768

Mr. Davis –– 1771

Mr. Lorimer –– 1773

Mr. Ritchie –– 1775

Mrs. Wallace –– 1777

Mr. Barrett –– 1778

Division on the motion to rise –– 1778

Mr. Hanson –– 1779

Mr. Brummet –– 1780

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1782

MONDAY, MARCH 31, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I am sure that I may speak on behalf of all hon. members in expressing sympathy over the passing of Mr. William T. Sraith, QC., over the weekend. Mr. Straith was a former member of this House and minister who was noted not only for his accomplishments in government in British Columbia but also for his quiet, friendly and interested manner; he was a friend of a number of us in this House and in my particular case, if I may say so, sir, a very close friend of my late father. If it is the wish of this House, would you convey our very deepest sympathy to Mrs. Straith and members of the family.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The appropriate message of condolence will be forwarded.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in the message I wish you'd make sure it's understood to be the total unanimous condolences of this House. I happen to have known Mr. Straith, not too well, but I join entirely in what the hon. minister has said.

On the other point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to express the hope that Mr. Schroeder will shortly be back in the chair, well and fit and in good humour as always.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we enjoy seeing you in that chair, but all members of the House should know that Mr. Schroeder has had one series of tests and they all are very positive. He will continue in hospital for a few more days, and then we will look forward to seeing him back in his regular place. I'm sure all sides of this House would ask you to convey to him our very best wishes for his speediest return to his place.

HON. MR. SMITH: On a happier note today, I'm going to make an introduction, but first of all I will announce that this is the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce Take Your Child to Work Week. In keeping with the spirit of that week, I have taken my child to work. He has sat in on committee meetings and was invited to stay in caucus in my place, and has performed a number of my duties probably better than I. He's also on time. So I would ask the House to welcome my son, Christopher Smith, who is here in the gallery at the far end.

MR. SKELLY: I would ask the House to make welcome my constituency secretary of seven years, Shirley Deitrich, who is here observing the proceedings today.

MR. KEMPF: With us in the gallery today are two individuals from that great north-central part of our province, Mrs. Olga Walker from Hazelton and Mr. Lloyd Gething from Telkwa. I would ask the House to make them very welcome.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, we have in the House today from Kimberley, B.C., Mr. and Mrs. David Stewart, their children, Jennifer, Georgia, Jane and Gwen, and their friend Mrs. Agnes Nomland from Victoria. I'd like the House to welcome them.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome to the House today Karen Losh Lithgow, the wife of one of the members of the press gallery, but I can't — she too is on the sick list in surgery. I ask the House to bid her welcome upon her speedy return.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to welcome to the House today the principal of Vernon Elementary School, Mr. Charlie Pierce, and his wife Betty. They are good friends and fine constituents and they are enjoying the spring break and being tourists in beautiful Victoria. I'd ask the House to give them a very warm welcome.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House this afternoon for the first time my wife Hilary, my son Justin, my daughter Helen and my younger son Kieran, who are in your gallery. In keeping with the Victoria "bring your child to work week," also here is the son of the member for Prince George South, Dean Strachan. I'd like the House to welcome them.

Also in the gallery this afternoon is a very good friend of mine from Cranbrook, Elmer Higgins, with his daughter Cate and his son Andrew. I would like the House to bid them welcome as well.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are two outstanding students from Vanier Senior Secondary School in Courtenay; I would like the House to welcome Karen Trimmer and Brent Knights.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are a few of the competitors who were in Victoria over the weekend competing in the North American speed skating championships. I can't resist the opportunity to let the House know that we produce more than oil, gas and grain in the Peace River country; of seven competitors from my home town of Fort St. John, they won five gold medals, five silver medals and four bronze medals in the relay. A brother and sister, Randy and Lori Ljuden, are North American champions in their respective age classes. I'd like the House to welcome them.

Oral Questions

SHORTAGE OF COASTAL FERRIES

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways: can the minister assure this House, due to the refit of the Queen of the North, now known as the Queen of Surrey, or vice versa, that the central north coast will not be without transportation services for no longer than the six-week period previously announced by the corporation?

HON. MR. FRASER: As originally planned, we hope that they'll be no longer than from April 7 to approximately May 16 without service.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Supplemental to the same minister. I have been reliably informed that that vessel cannot be in service until at least June 1, but more likely June 8 or later,

[ Page 1762 ]

which will leave, by the way, the people of the central north coast without water transportation services for an eight- to nine-week period. I wonder if the minister would look into this and report back to the House.

Second question, Mr. Speaker: can the minister assure this House that the cost of the refit of the Queen of Surrey, now known as the Queen of the North, will not exceed $7.4 million?

Mr. Speaker, on this same question, once again, I have been reliably informed that that refit will now cost approximately $9.5 million. Could the minister take this question as notice and report back to the House?

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, I'll take it as notice, but I haven't been advised of the figures that you are batting around.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I may point out through the Chair to the minister that he was also unaware of the change of schedule on Route 7, the Powell River–Comox route. Will the minister report back on the cancellation of the ferry service on Route 7, previously announced on March 10 and cancelled by the corporation, and will he take the trouble to ask the general manager what's happening in the B.C. Ferry Corporation?

B.C. HOUSING CORPORATION ASSETS

MR. GABELMANN: My question is to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Mr. Tom Toynbee, the former president and former chief executive officer of the B.C. Housing Corporation, announced in January that the disposal of the corporation's assets was then complete. Can the minister now inform this House of the breakdown of these assets and disclose to whom these assets were sold?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's a question that would be more appropriately put on the order paper. He's asking for specific dispositions and dollar figures of a great variety of lands and housing complexes in the province. I'll be glad to take the question as notice. The figure is substantial, and the answer will be fairly lengthy. I would have hoped you would have put it on the order paper so that I wouldn't be pre-empting the members' opportunities to ask more urgent and pressing questions.

CROWN LAND

MR. GABELMANN: Can the minister inform the House how much Crown land has been serviced and/or sold for housing purposes under the programs administered by the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing in the past 24 months?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I just happen to have that answer in my back pocket. This is another question, Mr. Speaker, in abuse of the rules. This would be more properly put on the order paper, because he's asking very technical questions which I don't have the answers to off the top of my head. The disposition of various lands, be they for recreational, residential, agricultural or industrial purposes in the province.... I have no alternative, Mr. Member for North Island, but to take that question as notice. As soon as the information has been gathered from the various sources, I'll bring the answer back to the House as the member has asked me to do during the oral question period.

MR. GABELMANN: My question to the minister was simply: "How many units have been developed for housing?" No more complicated than that.

RENT CONTROLS

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I have another question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. At the present time no form of rent control is applicable for the overwhelming majority of renters in small communities such as Port McNeill, Port Hardy and other communities, because almost all of the rental accommodation has been built since 1974. What steps has the government taken to ensure that full rent controls are established in these areas to meet the present crisis?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, since it's a question of legislation, because those units were exempted under the original act, it would have to be dealt with in a legislative manner.

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the Human Rights Code. The act, Mr. Speaker, does not protect against discrimination of families with children who are seeking rental accommodation. Is the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the Human Rights Code, willing to amend the legislation to protect this particular group in our society?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is not in order, hon. member. It deals with legislation.

MS. BROWN: Is the Minister of Labour willing? Is that in order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not if it's on legislation, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Has he decided?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, she has given me a great deal of latitude to answer that question. No, I have not decided, hon. member. But I would ask the hon. member to refer to any breach or allegation involving any form of discrimination to which you referred and to file the appropriate complaint. It seems to me that I have seen across my desk a number of cases wherein there was an allegation made of discriminatory practices by a certain landlord. Those matters were investigated, and the matters were resolved. I ask that the hon. member direct any complaints which she may have to the executive director of the branch in my ministry.

MS. BROWN: That is not good enough. Has the minister decided to amend the Human Rights Code so that it does protect people on welfare who are being discriminated against in housing, as well as families with children? These are two very important groups in our community who are suffering as a result of this lack of protection.

[ Page 1763 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Again, hon. member, the question deals specifically with the amending of legislation, and as such is out of order.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, may I reword the question? Has the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the Human Rights Code, decided to amend anything at all?

FARM INCOME ASSURANCE

MRS. WALLACE: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. On Friday it became public information that since December 1976 Cargill, the international grain corporation, had collected $13,000 under the farm income assurance scheme. As the incumbent minister was the Minister of Agriculture at that time, I would like to ask the minister if he was aware then or later that Cargill was collecting farm income assurance?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The matter of farm income assurance and whether or not Cargill collects farm income assurance is based on the Farm Income Assurance Program that's been in place for a number of years. It is considered a family unit and it falls under what they call a grandfather clause. Cargill, I believe, produces something like 10,000 to 13,000 hogs a year under the program and the grandfather clause that is in that program, and they receive one family unit of production coverage which equals, I believe, about 1,800 hogs per year. So the total Cargill operation does not qualify for farm income assurance. I have asked my staff for a report in regard to the details of what coverage is available and what other farm operations may be associated with or fall under the corporate structure of any company. We will be reviewing that and if I feel it is necessary I'll bring forward changes to that program to ensure that we are not providing taxpayers' money to large corporate organizations.

MRS. WALLACE: That's a very interesting statement, Mr. Speaker, but my question was: when did the minister first become aware that Cargill was collecting farm income assurance?

HON. MR. HEWITT: In regard to when I was specifically aware — the Cargill matter was raised to me by the press on Thursday or Friday of last week. I advised the particular reporter that I would be investigating that matter and it is under investigation now. If the member is looking for a specific answer, I was aware of it as of last Thursday or Friday.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, for a minister who has that responsibility, it seems strange that he was not aware. However, is the minister aware, at this point in time, that Cargill is collecting farm income assurance by virtue of the fact that they gave or sold one share to their manager, who is a British Columbia resident, and as such circumvented the regulations, after that minister was made responsible for agriculture and the Farm Income Assurance Program?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, I am aware that the matter relates to a share being owned by the manager-operator of the farm and also that there are a possibly a number — this is what I'm having checked out, Mr. Speaker — of other corporate farm operations where they fall within this one share manager-operator of the particular farm. But I want to make it perfectly clear that we aren't talking about the total hog production of this corporate farm; we are talking about a farm unit — a family farm unit equivalent. So they aren't getting subsidized a tremendous amount. I'm having all that information provided to me as quickly as possible, and after proper review I will be making recommendations accordingly.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as when this government was elected to office the Premier indicated that farm income assurance was not an invitation to feed at the public trough, I wonder whether or not the Minister of Agriculture feels he's carrying out the Premier's wishes by allowing Cargill to collect Farm Income Assurance.

HON. MR. HEWITT: As I pointed out to the members so it would be perfectly clear, the matter is certainly under review by my staff, first of all. Secondly, we are not talking again of the total corporate productivity. I would suggest to the member that we also have an act that has sections in it and regulations that apply, and I would suggest that before you attack that particular operation you must remember that many of our family farm units in this province are incorporated. We cannot, and I cannot, jeopardize their assistance under the Farm Income Assurance Program, unless you're indicating that all farmers will not have the opportunity to incorporate, and if they do they'll lose their protection. So, Madam Member, you'd better be careful on that score.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order with respect to the proceedings, I realize that it may put you in a awkward position to respond to it, but with Mr. Speaker himself being absent, and you in the capacity of Deputy Speaker elected by the House filling the chair when the House proper is meeting and now assuming the chair as chairman of the committee, you would find it very difficult to report when the committee does rise to report. To whom are you going to report, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will be reporting to the Speaker.

MR. HOWARD: And Mr. Speaker will be back by that time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, if I may quote from Erskine May's seventeenth edition:

"If the House goes into committee, and he takes the chair thereof, when the question for reporting progress has been agreed to, he returns to the Chair of the House, and the Deputy Chairman or another member makes to him the report of the committee."

MR. HOWARD: And you are sure, Mr. Speaker, that we'll be able to hear you when you report?

MR. LEA: It strikes me a bit strangely that this is the course of action that's been chosen, and that you, sir, will perform both roles. There are people within this Legislature

[ Page 1764 ]

from either side of the House who are quite capable of filling in when it's needed. I want to be assured that this isn't just a move by government, because of their numbers, to try and do something through the back door that they're afraid to do through the front door. That's all this is, Mr. Chairman. That's all this is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. LEA: Shame, nothing! You guys planned the whole thing.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I had thought that the hon. member for Prince Rupert might have listened very carefully when you read to him the precedent for exactly the kind of procedure that has been adopted today because of the absence of His Honour, Speaker Schroeder.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, should there be a decision of yours in this House that is challenged, who do we appeal to?

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the Chair, hon. member.

MR. LEA: And who does that for us?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Whoever is in the chair, hon. member.

MR. LEA: So you're the chairman. I want to get this straight. You go up to the microphone, and you talk to whoever is in the other chair. Who's in the other chair?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, at that time I assume the chair and another hon. member makes a report to the Speaker.

MR. LEA: I have one further question. Every time the Speaker takes the chair on a point of order or a challenge out of committee, he says he has no knowledge of what goes on in committee. Can you assure us that you'll have no knowledge?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I can, hon. member.

MR. LEA: How would you do that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have just done so, hon. member.

MR. LEA: You've just done so! As far as I'm concerned, this is a stacked meeting.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I don't think the member can allow the matter to stand in the way he would like to have it left. The member, if he would take the time to consider the rules, would recognize that if there is a challenge in committee, the committee reports to the Speaker. It's the House that makes the decision as to whether the Chairman's ruling is to be sustained or not, not the Speaker. The House makes the ruling. All that is required is that there be a report from the committee to the Speaker for the House.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I think if members would search their Hansard, which is in their office, they will find that in the parliament immediately preceding this, precisely the same situation did take place and there was no difficulty at that time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, if I may quote from Beauchesne's fifth edition, page 42, section 136:

"During the unavoidable absence of the Speaker, and the Deputy Speaker, the Deputy or Assistant Deputy Chairman of the Committee of the Whole takes the Chair. If the House subsequently goes into Committee, he also presides. When the question for reporting from the Committee has been agreed to, he returns to the Speaker's Chair and a Member makes the report of the Committee."

Very clear, hon. members.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, a point of order just came to my attention. While the Chair was searching through the appropriate rules, without recognition being given the Chair allowed the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) to act as Mr. Speaker and lecture the House about the procedures. Is the Attorney-General considered to be Mr. Speaker?

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

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

MR. LEVI: Good luck, Mr. Chairman, in your Solomonesque situation.

This is the second week of the Premier's estimates. So far we haven't had any answers from him. I'd like to go over something that the Premier said last Friday, particularly in relation to the economic missions that he was on. I found that his observations were somewhat childish in respect to the issues of protocol. He said at that time:

It's important, Mr. Chairman, then to realize the goals of these various economic missions, and let me specifically talk about our first major trade mission in 1977.... It was important that we improve the image of not only our country but our province; it was important that we utilize the facilities of the government of Canada, our embassies and all of the diplomatic services that are available to provincial delegations. Because, unfortunately, delegations by the previous government, who now sit in opposition, did not utilize these to the extent that would have put forth a strong face for Canada and this province. They did not use those facilities to that extent when they made a previous visit.

Now I would suggest to the Premier, Mr. Chairman, that it's just unmitigated silly rubbish on his part to suggest that a delegation would have left this province during the time of the previous government and somehow not had any contact with the Department of External Affairs. He should know — and I think he knows full well — that every delegation that went from this province during the tenure of the last government did in fact go on the arrangements made by External Affairs.

I can talk from personal experience. In 1973, when I went on a trip to Europe, I had the opportunity for the External Affairs department to make the kind of arrangements which the Premier talks about: to meet, in the first instance, with the High Commissioner of Canada, and then for the arrangements made in the Health and Welfare department of the British government, and to meet with officials from the Home Secretary's office and other groups. I went to coun-

[ Page 1765 ]

tries like Sweden and was met by the ambassador of the country and introduced to various ministers of that government, at all times putting on the correct and proper face as a representative of the government of British Columbia and also as a representative of Canada. For him to suggest somehow that he has discovered this....

He goes on to say in his presentation that along with his delegation there were three people from the press, and they also sat in on the various briefings. The problem that we have is that we don't know to any great degree what took place at those meetings, Mr. Chairman, although he said that these people were present and, presumably, had an opportunity to report.

We've been asking the Premier for the past four days about the nature of the discussions. The reports we've had of the discussions, in respect to the issue we're concerned about, we've had not from him but from the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who has certainly got the Premier into a very difficult situation, because now we have two stories. One individual is saying one thing and the other one denies what took place. Not only have we not had any answers from the Premier, but we don't have any answers whether truthful or otherwise. We have an obligation to expect, as representatives of the people, that he will tell us exactly what took place. But he's not prepared to do that. He has already repudiated information that was laid before the committee, and he continues not to answer the questions.

He has made an issue about the present government's position in relation to nuclear energy and the export of uranium. He was reminded by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) that at the convention of the New Democratic Party last year there was a considerable discussion as a result of our having a number of guests, recognized experts in the field, speak on the problems related to the development of nuclear energy and the problems of uranium.

It should be pointed out to the Premier that during the last election one of the issue leaflets published by the New Democratic Party was a leaflet called "British Columbia is Heading Into a Nuclear Future but You Can Change the Direction." This leaflet, Mr. Chairman, was the leaflet in which we explained in a very specific way our position in respect to the question of nuclear energy, nuclear development and our opposition to that. All we got from the government at that time was.... We had a conflict in the government and presumably we still have that conflict. So we don't know, when the Premier refuses to really develop the arguments that he has in respect to the exporting of uranium and the development of energy, because last year — and I don't think it's changed — we had the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) actively supporting nuclear power and we had the chairman of B.C. Hydro supporting nuclear power, but all the Premier guaranteed was that they won't turn to nuclear power at this time. Well, we don't really know what "at this time" means. This has to be more specifically spelled out and we'll have more opportunity, presumably, under the estimates of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) to discuss this. So on those two issues we're still very much up in the air and we need to know some things.

The Premier has refused consistently to answer a number of questions that I put to him last week on two occasions. I spoke to him, in terms of the debate, about what he has got to say about one of his former employees, Mr. Dan Campbell, in respect to the problems that he had in giving out money which was not reported. What are his views on his party's problem with an expenditure of $250,000 in election expenses that was not reported until found out and then subsequently an amended report was filed? He hasn't mentioned any of those things. He doesn't want to address those kinds of issues and clear the air. He doesn't, in fact, want to clear the air at all.

I can recall that he took a position in the last session — as a matter of fact the last session plus one day, when we had to come back into this House after the session had been adjourned in order to reinstate a company by the name of Seaboard.... At that time realizing that his government was under severe attack as a result of their blunder in wiping out an active company in the province, he came into the House and he said, right off the bat: "I am to blame. I bear the full responsibility for all of this." Well, at that time he was candid. We've had none of that kind of candour from him in this debate. He continues to completely ignore the questions that are put by the opposition.

I asked him questions about the resignation of the chief justice of the appeal court in 1978. I asked him because he now actually is the only bridge that we have between those events and today, the only minister who is responsible for the government who can answer some questions for us. We really are not able to put those questions to the present Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) because he was not the Attorney-General at the time, and we're not able to put them to the former Attorney-General because that's no longer his responsibility. So the Premier is the bridge between those events who can tell us exactly what took place. As I pointed out last week, the issue is serious because it goes to the very roots of the sanctity and independence of the justice system in this province, something in which the Premier has an abiding interest. He made that very clear more than a week ago in this House in endorsing a statement by the Attorney-General and expressing his desire that that justice system proceed the way it has proceeded and that there are no problems and it is strictly independent.

I pointed out, in trying to elicit answers from the Premier about this system, that there are some very serious questions to answer and they're going unanswered. It is my intention to continue to ask questions of the Premier, and then later on when we get into the estimates of the Attorney-General, attempt to elicit from him some of the facts surrounding the resignation of the former chief justice. The Premier can say — if he wants to do this — that he has no knowledge of the circumstances. I frankly doubt that that would be the case, Mr. Chairman. After all, who would the Prime Minister of Canada call in terms of this particular situation? Who would he call in the government to tell that there would be a new chief justice of the appeal court appointed? But it's more serious than that because what we're attempting to do in this debate is to point out to the Premier that some of the circumstances surrounding that resignation in fact place the justice system of this province in very severe jeopardy because of the information that we have — which is public knowledge — in relation to some of the reasons for the resignation. But that simply isn't enough. As I've pointed out in a previous speech, what makes the situation worse is that the circumstances surrounding that resignation, I am informed, relate to the fact that the information regarding the former chief justice came as a result of a wiretap. Now I want to know from the Premier whether he was apprised of that information

[ Page 1766 ]

because I am still trying to find out from the Premier whether he was called. He can simply get up and say, no, he wasn't called and that's the end of the matter. And we will have to wait to go to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and if we are able, to go to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom). That's a very simple question for him to answer. If he has to answer that he got a call, then he should tell this House what the circumstances were.

For two years this particular subject has not really been discussed in this House, but it is being discussed endlessly in the community. There are endless discussions and dissatisfactions about the way that whole matter was handled. These dissatisfactions do not just come from the ordinary members of the public, but also from the police, from members of the justice system, from the legal system and from members of this side of the House. I don't know what members over there think about this matter. But it goes to the very root of what the Premier was saying following the announcement more than a week ago by the Attorney-General. The independence of the justice system and its continuing independence are what we all have to bend ourselves to. It is not simply a matter that has to be discussed between only those people who are involved in the justice system. The Premier, as a layperson, has intruded himself into this matter, and quite rightly so. We should have more of that intrusion of the lay person into discussions about the justice system. What I'm concerned about in respect to the justice system — which, I presume, the Premier has some concern about — is, on the one hand, the nature of the information surrounding the resignation of the highest member of the judicial system in British Columbia and.... On the other hand, there is someone convicted as a common prostitute and a keeper of a bawdy house; somewhere between there was a link. We don't know. We have not been told that there is not a link which is serious and could in fact — or did in fact — jeopardize that justice system.

We have continually heard the concerns of the police in respect to prostitution and the involvement of organized crime. Now can we legitimately draw those two ends together and say that there was some very serious jeopardizing of the system because of the circumstances surrounding the resignation of the chief justice? What kind of a situation can the chief justice of this province be in if he is picked up on a wiretap which was installed in respect to the possible apprehension of a drug trafficker, who was subsequently charged with drug trafficking? Surely this is the most dangerous situation for the justice system in this province. We have in fact the very serious involvement of two people: one person in some way connected with organized crime, and the other one the chief justice of the province; both on the same telephone line; both doing the same kind of thing. Surely that is a very serious question that has to be debated in this House. How do we protect the justice system from that kind of thing happening? Do we protect it by saying nothing? That's what has gone on so far. Nobody wants to say anything. Everybody keeps quiet. They hope it will go away. They hope Levi will sit down and not say anything. But that is not the issue. It's more fundamental than that.

We have seen what has happened in other jurisdictions in other countries about this kind of intrusion, this kind of mixing between the criminal element of organized crime and the judicial system. In this province we have to be very sure that our system is as pure and clean and unrelated to any links.... That's one of the serious issues in this question which that Premier has to talk about in this House. If he is, as he stated, so concerned about the justice system, then talk about it. Let us know what has happened. Then we will have the kind of confidence we need to have.

It's not my place to make reference to other inquiries. They do not in fact come under the jurisdiction of the Premier — except that he's the head of the government. But in this inquiry he has a role and a function: he is the bridge between the former Attorney-General and the present Attorney-General. He was there during all these events. He must know what took place. If he didn't know, then it is a very serious dereliction of duty. One of the things we have to debate with him is whether he was completely ignorant of this.

So let's hear from the Premier about the questions we want him to answer. Does he have any views at all on this very serious situation? Surely in terms of the information we have, and there is other information.... We had a situation that was tantamount to a possible blackmail of the chief justice of the appeal court, in the circumstances in which he was found. What guarantee do we have from the Premier that the system was protected and that everything was fine? Remember, Mr. Chairman, this matter was originally referred to the federal justice council for investigation, but that investigation came to an end as soon as the chief justice resigned. Marc Lalonde, Minister of Justice at the time, said: "There is no need for an investigation, because the man is no longer a judge." Is the nature of the system such that if a person is referred, which is a very serious question, and then resigns, nothing else takes place? There is no one as interested in the circumstances which were the basis for the referral for the federal justice council. These are unanswered questions, and we have to start with that Premier over there, to find out his concern about the justice system, to get some answers.

I'll just repeat them. Did he receive a phone call from the Prime Minister of Canada in respect to the resignation of the former chief justice of the appeal board? Did they discuss the reasons for the resignation? Did he receive a phone call from the Prime Minister of Canada in respect to the appointment of a new chief justice of the appeal board? Did they have any discussions, or did he refer the matter to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams)? He's not interested in telling us. Mr. Chairman, we will have to continue to talk about this case until we get some answers.

I want to suggest a situation to the Premier. This is a tragic situation in itself — that we have a situation as a result of police proceedings in respect to wire-taps in the attempt to apprehend a drug trafficker. The wire-tap turned to be on the house of a person who was subsequently convicted of keeping a common bawdy house, and the police were interested in the comings and goings of those people there. They took a great number of photographs of people going in and out of that establishment, and we don't know who else was taking photographs — because that is a possibility. Doesn't the Premier see that the ingredients which I have just laid out for him are the classical ingredients for the possibility of the most serious form of blackmail, in terms of individuals who are going in there? That's the kind of risk that everybody takes if they frequent these establishments, but the risk of somebody of the stature of the chief justice of the appeal court is quite different. After all, he is the chief administrator of the judicial system in this province.

Those are the ingredients. We are trying to get some answers from that Premier, and I would trust that we will hear

[ Page 1767 ]

from him sometime today without fatuous remarks which are completely wrong in respect to what took place in terms of delegations that were travelling overseas under the previous government. Just answer the questions. That's all we ask, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, for the last week or so and again this week we appear to be on the same note — a whole lot of negativism from the opposition. I would just like to take a few moments to speak about the great things that are happening because of the tremendous leadership we've enjoyed these last five years. British Columbia is enjoying prosperity. The growth is tremendous. The new industrial development is taking place in all comers of this great province. Everywhere things are happening. We're seeing things happening in the Kootenays, the Cariboo, the North, the Okanagan, the lower mainland, and throughout British Columbia. As a matter of fact, because of the tremendous growth that we've enjoyed during these last number of years, we're experiencing an influx of people from other parts of Canada, who too want to participate in the prosperity and the promise of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, we've heard a great deal of negativism about some of the things that were proposed in our budget and in the throne debate. Really, for all British Columbians there is great opportunity and tremendous promise. I think it was well put by a number of people with considerable influence — people who have been doers in our great province. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce was very pleased with the budget and claimed that it showed great foresight; Bill Hamilton of the Employers' Council applauded the government statements that the federal government should leave its hands off the resource revenues coming to the province of British Columbia. The forest industry also was very pleased and impressed with our programs and the great improvements over past practices.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, although I am fascinated by the speech given by the cabinet minister who has the floor, I would like to point out through you that the cabinet minister is out of order. We are dealing with vote 9 and the Premier's estimates. If you care to be the Premier, slip the knife in in a hurry, but you haven't got it yet, so let's stick to the orders of the day.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, the minister is discussing the administrative responsibilities of the Premier and is replying in like to the debate that has been going on to this time. I would caution the minister not to reopen the budget debate. Let us see if we can narrow in on the administrative responsibilities of the Premier.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, certainly what we've seen during these last weeks — the budget, the throne debate — has all been indicative of the leadership we've had in this province over the last five years. But I can appreciate the Leader of the Opposition standing and saying that budgets, throne debates and the proposals for the province don't perhaps in his opinion relate to leadership, because that individual has no understanding of leadership. We've experienced that in British Columbia during the time that unfortunately he was in the position of being the Premier.

We have seen tremendous improvements in the programs provided through all the ministries — my ministry no exception. Again we enjoy this because of the leadership that has been displayed and provided to all of the ministries through our leader and Premier. I might refer to the statements given us by the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines with respect to the improvements in the mining legislation. The UBCM has made statements applauding the improvements in the revenue-sharing program. All these programs didn't just happen; they came about because we've enjoyed leadership in British Columbia. To continually listen to the opposition making statements and asking questions which are irrelevant, and spouting off a lot of negativism, certainly isn't helping us provide those programs which have been outlined by our Premier and the various ministries over these last weeks.

There was criticism a little earlier — and it was during this debate — about the budgets which were brought forth. That's why I think it's appropriate that we make some reference to those programs and to the budgets. Criticisms were made....

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I would enjoy instruction from the Chair as to how the minister is appropriate to vote 9. Specific questions have been asked of the Premier. It would facilitate the business of this House if we stuck to the Premier's estimates and if the Premier answered questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Leader of the Opposition. Hon. members, in the history of this Legislature the Premier's vote has always allowed a certain amount of latitude in discussion. But we always try to make that discussion as relative as possible to the vote presently before us. Again I would ask that we try to bring our scope of debate into the relevance of vote 9. Again I would advise members that it has been the practice to allow a certain amount of latitude, particularly and uniquely in the Premier's estimates.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I repeat that the prosperity we enjoy and the progressiveness that we're witnessing in all parts of this province are because we've enjoyed good leadership. Certainly one need only compare what has taken place over these last five years, and the things that have happened and are about to happen in the year ahead, with what took place prior to 1975 during the years of NDP rule. In that comparison it isn't difficult to tell that we've enjoyed great leadership in British Columbia and that we must deal with this budget quickly....

MR. BARRETT: The budget! There you are, Mr. Chairman. What budget?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The budget for the Premier's office.

Mr. Chairman, these things haven't just happened; they've happened because we have had effective leadership in British Columbia, which was obviously sadly missed through the few years preceding 1976. I would urge the House to deal with these estimates, and I'm sure that if we deal with these and we can get into legislation and get into the various estimates of the other ministries, it will again be shown that British Columbia has never enjoyed the lead-

[ Page 1768 ]

ership which we're enjoying now and which will bring us many benefits over the years ahead.

MR. BARRETT: I'd like to address my remarks to vote 9. Mr. Chairman, I have some specific questions to ask the Premier. Perhaps it would facilitate the work of this House if we could pause so that the Premier is ready for the questions. Perhaps he'd like to make a note of them in his Estimates. Normally ministers make a note of the questions.

Is it your position — through you, Mr. Chairman — to continue your opposition to the Gloucester estates application in court to remove those acres of land in Langley, to have that land returned to land the freeze? Is that your intention? You've stated publicly that you want that land back in the land freeze.

Question number one: will you take action to see that that land is returned to the land freeze to correspond with your public statements saying that you don't want that land removed from the agricultural land reserve?

Number two: would the Premier...?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, is land remaining in the agricultural land reserve not properly a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture estimates?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It was related in this case, hon. member, to a statement made by the Premier.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your protection against the wild slings and arrows of a member who is ambitious beyond his capabilities.

Mr. Chairman, now that we've got that straightened out, I must ask, firstly, whether it is still the Premier's position — and what action will be taken — to ensure that that land stays in the land freeze. Secondly, the Premier stated publicly that in his opinion Hydro should cut rates on October 13, 1978. The Premier said Hydro should cut rates — and I quote the Premier, not the would-be Premier; you'll get your turn later. "He expects Hydro rates to be cut now that the Transit Authority is established and Hydro saves $60 million from transit." Is the Premier still of the opinion that B.C. Hydro should not raise its rates? I know that one cabinet minister has spoken out against Hydro raising its rates, but I am asking the Premier. Thirdly, the Premier made a commitment to go to Ocean Falls and talk to the employees of Ocean Falls. Will the Premier be going to Ocean Falls to talk to the people in that community? If so, when? Fourthly, does the Premier remember the three previous questions?

Mr. Chairman, it is the responsibility of ministers in estimates not to answer questions or answer questions. It would be more appropriate and would facilitate the workings of this House if at least a faking effort was made to pay attention to the question.

Fifthly, is the Premier aware that there is some question about his agenda during his discussions in Korea, and that some confusion appears to be in the public's mind, and certainly in my mind, about whether or not the Premier indeed did discuss the prospective sale of some uranium to the Korean market, specifically related to a mission in which he attended meetings along with Mr. Phillips? Could the Premier tell this House whether or not he did indeed discuss potential uranium supplies in Korea?

Sixthly, for some time during these estimates we have brought to the attention of the Premier the conflict in his statements regarding his visit to Europe in 1977, at which time it was alleged by my colleague, the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), whom I sit with, that the Premier had discussed uranium sales in those meetings with Mr. Jenkins. The Premier informed this House in no uncertain terms with the unequivocal answer no, he did not. The Premier has had brought to his attention a note sent to the research office of the New Democratic Party from Mr. Etienne Reuter, who was the clerk who took the notes of that meeting between himself and Mr. Jenkins. The minutes of that meeting indicate that the Premier did discuss uranium with Mr. Jenkins. The minutes of the meeting are in conflict with the Premier's statement. Could the Premier inform this House who is correct — the Premier or Mr. Reuter? If Mr. Reuter is incorrect, will the Premier initiate legal action against Mr. Reuter for taking minutes that are incorrect?

There's a series of questions. I would appreciate some answers from the Premier. If you'd like to go over them again, we can, but I think they are fairly clear and I'd appreciate specific answers. I would like to inform the Premier that I have heard the speech about "window to the Pacific" four times; I have heard the speech about his excellent contacts with Ottawa five times, and I might say, Mr. Premier, that your contacts with Ottawa going through the embassy are very interesting. I just want to know: do you make it up on your feet, or do you make it up before you come in here?

Mr. Chairman, that's a fair question. I don't want to embarrass the Premier, so I'd ask the press not to take note of these comments, but while the Premier was talking on Friday, saying that I, as former Premier, did not arrange my visits through the embassies or through External Affairs.... I hate to embarrass the Premier by pointing out to him that he's wrong. The real embarrassing point is that the person who arranged those visits for me was at that time the Deputy Provincial Secretary under my colleague, the member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) — that self-same Deputy Provincial Secretary who the Premier's now going to hire in his office. Now I had complete confidence in Mr. Lawrie Wallace in handling all these affairs, and if the Premier's criticizing the lack of anything in Mr. Wallace's handling these matters, he's criticizing Lawrie Wallace, who he's going to hire. So after going through all of my records, I have to ask the question: does the Premier make that stuff up on his feet, or do you make it up before you come in here? Just tell us when you make it up.

We've been at your estimates all these days, and we can't get specific answers. Did you discuss uranium in Korea? Is Mr. Etienne Reuter a liar? Are you going to go to Ocean Falls? What are you going to do about the Gloucester property that you made a promise on? Do you still believe that B.C. Hydro shouldn't increase its rates? Five simple questions. We'd like some answers so that we can get on with other very important business.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's obvious to anyone that we have witnessed over the last few days an attempt by the Premier to have some of his colleagues, those who can stand it who were left in the House, jump up and defend him, and if all else goes badly, get a couple of backbenchers to do it. We've been through that ploy. We've been through the ploy of the Premier making 30-minute speeches, taking up all his time in rambling speeches. I must even say that he has continued the record of not completing one sentence in 30 minutes, which is pretty good by anybody's standards.

[ Page 1769 ]

We're now down to the nitty-gritty. The Premier refuses to answer simple questions.

(1) Does the Premier intend to take any action on the Gloucester properties based on his commitment, his promise, his feeling that that land should stay in the land reserve?

(2) Will the Premier be visiting Ocean Falls, as he promised the people of Ocean Falls that he would?

(3) Can the Premier categorically state that Mr. Etienne Reuter is a liar and the minutes he took are incorrect?

(4) Can the Premier clarify to us his position that B.C. Hydro should be cutting rates? What is his position now on B.C. Hydro increasing rates in spite of his statement?

(5) Can the Premier tell us, categorically, whether or not he discussed uranium during his visit to Korea, and whether or not in those discussions he was aware of even the amount of the number of tonnes that were being discussed in certain contracts? Could he tell us if the tonnage was even discussed with them?

Those are simple questions and it would help a lot for the Premier's credibility if he would deal with questions during his estimates, so we can go on with other matters.

I don't know what the wave meant — or was it a signal? I've asked these questions. Well, there is no one else who wants the floor. My colleagues have asked me to ask these question so that you can answer them. Once you answer these questions we can move on to other things, but you cannot continue to stall the House. You reach a point where all the bafflegab and all the guff and everything comes to an end, and you've still got these questions. If you're tired, we'll have an adjournment. You can have a short nap, and then we'll come back and ask the questions again. They're not too hard to answer; I'll even write them out for you: (1) Are you a good boy? (2) Who told you so?

Mr. Chairman, we're dealing with very serious matters. The Premier made a public statement about the Gloucester property. He wants it put back into the agricultural land reserve. What action have you taken to keep your commitment? Can you answer that one?

These are the moments when television would be appropriate, but I think we'd have to stop for a commercial break. Now, Mr. Chairman, I know that my good friend, the member for somewhere in Peace River, who was a teacher, stands up in a classroom and says to a pupil: "All right, Billy, can you give me this answer?"

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You don't stand in the classroom?

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order for the member for North Peace River.

MR. BRUMMET: The latest reference by the Leader of the Opposition — whether this was still on vote 9?

MR. BARRETT: In reference to the member for Peace River — on vote 9, Mr. Chairman, related to the Premier's estimates, I just wonder if in a classroom where we ask them one at a time and we put them out on blocks it might be helpful, since you're a professional in the field? I don't know what they do in the classroom with students who show dumb insolence, Mr. Chairman, but dumb insolence is a form of dealing with questions. But we eliminated corporal punishment in schools; we don't spank anybody any more. We appeal to reason, logic, love, understanding and care. Some people are slower than others; some people are faster, Now we start again.

(1) Can the Premier tell us, in the face of his promise to protect agricultural land in terms of the Gloucester property, whether or not he intends to see that his promise is fulfilled?

(2) Can the Premier tell this House whether or not Mr. Etienne Reuter is telling an untruth in his recollection of the minutes where he states that the Premier discussed uranium as potential sales in Europe?

(3) Can the Premier tell the people of this province whether or not his statement that B.C. Hydro should cut rates is one that he still believes? Or did he believe it then? Or should they now be responsible for that $60 million that he felt was enough of a rebate to them in transit costs that they didn't need to cut rates?

(4) Can the Premier tell us that in Japan or in Korea, during his discussions with the Korean groups, Norcen, Lacana and E&B South Korean uranium contracts...? Were they discussed in his presence? Was the amount of uranium potentially to be exported discussed in his presence? Did he know the figure they were discussing? Was he present when any of these discussions took place?

These are very simple questions, Mr. Chairman, and I think it would be appropriate if the Premier answered a few of the questions. It's very simple. I would gladly yield the floor to the Premier. I would be delighted to go throughout the province and say that after a number of times when I asked the Premier some questions, he attempted to answer them. It would be an exciting thrill for me to be able to travel around this province and say how mature and responsible this Legislature has become, and that during estimates, when we asked questions of the Premier, he answered them. What a wonderful opportunity for me to tell all the young people who have this week off in Easter holidays to watch democracy in action and see their Premier, the number one leader in this province, answer questions.... It's the taxpayers who pay the money. The Premier doesn't bring any money down with him from Kelowna to pay all the bills.

We'd just like to know what's in the Premier's mind — through you, Mr. Chairman — on some statements that he's made, not on those I've made. Do you want to answer them? Are you going to answer now?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, I'll answer.

MR. BARRETT: He said he'll answer. Could you let us know when you're going to answer? Now would be an appropriate time. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to be tricked into taking my place. I still am naive enough to believe the Premier when he gives his word. I didn't think it was a little bit of trickery going on here. He'd said he'd answer, and I went to sit down because I believed the Premier — I made that mistake again — and because I believed him, another member jumped up and he didn't offer to gain the floor. Now I think the Premier is fibbing again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Central Fraser Valley rises on a point of order.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition came out and stated that the Premier calls on the back bench when desperate. Well, I resent that statement,

[ Page 1770 ]

and whenever the Leader of the Opposition is finished, I will be quite happy to respond to some of his remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not a valid point of order, and we cannot gain the floor on improper points of order.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for protecting me from improper points of order. The Premier has waved his hand and I heard him call across the floor, yes, he'll answer.

HON. MR. BENNETT: In due course.

MR. BARRETT: In due course. Well, Mr. Chairman, the Premier has now got this far: he will answer in due course. All right, now we're making progress. It has taken us one week to get to the point where he will answer in due course. I would like to ask the Premier and the leader of all the people of British Columbia this question: can he give me some idea when due course will be? We have waited five days. We have gone through all the circuitous routes, excuses, delays and little games, and we're still back to the same questions. No other member of the opposition, to my knowledge, wants the floor. Do you want it, Mr. member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem)? No, you're a government member. It's not the way they treat you; it's what you belong to. The member from South Vancouver, the new Whip — do you want the floor? Mr. Chairman, I'm just assisting you since you've got a dual role to play today.

Mr. Chairman, fun and games go so far. I think it's only appropriate, to set a tone for the rest of the estimates, to facilitate those estimates, that when an opposition member asks specific questions, the minister concerned would answer those questions, particularly when no other opposition member wants the floor and when government backbenchers are through stonewalling or smoke screening for the minister concerned. We've reached that point now after five days; we've heard all the rhetoric and we've heard all the speeches. I would like to go over these questions which I would like to answer because there are people in Langley and in other areas who ask me questions about government policy. It is a known fact that the Premier has stated that he wants the Gloucester property left in the agricultural land reserve. The Gloucester property's people are now starting court proceedings to have....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You can't discuss it in the House.

MR. BARRETT: Well, now we've got the Attorney-General in. I'm glad we've got somebody responding. Hallelujah, brothers and sisters, we've got somebody responding.

MR. MACDONALD: Somebody's listening out there.

MR. BARRETT: Somebody's listening. Yes, we've got his attention. The Attorney-General says, on behalf of the Premier: "We can't discuss it because it's subjudice." What the Attorney-General doesn't appreciate, because he is so busy in law books, is that this was a matter of law at the time the Premier said: "I don't want it out of the agricultural land reserve." Well, now that I've got your attention, I want to say that these people are citizens of this province. They are entitled to know whether, after the process of going to court, the Premier is going to keep his promise and see that that land goes back into the agricultural land reserve. Why should these people spend all that money on lawyers? I know you'd give a positive answer to that question and say that they should, and I don't blame you as a lawyer. But why should these people spend all this money if it is on public record that the Premier wants this land to stay in the agricultural land reserve? Does the Premier intend to keep his word and see that that land goes back into the agricultural land reserve? Yes or no? Is that asking too much? Does the Premier intend to keep his word and see that that land goes back into the agricultural land reserve? Yes or no? Just nod your head. Give a nudge and a wink to the Attorney-General.

Second, the Premier attacked B.C. Hydro for increasing rates. It is incorrect for me to say that the Premier attacked B.C. Hydro for increasing rates. That's incorrect and I correct my statement. The Premier said: "B.C. Hydro should cut rates." He gave as an argument that B.C. Hydro would be recovering some $60 million for the cost of urban transit that would be passed on to taxpayers through other means. Does the Premier intend to initiate any action to ensure that B.C. Hydro does not increase its rates contrary to his stated wishes?

Third, a serious allegation has been made in this House, and it is that something less than the truth has been told by the Premier about his visits to Great Britain in terms of what was discussed. The Premier shouted "no" across the floor of this House to my colleague when he was asked the specific question of whether he had discussed the possibility of uranium sales in British Columbia during his visit to Europe. We all heard the "no." Then a document was brought to the attention of this House, signed by Etienne Reuter, who is the person who took minutes at that meeting. Those minutes indicate a conflict with the Premier's statement in that those minutes said that the Premier did indeed discuss the possibility of uranium sales. Is the Premier prepared to tell this House that Mr. Etienne Reuter is not telling the truth in that document?

The next question.... We have lots of time, I suppose, if it's the will and the wish of the Premier to continue to play this game, as he has for some four and a half days now. Can the Premier tell us whether he will go to Ocean Falls and meet with the people of that community as he promised when a group of citizens and trade unionists visited his office recently?

Through you, Mr. Chairman, with your help and guidance, I have another question directly to the Premier and certainly in order. During the Premier's visit to Korea, there were a number of items on the agenda to be discussed by the Premier and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) relating to Norcen, Lacana and the E&B contract for the sale of uranium. Could the Premier tell this House whether he was present at any discussions over the quantity of the amount of uranium that was proposed to be sold from British Columbia? If such conversations took place, what role, if any, did he play in those conversations?

Mr. Chairman, I think I understand those questions; I think you understand those questions; I think my colleagues understand those questions; I think that even some of the backbenchers understand those questions, and that's being charitable. We have an indication that the Premier understands the questions. Frankly, it would be appropriate to have some answers from the Premier in a mature fashion.

[ Page 1771 ]

Mr. Chairman, there has been a great deal of public discussion in the province of British Columbia about the credibility of the chief officer of the province of British Columbia. Discussion about the credibility of the chief officer of British Columbia has taken place in newspapers, on television programs, and over coffee cups. The credibility of the government has been discussed in terms of the responsibility of leadership by the Premier of this province. The citizens of this province have some serious questions about the decision-making process, the reliability of reasons given for decisions, and the consequences of those decisions themselves.

It is one thing to play politics in this House; I think that certainly is a vocation of a significant number of members here. Far be it from me to suppress the rumour that every member in this House is a politician — except you, Mr. Chairman, in the chair, even in a schizophrenic role. Nonetheless, politics do play a role in this chamber. Because politics plays a role, on occasion we bring in the theme of political responsibility. When a citizen asks for power through the transfer of votes, through universal suffrage, it is a transference of responsibility to deal with the issue that person or persons say they want to deal with, once having gained your confidence in giving their vote.

I didn't vote for the Premier, but I voted. The Premier didn't bother to vote federally, so we won't talk about federal issues. He has no business talking about federal issues, because he doesn't vote federally.

Now that we've eliminated half the nation's business, we go back to simple matters related to the Premier and provincial matters. I've asked some questions.... No, I sat down. There's been intervening business. You don't count that? Mr. Chairman, would it not be correct to say that there has been intervening business and that my time has been interrupted? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Whatever your ruling is, I will abide by it.

I have three minutes left, I think. Three minutes is enough time to ask the Premier again: please, Mr. Premier, tell us what action you will take to ensure that the Gloucester properties will be returned to the agricultural land reserve. Please, Mr. Premier, will you keep your promise to go to Ocean Falls and speak to the employees of the plant that is being closed? Please, Mr. Premier, tell us who is telling the truth. Is Mr. Etienne Reuter lying about your meeting in Europe and are the minutes he's taken incorrect? Please, Mr. Premier, tell us: did you speak in Korea about the possibility of sales of uranium from British Columbia to the Korean interests on behalf of and with Norcen, Lacana and E&B? Please, Mr. Premier, tell us: what action will you take on your disagreement with B.C. Hydro's power rates? It would go a long way, I think, to dealing with the business of this House, if you'd deal with some of these questions which are related to your own statements.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I admire your patience. I marvel at your forbearance. I wonder at your endurance. How can you possibly stand all these endless inferences to the effect that the Premier is lying, when there isn't any evidence whatsoever that this has happened in the House?

It's tedious and repetitious. I won't dignify it by calling it a debate. A debate has an issue; two parties take different sides on that issue.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

During the Premier's estimates the focus so far has largely been on uranium mining and nuclear energy. But the government and the opposition really don't differ on these matters as to policy. In fact, they have the same policy: no nuclear power plants and no uranium mines here in B.C., at least in the foreseeable future. So we have a debate — at least the appearance of a debate — without substance. It's really an argument about nothing at all. The Leader of the Opposition is grasping at straws. He would like us to have a nuclear issue in the province, but we haven't got one. He'd like to say that the government is pro-nuclear, but it's anti-nuclear. This must be a very frustrating experience for him indeed.

The Leader of the Opposition reminds me very much of that delightful pool-playing character in Gilbert and Sullivan's "Mikado," the one who, as the lines go, "had to work with a cloth untrue and a crooked cue and elliptical billiard balls." The chance of that comic character sinking a shot is undoubtedly less than a hundred to one. And the odds that the Leader of the Opposition will get back into the Premier's chair are much worse, perhaps a million to one, unless he stops playing personalities and gets down to real issues which undoubtedly divide our two parties, Social Credit on the one hand and the New Democratic Party on the other.

But let's put something finally to rest. The rest of the world may be going nuclear, but we've got excellent alternatives here in B.C. We're rich in resources other than nuclear resources, of which we may or may not have a potential. We certainly don't need atomic power plants for a long, long time, if indeed we ever need them. When I was energy minister on this side of the House, the Leader of the Opposition asked me many, many times whether we were going to build nuclear power plants. I said no, we didn't need them. The Premier, the hon. member for Okanagan South, has said repeatedly that we're not going to build nuclear power plants. The present Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) has been most emphatic — we're not going to build nuclear power plants for the foreseeable future. So I cannot understand why this issue keeps coming up. I can't understand why during the last provincial election the NDP candidates kept saying repeatedly that we were going to go nuclear.

As for uranium mining, the government has announced a ban. It is a ban which will last for some time; it's a seven-year moratorium on exploration and development, to start with. I know that the NDP was dying to take the government on about mining in this session, especially uranium mining, but their research has been all for naught. The anti-uranium-mining lobby has already convinced the government that we should forget this industry, for a while at the very least. So what is the official opposition so upset about? Can it be that it hasn't got anything else to grieve about, or has it been on holiday for the last eight months? Surely there are real issues which it could be taking up on the Premier's estimates. Let me give you a few examples.

First, resource development. Both parties in this House, I think, agree that foreign trade is important to B.C., resource-rich as it is. We will continue to export raw materials and semi-processed goods for a long time. Our resource industries, in other words, are our bread-and-butter industries. Not only will they provide us with many jobs, but they can provide us with many highly paid jobs as well.

We mustn't subsidize our export industries — or is this a matter of dispute between us? They must stand, I believe,

[ Page 1772 ]

essentially on their own feet. If we have to provide a railway, a dock or a highway, we should recover these costs over the lifetime of the project in question. Also, Canadians as taxpayers should get at least 50 percent of the profits. Windfall gains, if there are any, should accrue largely to the people who really own these resources, the people of British Columbia. I don't see anything wrong with that. It's good, sound common sense. It fits in, fortunately, with the private enterprise approach to resource development. It shouldn't upset the socialists too much. The NDP, for example, isn't really opposed to the development of northeastern coal. They can't knock it, so they aren't saying anything about it. Are they opposed to mining of non-renewable resources, or are they in favour of it? Are they secretly in favour of it? Would they revive their supertax on mining if they were to come back to power, God forbid? I wish the Leader of the Opposition would be frank in respect to matters of this kind.

This government has a large transportation budget, which I certainly will defend. It's building roads and highways in many parts of our province. The B.C. Ferries service is expanding. Our small airport building program is filling a vital need, especially in the interior and in the north. What does the NDP have to say about the principle of user-pay? Does it think that industry should pay its own way, especially where the carriage of freight is concerned? Or does it see transportation subsidies as a vehicle for industrial development? This is a very important point in industrial development.

I personally think that aid to industry should be limited, and where it is given to industry it should be specific. It should go to plants and factories for a limited period of time. The criterion, in other words, should be jobs. There should be a limit to the extent to which public funds are used to provide transportation services as opposed to direct subsidies to industries with a high job content. In other words, I wouldn't subsidize truckers, railways, airlines or our marine services. I would open up new areas of the country, using government funds, but only in the first instance. Thereafter I would expect the private sector to pay its own way, especially in the long run. Otherwise, government is getting too deeply into industrial development.

Surely the socialists will give us an argument on that, but silence, Mr. Chairman.... I assume the NDP agrees with the government's program on transportation and on industrial development. Their attitude, at least on the Premier's estimates, would indicate that this is so.

Third, in the area of communications, we are rapidly moving into an era when the individual can pick up radio and now TV signals wherever he or she lives, from sources both inside and outside Canada. Receiving antennae which are able to pick up as many as 100 TV channels are now in existence in the lower mainland and in the far north. Where does this province stand in this connection? Will it be helping people in outlying places to have their own TV reception, for example? Will it be doing some of its own programming, especially insofar as educational TV is concerned? This is looking ahead, Mr. Chairman, but it is a vital question. It is an issue to which we must address ourselves, and it's one on which I think the party opposite and the present government will have fundamental differences in the future. In other words, I sense an important area of disagreement here. Certainly there is room for dispute. The impression I had in 1975 was that the NDP would like B.C. to have its own B.C. network — to originate the message, in other words, as well as to carry it. It would like to become part of the message itself. Or would it? Let's have a good debate on the subject. Let us see whether we really agree on the province's having more power in the broad field of communications. Not only is this a live constitutional issue with Ottawa, but it is also one which will come rapidly to the fore as satellite technology gives us access to ideas — certainly messages — which come from all over the earth.

Fourth, Mr. Chairman, people programs. An ever increasing share of the provincial budget is being devoted to people programs. This is true not only in current dollar terms but also as a percentage of the government's overall expenditures on goods and services. Health, education, housing and human resources taken together now account for over 60 percent of our provincial budget. Add in the people elements of labour, universities, parks and environment, and we get a figure of the order of 66 percent or 67 percent. In other words, two-thirds of the present budget brought in by this government and by this Premier is people-oriented — involves people programs. This is a higher figure proportionately than when the NDP were in power. It is a clear indication of where the government's priorities lie insofar as government-financed services are concerned. The official opposition, recognizing this, at least by their silence on this important matter, have therefore narrowed their attack. They are no longer talking about this heartless, bottom-line government; they are talking about "now you see it, now you don't" industries like uranium mining and nuclear power instead.

Federal-provincial relations. Until the present Premier arrived on the scene, British Columbia's appearance at first ministers' conferences was regarded as something of a joke. Either B.C. was odd-man-out or it was urging a national consensus on something for which a consensus was unlikely to be achieved in your lifetime, Mr. Chairman, or mine. Either we were offering to turn our non-renewable resources, like oil and gas, over to Ottawa in return for nationalization by the federal government, or we were advocating programs such as equalization — currently equalization of provincial government revenues across the country — which would be extended to municipalities and towns. In other words, we were advocating a kind of financial arrangement in this country which would make it the equivalent of a unitary state, while at the time protesting that we should have more provincial powers. That was the kind of thing we were talking about off and on in Ottawa until the present Premier came to office and began to attend those meetings.

Since 1975 things have changed. Largely as a result of the thoughtful submissions which this province has made at successive conferences between the provinces and the federal government, B.C. has emerged as a force to be reckoned with in intergovernmental relations. This government, under this Premier, is for decentralization in government. We're for more power for the provinces. We are for greater local responsibility. We would put the emphasis much more on the individual. We would bring government closer to our people in this way, and we would make government more understandable, more predictable, and more responsible in the process.

Surely the NDP isn't against this trend. But if it is, if it favours the present approach by the present government, let it say so. Let it come out flat-footedly and say it's for more power at the centre, if indeed it believes in the opposite — in more power at the centre. Let it say that it believes in more

[ Page 1773 ]

government at a distance, that it believes our growth provinces in the west should bend the knee to Ottawa, especially in respect to matters like resource development. It seems to be taking this attitude in respect to the pricing of oil and natural gas and the funding of people programs like health, education and human resources. It rejoices whenever the federal government takes an initiative in this area. Let it come out, however, and say that it's for more power at the centre, more power for Ottawa — more national programs, if I can put it that way, rather than provincial programs where the provinces, and especially provinces like British Columbia, not only have the financial resources but also the constitutional equipment to do the job themselves.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, foreign affairs. This government is for freer trade. It's not protectionist, certainly, Mr. Second Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald). It believes in competition and it believes the private sector, with a minimum of government involvement, can do the best job insofar as our future material well-being is concerned. It's against high tariffs and opposed to quotas of different kinds, and it certainly doesn't believe in lasting subsidies, especially large subsidies for foreign-owned firms which are in difficulties because they're no longer competitive here and abroad.

Let's take the Chrysler Corporation, for example. It's in serious financial difficulties in the United States. Its Canadian branch plants are also losing money. But what is B.C.'s attitude to a big government loan to the Chrysler Corporation of Canada Ltd.? Should we give it half a billion dollars in loans or buy a large block of shares in the company, or both? Or should we let it sink or swim, as most other Canadian private sector operations have to do? I wonder what the situation would be in respect to CP Air, if it were in difficult financial circumstances, or Cominco or MacMillan Bloedel or Weyerhaeuser. I think I know what the NDP line is. It's nationalistic in nature. It would take over the Chrysler Corporation, with all its problems, fund it out of Canadian tax money and hope that the local unemployment problem in southern Ontario would simply go away. At least I think this is what they would do. Certainly this is what the national arm of their party would do. What is their stand in this connection? Unfortunately our new Industry, Trade and Commerce minister in Ottawa is inclined the NDP way. Windsor, Ontario, the home of Chrysler, is his own home riding. Also he's one of the Walter Gordon school of protectionist Liberals.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Vancouver East on a point of order.

MR. MACDONALD: I wonder what in the dickens Walter Gordon and the Chrysler Corporation and the loan to save their financial backside have got to do with the estimates of the Premier of the province of British Columbia. The member is obviously out of order. There's some strange ploy being played here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, the ruling of the Chair, if you've been listening carefully to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), is that the member who has the floor has been itemizing — and he's now on his last item — a number of questions which he feels in this debate are relevant to have been asked. Since he is concluding that list, he will be allowed to continue.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, certainly the question of trade is not exclusively a federal matter. It does involve the provinces; it certainly involves a province like British Columbia which is highly dependent on its export industries and, of course, must import many of its products. The Premier and the B.C. delegation referred specifically to economic policy, trade policy, in the papers presented at federal-provincial conferences. I don't think there is any doubt that this is not only a matter of real concern to this province, but also a matter which can be dealt with perhaps most effectively under the Premier's estimates.

There's talk about renegotiating the Autopact. If it's to be renegotiated at all it should include free trade — freer trade, certainly — in such areas as repair parts and even used automobiles and trucks. Then we in British Columbia, certainly we as individual consumers, would benefit more from free trade with the United States than we do now. Washington has wanted a broader Autopact all along, and we in this part of the country would be better off if we had access to North American-produced automobiles at Washington state prices, something which we don't have now.

I'm raising the Autopact for a second reason, Mr. Chairman, and it is this. If negotiations relative to the Autopact are broadened beyond automobiles and trucks and do include other areas — as is typical often of foreign trade negotiations — such as the export of raw materials, such as the price we're charging the United States for natural gas.... If there is to be some give and take in this renegotiation of the Autopact, let us hope that it's not at our expense, that we don't have to accept a lower price, for example, for natural gas as a quid pro quo for a somewhat larger share of automobile and truck production on this continent. In my view the Autopact is a good pact; if it's broadened, however, let it be broadened exclusively in the area of automobile and truck manufacture between Canada and the United States and not include negotiations relative to other trade which Canada engages in with the United States, and certainly not include price and other considerations relating to our exports in western Canada.

I believe, as I have said before, that these are the kinds of issues that should be discussed in this chamber. They are here and now; they involve decisions that are about to be made, not decisions that have either been made or, as is often the case in these debates, were never made at all. We have a provincial position, certainly a western Canada position, on matters relating to international trade, so I think that matters like that could properly be discussed in this chamber now. The New Democratic Party has to be different in the position which it takes, at least relative to the role of government on the one hand and the private sector on the other. It has, or at least its socialistic counterparts in other countries have, taken a very different attitude to international trade. They have tended to be more protectionist, and certainly much more nationalistic.

So why the silence? Can it be that this government here today in this chamber, Mr. Chairman, is doing nearly everything right and very few things wrong? Can it be that we have to invent issues such as the mining of uranium in the immediate future or the construction of a nuclear power plant the year after next in order to fill in the time of this chamber? Surely not. There are matters of substance to be debated here, and we don't have to engage endlessly in personalities. We don't have to invent issues, and we don't have to continually infer that someone is lying when someone is not.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the

[ Page 1774 ]

remarks made by the previous speaker when he spoke of NDP policies with reference to Chrysler and some other matters. Although I don't intend to answer those today, I would be quite happy, possibly during my estimates in the future, to reply to any questions. I promise that I'll answer all questions.

I've been surprised and disappointed in the Premier during the last few days. I find his silence in this matter to be an odd and peculiar way to respond to the most serious charge that he may have misled this House. This is the question: has, in fact, the Premier misled the House? The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) seemed to believe that it's a matter of a mining question. That's not the issue here before us at all. The question is whether the Premier has, in fact, misled this House. I hope that the Premier will stand in his place and tell us that the telegram from Mr. Reuter, the clerk at the Common Market meeting, was in fact mistaken, that, in fact, the Premier did not say that, that the telegram itself was not correct and that there were no suggestions of the sale of uranium during that Common Market meeting. Or, alternatively, maybe the Premier had forgotten that such discussions took place. The matter happened two years ago and maybe he doesn't remember. But I think he owes this House the courtesy of standing up and telling us what, in fact, the situation was. The Premier said there were no discussions with reference to the sale of British Columbia uranium. Yet the clerk, Mr. Reuter, has stated that, in fact, there were discussions. But instead of an answer all we get is silence from the Premier.

The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is here today. He said a few days ago that he was at that meeting and there were no conversations relating to uranium sales. This was mentioned prior to the reading of the telegram by my colleague, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), in which Mr. Reuter said that there were discussions about the sale of uranium, among other things, at that particular meeting. We haven't heard since that time from the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development regarding this subject. I'm not objecting to that. I'm not objecting that he is not going to continue on that particular issue after the statements he had previously made. The problem is what we are to do with reference to future statements by the Premier. Are we to say that they're accurate or possibly accurate or maybe accurate? What is the position of the people in this province? What are they to expect from the Premier, who is the leader of the government and the leader of the province? I suggest that silence is certainly not good enough.

This is a similar performance, it seems to me, with that effort.... You might remember a few months ago, after the seatbelt legislation came into effect, the Premier, when questioned by the media why he wasn't wearing a seatbelt, reportedly said: "There are no seatbelts in the automobile." After the photograph of the automobile showing seatbelts were in place, it was obvious that the Premier had said the first thing that came into his mind. He said it carelessly, without consideration to the validity or otherwise of the statements he made. It seems apparent that the Premier finds it much more simple to reply off the cuff, carelessly, without considering the ramifications of those replies.

I want to discuss very briefly a further matter — basically, the question of the leadership of this province in another area. I want to speak about the statement made by the Premier when he replied to the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Williams') statement with reference to the Vogel investigation. The Premier said at that time:

Mr. Speaker, I would point out the unique position the Attorney-General is in in any government. Therefore, I am responding for the government on the very complete statement given by the Attorney-General today.

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

Now it seems to me that that's a very odd statement the Premier made that day. It would appear to me it is an indication that the Premier and the Attorney-General were in no way in agreement with the statement which was made by the Attorney-General. It appears to me that the statement here is an indication by the Premier that he has cut adrift the Attorney-General with reference to this particular case, and that the Attorney-General will sink or swim. With reference to his statement, the Premier has set aside ground for the government in case things do not go quite as well as might be hoped. It certainly appears that the statement made by the Attorney-General was not in agreement with the Premier, and there's certainly no doubt in my mind that the Premier wanted to go another route.

I hope the Premier will tell us what happened between the Attorney-General and the Premier when they were discussing what kind of action should or would be taken, what kind of statement should be made, and why the Attorney-General made a ministerial statement, which I believe, in all other cases that I can remember, has been a statement generally for the government. When a minister makes a statement he's generally speaking for the government. But in this case the Attorney-General wasn't speaking for the government, because we were told by the Premier that he was speaking as Attorney-General and that the Premier would speak for the government.

I suggest that the problem of leadership is in question in the internal affairs of the Social Credit Party — the question of whether or not the Attorney-General is the true leader, or whether it is the Premier who is cutting out the ground from under the Attorney-General to make room for his party and the government in case things go sour. But here we find a case where it's necessary for the Premier to make a second statement. He said: "I say on behalf of the government...." That is immediately after the Attorney-General, whom we believed was making the statement on behalf of the government, had finished a very lengthy statement. When I listened to the Attorney-General, I thought I was hearing a message from the government, but I found out that, no, I was hearing a message from the Attorney-General. In fact, the government made only a very small mention of this affair, and said only a few words.

The important part of the statement made by the government, not the Attorney-General, is in two paragraphs. What you are actually saying, Mr. Premier, is that the ship is adrift, the Krazy Glue is drying up, and that you cannot rely on one of your ministers to make a statement on behalf of the government, but that, in fact, you are there to give the true story about what you intend to do or what you were doing with reference to an investigation.

I wonder whether the Premier will tell us what discussions there were between the Attorney-General and himself with

[ Page 1775 ]

reference to the preparation of this statement, and whether the Attorney-General knew that he was only speaking for himself. Did the Attorney-General know that he wasn't speaking for the government? I wonder whether he knew or not. Did the Attorney-General know that the Premier was going to make a statement, after he had spent days on redrafting his statement? Did he know he was going to be undercut in a two-paragraph statement by the Premier? I wonder if he knew that. I wonder if the Premier told him. I know that the Premier congratulated the Attorney-General on the statement. He said that the Attorney-General is an honourable member of this House, and we accept his statement without question. He's not saying it's true or false or a good statement; he says that he accepts the statement without question. I wonder if the Attorney-General accepted the Premier's statement without question. I wonder if he knew that the Premier was going to make a statement for the government. I wonder if the Attorney-General knew that he was speaking for himself, and that in actual fact in a few moments he would be cut adrift from the rest of the party.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're desperate.

MR. LORIMER: There is a man who says that we're desperate. Well, I'm not quite as desperate, I don't think, as are some people across the way.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I will ask two questions, though. The Leader of the Opposition asked five questions. I know that's quite a number, but I intend to ask only two questions. The first question is: does the telegram from Europe correctly state the true situation on uranium discussion in Europe? The second question is: will the Premier confirm that he is still the real leader of the coalition across the way? Those are two pretty simple questions. If we can get answers to those two questions, I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition will try for the other five questions. Then maybe we will have some more questions later on in this debate.

MR. RITCHIE: I can't help but feel that the lacklustre, negative approach, the repetition and the personal attack in this debate, are nothing short of a coverup for their own failings. Why doesn't the opposition tackle something more positive, like people programs or our resource development? These are positive programs provided under our leader. But that's very difficult for them to debate. Let's follow the trend of their debate, Mr. Chairman. I'll let you judge for yourself as to the quality of it. I have gone through a little exercise here just for the interest of this House, Mr. Chairman, and for your interest, just to see exactly what they are doing. I'm not sure yet, although I want to say that I think it's a coverup for something.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) — you would like to go out in the hall and have me say that?

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: Would the second member for Vancouver East like to have the floor?

AN HON. MEMBER: Use the word coverall.

MR. RITCHIE: Coveralls? No, I prefer to use coverup because I really believe that what this whole debate of yours revolves around is exactly that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is a word that is on our special little list which we try and adhere to in this chamber.

MR. RITCHIE: If the second member for Vancouver East is finished, I'd like to come back to a point that he made. He said as one of our speakers was up here: "I wonder what foreign trade has to do with the Premier's estimates?" Well, I too wonder, Mr. Chairman, at some of the comments by his own party about the Premier's estimates. They've been all over the place. I'm going to run down a few of them since this debate started.

I refer, first of all, to the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett). He's yawning now. He's already tired. I hope you stay around, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. First of all, you dealt with the rate of inflation and government spending. That was fairly good. Then, of course, you talked about changes in ministerial portfolios. I wonder what that's got to do with the Premier's estimates. Then you talked about B.C. Hydro prices, Gloucester property, the Marguerite. All to do with the Premier's estimates. Then he went on to talk about uranium mining, national unity, the federal election. Then, of course, he touched on unemployment, a good subject. From there he went on to capital investment.

MR. HANSON: Are you reading a book index?

MR. RITCHIE: No, I've gone over Hansard. We'll get to you if you have spoken. I don't think you have yet.

Then, of course, he talked about financing housing, Railwest and seatbelts. I don't think there's a great deal in there that we could directly refer to the Premier's estimates, and yet I notice quite often — in fact most times when one of our members get up — we are told: "Get back to vote 9; you're not on the Premier's estimates. You've got to get back there." Well, I wonder how often they get away from the Premier's estimates.

Then, of course, we had the second member for Vancouver East take the floor. He spoke for a long time, Mr. Chairman. But he only talked about one subject: uranium marketing. That's all.

MR. MACDONALD: I was talking about the truth!

MR. RITCHIE: Well, if that's the truth, then so be it. But that is exactly what you talked about when you were on the floor.

Then we come to the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who has just entered the House, and he had two subjects on which took up an awful lot of time. He talked about a meeting in Europe and he talked about uranium exports, uranium mining and so on. But he took up a long time, Mr. Chairman, talking about those two items, and I wonder just what that has to do with our Premier's estimates. Not very much.

Mr. Chairman, I go on then to the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi). Again he talked about uranium,

[ Page 1776 ]

and again I ask what that has to do with the Premier's estimates. He went on to talk about the former chief justice of the court of appeal. What's that got to do with the Premier's estimates? He talked about Dan Campbell, and then he talked about a meeting in Europe. I wonder if that's the same meeting that the member for Prince Rupert talked about?

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: That's the same meeting, eh?

He talked about the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). He talked about the Deputy Attorney-General. This is quite boring, but really it's been boring right from when we started listening to you. I just thought I'd recap to try to give you an idea of just how exciting it has been.

He talked about a Social Credit fund-raiser. What's that got to do with the Premier's estimates? And he talked about bank accounts. Then he went on to talk about election expenses — and I'm sure we'll be talking more about election expenses. That was included in his debate on the Premier's estimates. Of course, he talked about uranium exploration companies. He talked about the member for Vancouver South, and lo and behold if he didn't go on then to talk about jet airplanes. What has all this got to do with the Premier's estimates? Not very much.

Then we get down to the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber). He too talked about uranium. There seems to be something here that they're concerned about. Apparently I cannot use the word, Mr. Chairman — I referred to it earlier when I started — but there is something strange about the whole debate. He talked about philosophy. Then he went on and talked about Gallup polls. What have Gallup polls got to do with the Premier's estimates, vote 9? He talked also about a meeting in Europe. I wish he were here; I'd like to know if he's talking about the same meeting that has been mentioned by other members on that side. He too has talked about uranium exports. He also talked about the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. Of course he went on and talked about the Rupert, the Surrey and the Marguerite. He also covered the Social Credit Party. What's that got to do with the Premier's estimates, vote 9? He talked about the late W.A.C. Bennett. And, of course, he went on to talk about Seaboard Life Insurance.

Mr. Chairman, I'm merely recapping some of the debate from the opposition benches to show you how boring it has been, and also to try to bring to the House how far off beam they are when it comes to debating our Premier's estimates.

I would like now to touch on the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). He had a little variety. Somehow or other he's not caught up in your uranium thing, I don't believe, but he talked about B.C. Place. He was positive. That's good; that's something we would like to talk about. He talked about the Barkerville fund, and he also talked about the downtown revitalization. We like to talk about that. That's good debate. That's what we would like, Mr. Chairman.

MRS. DAILLY: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the member who is now on his feet is discussing a debate that took place with reference to a bill before this House. He is off the Premier's estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member will continue on vote 9.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, it's very hard to know exactly when the opposition are on vote 9 when you go over some of the things I've just listed here.

But we like to talk about the downtown revitalization. We think that's something positive. We'd like some debate on it, because we think that some debate on that will be good for the economy and the people of this province. That would be responsible debate.

He also talked about alternative energy. Again, I would say there is some constructive thinking behind this particular item. He talked about the Fraser River crossing, the lower mainland stadium and computerized libraries — all within vote 9, the Premier's estimates. He talked about the urban transit fund. But strangely enough, Mr. Chairman, he also talked about revenue in Saskatchewan, income tax and investment interests. There is one member who doesn't seem to be caught up at all in the old uranium waffling that's going on — flip flop or whatever you want to call it — because he hasn't touched on uranium at all.

Then we have the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). Listen to this. He started out by talking about the Premier's dog. Then, of course, he talked about the member for Central Fraser Valley. I can't recall what he said about that particular member.

MR. LEA: He doesn't like you.

MR. RITCHIE: Well, that's too bad.

Anyway, he talked about me, the member for Central Fraser Valley. Then he went on to talk about overruns. He, too, talked about uranium. I wonder why. Was he told to? Is he part of this little hoax that's going on? Why did he talk about uranium and not the other one? And how he got on into the NDP convention.... But he also talked about the NDP convention. Mr. Chairman, this was during the debate on the Premier's estimates, vote 9. It's in Hansard. He talked about radiation.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: No, this is the correct debate.

Then, of course, he talked about a discussion that took place in Europe. VV hat's all this got to do with the Premier's estimates, vote 9? He talked about the Bates commission, Ellen McKay, projection of government revenue and the Annacis Island bridge. You know, Mr. Chairman, I hope that I am getting the message across, but really, when you listen to this coming back at you, it must sound very, very boring indeed and far off beam. Certainly it doesn't have very much to do with our Premier's estimates at all. It would be nice if we could get down to some real constructive debate on that particular issue.

I've got a couple more to go. The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) talked about the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) in the Premier's estimates — exciting! He talked about Boy Scouts. That's a very good issue to talk about. He talked about the Reuter letter. He, too, talked about the meeting in Europe. Not all of them but a good number of them talked about that particular meeting. He also talked about the Canadian Paperworkers International Union. What does that have to do with the Premier's estimates? Really boring, isn't it? This is what we've been listening to now since the debate on the estimates started. He talked about Ocean Falls.

[ Page 1777 ]

Then, of course, I get down to the last one that I have recorded over the past few days, the member for Vancouver Centre. Let's take a look and see what he talked about in this particular debate on the Premier's estimates, vote 9. He talked about meeting people. Then he talked about the meeting in Europe — that same mysterious meeting that somehow they're having difficulty with. He also talked about uranium policy. He talked, too, about Lettergate. What's that got to do with the Premier's estimates?

MR. LEA: That's what we'd like to know.

MR. RITCHIE: That's what I would like to know.

He talked about the Deputy Attorney-General, the Premier's credibility and the role of the Premier. He also talked about uranium. He went on to talk, again, about our Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). He talked about a mining company in Kelowna. What has that got to do with our Premier's estimates, vote 9? He talked about copper mining and then he talked about the trade trip to Japan and Korea and, Mr. Chairman, he talked about a Korea Electric Co.

I wanted to summarize some of the items that have been discussed on this floor over the past few days by the opposition, supposedly surrounding our Premier's estimates. But I think the opposition are merely using this opportunity to debate the Premier's estimates in an attempt to undermine him. Mr. Chairman, that's going to be an impossible task because I want to tell you that our Premier's record speaks for itself and will continue to speak for itself.

Would you like to hear some more?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. RITCHIE: I'll tell you what: if you will leave me to it I will keep recording some of your debate material and I'll be glad to bring it back into the House later. In the meantime I'd suggest that you try something more constructive, something that is meaningful, something that we could really take to task, something that the people out there would really like to hear coming from the opposition.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Where's Jack Kelly now?

MR. RITCHIE: If you would like to talk about that, we can do that too. Don't forget, when you're in a glass house you shouldn't throw stones.

MR. LEA: Did you make that up?

MR. RITCHIE: No, I didn't make that up, but I can assure you there's a lot of truth to it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, let's address the Chair in our debate.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I just want to conclude by saying that.... I don't know what word I can use in place of coverup; maybe there's something you can suggest. But the debate very clearly tells me that there's a shortfall somewhere, and they don't know how to tackle this marvellous budget of ours. They don't know how to tackle the activities of this government. They just don't know how to tackle our Premier because our Premier has given the leadership that this province needs. He has brought this province from a real terrible financial situation to one where we're now getting things done, particularly for the people of our province. I would suggest that if they don't wish to hear another rumination of some of the dull debate they get on to something more constructive.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as the Premier has now returned to the House I would be quite willing to yield the floor to him so he could answer the questions that have been posed to him. Inasmuch as he apparently does not wish to accept that offer I would like on his behalf to thank the minister from West Central Fraser Valley for providing some leeway so the Premier could leave the House during the course of that very dull debate that he launched into which showed his lack of grasp of what this debate is all about. He has no understanding of what it is we are discussing. The Premier is responsible for naming the cabinet, yet that minister said he didn't know what the changes in the cabinet had to do with the Premier.

MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, I admit that I may not be fully up on all the rules of the House, but I'm wondering whether the member for Cowichan-Malahat is referring to a minister from West Central Fraser Valley. Who is it?

MRS. WALLACE: That certainly seems a strange point of order, Mr. Chairman. My remark was that his reference was apparently to try to make the point that to allude to changes in ministerial positions has nothing to do with the Premier's estimates. Certainly the Premier has to be held responsible for the appointment of the cabinet.

Mr. Chairman, this House is in a position of impasse. We have come to something that I would not have believed could have happened within the confines of a supposedly mature and logical form of debate. We have come to a position where, somehow, the Premier of this province is simply abdicating his responsibility. He is refusing to answer any of the questions posed to him by the opposition. These are legitimate questions relative to his responsibility. We have posed some questions; there are many questions we would like to pose. I am concerned about the dollars and cents in his budget. I am concerned about the fact that he is proposing to increase the employees in his particular ministry from 9 to 17. I would like to discuss those questions with the minister. I would like to discuss with the Premier some of the activities that have occurred within his office during the past year — occurrences relative to Mr. Campbell and to Mr. Greig. They were both employees of his office.

But, Mr. Chairman, I am very hesitant to ask that Premier any questions. In the first place it's not likely he would reply. In the second place, and even more important, if he did reply, what possible assurance do I have that those replies would represent the true state of the particular case? We are at an impasse here. We are in a position where we have had two conflicting statements presented on the floor of this Legislature. Those statements stretch the credibility of this House and of every individual in it — stretch it beyond all reason, Mr. Chairman. They were simple questions that were asked. There was no obvious reason for the conflict.

The question of uranium and whether we should sell it or not is not the question at issue. The question at issue is whether the Premier, when he stands in his place and gives an

[ Page 1778 ]

answer to any specific question.... Can this House be assured that they have all the facts relative to that particular question? That's the question that's at issue here today, and that's the question that has been at issue over this last week of impossible impasse in this House. The Premier has absolutely refused to face up to that fact — and it's so simple, Mr. Chairman. You know, he's got three alternatives, really. He can get up and say: "No, when I went to Europe in 1977, I didn't make any attempt to sell or discuss the sale of uranium." Now, that would be perfectly all right. This House would accept that. At that particular time, the government's policy was not particularly opposed to the sale of uranium. They had not, at that time, set up the Bates commission. They had not declared any moratorium on exploration. It would have been perfectly logical to get up and say: "Yes, I did it. That was our policy at the time. Now we have a new policy. We've got more information as a result of the Bates commission." That's one thing he could have done. But he didn't do it. He could have said: "Yes, I discussed it." He could have said: "No, I didn't discuss it."

When the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) spoke in this House — he's the one who sits on this side of the House — he offered a third alternative. He said: "You know, maybe, Mr. Chairman, the way it happened was like this. Maybe the first question Mr. Jenkins asked was, 'why are you here?' and the Premier replied: 'We're here to sell resources.'"  And then the member for Vancouver South said: "Well, two hours later, question number 406 — what resources do you have? And the Premier said 'uranium.'" He gave him an out. But the Premier got up after that, and he talked about all the other things the member for Vancouver South had said. But he never mentioned that. Maybe that's the way it happened. Now if it happened that way, why doesn't the Premier tell the House? This impasse has simply negated any possibility of progress in discussing the Premier's estimates.

I have questions relative to uranium which I would like to discuss with the Premier. It was the Premier's announcement, and obviously his decision, that he was going to ban exploration for uranium in British Columbia. I would like to ask what led up to that decision. I would like to know whether it was because there was going to be a massive rally on the steps of the Legislature, or whether it was because a certain religious figure was picketing his store in Kelowna. Or was it another reason? I have my suspicions that it was another reason entirely. My suspicion is that the real reason was that he wanted to cancel the Bates commission.

MR. LORIMER: Did he know about the Bates commission?

MRS. WALLACE: Oh, he knew about it. He knew where they were in their evidence. He knew they were going to start calling in certain health officials. He was a little concerned, I believe, as to what was going to come out if that Bates commission continued its inquiry. So this was the way.

I don't know if I'm right. I don't know if I'm wrong. I'd like to ask the Premier that. But under the present circumstances, there's no point in me asking that question, because even if he did answer it, I wouldn't know whether I was getting the right answer. That's our concern. That's our problem.

Perhaps the Premier is following a long line of politicians who follow his particular political beliefs. I can remember, as a child back in Alberta, when Bill Aberhart was running on the Social Credit ticket when Social Credit first came to Alberta. At that time, Aberhart's stories didn't exactly match. He had an answer. I'm just going to pass this along to the Premier, because perhaps he could use this answer. I would suggest that the Premier should give some consideration to following in the steps of Bible Bill Aberhart. When he was confronted with his conflicting stories, do you know what he said? He said: "I say so much, I don't know what I say." Well, maybe the Premier could try that. Or he could try following a former cabinet minister in this House who had an answer too. He had an answer that he gave this House, when his stories didn't quite match. Maybe he could try that particular minister's tack. I'm sure you're aware of that story, Mr. Chairman. He simply said that even when he told a lie, he believed he was telling the truth. Maybe that's the way it is with this Premier.

There are so many things he could do. There are so many ways he could resolve this impasse, but instead he sits there reading his mail and signing his letters or going out of the House or talking to his cabinet ministers, absolutely refusing to answer any legitimate questions posed by this opposition. That's why we're at an impasse in this House, and that's why we're going to continue to remain at an impasse until that Premier realizes that he does have an obligation to the legislative and democratic processes of this province. I don't think he recognizes that. He somehow thinks he's a law unto himself and can go his own way, that he's not responsible to this Legislature, but he is. He's responsible to this Legislature, and we as opposition intend to ensure that he carries out those responsibilities, even though it takes many long hours of hard debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: I don't want to delay the work of the House. Earlier the Premier said that he wished to answer in due course. I thought perhaps due course had arrived. It would facilitate the work of the House if the Premier could let us know if it's due course or not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a legitimate point of order, hon. member.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to take a moment to recognize that in our gallery today is former Minister of Travel Industry and Small Business Development, Mr. Elwood Veitch. I'd ask the House to welcome him.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting for answers, and it may be more appropriate if there was a bit more time. There were five simple questions. I expected uncomplicated answers. I think it would be appropriate if I move the committee rise, report no progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on following division:

YEAS — 18

[ Page 1779 ]

NAYS — 28

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

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. The question before us and the point that seems to be missed by the government, particularly the back bench and certainly the Premier, is that we are very, very serious about our questioning of the Premier's word. We are asking — through you, Mr. Chairman — that the Premier take his place in this House and be frank and honest regarding the discussions that took place in Europe regarding the sale of uranium.

The reason I raise that, as many of my colleagues have done prior to my comments, is that the whole issue of nuclear development and uranium mining is a very serious and important issue to the people of British Columbia. The seven year moratorium is as in-place as a Thursday morning breakfast meeting of cabinet. An order-in-council rescinding the moratorium could be done on any Thursday at 7 a.m., and I think many people in this province are not aware of that.

I'd like you to just cast your mind back about a year ago to a debate that was taking place in British Columbia regarding the construction of a 1,280 megawatt boiling-water nuclear power plant at Sedro Woolley, Washington. On several occasions our side of the House asked the government to make formal representation to the atomic energy safety and licensing commission of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. What happened? What happened when Puget Sound Power and Light decided that they would construct a nuclear power plant only 50 kilometres from the Canadian border? The prevailing winds from the Sedro Woolley location run up into the lower mainland. With the orientation of the Cascade Mountains and the Coast Range to the north, the prevailing winds run from the Puget lowlands into the lower mainland. A Premier and a government as committed to the opposition of nuclear power and all that it involves in terms of uranium mining, uranium export and so on.... Where was the Premier when the Sedro Woolley issue was being debated? We heard nothing from him.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where does he stand now?

MR. HANSON: Where does he stand now? The point I'm raising, Mr. Chairman, is that that moratorium has as much status in this province as a Thursday morning breakfast meeting at 7 o'clock.

Instead of getting formal intervener status on the part of the provincial government, there was one remark in the press that the Premier was going to bring it up with Joe Clark. We never did hear any more about that.

The Minister of Environment, who is now the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), sent to the hearings one observer with no status whatsoever. The opposition sent three members to Seattle to issue a brief on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia, 500,000 of whom would live within the evacuation zone. Even the engineering reports that were done on the Sedro Woolley plant by the contractors had not fully gone through the geologic information. They had left out, for convenience, certain pertinent geologic information that had been known for many years regarding the seismic faults directly under that nuclear plant.

My comments, Mr. Chairman, are to point out that the Premier's conversion to anti-nuclear, anti-uranium, is somewhat in question in this House.

I would like to read into the record a letter written by the B.C. Medical Association, who had to go to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on their own and ask for intervener status. The letter is addressed to Mr. Valentine Deale, chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Connecticut Avenue, Washington. It is written by the president of the B.C. Medical Association.

"Dear Mr. Deale:

"At a recent meeting of the board of directors of the B.C. Medical Association, the forthcoming public hearings regarding the proposed construction of the Skagit nuclear reactors 32 miles south of the Canada-U.S. border was discussed.

"Because of our vested interest in the public health, the B.C. Medical Association is concerned about the possible construction of these two large 1,280 megawatt boiling-water nuclear reactors within such close proximity to a substantial segment of the population and the significant fanning areas of B.C."

The member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) smirks across, but you know there are many people in that cabinet who are very divided on that question, and that is of great concern to the people of this province.

"The fact that the prevailing regional winds are from the south-southeast; that the Skagit area may be the site of a significant earthquake fault; that the reactor safety study (Rasmussen report) has been severely criticized by the American Physical Society, the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the National Academy of Science; and that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has, as of January 1979, withdrawn its endorsation of the executive summary of that report, are not reassuring to us."

Let me just place the next paragraph in context, because it refers to the Three Mile Island situation in terms of its geography and compares it with the proposed plant in the Skagit Valley.

"We are staggered at the figures stated by the Atomic Energy Commission report of 45,000 immediate deaths" — which would result from a similar kind of disaster — "100,000 immediate injuries and $17 billion in property damage with radioactive contamination spread over an area as large as Pennsylvania."

What I'm saying is that an issue of that magnitude drew no response whatsoever from the Premier. So placing his recent behaviour in context, there is no doubt that when he

[ Page 1780 ]

was in Europe and the question of uranium was raised, he may well have discussed the export of uranium in a very frank and open manner. But he will not take his place in this House and state unequivocally what he did on those dates.

Just quickly reviewing the positions of the former cabinet ministers respecting nuclear power, the present Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who was formerly the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, was always a self-proclaimed proponent of nuclear power. In fact he is quoted in a clipping here as saying that he regards it as being a part of being a twentieth century person; he was a twentieth century person as a result of his stand on a controversial subject. He also noted that the present Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the former Minister of Education, now in Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) were also proponents of nuclear plants. So, understanding the background of cabinet positions taken on nuclear power and the extent to which they've been divided on this question, it does justifiably make the public and certainly the opposition extremely uneasy about any position that the government has taken on this issue.

A former member of the cabinet, now the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), was a strong proponent of nuclear power. He stated that nuclear power was inevitable and the Island was the first likely place to build a nuclear plant, probably at Crofton. So at least the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, the present Minister of Agriculture, the former Minister of Energy — now the back-bench member for North Vancouver–Seymour — were all proponents of nuclear power, and had been over and over again, which certainly....

Now what about the Premier? What is his position on nuclear power and uranium mining? In 1977 the Premier went to Japan, and while he was in Japan, drilling for uranium by Union Oil was taking place on his property. When he returned from Japan and was asked by the press, "What is your feeling on the exploration that is going on on your property?", he pretended not to be aware of the situation — or perhaps he wasn't aware of the situation — and gave the following response. He said that he had given permission some years prior.... He is quoted as saying: "Bennett said the company's exploration on the ranch first came to his attention in 1977 when he received a letter advising that Union had staked claims on the property." Now let us just look at what his next comment was and the strength and power of his opposition to uranium mining on his own property. He said: "Put my fences back if you take any down, restore the land and don't damage any trees."Those are his comments on uranium mining.

MRS. WALLACE: Where is he?

MR. HANSON: He's not here now, is he? Oh, he's over there.

So I question his commitment, his anti-nuclear, anti-uranium position — I question it.

Another former cabinet minister, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), said: "B.C. will not have to think about building nuclear power stations until at least the end of the 1980s.... From a purely economic point of view, nuclear power isn't of any immediate interest." So it's not the hazard they're worried about. It was just the finances; it was the bottom-line straight construction costs, delivery and so on.

All the way through the last session we were always having to contend with statements made by the chairman of B.C. Hydro which obviously are the policy of the government. Robert Bonner indicated on many occasions that he was an advocate of nuclear power. He felt it was desirable; he felt it was inevitable. Gordon Shrum, a former chairman of Hydro as well, was always an active proponent of it. In fact, he told me personally that the sooner there was a nuclear power plant at Crofton on Vancouver Island, the better, as far as he was concerned. Robert Bonner, in his present position as chairman of B.C. Hydro, made the statement on November 8, 1978, that a nuclear power plant was a must for B.C. "They will have to start construction of a nuclear power plant in the province within ten years." That's longer than seven years, isn't it? Ten years is longer than seven years. He said nuclear power would be part of B.C.'s energy future "whether the public opinion favoured it or not."

What I've tried to raise, Mr. Chairman, in a few remarks is that the divisiveness on this issue within the cabinet is apparent; it's public record. The position of the present chairman of B.C. Hydro on nuclear power and uranium is a matter of public record. He is a proponent of it. They took no position whatsoever in opposition to the Sedro Woolley plant. I am assuming that was tacit approval. I can only surmise from the fact that the Premier will not take his place in this House and tell us exactly what was discussed in Europe with Roy Jenkins and Mr. Reuter that I cannot take his word on his moratorium.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, this House gets pretty lax at times, I agree, but there are some things that still are required. One of them is that members don't make statements like that about the word of another member, and that they are honourable enough to withdraw them immediately.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If an imputation of falsehood has been made the Chair will ask the hon. member to withdraw.

MR. HANSON: I withdraw, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, it has been, for a relative newcomer to the House, a rather interesting afternoon. It began with the Leader of the Opposition getting up unprepared to take his place in the debate, and not having succeeded at that he was desperately groping for an opportunity to attack someone. When nobody would respond he even dug out the old one about being a teacher — making reference about being a teacher. How he related that to the topic I don't know, and because he seemed to be in such desperate straits I even tried to help him by responding and giving him something to rebut, but even that did not sustain him. I think Hansard will show that the leader of the Opposition had to stand up in this House and say two or three times that there were no other members on his side that were prepared to continue the debate. That's a pretty difficult admission. However, the word went out, I gather, and he came back with a newly discovered tactic: reading the same speeches we heard all last week, from Hansard. That saved making up speeches.

Then we just had an example here from the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), who found another tac-

[ Page 1781 ]

tic. Having-prepared a speech for another topic which hasn't come up in the House and is not likely to, he somehow or other tried to include it in this discussion. So it's certainly been an educational afternoon, albeit somewhat boring, because we heard the same speeches, the same tactics, all last week.

Speaking to the Premier's estimates. I am very happy that the Premier's estimates this year are up over last year, because it somewhat reflects the situation that exists in British Columbia. The provincial economy has grown dramatically, everything is moving in a dramatic fashion, and it makes the Premier busier than ever. It makes him more in demand, and as an MLA and on behalf of my constituents I would like the Premier to be more accessible and available to the people in my riding. Therefore I must make it possible for him to do that, and so I certainly support this vote on the Premier's estimates.

To finish my statement, Mr. Chairman, I support this vote on the Premier's estimates and I wish we could get at it. It would be rather nice. However, again, I've had quite an education on how the opposition operates. We had a throne speech debate, and as nearly as I can determine the opposition neglected to discuss the items in the throne speech. Then we had a budget debate for some days, and it was my impression that they again neglected to discuss items in the budget — they preferred the personal attack. Now we're on estimates and it seems like we're avoiding the discussion of estimates. Really, I don't see or hear these genuine questions that they allude to. I detect somewhat a guise of making insinuations and allegations in the name of questions, I detect the stalling tactics, and then when finally their stalling tactics worked — in other words when we got tired of continuing that irrelevant and meaningless debate — they were somewhat upset. I suppose when you have spent your time creating a list of artificial dragons and nobody will fight that dragon war with you, it must be somewhat disconcerting. So we've had constant tedious repetition of the same questions over and over again.

Most of the questions have been answered, but not the way they wanted them answered, so they reword them, rework them, anything to spend a little bit more time to cover the same material which is completely irrelevant to the debate. However, I've been lectured a couple of times by members on that other side that I'm too young or too new to understand that that is what opposition is all about. I had a higher opinion, but they are gradually getting through to me as to what opposition is. And so we had that pathetic clowning-anguish act again by the Leader of the Opposition, and I suppose we'll have it over and over again.

Let me just comment briefly on perhaps the effect of the Premier's leadership on the North Peace area that I represent. The contrast between when socialism was in power in this province and now, since this Premier has led this province, is so dramatic that it hardly needs to be pointed out. Certainly in the oil and gas boom it is obvious — from going downhill, falling apart, people moving out, to becoming the greatest revenue producer in the province, making possible the services to these people. I could use a whole raft of statistics, such as oil lease sales down to about $12 million in 1972 to up over $200 million in 1979. Again, moving quickly, I could also make the point that the wells and the oil industry were ready to shut down in the last election when there was any doubt, but they really started moving as soon as Social Credit was re-elected because they know what the policies of this government will do.

I could certainly point, with considerable pleasure and pride, to the road construction that's going on throughout the province — and I do drive the highways when I'm not flying back and forth between Victoria and North Peace. For instance, just in our own area, from a government in those days — the bad old days — who were against any paving, and still speak against blacktop.... For our people blacktop is pretty important, and so last year we had 72 kilometres of paving put in the works for our area, and I am certainly expecting with the highway program this year for even more. We need it and this government is in a position to do it and they have the policies to do it because they do believe, as I believe, that paving is for people. I don't know of anything that makes people happier in our area than to have the roads improved — to have improved access provided for them. They do not say that is not something for people. I could certainly comment on the Liard Highway — or the Fort Nelson–Fort Simpson Road, as it is known. That road is progressing very quickly and now it's a matter, as I see it, of getting the federal government to meet us at the border, because that road should be there. And again, as it turns out, when a government has the policies to build these resource roads, it turns out to be revenue producing, because there are mines opening up in that area. For instance, Cadillac Mines, just over the border, has now bought mining equipment and is installing it on the strength of that road being completed. That means something like 150 jobs and millions of dollars' worth of revenue coming through this province and to this province.

Certainly I can mention the new side roads, both those built by government projects and those built by private industry, because the potential is there and the incentive has been provided under the leadership of our Premier.

I might say that even a great deal of progress has been made on the Alaska Highway. Certainly people can say the Alaska Highway is federal jurisdiction, but when the area is growing quickly, then the federal government is more likely to improve that highway. So even there, in federal jurisdiction, what our Premier has done has made it much more likely that we will get the Alaska Highway paved. That's pretty important.

B.C. Rail. Again, there has been willingness to believe in the resources of this province, willingness to do the job necessary, and willingness to reduce that debt to make it much more possible for B.C. Rail to operate. Certainly hospitals and schools have expanded and grown. Our biggest problem, really, in the area is that we can't possibly keep up with the services that the area requires.

Certainly, as the member for that area, I keep challenging the Premier and this government to provide those services, to improve those services, and to provide more for the corner of B.C. that is producing so much for the provincial coffers. But I'm certainly not like some members — willing to cut off my nose to spite my face, in that I speak against development and progress and at the same time want a great deal more benefits, facilities and amenities for our area.

So yes, we support progress in that part of the country. We certainly support this government and we've certainly supported this Premier in that part of the country. That does not mean we are completely happy. I don't think we'll ever be completely happy, because we want more as other people want more. I see many projects being developed in the lower mainland and so on on a population basis. We accept that,

[ Page 1782 ]

because if they can be done here then they can be expanded and extended to our area. That's what I'm looking forward to.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I have been listening today, as I have for some time, to some new questions and some new debate but a lot of area that appears to cover old ground or no ground at all. Now some questions posed by members are simply unanswerable or should not be asked during the Premier's estimates. Statements made in interviews at various times reflecting on other ministries or events, whether a year ago or a year and a half ago — as it may do with Hydro and a question on pricing at that time — were appropriate for their time. I think Hydro should not be canvassed during my estimates.

I think the government's philosophical goals on energy and energy development are proper goals. We have never had in this province an energy policy publicly stated by any government. This government has identified an energy policy now, of course, which can be discussed under the estimates of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland). Within that policy framework firm policy will be developed and announced point by point, piece by piece as it plugs into that policy framework. Surely, Mr. Chairman, that's important, because I believe for many years the words "policy on this" and "policy on that" were left to political rhetoric and not to highly technical and detailed developed policy statements in specific areas. There's a reason for that, because it takes a lot of time to develop even a policy framework such as energy and such as we're still working on in the field of transportation. For four and a half years this government has been dealing with developing the transportation policy. As such, that's what this government intends to do in a number of key areas — develop those policy frameworks and give a clear understanding; because up until now governments have had implied policy, or no policy or policies that may suggest themselves as policies of the moment.

We want to have some consistency upon which those who must respond to our policies.... Other governments — municipal governments, regional governments and others — who work within the province must have some framework or at least a basis of understanding on which to ask specific questions. The same in the private sector: those who would wish to invest in this province must have some understanding of where this province is going and what the policy is in certain areas. That's what we've been working on.

Now, I'm sure each minister in his own estimates will respond into detailed areas of administration of his ministry. I have no intention of encouraging discussion here or of broadening it to the extent that we'll have a duplicate or triplicate of the discussion when it comes to the minister.

We were made aware, and I understand that corridor discussion and gossip is, that the New Democratic Party prepared for this session to make uranium their number one issue. Apparently the highly touted research staff has piles and piles of material, because they want to talk about uranium. Now, it doesn't matter. If that's what they wish to talk about, they're not going to shorten the debate on the Premier's estimates or any other estimates they've got. I understand they have, by estimate, five weeks of material to do with this, and I know before we rise the House will listen to it. So I'm quite prepared to sit and listen to it during my estimates — all five weeks if they want, although they might wish to spread it out. But that's the story which comes from some people who have reported on these proceedings for many years and have heard the word in the corridors. I never want to take too seriously all the corridor gossip that goes on out there, but that's what I hear.

As I said, remarks of mine to do with Hydro, whether they were made a year or a year and a half or half a year ago, were appropriate for their time and need no further explanation in this debate. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources can discuss that. Also, Mr. Chairman, to do with any other ministry.... We have a number of areas that touch on agriculture that the minister can deal with, particularly responsibilities of the Land Commission. And, Mr. Chairman, I'm also not prepared to deal with broadening his responsibilities into details of my estimates. Any statements I've made have been appropriate for the time.

I see the Leader of the Opposition, who tried to adjourn the House an hour ago because he wanted to go home, is back and clowning. That's fine. I'm glad to see the Leader of the Opposition back. I want to say that I listened to his repetitive questions, and I remember that may again be a tactic, as I hear from the corridor, because apparently he built his reputation in this province and in this Legislature not on anything concrete but by asking the same question of the Attorney-General of the day — I think it was Les Peterson — so many times that he got thrown out of the House. And then, of course, I remember he lost the news that day because it just so happened there was another major event that took all the headlines. That may again be the tactic in the House, Mr. Chairman. I say this for explanation to some of the new members, and perhaps to some in the gallery who have been watching, to know that that has been the style.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

AN HON. M EMBER: What happened to Mr. Peterson?

MR. MACDONALD: He went right down the tube at the next election because he wouldn't answer that question.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He would have been back if he had had $80,000 to buy a seat, though.

Mr. Chairman, now to deal with discussion which not only I but a number of members have tried to introduce into the debate, in which there are philosophical differences between our party, the government, and the opposition, not only on constitutional matters or international trade, but matters of how the economy should develop and what role the private sector should play. I believe those areas should be canvassed in the Premier's estimates. I heard the Leader of the Opposition state, during one of his repetitive questioning periods on questions not meant to be answered but to give him his space and time, that he used to have great philosophical debates in this House when he was Leader of the Opposition. Yet that very area is the part they don't want to participate in — areas that have been opened up by me and a number of the ministers during these estimates. Yes, the details of government can be dealt with by ministers, in their administration of programs and development of policy, and all of them are eager to participate when their opportunity comes. Out in the corridor it's been said, according to what I've been told is the official word of the opposition, that the House will be sitting until the middle of September. So you'll have ample time to meet your deadline. We're here to accommodate the people's business.

[ Page 1783 ]

A number of new areas of discussion came up dealing with energy. The question of what energy British Columbia will use in the future may develop into a policy area which wouldn't move into the energy minister's area; that is, of course, natural gas export. Natural gas export is a fact now in British Columbia in both our government economy and in moving gas as we build up our reserves. I think it's important to know where the government stands and where the opposition stands on the export of natural gas. I understand it's an area in which the national leader of the New Democratic Party made the very positive statement that he's against it. I understand it. That could be clarified for me. I might have received an incorrect impression. That revenue for responsible sale is important not only to government revenue but to the provincial economy as well. This province needs to continue to develop its gas reserves in large areas. We can develop a gas supply for British Columbians, for their businesses, their homes, their industries and their jobs; we can do so at a preferential rate, as we have in the past. We can also help bring dollars into the provincial economy through the sale of natural gas at prices relating to world energy values. Such a mechanism is in there through the NEB, to get those values. We should always be re-evaluating both the contracts there and the volume, in relation to the development of B.C. reserves. It would be foolhardy to sell too much, but it would be foolhardy to lose the opportunity to balance the provincial economy and maintain exploration. Those are important questions.

Our government is prepared to continue the sale of a reasonable amount of natural gas to the United States. The second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) said that he doesn't want the United States to have nuclear power. I think he supports the government position in its concern about oil tankers. Then we've got to look at what's left to a friendly country next to us, in the way of energy to maintain the industry they have until they develop alternatives. Is the answer to turn off the tap? By doing one thing, are you forcing them into something else which you find more unacceptable? I think we have to canvass those areas. We are clearly in favour of responsible export for varied value to the province. We think its effect is manyfold. Provincial revenues are obviously affected. Money from natural gas exploration rights has swollen provincial treasuries. The taxing of natural gas has given us additional money from the sale of exports at ever-increasing prices, which has helped to pay for many of the programs we've introduced as government.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) has long been an advocate for more services for people in this chamber. She knows that those services can help be provided by a broadening of the revenue base beyond imposing greater and greater burdens on individual taxpayers. She knows that the sale of natural gas to the United States utilities, for their industry to meet export contracts, but also to have reasonable export to go along with our increasing inventory of gas, is responsible management of the B.C. resources. That's our policy. That policy is not only being stated but it's implicit in the way this government has been able to reduce the amount of taxes on individuals over the last few budgets. The Leader of the Opposition wants to know who started various taxing authorities. I don't know who invented the first income tax or the first way to tax natural gas or the most effective way to tax natural gas. But a tax is a tax is a tax. The Leader of the Opposition has often tried to tell the people that somehow a government tax is a responsible example and a good example of government going into business and selling it as a need for more Crown corporations. But the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, Mr. Chairman, is simply a tax-gathering vehicle — that's all it does.

MR. LEA: How many wells does it drill?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, order please. The Premier has the floor.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I note that the House is getting noisy, so I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:38 p.m.