[ Page 1785 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions.

Kemano 11 project. Mr. Lea 1785

Federal taxation of northern workers' flight allowances. Mr. Passarell –– 1786

Lookout Emergency Aid Society. Mr. Barnes –– 1786

Pollution control permits. Mr. Skelly –– 1786

Duties of R.G. Chestnut with B.C. Steamship Company. Mr. Barber –– 1786

Queen of Prince Rupert refit. Mr. Barber –– 1787

Female representation by Human Rights Commission. Ms. Sanford –– 1787

Committee of Supply, Premier's Office estimates.

On vote 9.

Mr. Macdonald –– 1787

Mr. Mitchell –– 1789

Mr. Lauk –– 1793

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 1795

Mr. Lauk –– 1798

Mr. Howard –– 1799

Mr. Barrett –– 1802

Mr. Leggatt –– 1805

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1807

Introduction of Bills

Company Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 10). Hon. Mr. Nielsen.

Introduction and first reading –– 1808

Tabling Reports

Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs annual report, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1808

TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. BARRETT: In the gallery today is a person who was a guest in this House daily for many years until illness unfortunately struck. Her absence was noted by all of us. We're extremely pleased to have Mrs. Ruth Johnson back with us in the gallery today.

I ask the House to welcome Mrs. Pauline Stone and her father, accompanied by Mrs. Mooney.

HON. MR. MAIR: A couple of months ago I had the distinct honour of speaking with some Girl Guides in my constituency, at the home of Mr. and Mrs. Dene Ferguson. I even had the opportunity of identifying for them the Leader of the Opposition and explaining what he did in this chamber — it didn't take long, and I was very charitable. I would like the House to welcome today Mr. Dene Ferguson, Mrs. Wendy Ferguson, Miss Debbie Ferguson, Miss Christine Ferguson, Master Kevin Ferguson, Master Darren Ferguson, Mr. Tom Delzell and Mrs. Rene Delzell.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce a guest in the House today who comes to us from the constituency of Okanagan North, Mr. Drew Howard. I hope the House will make him welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to welcome a young man in the gallery, Mr. Alan Boyce. He has escorted his mother, Alderman Helen Boyce, to Victoria. She is here to do the business of the city of Vancouver on behalf of the city council.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to welcome Alderman Helen Boyce. On behalf of the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) I would like to welcome his mother-in-law, Mrs. Edna Nash, and his son, Gregory Lauk. I would also like to welcome two students from Colwood, Terri McKinty and her friend Wendy Gough. Finally, I ask the House to join me in welcoming Ray DuSang and Lydia Bruncke, both of Vancouver.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are four constituents of mine: Mr. and Mrs. Sam Drossos — Crystal Drossos is my constituency secretary — and Bill and Carla Drossos, two of the upcoming great skiers of the Okanagan Valley. I'd like the House to bid them welcome.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Joe Pagurut, chairman of the Cranbrook and District Hospital Board, who is in the members' gallery this afternoon.

HON. MR. ROGERS: In view of the fact that it's Easter holidays, I'd like the House to welcome all the kids who are here today from all over the province who have come to watch this. It's such a beautiful day and they've been dragged inside. I think we should say thanks to them for coming to watch.

Oral Questions

KEMANO II PROJECT

MR. LEA: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. Are there any negotiations currently taking place between the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, or anyone within his department, and the Aluminum Company of Canada with respect to Alcan's Kemano completion project, which is probably better known, or more loosely known, as the Kemano II project?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. My department, as you know, is negotiating with numerous companies that are interested in investing in British Columbia. I'll check it out and see if any current negotiations are going on between officials of my department and the Aluminum Company of Canada.

MR. LEA: I asked whether there are any going on currently. I'd like to know also, Mr. Speaker, of any negotiations that may have been going on since, say, the beginning of the year — that's this year, 1980 — or in the last six months of 1979. Have there been any negotiations carried on between government, or your department, Mr. Minister, or people from your department, or yourself, with respect to Alcan's Kemano completion project?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member for Prince Rupert's question, I believe that Alcan has made some presentations with regard to negotiations, but that's an entirely different matter.

MR. LEA: When the minister says there have been presentations made to the government, has the government made any presentation to Alcan?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd have to answer that by saying that it's Alcan that sells aluminum, and we have no aluminum to sell to Alcan.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask whether or not during the negotiations that have already gone on.... As the minister says, there have been negotiations going on....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't say that.

MR. LEA: Oh, then I'd like to clarify that before I move on. Have there been any negotiations between the government of British Columbia and Alcan surrounding the Kemano II project?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, now he's asking about negotiation between the government.... I can't speak for the government. I did say that there could have been presentations made to my ministry because there are a lot of people who make presentations to my ministry. As you know, the world is looking to British Columbia to invest. It's the hottest spot in all of North America for investment, and we have people coming to us all the time.

MR. LEA: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I realize that there could have been; there could have been a lot of things. What I'm

[ Page 1786 ]

asking is: Mr. Minister, have there been any negotiations going on between members of your ministry or yourself and officials of Alcan? Not could there — have there.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, as I say, Mr. Speaker, there certainly have probably been some presentations made by Alcan to my officials with regard to current negotiations. As I said, I'll have to check that out and see if anybody in my ministry is carrying on negotiations with Alcan.

MR. LEA: A supplementary question: has the minister or his ministry laid out in any way anything that they may require from Alcan in regard to the Kemano completion project?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I feel that in answering the question I've given the member as much assistance as I can give him at this time.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question in a similar vein to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and ask the minister whether he can say if he or anyone in his ministry is now, or has been, engaged in any negotiations with the Aluminum Company of Canada with respect to the Kemano completion project?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, discussions, yes.

MR. HOWARD: Would the minister be prepared to indicate to the House at some convenient time in the near future what the course of those discussions is?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, yes.

MR. HOWARD: Could the minister indicate precisely when he will be able to make that statement?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, no.

FEDERAL TAXATION OF NORTHERN
WORKERS' FLIGHT ALLOWANCES

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Finance. The federal government has decided to retroactively tax workers in northern British Columbia for debushing flights and allowances. This amounts to an additional tax burden of almost $1,000 per family. Has the minister been in touch with the federal government to strongly protest these retroactive taxes?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member's remarks in and near this chamber on Friday. I'm sorry that he has not found it possible to elaborate on them for me in order that I might assist where I can. But it will be discussed within my ministry in terms of contact with Ottawa.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, that member across the way.... Are you directing the Chair today, Mr. Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly be happy to assist the member to the best of my ability, but he has not made contact with me in this regard.

MR. PASSARELL: A new question to help out the Minister of Finance. In the interest of protecting northern residents of this province, and in light of the fact that every northern job creates two more jobs in the south of this province, will the minister assure the House that he has decided to offer short-term loans or some comparable form of assistance to aid northern British Columbians?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think the question is out of order in that it asks about future policy.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, as a new member of this House, I thought those decisions were made through the Speaker and not through a member who stands up.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's not a question. I'll answer any questions.

LOOKOUT EMERGENCY AID SOCIETY

MR. BARNES: A question to the Minister of Human Resources. Mr. Speaker, the Lookout Emergency Aid Society in Vancouver is a unique housing and community facility that handles referrals from the Ministry of Human Resources, the police and other community social agencies. The program will be forced to close if the city of Vancouver health department requirements are not met and a pending sale of their property is not averted. What steps has the minister taken to ensure the continuation of this necessary community service?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I have asked my ministry to report to me after I had an inquiry from the organization a few days ago. I will be pleased to bring a report back to the House or to contact the member on the ministry's report.

POLLUTION CONTROL PERMITS

MR. SKELLY: I have a question to the Minister of Environment. In view of the fact that the B.C. Supreme Court has quashed a pollution control permit in the Esquimalt Lagoon which was approved by the cabinet appeal procedure, will the minister advise the House of the status of the Keremeos pollution control permit which was recently approved by the same process?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'll take the question as notice.

DUTIES OF R.G. CHESNUT
WITH B.C. STEAMSHIP COMPANY

MR. BARBER: I have a question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Could you inform the House precisely of the duties, the responsibilities and the job description of Mr. R. Glen Chestnut and, in particular, his duties as they relate in his capacity as an adviser to a member of the board of B.C. Steamship Company?

MR. SPEAKER: The minister may choose to answer, but it would be a rather lengthy reply.

[ Page 1787 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice.

MR. BARBER: I have a new question for the same minister on the same subject, which he may also wish to take as notice. As well as bringing back to this House as precise a job description as he can of what exactly it is Mr. Chestnut has been doing there for the last two and a half or three years, could he also tell us something about Mr. Chestnut's remuneration and on what basis he has been paid up until the present time?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question on notice as well.

QUEEN OF PRINCE RUPERT REFIT

MR. BARBER: I have another question to the same minister on a different topic. On March 19 in this House I asked questions about the refit drawings for the proposed refit of the Queen of Prince Rupert. I was informed on that date: "You'll be informed in due course as to the status of those drawings and the status of that refit of the ship itself." I wonder if the minister could now inform the House whether or not the drawings have been prepared and, if so, by which company and at what cost. Has a decision now been made in regard to proceeding with the proposed refit of the Queen of Prince Rupert?

HON. MR. FRASER: I still haven't got that information.

MR. BARBER: The problem is that we're informed that neither has the company supposedly doing the refit. I wonder if the minister might take again as notice — somewhat more urgently today than he did on March 19 — the necessity to provide us and those who would do the work on the ship with the earliest possible advice as to what you propose to do in the refit and when you propose to have it done. So far, Mr. Speaker, they have done precisely nothing.

FEMALE REPRESENTATION
BY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

MS. SANFORD: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Last year some commissioners on the Human Rights Commission made statements which were clearly inconsistent with the principles of the Human Rights Code and which prompted the now Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) to call for their removal. Recently, Mr. Katz of the Human Rights Commission said that female representation on the commission is not required because the male members are married and can obtain a woman's point of view from their wives. Does the minister concur with Mr. Katz's statement?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, I do not concur with Mr. Katz's statement.

MS. SANFORD: I would like to ask then: what action has the minister taken with respect to the commissioner who made those statements?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I will....

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Now, look, stop it. I'm getting all kinds of advice over here, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. member, I haven't heard of the comments which you have just informed the House about, and perhaps if you could leave it with me I could make the appropriate inquiry.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, I'm not going to check with my wife.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am disappointed by the attitude of those government benches today, with respect to these questions.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you may not during question period, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavour to provide the minister with that information. I have a further question. With the recent resignation of Commissioner Mildred Gottfreidson, there is only one woman remaining on the 12-member board. Can the minister assure the House that a woman will be appointed to fill that vacancy?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is a matter of future policy, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: No, I'm asking whether or not the minister has decided that he will fill that position with another female member.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: A decision has not yet been made; but I'm well aware of the information which the hon. member has brought to the House.

MS. SANFORD: Half of the board members' terms expire in August of this year, and I am wondering if, at this stage, the minister can assure the House that all or most of those appointed to fill those vacancies will be female.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

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

MR. MACDONALD: We're making remarkable progress on these estimates.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, we are. Don't look so surprised. I don't know whether you were listening yesterday, Mr. Chairman, but the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) had five simple questions for the Premier. The Premier didn't answer them yesterday, but he said: "I will answer them." Then he amended that to say: "I will answer them in due course." That's progress! That's leadership over there.

[ Page 1788 ]

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) was a little bit unkind in his leadership speech the other day, as they all got up one by one. He kept talking about the past five great years of leadership we've had, but he didn't mention the next five years. I just thought that was kind of significant. It was progress, anyway.

I'm not going to make a long, tedious, repetitious speech. Let's have no more of those crazy speeches from over there. Yesterday on the Premier's estimates the member for North Vancouver was talking about the Chrysler bail-out for a while.

I want to ask just a few simple questions, and if we keep it on that basis I'm sure we will make more headway with these estimates.

It's a matter of public morality that we are talking about — and I don't want to make a long speech about it. I want to ask you, Mr. Premier, when you became aware of what was said by caucus researchers to the famous seminar at the Bayshore.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: I wanted to ask you what the energy policy was today, Mr. Minister. You began to take the floor. I was waiting until I got the Premier's ear. This is Tuesday. What's the energy policy today? It's a simple question.

I'm asking the Premier a series of questions which are simple but serious. The Premier has never told the people of this province when he became aware of what was said at the Bayshore seminar about playing dirty and about the letter-writing campaign. When did he become aware that these tapes were being mailed throughout the party structure? The seminar, particularly, was a big party meeting; members were there. I'm asking the Premier when he became aware of those things. That's question number one. I hope there will be a forthright answer to that question.

I put question number two to the Premier. In his own office he had an administrative assistant to Mr. David Brown. Mr. David Brown was his public relations adviser. Mr. Grieg, an employee on the public payroll who was in the Premier's office, mysteriously resigned, and we've had no explanation why he resigned. I remember, quite frankly, being disturbed when I was watching television one night and the press asked Mr. Grieg a direct question: "Were you implicated in writing what the Attorney-General agrees in his letter is a forgery?" — that is, a false signature on a letter.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, it is an accurate statement. We're talking about forgery.

Here's one of the Premier's own employees, Mr. Ron Grieg, who was asked directly: "Were you implicated in this forgery?" — particularly the Townsend letter — and he slammed the door on the person who was asking the question. He has given no explanation to the public as to whether or not he was implicated. The Victoria Colonist said that he was, and the Vancouver Province — it would be libellous, I suppose, if it weren't true — said that he was the one who could name who had been responsible for some of those forged letters. Yet we've had no explanation why this public servant resigned from the Premier's office. So I'm asking the Premier: why did Grieg resign? If he was cleared of implication in the forged letters business, he should still be working for the people of the province of B.C. and for his boss the Premier. If he was implicated, the Premier owes a statement to the people of this province. The Premier owes a statement to the people as to when he found out that one of his employees was engaged in the counselling or the production of forged letters. I'm asking for an explanation about the Grieg matter.

Now number three, as I see it, is a more serious matter, and I want to ask the Premier about the secret trust funds that surrounded his office. We know about them by accident. They were outside of the party structure completely. The Premier had secret trust funds. There was one of Adams, one of Austin Taylor Jr. and one of Tony Tozer himself, and his own employees included. It's serious, and we found out by accident because if Tony Tozer had not sort of tried to explain why people on the public payroll such as Ellen McKay and Kelly and so forth were going over to what were obviously party seminars of the Social Credit Party, even though their salaries were paid for by the public.... So Mr. Tozer volunteered the information: "Oh, we took it out of one of our funds and paid their expenses." You know, if he hadn't done that, we might have gone on for years and years in this province, and maybe we're going on that way today, with a small group of wealthy men buying their way into the Premier's office. That's what we saw.

I ask the Premier these questions: did he know that Austin Taylor Jr. was collecting money for the Social Credit Party?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: No, we're dealing with serious business. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) doesn't think a matter of public morality is a serious business. No, I can't do anything about you on that score, Mr. Minister. Anything about political ethics is a big joke to that minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, let us address the Chair.

MR. MACDONALD: Okay, I'll calm down. I'm glad the Premier is listening again. We'll go on, and I'll try to be brief.

I'm asking the Premier though about the trust funds. I've heard his public statement that he doesn't want to know about the source of the funds, but he knew about the trust funds in his office. He knew about Austin Taylor Jr. of Toronto of McLeod, Young and Weir bringing in money. He knew that Austin Taylor Jr. of McLeod, Young and Weir had been one of the two brokerage firms that negotiated the purchase of two of our B.C. ferries — in other words, doing business with the government. What other things did Austin Taylor Jr. put in the ear of the Premier? The repeal of succession duties? I wouldn't doubt that one for a minute.

MR. BARBER: The value of the BCRIC assets.

MR. MACDONALD: That's right, the value of the BCRIC assets. We know, Mr. Chairman, that there was another co-signer of the trust funds, the three secret trust funds — secret to the people but not secret to the Premier, I'm saying — and I want his frank statement about the matter. We know that there was another co-signer of those trust funds.

[ Page 1789 ]

Was that not an employee of the Premier's own office? Was it the Premier himself? Was it one of his employees? Was it Dan Campbell? Was it Tozer? Was it Dave Brown?

Another question: the Premier's office outside of the regular electoral procedure as we understand it.... Direct party election expenditure bills were sent to the Premier's office. You know there is one for the MLA reports; there is one for the doorstep literature that was to go to every doorstep in the province of B.C.; there were even bills that would come in for the printing of Social Credit membership applications. The bill for these came right to the Premier's office, addressed to Dave Brown, a public employee. You know, Mr. Chairman, we've never had such a mixing of private fund-raising and slush funds with the Premier's office in the history of this province. Never. I don't think it's ever happened like that before. If you tell me it happened with Duff Pattullo or Tolmie or Boss Johnson, I would find it very, very hard to credit, even in those days — and they were kind of gamey days at times in terms of political morality. So the Premier owes the House an explanation as to the trust funds and who the co-signers were and what he knew about them.

Then the next question is: why didn't the Premier do something about this? It was an obvious breach of the elections act; his own employees obviously knew all about it and I suggest the Premier must have. He knew these funds were coming into his office in secrecy, and our Provincial Elections Act says what? It says that if you want to make campaign contributions during an election period, they go through the official agent or they go to the party. And the reason the act says this is that the official agent and the party have to report the amount of the receipts and what the expenditures were. Now these secret trust funds were obviously going along in an election period. The Premier must have known that right in his own office he was breaking the Provincial Elections Act through his own direction or that of his employees. I'd like an explanation. I know the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) is going to bring back an answer someday on this particular question. At least he answers questions. There's a little bit of a delay occasionally....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, this is a difficult one, as to whether the Premier was breaking the Provincial Elections Act with these secret trust funds coming in otherwise than through the official agent or the party. So it's a good question, Mr. Attorney-General, and I know you'll bring in a forthright answer. This is April, so today would have been a good day for it. That's the other question. I think we've really got to know whether the hookworm of political corruption in the form of secret campaign funds had invaded the Premier's office in this province, and the Premier's got to answer with a full explanation of those secret trust funds.

Finally, I just want to ask one minor question before I sit down. December 4, 1979, was the massacre of the Social Credit caucus research workers. Just before the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), the chairman of the caucus, gave the fatal orders for the massacre to begin, he came out of the Premier's office. So I ask the Premier: did you discuss the firing of the research workers with the member for Omineca before the discharges took place? Ordinarily you can't ask that kind of question, Mr. Chairman, because you can't ask what one cabinet member said to another. But, regrettably for this province, the member for Omineca has never made it to the cabinet. He was outside as a caucus person when he had his meeting with the Premier just before the discharges took place. So I think we should know whether the Premier was apprised of what was going to take place, or whether he directed it.

Those are the questions I have at this point.

MR. MITCHELL: I find it quite interesting standing here and listening to my friends from the other side of the House. They seem to think that maybe democracy ends in the middle of that aisle. I feel it is important that a government that has any credibility should stand and give the answers that we duly elected members of this parliament have the right and the responsibility to ask for. When the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition asks direct, simple, honest and truthful questions, the Premier, the leader of this province, has a responsibility to answer not only to us on this side of the House but to the press and each member of the gallery sitting here as witness. I listen to the various people from the other side make fun and ridicule and say that we are talking negativisms, but I feel we are talking the facts of democracy. Democracy means that we have a right to demand an answer from our government. We represent the people as much as the members of the government. I feel that the responsibility lies on us to protect what each of us has learned to love and believe in: that is the right of free speech and the responsibility of each and every one of us as elected people.

I could go on about the attitude of the government. At times I feel that somewhere along the line there is a program of stonewalling. There has been a program right from the end of the last election of one disaster after another — one type of odd situation arising. I was going to bring this particular case up to the Attorney-General's ministry, but I feel that his ministry has, in its wisdom, decided not to follow the proper investigation of justice and how it is administered in B.C. So through you, Mr. Chairman, as a policeman I am calling on the Premier of the province to set up a commission to study the case commonly known as the Mickey Moran case or the Michael Ernest Moran case and what happened in the investigation by the police and in the subsequent court case, and how it developed.

I'm speaking not only as an elected person but as one who has had 23 years as a policeman and who over the years has written and prepared many case summary reports. Not only have I written them; I have supervised them. I feel that the case that happened in court will prove, if a proper investigation is made, that the police, in the writing of their case summary report, presented evidence for one case and the case that appeared in court was another.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. At this juncture I must advise that this discussion would more appropriately — and singularly — come under the estimates of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and not the estimates of the Premier, which are presently before us.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, the Premier entered this debate in terms of his comments on the floor of this House immediately after the Attorney-General filed his report. The member is referring this matter directly to the Premier's statements, in which he said the government would accept the Attorney-General's report, distinctly separating the government from the Attorney-General. Speaking for the

[ Page 1790 ]

government, the Premier made his acceptance. The member is addressing the House's attention to the Premier's acceptance of this report, and the member is suggesting why he — the Premier — should reconsider his acceptance in light of that member's experience as a police officer. It's perfectly in order, related to the Premier's statement separating himself from the Attorney-General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, that may be the opinion of the hon. member, but it is not the opinion of the Chair.

MR. LAUK: If I may assist the Chair on this point of order, the Premier was very clear after the Attorney-General delivered his report on the Vogel case that he separated the office of the Attorney-General — which is, in part, traditional. He rose and said, "On behalf of the government we have heard the Attorney-General's report and accept it," meaning that he, as president of the executive council, will take no further action in directing the Attorney-General in any further investigation. If he wishes to deny that implication, then he's certainly entitled to do so in this committee. But the Premier directly adopted the Attorney-General's report as acceptable to the government. The tradition in the British parliamentary system is that the one office that is held aloof in matters of administration of justice is the Attorney-General's. It was that that I thought the Premier was pointing to, and I'm sure he was, when he stood up and said: "On behalf of the government" — in this case separating the government from the Attorney-General's office — "I accept the report." He could have remained silent, he could have said, "We'll review the report as the opposition did," and so on. No, he accepted it. Now I say that he must answer questions in that regard in this committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Again, I appreciate the input from hon. members. Nonetheless, the Chair must rule — and apparently this is the only way the matter will be resolved — that the matters currently under debate by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew must be held for the Ministry of the Attorney-General and are not appropriate under the debate on the estimates of the Premier.

MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think you missed what I requested the Premier to do. I asked the Premier to set up a committee to study this particular case. I would like to outline the reason why I feel the Premier — the leader of our government — should set up a committee to study this particular case, which I sincerely feel the Attorney-General's ministry was negligent in. They brought in the report without studying the facts of the case that was before the court, and the transcript and the evidence, and this is what I asked the Premier to study. I want him to study it, and I'm asking him to set up a committee to study it. That's my point of order, and that's what I requested.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate your point of order, hon. member. Nonetheless, again, the Chair must rule that the issue that you are discussing be discussed under the Ministry of the Attorney-General, as it is the Attorney-General that sets up those judicial inquiries, not the office of the Premier.

MR. MITCHELL: One more point of order, Mr. Chairman. I asked the Premier of the province to set up a committee, and I want to go over the reason why I feel that the Premier should set up the committee to investigate what was not done. I don't want to go over it and have the Attorney-General stonewall it; I want an investigation done to protect the police of this province. I'm telling you, that the way it's going now.... This evidence that came out was not properly presented and it was not reviewed by the Attorney-General, and the only person that can set up that committee is the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair has ruled on the matter, and the discussion would be most appropriate under the estimates of the Attorney-General. But the ruling we're looking at at this time is that they are not appropriate under the estimates of the Premier.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to have to challenge the Chair. If I can't ask the Premier to set up a committee to study something, I'm going to have to challenge your ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged. Hon. members, the motion presently before us is that the ruling of the Chair be sustained. All those in favour signify by saying "aye"; opposed, if any.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The ayes have it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A division has been called.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, it would appear that although the challenge was taken in committee it should be reported to the Speaker, and I will report that challenge now.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Speaker is in the chair, hon. members; we are no longer in committee.

MR. LAUK: The mace is below the table.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member makes a point about the mace.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, when the Chairman is reporting to the Speaker on a challenge, the mace remains where it was.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the decision of the Chairman has been challenged.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the House in committee while you receive a report from the committee Chairman?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chairman reports without the committee rising; but at this stage we are now in the House.

[ Page 1791 ]

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if we are in the House, the point is that a division was taken in committee and was underway before a report to the Speaker. There is no way, under the rules of this House or any other British parliamentary system, you can interrupt a division to report to the Speaker.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the division should not initially have been called in committee. The division should have been called in the House. We are now in the House. The division has been called, and the question is: shall the Chairman's ruling be sustained?

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 23

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee will come to order. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has the floor.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, there's an old saying: "Might is right." I disagree with it and always have, but I feel that I am stuck with that might; the majority that sits on that side for the present time does keep control. For years I was a member of a group known as the police of the province, who felt that we were the thin blue line that stood between democracy and anarchy. All I'm asking is that this House make a decision. Now if you have ruled, with your overwhelming majority, that I cannot ask the Premier to set up a committee to study this, I would like the Premier to give me his opinion on a certain case that appeared in court. I would like to read from the Vancouver Sun a record of the transcript of that trial. I would like the Premier to listen to what I have to read and give me his opinion. Mr. Chairman, can I ask the Premier for his opinion? Is there anything against asking the Premier for his opinion? I'm not asking him to do anything else. I'm just asking him to tell me what he honestly and sincerely feels is right when we review certain evidence that was presented in court in the Michael Ernest Moran case.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order, please. Again, I must remind all members that under vote 9, the Premier's vote, we are discussing the administrative action for which that minister is responsible. Again, in reflecting on what has taken place in the last few moments regarding that decision, I would ask the member to bear that in mind and narrow his debate more to the real parameters of vote 9.

The member for Skeena on a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I think you perhaps misunderstand what the hon. gentleman is trying to do. He is not offending against the decision you made earlier; he is simply asking the person who from time to time purports to be the leader of the government his opinion about a very important matter. We have seen so far in this debate that hon. members, particularly opposite, have been permitted to discuss all and sundry items whether they related to the Premier's office or to another level of government. Witness the member from North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) talking about Chrysler Corporation and the federal government yesterday. Other hon. members were talking about highways in their department, and permitted to go full-scale in that direction. But when we get to a point that is pretty fundamental to the course of justice in this province, then we're stonewalled.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, I think what you might well do is listen attentively and carefully — as I know you always do — to what the hon. gentleman who has the floor is saying, and you will readily see that he is not offending against your earlier ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Again, I would caution all hon. members in raising points of order, or on whatever point they rise on, particularly in reference to the Chair. I would ask the member for Skeena to withdraw the word "stonewalling" by the Chair. I think that is....

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: The stonewalling, Mr. Chairman, was by the government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's different.

MR. LEGGATT: On the point of order, if you examine the comments the Premier has made about his trips around the world, about the great developments that are taking place in British Columbia, surely it's appropriate for this member to ask the Premier his opinion about something that is totally consistent with leadership and his government. Surely it is appropriate that we ask the Premier his view about the Mickey Moran case. I think the people in that area of the province would certainly like to know what his view of the Mickey Moran case is. If we're going to be limited in the Premier's estimates, Mr. Chairman, then please limit the Premier of the

[ Page 1792 ]

province in his remarks. If what I've heard and what I've reviewed in Hansard is correct, there isn't much he hasn't touched on except the questions that have been asked.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. members. Again I ask all hon. members, in the estimates presently before us, to consider the, administrative responsibilities of the Premier under vote 9.

MR. BARRETT: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, we're dealing, as you've pointed out, with the administrative responsibilities of the Premier. I quote the Premier from Hansard yesterday. He said:

Mr. Chairman, now to deal with discussion which not only I but a number of members have tried to introduce into this 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 the economy....

He's talking about a constitutional matter in the administration of the law. The Premier himself defined yesterday what he wanted debated, and here is the member responding to the Premier's challenge. I think the member should go on canvassing the opinion of the Premier in a philosophical debate on the administration of the Premier's office as the Premier defined the debate himself .

HON. MR. BENNETT: Nonsense!

MR. BARRETT: If the Premier wishes to call his own words nonsense, let that go in Hansard too. I can't define when you're talking nonsense or not. If you tell us that it is nonsense now, tell us what else is nonsense.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, you are now engaged in debate, not a point of order.

Hon. members, if we were to carry on in this manner, there would be no end to the scope of debate under the estimate that is presently before us. Again, I must ask all members to discuss the administrative responsibilities of the Premier under vote 9.

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

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the opposition is terribly concerned about the encroachment of the freedom of hon. members in this committee to canvass with the chief executive officer of the province matters that we feel quite clearly lie within his administrative responsibility. I cannot, for the life of me and my experience in this House, understand how the administration of justice under the current Attorney-General is not a subject which should be at least superficially canvassed insofar as requesting the president of the council's views of the report he accepted on behalf of the government. It's clearly within the realm of his administrative responsibility to appoint the Attorney-General, and it was clearly his option to adopt the Attorney-General's report on behalf of the government, which he did in the House. We have information for the government; we have information for the public. We need the Premier's views on that information, and we need them today in these estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Again, traditionally on the Premier's estimates in this House we have always gone through this particular area that we're canvassing at this time. If one were to extend the argument at all, then every ministry of the government could, by these arguments, be canvassed under the Premier's estimates. While passing reference has always been in order, the narrowing in on other ministries that can be examined in detail under other votes.... These must be examined under those further votes. We must contain ourselves to the administrative responsibilities of the ministries. As we proceed under further votes, of course, the other ministries will be even more narrow than the one presently before us.

MR. LEGGATT: With the greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, you're missing something that is fundamental. It's true that we can't ask other ministers for their view of something that is clearly outside their province in the hands of the leader of the government. But the leader of the government has a responsibility for all his ministers. There is a very different responsibility here. An area which touches upon another ministry, upon which the leader of the government has already commented, has already stood up in the House and taken a position on.... It seems to me that is an appropriate question, because it deals with the question of leadership in the estimates, and we have never, in my short experience here, been proscribed from asking questions which surround the function of leadership. Surely that's what the debate was all about last week. All we're saying in regard to these particular questions and the leadership function is that it is fair and appropriate to comment upon the role of other ministers and to comment upon issues of the day which the people of British Columbia clearly look to their Premier for an answer on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Again, I must remind all hon. members that if we are to extend that argument, then we in fact cover each and every ministry under the Premier's estimates. I would ask all hon. members to bear that in mind in their discussions.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I'm hoping that you're keeping my time and not letting these other people get in there and take some of my thunder.

What I request, what I ask, what I plead for is that the Premier of the province of British Columbia show the leadership that we, the members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, demand, that he answer questions that have been put to him by duly elected people. This is all we're asking. How can I be expected to bring something up to the Attorney-General's ministry that the Attorney-General has already studied, has interviewed the various lawyers and prosecutors involved about, and brought in a report about that missed the major scandal happening in the criminal justice field of this province? Policemen are asked to go out and enforce a law; they bring in and study evidence.... The Attorney-General studied this report and made no comment on it, made no change, no alteration. All I'm asking, Mr. Chairman, is that we have one type of justice for every person in this province. And I would ask the Premier for his opinion. Let me go over this and point out the cases which were flagrantly against justice, against law, against order. Now the Attorney-General has studied it. All I'm asking is that the Attorney-General....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Again, you are referring to cases that you have specific reference for.

[ Page 1793 ]

I must say once again that the proper place to bring those specifics before this House would be in the estimates of the Attorney-General, because you are specifically referring to cases at that time. And again, I would ask the hon. member to please bear that in mind as he continues with his debate.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, if I can't bring the evidence that there should never have been a charge of dangerous driving before this chamber under these estimates, then I will give up my place and allow the Premier to stand up and answer some of the other questions that have been duly put to him by other duly elected members on this side of the House. I ask the Premier to make that stand.

Sitting down, Mr. Chairman, I bow to your wishes, but I disagree with you. I feel that the Premier must show some type of leadership, he must show some initiative, he must take hold of his government. Half of his cabinet have left him now; he must give some leadership instead of being pushed around. Where are they now? I think that this question is a proper question. The way justice is administered in this province is the responsibility of the government, and the Premier leads that government and he should take that responsibility.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I'm disappointed that the Premier has not seen fit to even consider replying to the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, who has been a policeman with an absolutely flawless record in this community. He is deeply concerned about the administration of justice in this province and with the Premier's apparent inability to provide focus and leadership with respect to the administration of justice.

Likewise, in the past several days questions were asked of the Premier. I wish to return to some of those questions now. On Thursday last I brought to the committee's attention a series of events which lead to the inescapable conclusion that the Premier's mission to Korea was, in part at least, designed to promote the production and export to Korea of uranium. I suggested to the Premier that if that was so, would he please indicate it. At the time, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and the Premier shook their heads. I assume they shook their heads because there was no such discussion. I ask the Premier to rise and deny that he had conversations with Korea Electric about the sale of Okanagan uranium to that country and to that company. He has not yet done so. He has risen on one or two occasions since and delivered speeches that were virtually unintelligible, but he has not directly answered those questions. They go to two aspects: one is credibility, and the other is a clear policy both for the people of British Columbia about the production and export of uranium and for foreign customers concerning all our products — all metals and forest products. There has to be a clear message to our customers abroad as to what this government's policy is.

I don't mind saying that I have received inquiries from many companies that do business with this province. They say to me that they are puzzled about this government's policies on export of materials. One of the classic examples is uranium. We have the Premier and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development travelling to Europe and Korea and discussing uranium export from this province, and a few months later declaring a moratorium. The question asked is: "We understand the New Democratic Party's policy is against uranium mining in this province...."

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I'm talking about this province, Do you want to answer for Gerald Regan? For Pierre Trudeau? For Fabien Roy? For Maurice Duplessis? I'm sure you can. Do you want to answer for the chairman of the local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan, which I understand is applying for affiliation with your party? How will the executive of Social Credit deal with that application?

The confusion of foreign customers — who are so important to us because we export 50 percent of our production, as the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development described last week — is now very much in place. There is great concern. My concern is not the survival of the Social Credit administration; we all know that. My concern is for the stability of our markets in foreign countries and in Canada, as a result of the inconsistent knee-jerk policies of this government. The Premier cannot go to Korea and try to sell uranium and go to Europe and try to sell uranium and a few months later declare a seven-year moratorium and expect those customers in Europe and Korea to look upon this government as anything other than a seat-of-the-pants, bush pilot type of government. They have a knee-jerk reaction to public reaction, adopting NDP policies only when they figure that the press heat is getting onto them. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that has got to be cleared up for the sake of all British Columbians and the business community which exports 50 percent of its production. You've got to make it clear, when you change a serious policy such as uranium mining, with a clear statement from the government and the Premier as leader telling why that policy decision was changed and what terms of reference they can count on in the future in dealing with the export of commodities from British Columbia. The Premier must get up and tell us now. Did he or did he not discuss with the officials of Korea Electric and the Minister of Energy and Resources in Korea...? The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is here. You can have an opportunity in these estimates to reply. You can reply here, but I want.... The Premier was there. The Premier had discussions. Now you shook your head, Mr. Minister. So did the Premier. Did you double-check when I asked you if you discussed the sale of uranium products to Korea with officials in Korea when you were there?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: You're saying no? Would you say no? You're shaking your head at me. Mr. Chairman, is the minister shaking his head at the suggestion? Well, don't shake it too much, Mr. Minister, because it might fall off.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: At least there's something in it.

MR. LAUK: Yes, but it'll still make quite an echo in the chamber.

Mr. Chairman, there's now widespread controversy about the Premier's credibility, not only among the people of British Columbia, but with the vital customers that we have in foreign lands which buy 50 percent of our production. Now it's all the talk in the Vancouver Club and up in the Okanagan....

[ Page 1794 ]

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I shine shoes there. That's where I pick up most of my information. It's called NDP research — shining shoes at the Vancouver Club.

Mr. Chairman, in all seriousness, I don't want my good friend from Kamloops to distract me, which he knows full well he's always been able to do. I'm going to try and resist it.

The Premier knows the seriousness of the question. He's heard the feedback that I have heard about the Premier's credibility. I am very concerned for the province of British Columbia. He has the opportunity — he's been invited by the opposition, press editorial comment and by the public generally — to come clean on the change of policy. Why no uranium exports to foreign countries? In doing so, he must recontact Korea Electric and the people in the European economic council and explain to them why he made the comments he did when he was there, which are totally inconsistent with the seven-year moratorium. The Premier must comment on that because the inquiries aren't coming as a brainstorm of the NDP. These are legitimate inquiries by foreign customers asking what is going on in B.C.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I have copies of wires here, but I think that what we should do....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, would they like the copy of the wire I have received with an attached 50,000-name petition for the government's resignation? Is that the one they want? That's the one I have here. Or I have another petition here from the business community, Mr. Chairman, asking....

HON. MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, quite often members make reference to telegrams and letters on which they base their remarks, and the member for Vancouver Centre has done that. As it is the custom that they immediately table such documents, I would just ask him to table them right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point of order that was just raised by the Premier, the tabling of documents cannot be carried out in committee; it must be done in the House. However, it is customary to do it immediately thereafter.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, on that point of order, it seems to me it would have been more appropriate for the Premier to have risen and tabled his answer to this question posed in the letter from Etienne Reuter. Answer the truth to that question. That's what he should do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, order. Again I must caution all hon. members against seeking the floor on false points of order merely to gain the floor.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Chairman, the appropriate thing for the Premier to do, the right thing for him to do, the honourable thing for him to do, is to simply answer our questions. The purpose of estimates in committee is to examine the performance of the Premier under this vote with respect to certain matters that vitally concern the economy, the social and the political well-being of this province. The Premier has steadfastly refused to do so.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I see the Chairman has taken on new proportions!

I haven't read from any document yet, but it seems clear to me that the Premier and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) are not coming clean with this committee. They're not being honest with the public, and they have an opportunity to do so. They are playing games with the committee; they are playing games with the Legislature; and they're playing games with the public. They think it's cute, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will remind the hon. member that he is bridging on imputations of falsehood, and the Chair has made many comments about that.

MR. LAUK: I make no imputations of falsehood, Mr. Chairman, but I'm glad to hear your voice. In this case we have a situation where the Premier and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development.... Clearly the Premier is under the false impression that he has to protect his reputation in the province. Nobody has told him yet that if he keeps on going in this manner he's not going to have any reputation left to protect. All we ask is that the Premier simply stand in his place and give a description of what took place in Korea and in Europe; tell us honestly and then give a statement about the change of policy with respect to uranium exports and mining in this province. He knows what he said, but we have to have it confirmed by the Premier.

I repeat again that it's of absolutely vital importance to our foreign customers. Some of them have been buying our products for a very long time, and they have made inquiries about the stability of policy with regard to export of our resources. The New Democratic Party has no fear, Mr. Chairman, in stating its policy openly and letting the people judge. But the Premier is deliberately holding back statements on policy, either because he has a mistaken belief that the people will not understand them, or he's ashamed of them, or they're irrational. Which one is it? The Premier must stand in his place and tell the truth of what happened in Korea and tell the truth of what happened in Europe. He has not yet done so.

In one case, with respect to the letter from Mr. Reuter of the European economic council, the Premier denied discussing the export of uranium products. He has not yet clarified that in the face of a letter saying that the discussion did take place; he has not yet explained that inconsistency with his answer and the letter from Europe. Again, I asked him on Thursday whether he discussed the export of uranium products to Korea. Now let me canvass that, Mr. Chairman; it's very important.

The Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development knew that there were 1.1 million metric tons of uranium ore available in the Okanagan area through Noreen, a company involved in that area. They knew back in June 1979 and they knew the details of that development. With that knowledge

[ Page 1795 ]

in hand they announced a trip to Korea. After a discussion with the Premier, the head of Korea Electric, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and their officials in Korea, in November the signing of an agreement was announced between Noreen and Korea Electric for the export of 1.1 million metric tons of uranium ore. Now is that just a coincidence, Mr. Chairman? I say it just cannot be.

We know perfectly well what must have transpired between the Premier.... Did he lead them in the wrong direction? Was his policy set, or was the uranium moratorium a last-minute, knee-jerk reaction before the Bates commission could report and without an announcement to Noreen, Korea Electric or any other of our customers abroad?

We've asked him carefully on several occasions, and he's refused to answer. So we must conclude, Mr. Chairman, that discussions for the sale of uranium products took place in Europe and Korea, that a tentative agreement was made for the export of 1.1 million metric tons to Korea Electric from Noreen and their development in the Okanagan.

What was the earth-shattering information, Mr. Chairman, on which the Premier acted to declare a seven-year moratorium? Could it have just been a political knee-jerk reaction? Is that why the Premier is hesitating to stand in the committee and tell the truth? Is that why he's protecting his position?

It is clear to me, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier, by his conduct, is allowing the public to lose faith in the government and, as importantly, our customers, the people in foreign lands to whom we sell our products, are now losing faith and are going to start to took elsewhere to purchase their goods. It's fine to say "no uranium," but not without an explanation, in contradiction to his trade tours in Korea, Japan and Europe.

MR. KING: What about the waste of money on tours?

MR. LAUK: That's a good point the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke makes. A tremendous amount of taxpayers' money was spent on trade missions, and the Premier comes back and says: "I was only fooling; I was just there on a lollygag. There's going to be a seven-year moratorium on uranium export." What's next? With a knee-jerk reaction is he going to cut off all sales of plywood to Japan? Is that what he's going to do next, Mr. Chairman? Is he going to arbitrarily destroy export markets because of purely political considerations?

Oh, I see the minister's suspenders are too tight over there. What are you frowning at? You'll have an opportunity to stand up and speak your mind in this debate.

Mr. Chairman, I want to give every opportunity to the Premier to reply to these questions. The mail is flowing in and, like so many members on this side of the House have said, we want to keep him as Premier — until the next election. We want to keep him as leader of the Social Credit Party until the next election. He's the best thing the NDP has got going for it. The saints are with the Premier. There's someone up there taking care of the Premier, because just as soon as the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) was on the starting blocks, ready for the leadership, the Vogel affair came about. So somebody up there is taking good care of the first minister of the land, and all good grassroots Socreds can sleep quietly in their beds.

Unfortunately, we're deeply concerned about this Premier's survival in that chair for very long. One of the reasons for this concern is the inconsistencies in his answers on the uranium export question.

I ask him, please, to stop pretending to sign mail that comes out of a computer, as Marjorie Nichols says. Don't try and fool the troops. You're listening to every word. Stand up and answer the questions.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'm extremely happy to have the opportunity to stand in my place and ask some questions of the Premier, and perhaps have the opportunity for some meaningful debate here, an opportunity for the people of British Columbia to get some answers about economic development in this province. I want to put those questions on the record. I'm sure we'll get answers to those questions as time goes on.

I want to say, though, a word or two about a couple of the things the previous speaker said in this debate. The previous speaker talked about the responsibility of tabling mail and not answering mail. I think that the previous speaker should certainly give the undertaking to this House that he'll table all these letters he says he has received from individuals all over the world about their concern over our export policy in British Columbia. I know that that first member for Vancouver Centre, being an honourable member, will table those just as soon as the committee rises and the House comes back into session.

MR. LAUK: Table what?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Table all those letters you've had from concerned citizens all over the world who are concerned about our exports. You don't have one, and you know it. That's the kind of thing that has been put forward to this House for the last ten days. That member has stood here and talked about letters and calls he has had from people all over the world; he knows he hasn't had any. He knows darned well that nobody would write him about the business affairs of this province, because they knew he was once industrial development minister in this province and turned the economic development of the province into a shambles. The only reason someone from somewhere might write to him about economic development affairs in this province is because they remember that he spirited the files away and hid them down in his basement, and they might want him to look something up from those past years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I will once again remind all hon. members that we are on vote 9, the Premier's estimates. This applies to all hon. members.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I wish to talk about the Premier's estimates. I wish as well that this House could stop playing around with phony little political moves and get back and do the work of the people of this province. I think it's about time we all, on both sides of this House, made that undertaking. I really do get angered. I wouldn't have been speaking today, except that....

MR. LEA: You're angry.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I did get angry — yes, I did at the holier-than-thou attitude of that group on the other side of the House in dealing with vote 9, the Premier's

[ Page 1796 ]

estimates. They're holding out to us that they are the only people who have any honesty or any judgment or any morality. They've got some kind of a 99-year lease on morals and truth and honesty. That's the group over there who when they were government promised British Columbia leadership. In fact, I remember the previous Premier running on the issue of leadership. I ask the people of British Columbia to compare that leadership, and the 1,200 days when the NDP were in power, to the leadership we've had in this province for the last five years. I've no doubt — and, as a matter of fact, elections have proved — that that leadership in those 1,200 days came up seriously wanting, and that the people of British Columbia will never accept that again. I ask the people of this province to compare that holier-than-thou group over there with the kind of good and responsible government we've had in the past five years.

The previous Premier promised an oil refinery in the middle of Surrey; a steel mill in Merritt — or was it the other way around? — a railway carrying oil from some place in the north. There was a meeting with a janitor in Washington, telling the janitor that he wished he could see somebody about his way-out railway — and the Minister of Economic Development of that time was telling all British Columbia about how the Premier was down in Washington talking to officials. He met with the janitor; he was official janitor, right.

I'd like the people of B.C. to compare the leadership they have in this province now with the leadership they didn't have in those 1,200 days under NDP. They sit in this Legislature and day after day hold out that in some magical way they are the purveyors of truth in this province. Yet, Mr. Chairman, talking about the confidence that our export trading nations have in this province, how much confidence could our export trading nations have in a group of people who have delivered the worst kind of racist slurs about one of our major trading partners? It's not the first time it's happened; it's happened in this House on other occasions. Do you think our major trading partners don't read the newspapers and don't understand when people slur them in a racist way? Then we come back and ask them to be our partners in trade. It would be easy to forget it if it hadn't happened before, but it's the second time that I can recall, and perhaps it's happened more often in this House.

That group sits there with their holier-than-thou attitude, talking about truth, talking about justice, talking about what's the right thing to do. Over and over again they repeat the same sort of mumbled question as the debate goes on: "All we want to know is, is the Premier telling the truth?" Well, I'll tell you: yes, the Premier's telling the truth, and yes, we know the Premier's telling the truth. You talk about respect for this parliamentary process — respect for the parliamentary process from a group which when its leader got defeated paid off another member with $80,000 to get his seat back. Is that respect for the parliamentary process? You sit there with your holier-than-thou attitudes — of course you make me angry.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) brought up in this debate the question of whether or not those people on the other side of the House could be trusted to tell the truth when we talked about whether or not they believed in an independent Quebec as part of their national policy. There's a group who signed a public document which called for an independent Quebec as part of the Canadian national strategy; and the Leader of the Opposition, who signed that document, tells us in this House the other day that he voted against it — sure, he signed it, but now he denies it. Yet that document signed by a number of members on that side of this House today called for an independent Quebec there's one coming in now who signed that document at a time when this nation is at a crossroads and this Premier has been putting forward a united Canada as the policy of this government. Mr. Chairman, of course they make us angry.

MR. LEA: What about your national leader? He's voting for separation. Your national leader is voting against you.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Members for Victoria stand up in this debate and ask the Premier of this province to answer questions about the Marguerite and whether this is a responsible situation that exists today in the province. I'll tell you what responsibility is all about, Mr. Chairman. The first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) and the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) and the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) stand up here and tell the people of British Columbia that that Premier should have made a decision to sail the Marguerite on the Seattle-Victoria run.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Absolutely.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: They're saying it again. Mr. Chairman, let me tell you that just looking at the minutes of meetings from the B.C. Steamship Company, I see where the....

MR. LEA: Are you going to file those?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: They're already filed in this House. It's too bad you didn't take the time to read them. They've been filed in this House, and not one member on that side of the House has taken the time to read them. I'll file them again if you want them filed again.

I'd just quote one of them from Mr. Elworthy, who was the general manager of that steamship company. He said if the Princess Marguerite was to operate in 1980 then he would resign. Mr. Ian Smart, who is a very well respected naval surveyor, I'm told, also advised that his firm would not continue to be involved if the Princess Marguerite was to continue in service. We heard from members who had been told that the Princess Marguerite was unsafe, that it could catch fire, it could break down, its hull was wearing out, and that if we sailed it we would have to have the responsibility for the passengers aboard that ship.

As a responsible government we said: "No way. We won't take the chance." But that first member for Victoria will take the chance. He'll send people on that ship, and damn the chances. The second member for Victoria will take the chance. He'll send people on that ship and damn the chances. The member for Mackenzie will send people on that ship. Well, this responsible government won't.

MR. LEGGATT: On a point of order, I wonder if the member would care to justify his remarks in accordance with this being the Premier's estimates.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to. We're speaking on vote 9, the Premier's estimates. This matter has been raised continually by members on the

[ Page 1797 ]

opposite side of the House as being demands under the Premier's estimates. I just want to lay it on the record that this government will not take the kinds of chances that that government would and still will, as a matter of fact. They pound their desks when they say "sail the Marguerite. " It doesn't matter whether she sinks; it doesn't matter whether people die; it doesn't matter whether women and children are on board that ship — sink her! You don't care!

The Premier, along with his responsible ministers, the Minister for Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), particularly, are too responsible and too concerned about the lives of citizens to take that kind of chance. As a matter of fact, no good government would.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Premier to consider some questions about the leadership of this province. I want to ask the Premier if it's true that under his leadership industrial and commercial growth are at all-time record levels in British Columbia. I want to ask the Premier to tell us about tourism in this province, about the kind of attractive climate that has put tourism as one of, perhaps, two or three major advantages in terms of creating a stable economy. I want to ensure that the Premier can tell this House that under his leadership almost all indicators of the economy are not only up but are at record levels. Compare that to other parts of Canada where the economy is in less confident shape.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It's not true? B.C. sales top store sales lists. Department store sales....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I wouldn't want to embarrass the opposition by calling them to question on something they say is not true, that retail sales are not up. According to Statistics Canada they are up; but according to those folks they are down. Department store sales are up 15.7 percent from a year earlier according to Statistics Canada. British Columbia stores, Mr. Chairman, recorded the highest growth rate in all of the country, at 29 percent.

MR. LEGGATT: Imagine how much higher it would be if you didn't overtax the public.

MR. LEA: And the highest unemployment.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Now, Mr. Chairman, that bearded member over there calls to me: "the highest unemployment." I find another item from Statistics Canada that says the Canadian employment picture is looking a little rosier than last year, with the brightest spots in Vancouver and the rest of B.C. B.C. leads the way in the decline in jobless totals, dropping from 8 percent in January to 7.3 percent. It's not the highest it's ever been. Just look back to what it was when that group was in power. It is not the highest it's ever been; it's at one of the best levels that it's ever been, and it's getting better.

Every economic indicator that we can look at points to continued prosperity in British Columbia, well ahead of every other part of Canada: 12-month trade figures up; exports up; balance of payments up; retail sales up; jobless figures down. Every economic indicator, thanks to the leadership of that Premier, is better than any other part of Canada.

Now when are we going to get down to business and talk about the real facts in this House, instead of playing the kind of phony little games that that group over there wants to play. We can't help it, Mr. Chairman, if they went out as a group and spent all this money researching uranium and then found it was no use to them; that's their stupidity.

Mr. Chairman, mineral claims are up, industrial growth is up, forestry income is up, oil and gas revenues are at record levels. I don't want to dwell too much on times past, but we remember where the oil rigs were in 1974 and 1975. Well, maybe we don't know where they were; but we sure know where they weren't — and they weren't in British Columbia. They were driven out. Now we have record numbers of rigs looking for oil and gas in the northeast sector of this province, and finding it at record levels.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They said there was none there.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, the NDP said: "There's no gas up there, you crazy guys. What would you want a pipeline for? There's no gas."

We've just found, in the deep basin of northeastern British Columbia, one of the most significant finds that this province will ever have. We're finding it because there are rigs there, because the confidence is back, because of the leadership of that Premier.

Mining revenues are at record levels in this province, Mr. Chairman. I wouldn't want to embarrass that group by telling you how good they are, because it would really make them look bad. But we do remember where the mining activity was in 1974 and '75 — no, I have to correct that again, we remember where it wasn't; it wasn't in British Columbia. It was in the Yukon and other parts of the world, but it wasn't in British Columbia. It is now. It is now at record levels, and the mining industry in this province is becoming ever more important to the economy of not only this province, but of Canada as a whole. It's because of the leadership of that Premier.

MR. LEA: You have to be kidding.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That member from Prince Rupert, Mr. Chairman, continues to develop his inane comments, like "you have to be kidding" and "you're not telling the truth," when he knows we're telling the truth, when he knows we're not kidding, and when he knows that when he was Minister of Highways there were no programs, there were no highways, there were no maintenance programs, and....

AN HON. MEMBER: ...lots of potholes.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There were lots of potholes. And there were no tourists, Mr. Chairman, because that member, when he was minister, told the tourists not to come to British Columbia. I suppose he didn't want them to see his potholed highways. But they're coming back.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) has just insulted our biggest trading partner by calling the Americans "Yankees," and I demand that that minister withdraw that remark.

[ Page 1798 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair did not hear the Minister of Industry, and Small Business....

MR. LEA: I heard it. I ask that he withdraw that remark.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The member rose on a scurrilous point of order. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources had the floor.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I demand that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development apologize to this House. He called our biggest trading partners "Yankees." They're Americans, and I want him to withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, you have not been recognized.

MR. LEA: I'm on a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's a scurrilous point of order. The Chair did not hear....

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I challenge your ruling.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There is no ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Prince Rupert is offended by a comment that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development apparently made, and the member for Prince Rupert asks for a withdrawal.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're asking me?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the minister withdraw? The member for Prince Rupert is offended.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'll be quite happy to withdraw anything that offends the member.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I was sitting here very close to you — and it may have been my hearing, or it may be Your Honour's pronunciation that's involved — and I heard you refer on two occasions to the point of order raised by the member for Prince Rupert as a "scurrilous" point of order. I wonder if the Chair would want to reflect upon the use of that word "scurrilous," which, I think, does not have a proper place in these proceedings. Perhaps the Chair meant "spurious".

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair reflects on your comments. Thank you very much.

On vote 9, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I just wish to continue discussing vote 9, the Premier's estimates, and remind the House that the kinds of questions that need to be asked during the estimates of the Premier are ones like the following. Isn't it true, Mr. Chairman, that the Ministry of Health in this province has been given a budget which reflects not only the dynamism of the province's economic growth but the caring nature of this government for those people who need health care? The largest percentage of total budget for health care of any government in Canada, the largest hospital construction budget in this province's history, the only government in Canada which has been able to introduce new, dynamic and innovative health programs at a time when every other government is cutting back.... Isn't that true, Mr. Chairman? Those are the kinds of questions we need to be asking.

Isn't it true that under the leadership of this Premier municipal grants in aid of our lively and growing municipalities are at record levels and are continuing to grow at the same pace as our own economic growth for the first time in history? Isn't that true, Mr. Chairman? Isn't it true that employment in this province is in a state of stability that it hasn't seen in years and certainly didn't see in the years of 1972 to 1975? Isn't that true?

Isn't it true that under the leadership of that Premier inflation has grown in British Columbia at a lower rate than in any other part of Canada? Isn't that true, Mr. Chairman? Those are the kinds of questions the people of B.C. want to get answers for; those are the kinds of questions that the people of B.C. see as the important issues of the day before this government and before that opposition. Isn't it true that under the leadership of that Premier federal-provincial relations have entered a new era of responsibility that hasn't been the case for many, many years in this province? Isn't that true?

Isn't it true that we've gone from a time — and again that made us all angry — when our Premier during 1972 to 1975 was considered to be a laughing-stock by those in Ottawa who had to deal with him? Isn't it a refreshing change today? Isn't it, Mr. Chairman? Isn't it true that this government was the first, and perhaps one of the only, to put forward meaningful proposals for constitutional change that have been adopted by other governments across this country at a time when, as I've said before, the constitution and the unity of our country are at a crossroads? Mr. Chairman, those are the kinds of questions that need to be asked in this debate on vote 9, the Premier's estimates.

I want to say just one other thing. We should also be asking ourselves how come these good things are happening in this province. Is it luck? No, it isn't luck, because if it were just luck — as I think the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development pointed out some time ago — it would be happening in many other parts of the world. But it isn't; it's happening here in British Columbia. It is not luck; it is a carefully planned economic program designed to bring not only economic stability but economic growth that will allow us to build the kind of base that will see the social programs of this province continue to grow. That's not luck; that's good management by this Premier and by this government.

MR. LAUK: For the new members of the committee and people in the gallery, on behalf of the committee I want to apologize to them generally for that last performance. We'll just leave it at that. Very seldom a minister of the Crown rises to defend some other minister in his estimates. But the Premier has to get out and visit somebody in his office, you see, and that was the purpose of that last speech. But in so doing, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources was incapable of making a speech not laced with venom and personal remarks that are most unfortunate.

[ Page 1799 ]

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We've had some exciting debate. Perhaps we might retain some semblance of parliamentary order and recognize the first member for Vancouver Centre, who is speaking on vote 9.

MR. LAUK: I always enjoy the minister's speeches. They're filled with that kind of quality research that we have come to be used to since he was a member of the opposition and a member of the government: news clippings, rumours, anonymous telephone calls and so on — like the time he said a whole group of teenagers had been housed by our administration in the Empress Hotel. It proved to be quite incorrect.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, one of your members asked a question about that practice in the House just the other day.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order.

MR. LAUK: Now that the Premier is back I want to return to the important topic of the estimates and the question of the inconsistency with our foreign customers in the purchase of uranium supplies. Because of that inconsistency and lack of credibility, there is great concern among foreign customers with respect to the policy of the British Columbia government. I return to the Premier's visit to Korea, Japan and Europe, and I ask again whether the Premier will now consider making a statement clarifying the policy of the export of uranium to foreign customers. Could he now explain why there was the inconsistency between his reply last week denying that he had discussed the sale of uranium and the facts as we now know them, and would he please comment...?

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I have the Premier's attention. I know he has to conduct some government affairs while he's in the House, but he's had the better part of 30 minutes to do so.

I wonder if the Premier would not consider now making a statement of policy to explain the difference between the policy as stated in Europe and Korea to these prospective customers and the policy which he apparently enunciated when he declared a seven-year moratorium. It's not just a question of credibility. That's important enough, but the grave doubts out there now about this administration's capability to govern on a rational basis are becoming of great concern to the opposition. The role of the opposition is, of course, to attack the government — that's true. But sometimes we become so concerned about the government's actions that may affect the commonwealth at large that we try to bring these points home to the government and ask them.... We're pleading with you. For the sake of this province's credibility in foreign markets, will the Premier please get up and explain why the shift in policy — what were the reasons — and explain why he denied discussing uranium in Europe? This is very important. What does the Premier have to hide? What's the problem? Why can he not just say, "Well, at that time we did not have a certain area of information on uranium mining; now we do," and then tell the committee what that new information was?

On what basis did the Premier act? We're all waiting for the other shoe to drop. Most of all, the Japanese and Korean companies, and the European companies — but particularly the Japanese and Korean companies — are wondering why the change in policy and on what new information that you didn't have when you discussed uranium supply with Korean officials and with European officials. I wonder if the Premier would fulfill his duty to this chamber and to the public by answering that question.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I regret that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is not here at the moment. I did want to make a few comments about his performance. It fell into two categories. One was the standard usual format of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources — engaging in inflammatory innuendo designed primarily not to enlighten anybody in debate, but to attempt to develop the debate in the House into a shouting match, hoping thereby, as a diversionary tactic, to distract the committee into another direction. I am pleased that he did not succeed in doing that.

The other thing that he did is interesting, Mr. Chairman, particularly now that you are the person in the chair, because the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources was permitted to engage in discussing — that's apart from his innuendo and slurs on members of the opposition — subject matters which had nothing whatever to do with the Premier's estimates, showing, I think, very clearly, that he wants it both ways. He wants one set of rules to apply to the government and another set of rules to apply to the opposition, because it wasn't too long ago this afternoon when that same minister stood up and voted to deny the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) an opportunity to examine a very important question in this House. Then the minister proceeded to engage in exactly the same sort of thing that he voted to deny us from engaging in. I only want to put that on the record to say that it puts the committee in a bit of a quandary at times as to just what can be examined.

Yesterday, when the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) was engaging in that campaign speech that he hopes will permit the Liberal Party to vacuum him back into it again at the provincial level, he was engaging in discussing quite a number of subject matters, Mr. Chairman. At one point of the debate, a point of order was raised by my friend the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), and Hansard quotes Mr. Macdonald as saying: "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." The Chairman then said — and with respect, Mr. Chairman, I think it was you in person who did this, although if I'm in error it doesn't matter — referring to the second member for Vancouver East: "Mr. Member, the ruling of the Chair, if you've been listening carefully to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, is that the member who has the floor has been itemizing — and he is now on his last item — a number of questions which he feels in this debate are relevant."

There we have an indication of a ruling on one side that it's up to the member to decide what is relevant, and then earlier today we had an indication from members on the government side that they don't want to have certain subject matters examined because they're sensitive about it. I think perhaps the only course that can be followed by a member of the committee who wants to engage in examining those

[ Page 1800 ]

questions is to just proceed right along as if there was no decision made this afternoon and to seek to examine all items considered to be relevant and important insofar as the leadership of this government is concerned.

When it comes to the question of uranium and the matter of the Premier having gone to Brussels in September 1977, where he advocated before a commission of the European Economic Community that indeed British Columbia did have uranium, and indeed it was for sale, I am surprised that nobody on the government side got up to commend the Premier for having taken that action. I would have thought that members on the other side, especially those in the cabinet, would have been pleased that the Premier did go to Brussels in 1977 and did try to sell uranium, because it was the policy of the government at that time to do just that. I thought the government members would have supported the Premier and would have said: "Right on, Bill. We're glad you did that, because at that time you were doing what you should have been doing as the Premier of this province." Instead of that, we find this stonewalling attempt to deny that that event ever took place. Mr. Reuter's comments are there, very clearly saying that, yes, the Premier did underline the concern of his government to find markets for the province's products and listed, among other things, uranium.

I wish the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) was here too, because with respect to the question of uranium and the question of finding and developing uranium deposits in this province, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing has publicly endorsed that and said it was a good thing. I wish the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) was here to say to the House, as he did, that, yes, he supported the question of finding and developing uranium deposits in this province. It isn't just the question of the Premier having had an interest in it and having gone to Korea at one time and to the European Economic Community at another time trying to flog the sale of uranium. He has other ministers apart from the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. The Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing have both, on different occasions, endorsed that idea. They exhibited what was the proper interest of the government at that time.

In the 1977 annual report of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources — this was the official declaration of government at that time — on page 28 we are told: "Uranium exploration has been increasing from very low levels, due to significant price increases in the mid 1970s." On another part of page 28 the minister tells us: "The release of the federal-provincial Uranium Reconnaissance Program geochemical data in May 1977" — a few months before the Premier went to Brussels — "had a significant and immediate effect on the numbers of claims recorded. The increased activity in grassroots prospecting continued throughout the year. However, the market increase in drilling indicates that mature programs are also increasing." It's all talking about uranium, all talking about the spring of 1977, all leading up to the trip the Premier made to Brussels to sell the uranium then being found.

On page 29 of the report, under the heading "Major Exploration Activity," what they mean by "major exploration activity" is defined. I don't think that is germane to this point, but listed therein are exploration programs which exceeded the criteria. In other words, they were excessive; they were beyond what even the government hoped they would be. Thus identified was Kettle (Tyee Lake Resources Ltd. and Noranda Exploration Co. Ltd.), a basal-type uranium deposit in tertiary sedimentary rocks — 6,945 metres of drilling. It goes on in that nature. If I were an hon. member opposite I would be quoting this and commending the Premier for doing what his Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources was doing in promoting exploration work with respect to uranium — and spending public funds doing it.

On page 47 they give a review of the work in 1977. On page 46 they identify the geological division of the ministry, its objectives and its organizational structure. The objectives of the geological division are to provide accurate and current information on the quantity and distribution of mineral deposits of the province for government and industry, to provide maps, other data, etc.

The review of the work in 1977 identifies this: "The geological mapping program, the core of the division's work, continued unabated in 1977." They say how much money was spent, the number of projects, the number of geologists, summer students and so on, who were involved in it. It says, under the "Review of the Work in 1977" heading: "P.A. Christopher completed studies of basal-type uranium deposits in the east Okanagan area." I'm sure that, being in that area, it would not have gone unnoticed by the Premier, who notes very carefully and very well what goes on in the Okanagan area. We see that P.A. Christopher is a PhD, a professional engineer and a geologist, working for the ministry, paid by public funds to have completed the studies of that uranium project.

We see, further that one B.N. Church "studied tertiary stratigraphy and its relation to uranium deposits in south central British Columbia." Who is B.N. Church? B.N. Church is a PhD, a professional engineer and a geologist, working for the ministry, paid by the people of B.C. to go out and do some mapping work to find uranium, so the Premier could go over to Europe and flog it, saying: "We found the uranium; we'd like to sell it." What more logic could there be than that?

V.A. Preto "studied the Rexspar uranium deposits as a prelude to mapping the Barriere Lakes area." V.A. Preto is another PhD and professional engineer employed as a geologist in the geological division of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources for the year 1977.

All of this was taking place, paid for by the general public, aided by the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, endorsed by the Premier as mining activity. Yet he expects us to believe, as he blurted out in the House the other day, that he did not in Europe on December 15, or whatever that day was in 1977, the same year his Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources had spent quite a few dollars mapping uranium deposits....

He expects us to believe, knowing all that, that he didn't go there and say: "Yes, we've got uranium for sale." What was the Premier doing endorsing the expenditure of funds to find it, if it wasn't to be put to some use, if it wasn't to be sold to somebody who may need it or want it? It's a perfectly logical explanation, and I wonder why members on the other side aren't taking that kind of stance instead of trying to protect the Premier from his own stupidity and his own outburst — made inadvertently, made without regard to the facts, made probably out of forgetfulness. Who knows?

Whatever the reason, he said: "No, I didn't do it." Now I know the rules say we are required to accept the word of an hon. member made in his place in this House. There's an

[ Page 1801 ]

awful lot of background information here, Mr. Chairman, that indicates that, perhaps properly, we should be questioning that particular comment of the Premier. I don't see why he hasn't got the common sense that most honourable people would have in our society to say: "Yes, I made a mistake. I blurted it out without thinking. I forgot." But the Premier, from my assessment of his approach to a great many things, can't take that step of saying that he made a mistake, can't take that little extra step and say: "Yes, I goofed." It's been proven, of course, a number of times over, when the Premier has said something contrary to the facts and won't back up. Stubborn, insensitive to reality, insensitive to truth, arrogant, disdainful of anybody else's opinions, he said, "No, there are no seatbelts in the car," when he knew full well there were seatbelts in the car. When he was shown that they were there, did he backtrack? Did he say: " Oh, I apologize. I just wasn't thinking"? Most people would do that. Most honourable people would do that.

That type of action, that type of activity, that type of exhibition on the part of the Premier is what's involved in this particular debate. Credibility. Honourableness. Trust. Faith. All of the good qualities of mankind and womankind that we all want to see exhibited. Embraced within that concept of honourable dealing is the simple question of admitting that one has made a mistake in saying something. It's a sad commentary upon the leadership of this province when the president of the executive council cannot make that admission as a man of honour, and say: "Yes, I blurted that out. No, I didn't mean to. I apologize to the House for having said that. I in fact did go to Europe. I in fact did involve myself in a discussion with the Commission of the European Communities, and I did in fact say, 'Yes, we've got uranium and we'd like to sell it.'"

We've been spending money finding it. Not only did we spend money in 1977, we spent money in 1978. This is the report of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), tabled just the other day in the House. Make a reference or two there, Mr. Chairman. Throughout they're talking in terms of uranium. Under "Exploration" on page 24 it says: "Exploration during 1978" — exploration for uranium, in particular — "progressed to the stage where extensive drilling occurred." They're still looking for uranium, still drilling for it, still using public funds to find it — not in 1977, but in 1978. "The metals" — reading further from this report, under "Metallic Minerals" on page 25 — "most sought in 1978 appeared to be" — and I read them in the order in which they appear — "molybdenum, uranium...."

MR. BARRETT: The book's lying.

MR. HOWARD: No, that's what the book says. I'll table the book. Can I table this book that I am quoting from, Mr. Chairman, to prove that I am not misreading it? At the appropriate time, I'll ask to table this book from which I'm reading.

Going further, "...the most active metal exploration areas in the province included, from north to south" — very first listing — "the Surprise Lake–Atlin area — uranium; Fraser Lake, Vanderhoof and central interior — uranium; southeast Okanagan–Boundary area — uranium."

Mr. Chairman, I'll get to another point of this — remember this is the year after the Premier went to Europe and tried to flog uranium over there. On page 26 it says: "Government programs to encourage exploration" — public money spent to encourage exploration — and it goes to say: "Related programs include reconnaissance geochemical surveys in selected areas, principally through the three-year, federal-provincial Uranium Reconnaissance Program called URP.

AN HON. MEMBER: URP?

MR. HOWARD: That's what the Premier should say every time he hears the word uranium: "URP, I forgot what I did in 1977."

These are government programs to encourage exploration: "Waters are analyzed for fluorine and uranium, and sediments are analyzed for uranium."

AN HON. MEMBER: He's making that up.

MR. HOWARD: Oh, no, because we now have on the public records of this House — and I can't make that up — the 1978 Accelerated Mineral Development Program funded by $5 million through Bill 5 — not Bill Bennett — "the Revenue Surplus Appropriation Act for 1976-77...included an accelerated geochemical survey of two mapped areas in west-central British Columbia. This program is modelled after the Uranium Reconnaissance Program." These are public funds to get out there and search for minerals, even in the year following the year when the Premier said he didn't try to flog it at Brussels. "Major exploration activity:" — this is '78 — "Blizzard (Noreen Energy Resources Ltd.) uranium in loosely consolidated sediments." This is part of a major program. We mapped it the year before; we spent public funds mapping the uranium deposits in 1977, according to the annual report. In 1978 more exploration and drilling programs went gone on, while the government says on page 28:

"Two potentially economic types" — they've got to that point — "of uranium deposit have been identified in British Columbia. Rexspar is a vulcanogenic deposit in which uranium minerals, etc. occurred. The Blizzard, southeast of Kelowna, is a basal or paleol stream channel deposit in which secondary uranium minerals are contained..." blah, blah, blah.

That's the following year.

Mr. Chairman, if you go all through this annual report, you will find references scattered throughout it to the question of uranium exploration, uranium development, drilling for uranium, public funds put out to search for, find and drill for uranium; encouragement given to prospectors to find uranium deposits; encouragement given to mining companies get out there and find uranium. What more logical connection could there be than to have the government, intent on creating a climate, as it said, within which trade can take place, to go to these other countries, as the Premier did to Europe, and say: "Yes, we've got uranium. We'd like to sell it"? He went to Korea and said: "Yes, we've got uranium. We'd like to sell it."

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he didn't do that.

MR. HOWARD: If he didn't do that, then he wasn't carrying out his responsibilities as Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't do that either.

[ Page 1802 ]

MR. HOWARD: I know he didn't do that.

He's been fooling the general public. He's been sucking in the mining industry, saying: "Come out. We'll give you public funds to get out there and find uranium, but we don't intend to do anything about it; we don't intend to see it sold."

I only want to express wonderment with respect to the logical position of the Premier. And I have no hesitation in saying — I may run afoul of the Chair in doing this, Mr. Chairman; I don't know, you see, because I don't know what way you're going to rule until something happens; I cannot anticipate what the Chair is likely to do — that when the Premier blurted out that, no, he did not try to sell uranium in Europe on September 15, 1977, he was not being fully truthful to the House. I have no hesitation in saying that he made a mistake.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: All right. So far as "not being truthful" is concerned, I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I'll withdraw it certainly — no hesitation at all. It was a word that slipped out inadvertently that should not have — I admit that from the beginning.

I have no hesitation in saying I wonder whether I should be bound by the rules of this House that say I have to accept the Premier's word when he said no, he did not sell uranium. Because the letter from Etienne Reuter — which has been maligned, and the individual has been maligned, by members opposite — says one thing. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) has endorsed the idea of searching for uranium in this province. "Get out there and find it," he said. "That's the way to go; we'll spend public funds doing it." The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) has done the same thing. The government spent public money going out there to find uranium. The annual reports are larded with references that I've just quoted from. All that information leads me to the conclusion that I cannot accept the statement of the Premier that he did not try to sell uranium in Europe.

It's got nothing to do with truth or anything else, and I wouldn't want to cast those aspersions. But it seems to me incumbent upon the Premier, an otherwise honourable gentleman, an honourable member, a man of honour and a man of integrity.... He's shaking his head at that. If the Premier wants, I'll withdraw that reference. But it's my opinion that the Premier is an honourable man, that he wants to see the proprieties of this House followed and that he wants to see the feeling that the general public has about this chamber and should have about it.... The Premier wants to see the opinion of the general public about government brought up to a standard where once again people in this province will say, "Yes, I have an admiration for the institution of government and the institution called the Legislature," instead of deriding that institution. I know the Premier wants those things to happen. He would lose no points whatever — in fact he would gain them — by simply saying, although it's taken him a week to do it: "Yes, in a moment when my attention was not fully riveted upon what I was saying, I did blurt out an inaccuracy, and I apologize for it. I did go to Europe and I did attempt to sell uranium."

I say there isn't anything wrong with the Premier's having done that in Europe. He was only exhibiting what any government would do: trying to sell the stuff that we'd been spending money finding. Otherwise what are we looking for it for — just for the fun of it, or is it a make-work project? Rexspar and Noreen didn't think so; prospectors didn't think so. But we had those funds out there doing it, and all the Premier would do would be to endorse the proper thing that a Premier would have done at that particular point of time. So long as he remains silent in answering this particular question when all the evidence piles up on the other side, so long will the general public have a suspicion that he was not being truly open and honest with this House, as an honourable gentleman should be....

MR. BARRETT: I would gladly yield the floor to the Premier. He hasn't had the opportunity to respond to questions. Yesterday, unfortunately, after almost three and a half hours of debate the Premier spoke for only a few minutes and then adjourned the House. Mr. Chairman, I heard some corridor gossip which the Premier likes to refer to, and the corridor gossip said that the Premier was scared yesterday and adjourned the House to get out of here. I don't like that kind of gossip, so I think the Premier should get up now and answer some of the questions.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I intend to carry on. I don't wish to disturb the Premier, so if I speak too loudly, would you call me to order. I know there are important matters of state being discussed, even though we are dealing with the Premier's estimates. We've seen a whole week of the Premier's not answering questions, and I think it intemperate of some of the opposition members to even expect answers. I would like your ruling too, Mr. Chairman, on opposition members' quoting from government documents proving the case against the Premier — perhaps not telling the whole story in this House. Also, I'd like your ruling on using documents from international organizations, quoting the minutes, saying that the Premier talked about uranium. I don't think it's fair of opposition members to be rude to the Premier of this province and expect answers when he's very busy, overworked and obviously tired. How's that, Bill?

Mr. Chairman, I've tried every single approach I can think of in the last six or seven days simply to get the Premier to face his responsibility to answer some simple questions in his estimates, paid for by the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia — not by Bill Bennett but by the taxpayers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Say please.

MR. BARRETT: I said please. I said pretty please.

We've seen an incredible display of herding going on not by sentiment, not by conviction, but by order. Cabinet ministers have been told to get up and speak and run defence for Bill Bennett, the Premier of the province of British Columbia — the honourable Premier of the province of British Columbia. It's interesting to note who has been up to defend him. It's even more interesting to note who hasn't been up to defend him. Not one Liberal has been up to defend him so far. We've had some Tories, some uncoloureds and some other approaches in terms of political shades, but not one true Liberal has been up yet to defend our Premier. I'm waiting for the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) to rush to his defence, that same Attorney-General who authored the document announcing that in terms of the "infamous

[ Page 1803 ]

dirty tricks affair" whoever wrote those letters was cowardly, irresponsible and reprehensible. That's what the Attorney-General said, and my colleague today got up and asked questions that are yet unanswered about staff in the Premier's office related to authoring those letters. The Attorney-General has said that those letters were cowardly, irresponsible and reprehensible, and the trail leads directly to the Premier's office. I think it is significant that in these six days the Attorney-General has not got up and even given a whimper in defence of the Premier of British Columbia.

Serious questions were raised by the Attorney-General's report in this House. Mr. Chairman, I only quote from the report when I say "cowardly, irresponsible and reprehensible." Those words were authored by perhaps the most careful person on the government benches. Every word is thought out, every inflection, every eyebrow is raised appropriately. Everything is in its place and in order. It was that Attorney-General who laid the trail of the letters he described as cowardly, irresponsible and reprehensible directly to that man's office.

Those questions have been on the public's mind for months. The Premier's been asked directly today by my colleague the former Attorney-General. It's been three hours since those questions were asked, and the Premier hasn't budged an inch. All right, Mr. Chairman, if you hired somebody in your office and some terrible suspicions came to your attention that somebody had been forging somebody's name to letters and the person you hired up and quit, and then you were asked on camera about his quitting, and you said gee golly whiz, I don't know why the guy quit — do you think the public in your constituency would be happy with that? Would they believe it?

MR. KING: Write to Richard Nixon and ask him.

MR. BARRETT: No, leave Dick Nixon out of it.

MR. KING: Tricky Dicky would know.

MR. BARRETT: No, he's in America. We've got our own style of handling these things, and yesterday it came out. Yesterday when I asked the Premier a series of other questions.... Mr. Chairman, please call me to order if I speak too loudly and interrupt the Premier in his conversation.

I'm being polite and waiting for the Premier's attention. Mr. Chairman, would you call that member to order? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it would be important so that I don't have to repeat the questions for the Premier. I know it's impolite to request that when in his own estimates a minister should listen to what's going on; but even the appearance of listening would be acceptable.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday I asked five specific questions of the Premier. He stated in this House that he would answer them in due course. He has not addressed himself to any of those questions whatsoever, and we have been at this now for two days. But he did make a very interesting statement yesterday.

I want to refresh your memory of the kind of questions we asked him. I asked him about his statement about B.C. Hydro, and his suggestion a year and a half ago that B.C. Hydro should cut its rates because it was going to save money from transit costs. The taxpayers on the lower mainland now are paying three cents more a gallon for gas, and property owners are having an increase in their property taxes to pay for transit services. Because of the Premier's anticipation of that, he made a public statement saying that B.C. Hydro should cut its rates. That was one of the questions I asked: does he still feel that way now?

I also asked yesterday about the Gloucester properties the land that was taken out of the agricultural land reserve. That caused a great public debate; it forced the member for Langley to say publicly that he couldn't understand how this happened.... Or Central Valley, or whatever it is....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I'll write to Friesen and check it out with him, but you're from there somewhere. You said that you wanted that land back in there.

The Premier indicated that that land was to be frozen just six months ago. I asked the Premier yesterday whether he intends to take action to ensure that land stays in the agricultural land reserve, or to put it back in there and ensure that it stays there. I asked that yesterday.

I asked the Premier about Etienne Reuter's recollection of the minutes, and I asked a number of other questions. But I want to tell you, yesterday the Premier made a statement to me that should give Richard Nixon hope for rebirth. Not to say that the last statement was inoperative. Do you remember that line when Nixon and Cabal got caught up in lies? They said: "Oh, that statement's no longer operative. We have to readjust our approach." This is the line to beat all lines. This is the classic. I refer yesterday to one of the incompleted sentences that makes up the Premier's speeches, on tape 35-1 is at 5:24 yesterday. I have to read it slowly, because if you read it quickly it kind of runs together: "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." Now that is a jewel. That is a priceless jewel to be mined out of all this other gravel that we shove aside to come up with this new rationalization for dealing with what he said 24 hours ago, a half a year ago, a year and a half ago.

I was privileged to be in this House, Mr. Chairman, when some of the greatest rationalization statements ever coined in British Columbia were coined right here in this chamber, and the greatest coiner of that particular type of expression was none other than P.A. Gaglardi, the non-lamented former member of this chamber. I remember when P.A. Gaglardi was under assault in this House for not telling the truth — and that was in past parliaments, Mr. Chairman. The former minister from Kamloops got up in this House and said: "If I tell a lie, it is only because I think I am telling the truth."

MR. SKELLY: Give him the benefit of the doubt.

MR. BARRETT: "Give him the benefit of the doubt," says my colleague. A classic! "If I tell a lie, it is only because I think I am telling the truth." Thank goodness we did away with the strap in British Columbia, because if we had a bunch of children running around emulating the former Minister of Highways, telling their principal, "If I tell a lie it's only because I think I'm telling the truth," they'd all be spanked, wouldn't they, Fred?

Mr. Chairman, this is what the Premier said: "As I said, remarks of mine to do with Hydro, whether they were made a

[ Page 1804 ]

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."

MR. BRUMMET: You're going to get a detention for tedious repetition of debate.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I don't like the principal for North Peace River announcing what the Premier's penalty is; the House will determine it, not him. I quote again. "The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources can discuss that." That's it. Once the Premier says that he wants B.C. Hydro to raise their rates, it's an appropriate statement at that time. Don't you dare raise it again. That's McClelland's problem now; we'll hold that one up there to Bob.

We have a number of areas that touch on agriculture; the minister can deal with them, particularly with the responsibilities of the Land Commission. I'm also not prepared to deal with broadening his responsibility into details of my estimates. Any statements I've made have been appropriate for the time.

What he said at the time was that he wanted B.C. Hydro to lower their rates. Since I want to be in complete conjunction with the Premier's approach, can he tell me what he was thinking of at the time when he said that B.C. Hydro should lower their rates? What changed in the interim to make that statement no longer appropriate today, although it was appropriate at that time?

MR. LAUK: Could it have just been a political speech?

MR. BARRETT: Politics? It's not unknown to politicians.

The other one on the land bill. He said he wanted the land frozen. Gloucester estates has gone to court and they are going to spend a lot of money to make sure that the land is out of the land freeze. It was appropriate, according to the Premier, to say at the time that he wanted the land frozen. What is his position today? Could you tell us what's appropriate for you to say today? Do you want the land frozen today? Or was that just a statement that was appropriate at that time? The nasty press, who pry into too many things, who were attacked at the Social Credit convention for asking questions, who stick microphones right in the Premier's face and ask him questions.... We should deal with that, Mr. Chairman. Maybe we should bring in a resolution about those non-observers of this chamber. But they've got him on tape.

MR. LAUK: That uppity press!

MR. BARRETT: That uppity press — always talking about deadlines and stuff like that.

I would love to see an editorial in the Vancouver Sun, saying: "We support the NDP because it's appropriate at the time to say so."

MR. LAUK: But not during an election.

MR. BARRETT: But not during an election.

I'd like to see the Vancouver Province run a lead editorial saying: "It was appropriate at the time to support the NDP, but not during an election."

MR. RITCHIE: That's the same as independent schools.

MR. BARRETT: I'm glad that member keeps on popping up. He hankers so much for a cabinet post. Every time there's an empty seat he moves up and up and up. I understand how it feels when you aspire to those lofty heights. Those magnificent defences you've given of the Premier....

MR. RITCHIE: Bill's great!

MR. BARRETT: Just fantastic!

AN HON. MEMBER: Out of seat, out of mind.

MR. BARRETT: Out of seat, out of mind.

Any statements I've made have been appropriate for the time. When the Premier came back from Japan and was asked about those embarrassing letters known as dirty tricks that had been forged by someone and described as cowardly, irresponsible and reprehensible by the Attorney-General, the Premier made the statements that were appropriate at that time. He put on a Japanese headband and said: "This is how they commit hari-kari." I remember that picture in the paper. Then he went downstairs and he said about the dirty tricks letters that my friend traced to his office today: "We've got to cut out the cancer." Do you remember that? I have three questions. Who is the carcinogenic agent? The first two questions don't count. Who is the carcinogenic agent?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Sy Kovachich.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, it's always great to hear from my very good personal friend, the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot), and he is a dear personal friend of mine.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, I'm in trouble now!

MR. BARRETT: It shows you, my dear friends, how wide open my generosity and love is. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I don't want the Premier to hear that I really like that minister, because it'll ruin his career.

"Any statements I've made have been appropriate for the time." Do you know any parent in British Columbia who has a 12-year-old child? The child acts normally, like a 12-year-old, and sometimes stretches the truth or fibs a bit, and comes in, and the mother or father say: "Sonny, why did you make that...?" As defence, do you know what the child says? "Any statement I made was appropriate at the time." That kid would head for the woodshed so fast it would be unbelievable.

MR. BRUMMET: That's capital punishment.

MR. BARRETT: That's corporal punishment. Don't you know the difference? [Laughter.]

I know, among us politicians it's good fun. The general public would never understand this, but among us politicians it's really good fun. "Any statement I've made was appropriate for the time."

Now I'm going to ask you some more questions and give you a chance to write them down. Don't be interrupted by that fellow from Vancouver South, whose ambition knows no bounds.

I want to ask the following questions of the Premier of the province of British Columbia in his estimates, wherein we vote taxpayers' money to run his office. Firstly, would the

[ Page 1805 ]

Premier tell us whether he intends to keep his promise made during the last election to ensure that a pipeline is built to Vancouver Island to carry natural gas? Would you write that down, please? Or was that a statement that was appropriate at the time — that is, there was an election on?

Secondly, will the Premier tell us whether he intends to take action, as the leader of all British Columbians, to ensure that the Gloucester court case does not enable the Gloucester properties to take the land in question out of a frozen state imposed by the Premier and put it into commercial markets and not save it for farmland? Could the Premier tell us that? In terms of that, Mr. Premier, if your statement about it being frozen was appropriate at the time, tell us what is appropriate today so we can deal with today's appropriateness.

The third question to the Premier is a repeat question from my colleague the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi). Will the Premier please tell us whether he received a call from the Prime Minister or any federal cabinet minister notifying him that the chief justice of the province of British Columbia had resigned and that there would be a change of chief justices? Having received that notification, would the Premier let us know whether he made any inquiries, as Premier of the province, to see whether the chief justice was implicated in a wiretap involving a case with drugs and sex and everything else that makes up that kind of situation for a wiretap? That's number three.

Today's fourth question is something more recent. Can the Premier tell all of the people of this province what deal he made in his office with a group of Victoria businessmen to underwrite the jetfoil service between Seattle and Victoria to bring tourists up here during the next season? Was the deal made in your office, as recorded by the press? Could you please tell us what that deal was? If the deal was indeed made, would you please table documents in this House so the taxpayers of the province can examine the deal you made in your office behind closed doors?

It's a quarter after five. You can get up and stall until five to six and adjourn, and you'll be....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Hold it. Just hold it. We've got to set the stage for how the game is played out for the rest of the day. It's a quarter after five. You can get up and you can give us the speech about British Columbia being the window to the Pacific, only maybe you could finish the sentence this time. You could give us the speech about how you communicate with the federal government. You can tell us about your four-and-a-half year study on how bus wheels turn around to establish a transportation system. But, in the interim, could you please give us some answers to these very specific questions?

Why did Ron Grieg quit? Did he have anything to do with the forgery of those letters? Are you going to build a Vancouver Island pipeline? What about the Gloucester estate? Are you going to ensure that that land remains in the land freeze? Did you get any phone calls from Ottawa about the Farris case? Tell us what deal you made in your office about the jetfoil. All these things are in your area of responsibility. We're anxiously awaiting your answers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask leave to make an introduction, if I may.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, in the gallery at the present time is the 232nd squadron of the Royal Canadian Air Cadets, who are made up of young people from Oliver and Osoyoos in the riding of Boundary-Similkameen. With them are Mr. Andrews, Mr. Lyver and Mr. Collin. They have presented me with a badge. Their squadron is called "The Rattlers," which is associated with the south part of the Okanagan Valley. I would ask the House to make them very welcome,

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I have listened for some time to the debate. It seems to me that the Premier has had ample opportunity to simply defuse the whole week of debating by rising in his place and pointing out that it's not illogical that you would be selling uranium in that particular year. It's perfectly logical that you would be, and it wouldn't have been illogical for a New Democratic Party government, in their time in office, to have been canvassing the ground around the subject of uranium at that particular time.

When I read the Premier's remarks and I look at press reports that this is a terribly destructive and negative debate, it seems to me that if there's any blame to be cast around negativism, that debate could have been defused very quickly and very easily by a simple explanation to a relatively simple question. I would not be surprised if the Premier of the province was attempting — it would probably be his duty, I would think, having spent public money on the question of exploration — to canvass the ground around the world for potential customers for uranium.

I think it is inappropriate to blame the Premier for doing that, and I think a second look is something any Premier will have from time to time. Certainly the previous administration had second looks, and certainly the administration of W.A.C. Bennett had many second looks — in fact, that kept him in office for a long time, as I can recall. Therefore the whole question around the subject of uranium, it seems to me, could have been defused very easily indeed, Mr. Chairman, and we could have gone on to some more specific questions.

There are some very important specific questions now in front of the Premier, and I hope the Premier will not just get up and give us another sales pitch about what a wonderful province it is, how unemployment is relatively lower than it used to be.... Somehow it is 7.3 percent. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that's still the third highest region for unemployment in Canada, and it continues to be. It's a disgrace. I give the Premier credit for saying it's slightly better this year, but it's not the magic time. It's still a chronic and serious problem in this province, and the Premier still hasn't addressed it. I see him smiling. He hasn't addressed it because, on a long-term basis, it won't be solved until you look at the way we are creating work, in British Columbia.

But anyway, around that whole sort of chamber of commerce sales pitch that's constantly spouted in this chamber, I think the Premier should seriously look at answering some questions during his estimates. He now has some tough ones to answer, I'll admit. But I would suggest that his credibility would grow tremendously in terms of leadership if he would specifically address those questions, because they are on his estimates and they are directly related to leadership. It is vital and important for the province of British Columbia to find those answers.

[ Page 1806 ]

One of the questions that has been raised briefly by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) deals with a fascinating subject — that is, a section under the Provincial Elections Act, section 176(l). I think I should read it into the record, because it really goes to the root of the way we conduct our political business in this province.

Under the Provincial Elections Act it is provided that:

"Within 60 days after polling day, the secretary and the treasurer of the central committee of every political party or other officers who act in that capacity shall" — that's mandatory — "transmit to the Chief Electoral Officer a true return in Form 29, or to the like effect, containing as respects the political party statements in detail of all: (a) electoral expenses; (b) disputed and unpaid claims of which the secretary or treasurer is aware."

Subsection 2 says: "A political party within the meaning of this section is an affiliation of electors...." It goes on to define that.

It seems that over the years in provincial politics we've had a constant debate about where the money comes from to promote our political forces and political parties. We in this party are constantly attacked because of the trade union connection and the trade union funds that come from time to time. Mr. Chairman, there is a way around this problem of funding political forces, and the Premier knows there is.

In a minority government between 1972 and 1974, a federal Elections Expenses Act was produced which wasn't perfect but began to come to grips with this problem. That federal act had a very interesting provision regarding disclosure of contributions, something this province needs so desperately. Even the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) knows that it needs a disclosure law so we know where these moneys are coming from. It said this:

"The name of each individual, corporation, trade union, unincorporated organization and association, listed according to the classes of donors referred to in paragraph (a) who made a loan, advance, deposit, contribution or gift in the fiscal period for the use of the party the amount of which exceeded $100...."

Under the federal election law, every donation that exceeds $100 must be disclosed on a return. It's fascinating to see who gives more than $100 to their particular party.

If the Premier, in the course of answering some of the questions asked by the second member for Vancouver East surrounding the Austin Taylor Jr. fund, would say, "But we're going to look after this problem by bringing in a new elections act which will have a disclosure law, and every contribution to any political party, whether it's the NDP, Social Credit, Liberal, Conservative or what have you, over $100 must be disclosed," the Premier's problem is solved. All he has to do now is tell us about the other problem. He has already given us an assurance in regard to the Austin Taylor Jr. fund: he's 99 percent sure, he has said over and over again, that none of that money came from the United States; it was all Canadian. We're worried about that one percent, Mr. Premier. I want the Premier to stand up and say: "Now I know it's 100 percent." The way to do that is for the Premier to simply examine the record. I'm sure Austin Taylor Jr. would be very happy to produce his books. He's an honourable man. I'm sure he keeps very careful accounting of people who have contributed to the Social Credit Party.

The Premier's duty, as the Premier of the province, is to stand up and allay those suspicions that somehow someone outside this country was bound and determined to see that a New Democratic Party didn't come into power in the province of British Columbia. We're happy to play the game, but we want to play it fairly. We don't want those kinds of rules.

There's an answer, Mr. Premier. The answer is simply to examine the Austin Taylor Jr. records, examine the moneys that were donated to that fund. If he doesn't know now, it's very easy to advise himself. Instead of saying, "I'm 99 percent sure," he could come back and tell us he's 100 percent certain. All he has to do is examine the fund. After being 100 percent certain he can say, "And we're going to bring in an elections act in which every donation of $100 or more will be disclosed," so that we don't have anybody in this place bought, sold and paid for. I'm not suggesting anybody is, but I'm suggesting there is a question in the public mind that has to be resolved.

It's the Premier's duty to resolve that question, and he hasn't. He hasn't done it during his estimates. He has an opportunity right now to test the democratic system and say: "We don't need any special money. We don't need any special favours. We're a people's party, and we can rely on the small donations of hundreds of people all across the province." An elections act which discloses every donation above $100 will make that Social Credit Party a people's party again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Again?

MR. LEGGATT: Oh, sure. They used to be. They had wonderful populist roots from all across the Prairies. They had a monetary theory that said the banks were ripping off this country. I haven't heard them talk about that lately. But they have populist roots, and one of the ways for them to get back to those roots is to start looking at the electoral processand bring in a disclosure law on campaign contributions.

I know the Premier is unhappy with the length of time that these estimates are taking. I know he is bound and determined he's going to sit here until they get through, and I give him credit for that. There is a certain amount of.... You get a few callouses, but it's part of the job, I suppose. Imagine how much easier it would be, Mr. Premier, to simply provide two or three quick answers to very simple questions. Then we could get on to the business of other estimates.

You know, I don't think the Premier and his cabinet are going to be able to hide from this in that tunnel. The strategy is on now that we're going to promote this marvellous construction thing across the gulf. But you can't hide in the tunnel from those questions that are asked in this particular committee. They're serious questions; they're not facetious questions. They are questions that go to the root of leadership, and those questions of leadership are what's causing the present difficulties of this government.

It is something that could be reversed during these estimates. It could be reversed if we'd find out who had the signing power on that particular fund. It could be reversed if we were assured that Standard Oil of California hasn't put in a big block of money. I think the least the Premier could do is guarantee us that William F. Buckley Jr. didn't donate to the campaign. I think that would be good. I mean that would certainly provide some.... Is that the 1 percent the Premier

[ Page 1807 ]

is doubtful about? He said he was 99 percent sure that there's no money from outside the country. I'm wondering if old Bill Buckley Jr. didn't at least put in a little bit. Gosh knows, he's not very friendly to us fellows over here.

MR. LEA: He thinks they're communists.

MR. LEGGATT: Does he think they're too left-wing? Poor old Bill.

In any event, why be 99 percent sure when you can be 100 percent sure? It's not hard — one telephone call and just say: "Give me a list. Give me the numbers. Give me the amounts." Then you can go in front of the cameras and say: "Now I'm 100 percent sure, folks. Not a dime came from outside Canada."

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the 1 percent doubt?

MR. LEGGATT: Well, I'm worried that it's Bill Buckley Jr. who has his 1 percent in there. They're trying desperately to refund his bucks.

MR. LEA: The 1 percent only means, maybe, a billion dollars.

MR. LEGGATT: Oh, I don't deal in those kinds of figures. That's very heavy stuff, that 1 percent.

I would hope that these kinds of questions, which so clearly.... I realize there are some questions that seem extraneous to the estimates; but these are right on the estimates. You know, it's pretty hard to weasel around these, Mr. Chairman, pretty hard to say that the Austin Taylor Jr. fund doesn't have anything to do with leadership. It does. And if you examine those polls out there, and examine that kind of slide that's happening, it's directly related to that.

I think these tunnel projects are marvellous. I hope you drill the thing all the way up to Prince Rupert — that was once planned, somebody told me.

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT: Well, you see, it's a crazy province, Mr. Premier. They've got crazies trying to build tunnels up to Prince Rupert, and they've got other crazies trying to build them from Vancouver to Victoria.

That tunnel is a figment of the Premier's imagination. That tunnel is a marvellous device to try to redirect the public's attention for a few minutes away from the real problems of this particular government. I hope you are going to tell us how much those tolls are going to be. I assume they'll be at least $50 per car, trying to get those cars across. I hope you'll tell the people of Victoria that this nice little town is no longer going to have the kind of atmosphere it has, that when that tunnel comes in you're just about to change the whole character of this marvellous part of the world right here — I hope you'll be able to explain that to all the people who live on Vancouver Island. But again, Mr. Chairman, the Premier cannot hide in that tunnel from the questions that have been asked around these estimates, and it's time that he got up and answered a few.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I would just like to make a few comments in regard to statements that were made earlier in the House, statements that related to uranium. I thought I should rise, because in my riding a considerable amount of uranium exploration has taken place over the past years. As a matter of fact, not in my riding but in the Premier's riding, the first uranium exploration permit was issued in April 1974 by the NDP government in this province. It's rather intriguing to me that a government in power at that time never was concerned and never stated publicly that they were opposed to uranium exploration, let alone uranium mining; they allowed the first exploration permit to take place. As I've mentioned on other occasions and at other times in this House, Mr. Chairman, I find it almost inconceivable to understand the rationale of the NDP, which has "national policies." The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) is quoted in public meetings as stating that the NDP has national policies across this country, and, at the same time, a provincial government in Saskatchewan allows uranium mining. That party over there can stand up and challenge this government which dealt with the situation and made a statement and determined that uranium mining would not proceed in this province and placed a seven-year moratorium on it.

Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that the constituents in my riding, many of them farmers.... A tremendous number of our population, of course, are retired because the Okanagan Valley is a beautiful spot in which to retire, and we have many people from Saskatchewan who have come into the Okanagan Valley — I'm not sure it's for retirement or just to get away from the uranium mining that takes place there. But we have many people in my area who expressed concern to me, and many people expressed concern to this government in regard to the question of uranium mining. A decision was made by this government, under the leadership of a Premier who recognizes the concern of people in this province, to place a moratorium on uranium mining. Yet we go through several days of debate, listening to the opposition members talk about a meeting that was held in 1977. It seems to me that that party, in making those statements in regard to what happened in 1977 — not what is happening in 1979 or 1980, not the decisions of today, but what happened in 1977 — reflects on the Premier of this province in the debates on his estimates in 1980. There is no rationale to the debate at all, Mr. Chairman.

They could deal with other matters. I think the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) who spoke a little earlier dealt with some of the past achievements of this government since it's been in power. I'd just like to say to the opposition that if you're debating the Premier's estimates in the year 1980 under that vote where you have all the flexibility in the world to cover many subjects, wouldn't it be appropriate to deal with the issues that face us today, not what faced us in 1977 or 1975 — or 1900 as I think the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) raised at one point in the debate on the budget — but to deal with what happens in the 1980s?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's when he joined the police force.

HON. MR. HEWITT: That was when he joined the police force — I see. We had a budget placed before us that was, if I quote correctly, "the blueprint for the 80s." You would think that a well-organized, well-researched opposition would challenge that blueprint for the 80s. That is their role in this House, to deal with the issues of today and the future of this province — not history, but what is in the

[ Page 1808 ]

future. We've talked in this House about the balanced budgets of this government over the past years but also now, in this year, 1980, this government has accumulated surpluses. You could attack us on the fact that we accumulated surpluses but I don't think they would because they know that the surpluses don't come from excess taxation but from revenues generated by a growing, sound economy in this province. You could attack this government on the use of those surpluses. They really could say: why are you spending $100 million on highway expansion out of your surplus? How come? You could attack us on that, but you won't, because you can see that we're using those surplus dollars to provide better transportation corridors in this province, to provide employment in this province. You could attack us — and I guess they have to to a certain extent — on the use of $30 million for the Annacis Island crossing, but you won't. I think the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) would be a little concerned if the opposition started to attack us on the....

AN HON. MEMBER: The member for Maillardville Coquitlam spoke against it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Did he? Well, he's running at risk. If the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) spoke against it then a lot of his constituents might be upset with him. You could attack us on many things. You could attack us on the $6.5 million we're going to spend on scientific research. You could attack us on that. What are you going to do? When are you going to challenge this government on the issues, on what we're doing with the money? Why are we back into 1977 and 1975? Let's go at it. Challenge us on what we're doing with the $6.5 million for scientific research. Challenge us on the $1.4 billion we're going to use in reforestation in this province. But you won't. I imagine the IWA would be very upset if you challenged us on that because that's the future livelihood of the forest industry in this province. But you won't challenge us on that. You could challenge us on the fact that we're going to bring in a downtown revitalization program and we've supplied $25 million for that. You could challenge us on that; maybe you don't like that program. Maybe you could tell the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew on a point of order.

MR. MITCHELL: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I believe the speaker is referring to material from Bill 7 and we're on the Premier's estimates. I believe that you have been ruling that we stay within the Premier's estimates and not deal with material that is before us in another bill. I would ask you to direct the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The point is well made. The Minister of Agriculture continues on vote 9.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was referring basically to the budget speech and the information that's been put out in the press, not specifically dealing with the bill at hand. But I understand the point of order and I would certainly concur with that. If I could find some other areas where they would like to challenge us because they have the flexibility in the Premier's vote.... You could challenge us on the fact that we're spending $1.55 billion on health — I guess they could challenge us on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. While the vote before us is open to some latitude, we must be relevant to the vote before us and to the administrative responsibility of the Premier.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe I'm being a little too broad in my interpretation of the budget speech. I point out to the members opposite that maybe, though, if they took cognizance of that fact, they could deal with those issues and make good arguments so we could really debate the issues that face this House today and in the future of this province.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

Introduction of Bills

COMPANY AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Nielsen, Bill 10, Company Amendment Act, 1980, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen tabled the annual report for the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:46 p.m.