[ Page 2007 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling Reports

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

Mr. Strachan –– 2007

Reading and Receiving Petitions

Retroactive taxing of northern community residents.

Clerk-Assistant –– 2007

Ministerial Statement

Housing starts.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2007

Mr. Gabelmann –– 2008

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Housing initiative program. Mr. Gabelmann –– 2008

Administration of Ministry of Tourism. Mr. Hall –– 2009

Containment of juveniles. Ms. Brown –– 2009

Environmental studies on Gambier Island. Mr. Lockstead –– 2010

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office estimates.

On vote 9.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2010

Mr. Barrett –– 2010

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2013

Mr. Macdonald –– 2014

Mr. Mussallern –– 2014

Mr. King –– 2015

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2016

Mr. Cocke –– 2017

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2018

Mr. Lauk –– 2019

Mr. Ritchie –– 2020

Mr. Howard –– 2021

Mr. Barber –– 2024

Mr. Barrett –– 2028

Special Funds Act, 1980 (Bill 7). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 2028

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm very pleased today to be able to welcome three good friends to the House and to beautiful Victoria. First of all, I would like the House to welcome Lillian McCracken, who is the vice-president in charge of administration in the Vancouver Credit Bureau and the past president of Credit Women International. With Lillian today is Jack Buckley, the vice-president of collections of the Vancouver Credit Bureau. They are in Victoria to attend the Canadian conference.

I would ask the House also to welcome Don Schwery, from North Vancouver.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I have guests in the Legislature today as well. They are Mrs. Busby, formerly of Texada Island, Mrs. Corrigall, currently of Honeymoon Bay, and Mrs. Palmer, who is soon to be a constituent. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: It is not often, if ever, that I've had my own cheering squad in this Legislature, but this afternoon is a very special day. In the gallery, first of all, is Mrs. Gertrude Rogers, a lady who honoured our family by looking after my husband, children and home while I was in the Legislature a good deal of the time through the past years. There are also 48 beautiful senior citizens from the most beautiful part of British Columbia. They are with Mrs. Eleanor Down, their coordinator. I would ask the House to welcome them to Victoria and to this afternoon's exciting debate.

Mr. Chairman, with the indulgence of the House I would also like to advise the members that a historical association, the British Columbia Hotels' Association, who have done much to provide comfortable accommodation and services throughout British Columbia for many years, are in the gallery in the presence of their executive under President Rod Verstrate. They are Mr. Tom Tidball, Louis Valente, Ken Noble, Merle Schreder, Jill Fresen, Larry Thal and their secretary-manager, Mr. Lloyd Manuel. I would ask the House again to give them a very wann welcome to British Columbia, and thanks to them for what they do for our province.

MR. SKELLY: I hope that the members of the Legislature will add their welcome to a guest of mine from the Alberni constituency, Mr. Giulius Takacs.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: In addition to the representatives of the different organizations who are meeting today in Victoria, we may have representatives in the gallery of the life insurance industry, who are also meeting in convention in Victoria at this time. I would also like the House to welcome a former assistant of mine, Mr. Steve Phillips.

MR. HALL: I'd like the House to join me and the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) in welcoming to the precincts and to the gallery some 30 students from Queen Elizabeth Senior Secondary School and their teacher, Mr. Hodgson. These students are in grade 11, and as part of their social studies program they are over here visiting the Legislature. The first member and the second member for Surrey have visited this school many times, talking to students in that school, and we hope to be able to report back to them at a later date, Perhaps when we come back from Surrey we'll be able to tell the House what the students had to say about us.

MR. REE: Besides Don Schwery from North Vancouver–Capilano being in the gallery today, I have two very good friends, supporters of Social Credit and supporters of me. I'd like the House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Sigmund and Kathleen Agedal.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I have some more good news from Mrs. Schroeder, who advises the House that the Speaker is now allowed a limited number of visitors. It is anticipated that he will be going home from hospital sometime next week. I know we all continue to wish Speaker Schroeder a speedy recovery.

MR. COCKE: I'd like the House to welcome somebody from New Westminster, Mrs. M. Sproule, and somebody from Vancouver, Mr. R. Lowry.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you and members of the House would join with me in extending our very best wishes to the Premier and Audrey, who are today celebrating their twenty-fifth wedding anniversary.

Mr. Strachan, chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, tabled the committee's third and fourth reports, which were taken as read and received.

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

Motion approved.

Reading and Receiving Petitions

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Report, Office of the Clerk, April 16, 1980:

"Pursuant to standing order 73(6), I have to inform the House that the petition presented on April 15 last with leave of the House by the hon. member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) is irregular in the following respects: the petition is not addressed to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and the petition is without a prayer.

"All of which is respectfully submitted. "I.M. Home, Clerk of the House."

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

HOUSING STARTS

HON. MR. CHABOT: The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has today released its first-quarter reporl on housing starts in British Columbia, indicating a dramatic

[ Page 2008 ]

climb to a record level of 7,097 units under construction. The impetus and need for this record level of activity has been created by the strong flow of people into British Columbia. There arc more housing starts in British Columbia than in the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan combined. Housing units starts for British Columbia in the first quarter were up 81 percent from the first quarter of last year, as compared to the housing starts for Canada which were down by 12 percent.

The major contributing factor to this tremendous growth has been the effect of the $200 million Housing Initiative Program, which alone is leading to more than 3,500 starts. If interest rates are brought down and the incentive feature of capital cost allowance reintroduced, British Columbia will have no housing problem. To repeat, Mr. Speaker, our program has demonstrated that with low-interest capital and incentives, the problems we are experiencing in British Columbia can be resolved.

I have sent a Telex to the Hon. Paul Cosgrove, the minister in charge of CMHC, requesting that he come to British Columbia to discuss the housing situation in this province. I was informed just a few moments ago that the minister will be coming later this month to discuss the problems associated with housing in this province.

MR. GABELMANN: I welcome the first statement in some years by the minister responsible for housing. It shows that they are listening to the concern of the public out there. I'd like to just point out to the members of this House that one of the reasons housing starts at this time of the year would be up in this province compared to other provinces is that our weather is a little better. It's pretty tough in the rest of Canada at this time of the year — through frozen ground — to construct homes.

May I just very briefly quote...

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. GABELMANN: ...to the members who are interested; the rest can do what they want. A CMHC spokesman said:

"The record figure for the first quarter must be placed in perspective. It was a record three-month period for housing starts in B.C. because housing starts are down almost everywhere else in Canada. In actual fact, the figures show that B.C. starts are not abnormally high. Because starts are down in other provinces, the increase in B.C. looks correspondingly high."

The point of this, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the member for North Island has the floor.

MR. GABELMANN: I thought that the time of statements, both from the government and from the opposition, was the time for each to listen to the other; it's usually been the case, Mr. Speaker.

I want very simply to say there are some very good reasons for disparities between the various provinces. The major reason has to do with the fact that you can build in the longer year in this province.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, would you mind keeping some order in this place?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) to come to order.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, let me just say again that the figures are not up; there is still a housing crisis in British Columbia. There are thousands of British Columbians who have not been able to collect money under the $200 million program, because there has not been enough money to go around. We will soon see, as the year goes by, that our figures will once again fall back into line with those in the rest of this country.

Oral Questions

HOUSING INITIATIVE PROGRAM

MR. GABELMANN: Coincidentally, Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. This question concerns the government's $200 million mortgage program. Will the minister confirm that the program for new construction is designed only for construction begun after January 15?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, that's a matter of public knowledge.

MR. GABELMANN: Does the minister condone the demolition of construction work started prior to the commencement of this program in order that new construction can appear to begin following the initiation of the program and developers can qualify for the 9 3/4 percent program?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, that strikes me as a strange statement. If the member has some knowledge of a specific infraction of the administration of these funds, I'd be p1cased to hear from him.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, there is a project in Port Hardy to build 52 rental units — it's being built by the right-to-work Hartshorne Construction Co., which in order to qualify for the the Multiple Unit Residential Building tax benefits in 1979 completed the required amount of construction prior to December 31. Then, following the government's announcement in January, they set into motion an application for money under the 9 3/4 percent program. Last week the loan was granted by the Saanich Peninsula Savings Credit Union, $1.6 million at 9 3/4 percent in a $2.5 million project. Two days ago, on Monday, bulldozers arrived on the site and destroyed the footings and the foundations; that work was completed yesterday. The new work will now commence with $1.6 million worth of mortgage money.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question, please, hon. member.

[ Page 2009 ]

MR. GABELMANN: Does the minister agree that is a proper use of the program when literally hundreds of North Island residents in particular have been unable to acquire money for single-family residences because no money is left?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the allocation of these funds is administered by the credit union movement in virtually every community in the province. They know the guidelines under which funds are allocated. Certainly I will investigate if the member will give me the specifics I will be glad to investigate, but I hope he isn't slurring the credit unions responsible for the management of these funds.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to provide the minister with the information, and I will do so this afternoon. I would just like him, when he has considered it, to report back to the House whether he condones the demolition of construction that started prior to the eligibility period.

ADMINISTRATION OF MINISTRY OF TOURISM

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Tourism. The report on the British Columbia travel industry that was commissioned by the provincial and federal governments states that there is a lack of skilled employees and operators in the tourist industry in the province. The report goes on to say this is a serious problem with which the ministry has failed to deal adequately. What action has the minister decided to take to remedy the situation?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I would first remind the member that I think he is referring to a report that would have been done under the TIDSA, which is within the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). It would be a report, as I understand it, that has not yet been publicly released. It would be improper, along with the fact that it is not within my ministry, to comment in detail on any report that hasn't yet been publicly released. I assume the question emanates from newspaper reports, which are out of order.

I would just suggest that if there is a need to train people in the hospitality business in British Columbia, it is indeed a very good sign that our tourism industry is healthy and growing. This government already has, and no doubt will have, an accelerated educational program through a cooperative effort between the Ministries of Labour, Education, Tourism and, I'm sure — if that were the case — Industry and Small Business Development.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, the only person in the province who seems to know nothing about this report is the Minister of Tourism. Could the minister undertake, for the members of this House, to see if she could get a copy of the report and perhaps table it for use by her ministry and members of the House?

Interjection.

MR. HALL: I don't think that's presuming a future action of the minister or future policy. I am just asking whether the minister would undertake to get a copy of the report and share it with the members of the House.

CONTAINMENT OF JUVENILES

MS. BROWN: To the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker. On Tuesday last I raised with the Attorney-General in the House the question of a report on juvenile containments. Since that time there has been a lot of public discussion about the report in the media and among the public in general. The Attorney-General has very kindly responded to some aspects of the report. However, he has not responded to the findings that 27 percent of the juveniles sentenced to containment were not represented by legal counsel. I'd like to ask the Attorney-General what steps are being taken to remedy this situation.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It is the policy with respect to juveniles who find themselves in the courts that if they are not represented by counsel the probation officers are to discuss with them, and their parents or guardians, the advisability of being represented, and to assist them in making application for legal aid, if that is the requirement because the individual is not able to pay for legal advice otherwise. If neither the parents, guardians or the juvenile involved is prepared to accept that advice, the probation officers still make reference to the Legal Services Society for the provision of a duty counsel who will advise the individual, if he will take the advice, as to what action he should take.

The percentage mentioned by the hon. member in her question is one which I find disturbing. I hope to be able to make a further statement soon with respect to these matters. One of the aspects of the Markwart report which has given me concern is the apparent failure to follow procedures which have been laid down. I am satisfied that steps are underway within the corrections branch to ensure that proper procedures are followed in every case, particularly in those instances when legal counsel is required, because it is with the assistance of legal counsel and the probation officers that the courts can be encouraged to consider the range of options available in the community, and thereby avoid containment altogether.

MS. BROWN: Maybe when the Attorney-General is considering this issue he will take into account that the report pointed out that it was the juveniles outside of the lower mainland who were really being penalized by not having legal counsel — a right which is available to all adult criminals but not to juveniles.

I have two more very quick questions for the Attorney-General. Under section 40 of the Corrections Amendment Act, there is a provision for the establishment of a provincial youth program committee to oversee the containment system in this province. Two years ago a gentleman by the name of Mr. Tony Gasconi was approached by a representative of your ministry to head this committee. In light of the serious inadequacies of the present containment system raised by the Markwart report, has the government decided to establish this committee? You have a head for it, but apparently nobody else. Has a decision been made about his committee?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. A number of names of persons who reside in the various regions of the province into which the Attorney-General's ministry is divided for administrative purposes are under consideration by me. In addi-

[ Page 2010 ]

tion, because of the inter-ministerial nature of the problems that affect juveniles, those names are being vetted by the inter-ministerial committee. I believe there's a meeting in the next few days — I can't give you the exact date — between the Deputy Ministers of Health and Human Resources and the Deputy Attorney-General. One of the items on their agenda is to settle upon the nominees for this committee. I think it's important to recognize that, for administrative purposes in my ministry, the province is divided into six regions. We will be drawing people from each of those regions. So the problems to which the member referred with regard to juveniles in the outlying areas of the province will be properly addressed.

MS. BROWN: My final question. There's another disturbing finding in the report to which the Attorney-General did not respond: the fact that female juveniles are more likely to be sentenced to containment for a lesser number of offences than are male juveniles. I wonder whether the Attorney-General would like to explain that idiosyncrasy in the justice system.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I can't explain that distinction. The sentencing of persons who come before the courts of the province is the responsibility of the judiciary, and I, of course, have no control over that. I can assure you, however, Mr. Speaker — and the member — that the representations made on behalf of persons in that position by probation officers make no distinction based upon sex.

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES OF GAMBIER ISLAND

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a question to the Minister of Environment. Can the minister advise us whether he has received copies of two recent environmental studies respecting Gambier Island, prepared by Tera Environmental Consultants Ltd. and the Eikos Design Group Ltd.?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I have received some copies. I'm not sure if they are from those groups. I'll take it as notice and let the member know.

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.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I want to elaborate on an area which I was discussing yesterday in my estimates, which is of great interest to all members of this House. First, I have a clarification. It has been pointed out that in speaking about our country in a positive way and our concern about the vote in Quebec, I left unclear — to some members at least — what I would hope the citizens of Quebec would do in the coming referendum. I'm advising them, in rejecting the referendum, to vote yes for Canada. I believe they can find their future — and a strong future, with fair representation — in Canada, with some changes, as can the citizens of British Columbia. That may not have been clear in statements I made yesterday when I said I hoped the people of Quebec would vote yes in a positive way to build a stronger country. Yes, they can vote yes — in a positive way, by rejecting separation.

I'd also like to say to this House that it is my intention, as the Premier and the leader of the government, to introduce to the assembly a resolution confirming our faith in the country, and to allow such debate to take place that we may clearly indicate to the people of Quebec not only how we feel about this country and their role in it, and the opportunities for them, as well as British Columbians, but also the ways in which we see our country developing, to meet their aspirations and ours. I believe this resolution would be a timely one, an opportunity for all members to put on the record their views on Canada, and to offer at this particular time their encouragement to the citizens of Quebec to reject separation and, in rejecting it, to work with us as fellow Canadians to provide ways in which we can build a stronger country. I know all members on all sides of the House will welcome the introduction of this resolution, this opportunity for debate, this chance to make a strong statement, which I hope, after being dealt with by the House, will be given the widest possible circulation, not only in Quebec, but in the rest of Canada. It is important at this time that all members stand up and speak to this important question. That is why I am advising you now that we are drafting a resolution that will give you that opportunity. It is an opportunity for all members to make this statement, to make it individually and as parties, as British Columbians and as Canadians.

In saying that, I look forward to that opportunity in the Legislature. And I wanted to clear up some unclear wording of mine yesterday, dealing with voting for the country in a very positive way.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) will get his chance to say something — and I hope he will say it as strongly as I have many times in the past.

MR. BARRETT: While I welcome the Premier's statement, I would hope that there would be consideration given to us dealing with this matter far earlier than perhaps the recess next week or a few days after that. If we are to have any impact in the debate — and I hope that we would as Canadians — I would have thought that it would have been appropriate for the government today, in light of the newspaper headlines that the challenge is now in front of the people of Quebec on a specific date, to go on the record in a joint statement from this House, or at least a jointly sponsored motion, or at least some contact between the government and the opposition on this very important question that does not divide anybody in this House.

Leadership in this matter requires a statement by not only every single member of this House but also a united statement by everybody regardless of their role in this House. To my knowledge there is not one person in this House who is on record of being opposed to this country staying together as a nation, and I think that every hour that is lost is an hour that cannot be recovered in terms of putting us, on behalf of our constituents, on the record here in the province of British Columbia as to this great debate that is going on in the province of Quebec.

What are the headlines that have confronted us this morn-

[ Page 2011 ]

ing? The headlines are clearly this: "Opening Shots Fired in a Yes-No Battle" in the Colonist, "Confident Levesque Forecasts a Victory" in the Province.

I would have thought — and I hope this will happen within a matter of hours, certainly before the end of this week — that perhaps a committee would have been struck up between opposition and government, and a draft of a motion of debate agreed upon by the government and the opposition. I tell you very honestly I would be more than happy to second such a motion on behalf of the people of British Columbia in my role as Leader of the Opposition. There should be no time lost, and that means some leadership by the government to bring members of the House together — certainly informally, if need be — to draft a statement that would find welcome discussion by all members. This week, I would think, would be the most appropriate time, and I make that suggestion very sincerely.

I have not spoken formally on the issue of the referendum. I have been concerned that the referendum debate in the Legislature before the wording was set in the House of Assembly in Quebec was a matter of serious concern and observation by all Canadians, but now, today, within a matter of hours, when the people of Quebec are going to be faced to make a decision on May 20, as they've learned within the last 24 hours, it is important that every Canadian, regardless of role, be absolutely specific and clear about what they want the people of Quebec to do, in terms of sharing their opinions, and what they hope the people of Quebec will do in face of that referendum.

First of all, there has been a clever use of words in the framing of the referendum. The confusion that some people may put unfairly to the Premier's statement is confusion that will be shared by a lot of voters in Quebec. Voting for yes, they think they're voting for a continuation of something that is good; voting no, they think they're voting against separation itself. I think it has been a clever, manipulative political device by the government of Quebec and I urge caution in understanding what people are voting for and against. I for one am pleased that the Premier clarified his statement today.

There is no suggestion that the Premier intended to leave the impression that voting yes was what the province of British Columbia wanted, and I hope that in broadcasting the Premier's statement there is a clear-cut definition of exactly what the Premier meant by that statement, as I understood it.

What is the time-frame that we're dealing in? We're dealing in the time-frame of a debate that may be the most important in Canadian history. There are more things that bind this country together than divide it. Included in the things that bind us together is a commitment to the nation as a whole in terms of what we can achieve as a whole, rather than separate vulcanized states. I am concerned that people may somehow overlook in the Premier's statements the fact that, although we may have different approaches within Confederation, there is no question that there is a basic commitment to Confederation by all of us, regardless of political philosophy, regardless of....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What a hypocrite.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), who was suffering from an absence of truth last night, is carrying over his feelings today. If he wishes to absent himself from a very serious debate that involves all Canadians, I understand. But that kind of comment does nothing to serve this chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please take your seat, hon. member.

Hon. members, one of the words on our list is the word used by the hon. Minister of Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources. I have no alternative but to ask the minister to withdraw the word which the Chair finds offensive.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but when I listen to a man who signed a document calling for Quebec separation and making a speech like this....

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I withdraw unconditionally.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, for some people it is difficult on occasion to separate themselves from partisan politics just for a few minutes. Nonetheless, it is necessary on occasion, and if some members do not feel comfortable with that, then perhaps they don't understand a higher duty to this country that is beyond our narrow political definitions that may be ours for electoral success within Confederation. The Premier's statement is clear, and in terms of being in opposition to the proposition facing the people of Quebec, it is one which needs understanding and support.

The next few weeks are serious in this country. The next few weeks not only call for quiet thought and consideration by all Canadians about what is taking place in a founding province of this nation, but it is also incumbent upon all Canadians to understand that they have an individual role and an individual responsibility, not only in witnessing the debate, but in participating as well.

The British North Xmerica Act, in my opinion, has served this nation very well. 1, for one, if I had my druthers, would have hoped that the British North America Act would have never been challenged and could survive for at least another 100 years. Not having that possibility, Mr. Chairman, it is tragic that most of us native-born Canadians have really not had the opportunity to understand the impact of the BNA. As a consequence, the great debate that is taking place in the province of Quebec does not find that much popular interest on a day-to-day basis.

I would hope that in any discussion of a constitutional change that must take place in this country there would be very little deviation from the basic understanding of a federal commitment and provincial rights under the British North America Act.

I just want to make a few statements today. I feel that as a Canadian who has participated in public life in this province, and hopefully to some extent in other provinces, I want to make my statement and my position early in this debate, if indeed such a debate will take place. I speak on behalf of my colleagues and, yes, on behalf of my party, and I make a heartfelt appeal to the people of Quebec for the sake of not just the people of Quebec, but for our sakes too here in the province of British Columbia. I publicly appeal to you to vote no in that referendum.

As I have participated in public life in this province, I had the opportunity at one time to represent the province of British Columbia, making statements on behalf of the pro-

[ Page 2012 ]

vince and making positions clear that for that period of time were indeed the official policy of British Columbia.

In May 1973 — some seven years ago — I had the opportunity and the honour of being present at a federalprovincial conference dealing with some specific matters of British Columbia interest and, yes, all-Canadian interest. Mr. Chairman, at that time the question was a matter of moves by the federal government to change structures of two areas that I felt were of importance to federal control, federal participation and federal cooperation. At that time, in an attempt to appease one or two provinces, including, I think with a misunderstanding, British Columbia as well, there was an attempt by the federal government to give block funding to the health-care programs in this country on the basis, it was argued, to ensure that the wealthier provinces got a better share of the funding that took place.

I'm proud to say, Mr. Chairman, that the province of British Columbia took the public position at that time that socialized medicine — now more politically acceptable, known as medicare — was a hard-fought battle for every single Canadian citizen to enjoy, regardless of language, culture or religious conviction. We had made a commitment as a nation to provide socialized health care for every citizen, and in 1973 — under the pressure of some provinces — there was an attempt to move the block funding to ease political tax pressures. I was proud then to take the position on behalf of British Columbia, and proud again to reiterate today, that under no circumstances are we prepared to abandon fair share in programs, regardless of the wealth of any province. That must always remain.

I want to read from a statement that appears to be somewhat appropriate in my frame of reference in this debate, Mr. Chairman. I want to quote what was said in 1973. On page 7:

"The continuation of the present program of health care and hospital care on a Canada-wide basis is essential to the well-being of all Canadians and to Canadian unity. To allow these services to be eroded would add fuel to the fires of those who would seek to divide Canada.

"We recognize the importance of a national program with national standards. Accordingly, one of British Columbia's major concerns, aside from maintaining a level of its own service, is to avoid taking a position or agreeing to an arrangement that might balkanize the country. We are concerned about taxsharing proposals or financing methods which may result in the undermining of the standards that are now, with minor variations, the best in North America and Canada-wide in scope."

What I was saying then, Mr. Chairman, and repeat today, is that it is my firm belief that there is not one single British Columbian who would support extra tax dollars from Ottawa on this program that would indeed beef up temporarily our services but endanger one of the strengths of Canadian unity. I oppose any chauvinism at the provincial level that for a few tax dollars would throw away the nation for which we have struggled so hard.

If an appeal is made to the people of Quebec, then simple examples of cooperation must be given. No more clear-cut, simple examination of cooperation can be shown to the people of Quebec than our commitment as a nation to ensure that every child, every adult and every senior citizen in this country receives a standard of health care and medical care, simply because we are members of Confederation. It is a national program, and sovereignty-association is not to be negotiated on any basis, but particularly on that kind of achievement.

In passing, as a personal matter in terms of the Premier's estimates, I want to get on the record too, Mr. Chairman, that there are some unsung heros in that particular program, when it was struggled through the federal House of Commons, who should be spoken of with some respect and recognition of their commitment. I don't mean just here. Woodrow Lloyd, T.C. Douglas and Hon. W.A.C. Bennett, in their own ways, were ahead of the move to develop a national health scheme. I particularly want to mention Hon. Judy LaMarsh, who was the federal cabinet minister who pioneered this program. If ever there was any evidence of commitment of the west, per se, or of politicians in central Canada toward good, needed and essential programs for all Canadians, the names of the people I have mentioned serve as an historical reminder to every Quebec citizen. They should clearly understand that the prayer issued by Rev. J.S. Woodsworth, the founder of our party, was as appropriate then as it is appropriate now: "What we wish for ourselves, we desire for all." That means all the people of Quebec.

What are we faced with? We are faced with the proposition of a group of citizens who are full, beneficial and responsible participants in this wonderful nation of Canada being told by some political leaders that we can negotiate a sovereignty-association within a nation of which we are already full members. That, I submit, is an illogical argument — to be charitable. You cannot negotiate something you've already achieved. Negotiations based on separation from this country with some kind of selective association mean a loss for all Canadians but particularly a threatened loss of these programs we enjoy for all Quebec citizens.

I want to suggest to all citizens, regardless of what language they speak: the strength of the programs we have developed, through people who have served this country up to this point, is not eroded by the language within which those programs are enshrined, be it French, English or any other language. It is enshrined in the record of achievement we have achieved as a nation through the hard work of people of all political parties who do have and have had a shared goal of building Canada rather than separating it. It is true that there have been intense political debates within the framework of Canada about how we should go about building a better Canada. It is true that there are intense regional differences within that debate. But let us never confuse small political, regional differences as any great reason for an argument to separate any part of this country from the whole that makes Canada.

Time is a-wasting. Time is now of the essence. Time becomes the primary factor in terms of how we and the rest of Canada respond. Within the responsibility which has been placed in front of us is the fact that a decision has been made by a democratically elected government in the province of Quebec, and every hour that is wasted without getting our position on record may be an hour lost in helping to keep this country together.

This was the first statement that I had the honour of making when speaking on behalf of the people of the province of British Columbia. For me, at least, it's worth putting on the record again. I want to read it. It is my opening statement, made some seven years ago, at my first federal-provincial conference. Little did I predict or anticipate, nor do I enjoy the fact that I must now recall these words some

[ Page 2013 ]

seven years later I would have hoped we would not have been confronted with the crisis we now have.

"This would seem to be a fitting occasion for me to assure you that the government of British Columbia is firmly committed to the concept of a united Canada and to the principles of Canadian Confederation: Canada, one nation stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, comprised of diverse units, each with its own particular strengths and weaknesses, brought together by common bonds to form a whole greater than its parts.

"That is not to say that we should strive to make Canada a homogeneous entity in which the unique character of its various regions and their peoples are sacrificed on the altar of uniformity. For in many respects the strength of this nation lies in this diversity — political diversity as well. Problems of culture, climate, geography or unequal economic opportunity are part of differing degrees of importance and are more pressing to some parts of Canada than to others.

"Our strength as a nation lies in meeting the collective challenges that these factors bring. Although it may be trite to restate it again, unity, but, not uniformity, should be the goal to which we all obtain."

I further quote from the statement I made in 1973:

"To be more specific, British Columbia has its unique problems which require recognition and action by the national government. One can trace back through British Columbia's history to the time of our entry into Confederation and find that there has been an almost constant state of misunderstanding and lack of appreciation at the federal level of British Columbia's needs and aspirations. Perhaps geography and the distance from the national capital has generated a feeling of remoteness and, therefore, lack of importance, which has been reflected in federal decision-making. Similarly, the relative closeness to the national capital of certain other provinces may have had the opposite effect."

What I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that what I said then was, yes, we will have differences, but at the outset, what must be said and clearly understood is that nothing can replace the form of dealing with our problems or, in my opinion, the problems of the people of any other province and the people of Quebec, than resolving those problems within Confederation.

In making the decision to speak out today I have been reflecting on the mixed feelings that I have about this debate. Sometimes a debate such as this, which has been raging through the country for lo, these last 11 or 12 years, may lead to self-fulfilling prophesies. Nonetheless, none of us have any choice now in the matter. Those of us who have mixed feelings about involving ourselves in a debate and escalating it to the point of potentially psychologically becoming a self-fulfilling philosophy have to understand that the hour is here whether we like it or not. The hour is here whether we like it or not! The sooner all of us, as Canadians, deal specifically with this problem, the better it will be for all Canadians to understand exactly where we stand, regardless of differences of political or regional opinion.

Mr. Chairman, I sat in my office during the half hour before I came in the House making this decision to make this statement today. I had hoped — very honestly — that we would be given a very good frame of reference and a timetable for the debate to take place. I had hoped that when the Premier got up today he was going to give that time frame. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Premier of the province of British Columbia for making a commitment to set aside time for this whole House to debate this very important issue, but I urge the government that there should be no time lost. There should be something drafted together, and we should be debating this together for the few brief hours when we can set aside our small and narrow political differences for the betterment of stating an opinion, which all of us endorse, for all British Columbians and all Canadians to understand.

I, for one, am prepared to go on the record to serve on an informal House committee. There is no need to put a motion through the House; a chat over a cup of coffee with two, three, four or five members from both sides of the House to prepare a statement and move us into a formal debate would be a welcome shift and would be deeply appreciated, I think, by all British Columbians.

Before I quote from the kind of thing.... I want just a couple of minutes for a personal statement. I am the beneficiary of the hard work, dedication and love of two fine parents, one of whom was native-born and one of whom was an immigrant. Both parents strove to provide their three children with the best possible education and the best possible opportunity in a country of their choice and a country of their birth. I don't think that my parents had in mind anything better for me than most Canadian parents have in mind for their children. I am sure that neither of my parents would want their wishes, which are the general wishes of all parents, diminished, damaged or hampered in any way that would allow the atmosphere, the legal rights and the opportunity which exists in all of Canada to be diminished by any one province or any group of politicians who misunderstand what this great nation is all about. I urge this House to quickly go on the record.

I want to conclude by suggesting a motion which I think may be acceptable to all members of the House — or something similar to it. I would like to suggest — moved by Hon. William Richards Bennett, seconded by myself, David Barrett — that it be resolved that the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia express its faith in the future of Canada as a nation founded upon respect for the diversity of its regions, peoples and cultures; the uniqueness of the provinces, and in particular the province of Quebec; the participation of the provinces and the federal government in long-overdue constitutional reform; and with a central government having power to provide for the essential well-being of Canadians in those matters where the provinces cannot so provide.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, had that speech come from anyone else in this House I would have appreciated that phony, Disneylandesque standing ovation — showbiz at its best. But coming from that member.... I know that there are certain words I can't use in this House about that Leader of the Opposition, but I'd be happy to use them out in the hall, where I don't have the protection of the House.

But I'll tell you that that member, the member sitting next to him, the member sitting behind him, the member for Burnaby, Mr. Lorimer, and several other members on that side of the House signed a document in the early 1970s which called for — as the principal platform of that document, the

[ Page 2014 ]

Waffle Manifesto — the separation of Quebec. Let that Leader of the Opposition deny that he put his name to that document; he cannot do it. For him to stand in this House and shout pious platitudes about holding this country together, when he's one of the people responsible for it perhaps coming apart, I suggest, is hypocrisy of the very worst kind. That same member, the Leader of the Opposition, went to Halifax shortly after he was defeated as Premier of this province, and he made a speech to a group of social workers; he said that British Columbia was having difficulty and that it made him very happy. For that kind of speech to come from that kind of member, I suggest, is the worst kind of hypocrisy that this province could put up with.

That member signed his name to a document which, clearly and simply, calls for the separation of Quebec as a principle of the New Democratic Party. The party itself had more sense than to accept it. The party rejected it, but the Leader of the Opposition supported it; the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) supported it; Mr. Lorimer, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, supported it; Mrs. Dailly, the member for Burnaby North, supported it. That group over there, by its very actions, supports the division of Canada. The public knows better than to accept that kind of show-business stand that the Leader of the Opposition just attempted to make.

MR. MACDONALD: I think the speech of the hon. minister was a disgrace to this House. I am going to reply very briefly. I think we have had an excellent statement from the Leader of the Opposition, and I hope we will have good statements — I'm sure we will — from other members on the other side of this House.

We have a crisis in terms of the nation; we have a crisis in terms of the world. The nationalist-separation thing is not just confined to Canada; it is a worldwide phenomenon. Having the nearly 300 nations in the world today convert themselves, as they easily could, into say 1,200 or 1,500 nations founded upon narrow racial or religious bases would be, I think, a step back for mankind which we would long rue in this world.

I will make some reply, but I regret that the minister who has taken his place has chosen to be supercilious about this very important matter. I would like to make the statement that I have never signed any document or uttered any words in my political career leading to the breakup of Canada or the separation of any of its parts.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: I will repeat that statement. I have never spoken any words or signed any document suggesting the breakup of Canada or the separation of any of its parts in my whole life. I repeated that statement for the benefit of the minister. Nor will 1.

I'm not going to repeat what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition, particularly in the regrettable absence of the Premier, on his estimates. I hope that the government does show the leadership that a government should in the province of British Columbia, by bringing forward a motion. We're not hung up on the particular terms of the motion that has been proposed to this House by the Leader of the Opposition. We do believe, however, that if British Columbia is to show leadership, this Legislature, speaking for all of our people, should be the forum in which a resolution is moved — and, we hope, unanimously adopted — in this time of great crisis as far as our country of Canada is concerned.

We have so much to be proud of in Canada. Sure, there are the diversities of peoples and cultures and languages and customs, but there is a richness about those diversities that makes me proud to be a Canadian. Quite frankly, I think to live in that kind of country, with the different cultures, the different languages, and attempt to preserve those languages — particularly the French language, which should be preserved as one of the great cultured languages of mankind in this country of Canada, and any language that can be preserved stemming from the mainsprings of the Canadian nation.... We should try to preserve those cultural roots, be proud of our diversity, and at the same time have that strength of unity which will enable Canada to be one of the great countries of the next 100 years.

MR. MUSSALLEM: It was most delightful to hear the remarks of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, my friend, the first member for Vancouver East. I'm sure that all of us in this House wish only one thing, and that is the unity of Canada. There's no place here for division of any kind. I bring to the attention of this House that the Premier, on every occasion, whenever possible during this session, has brought before this House the importance of the unity of Canada and how much this government was totally committed to use every way and every ploy within its ability to engender and to encourage this process. That is the wish of the government and I am sure no less the wish of the opposition.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

However, I can understand the feeling of the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), when he spoke with such vehemence. What I am concerned with also, a little — and I hope it doesn't develop — is the changing attitude of the socialist opposition, who will move with the wind. That's what concerned the Minister of Energy, because I know that during the great debate on the Waffle Manifesto in 1969.... I'm not making charges, but I'm saying that at that time it was popular to talk for the division of Canada. Clause 17 in that manifesto required and stated that "there shall be two Canadas." That was debated with vehemence at their convention. I don't say they shouldn't do it, except to say this: what will they change when the new winds blow? I hope when they made their statement today they were not preparing for the next convention, when situations seem different, where they will bring up the division of Canada again.

The hon. member for Vancouver East states that he never put his name as a signatory; I have it here, Mr. Member. The names of those on that document, in which his name.... I will not read them at this time, but five of them are in this House, and the Hon. Gordon Dowding who was the Speaker of the House is not here. You debated this issue and you were there for the division of Canada only a few years ago. I'm glad to see your heart has changed. But can we be assured that it will remain changed? That is the issue; that is my concern. That's the only thing I'll say, and not facetiously, because anything so important as the unity of this nation must be beyond politics, must be above debate.

I'm glad to see that the Leader of the Opposition made an impassioned plea and that he followed the Premier in much the same vein. But saying "me too" is not enough. What

[ Page 2015 ]

must be stated here is: "We, the loyal opposition, will not change our stand. We completely divorce ourselves from the statement made in the Waffle Manifesto, and we're sorry that we were signatories to this document. We're sorry that we spoke for and demanded the division of Canada, sorry that our convention supported the FLQ." This confession at this time before this House would be valuable for both sides. We'll say that here we've got an opposition that's solidly committed and will not change with the changing wind. They have changed with the changing wind; they've changed 180 degrees. Here they are for the unity of Canada. Can we be assured that next year they will still be for the unity of Canada? Can we have a statement now that they will not go back? Can we have a statement now that they will not recant? We must be undivided. The issue is too great for party politics, for playing to the media or to the gallery. The issue is one that we must adhere to without question.

I think, when I have before me a document of this kind, signed by five ministers of that government of that day, that they must say to us that they have recanted totally, that they made a grave error and that they are here to support Canadian unity without question. If you read this document, if you read what it says — and I have it here — you'll say: "How can anybody turn 180 degrees in so short a time?" I say to you that it is something that we must consider, it's a matter this opposition must consider and a matter that must not be taken lightly. I will assure you, Mr. Chairman, that every member of the government side — and, I hope, every member of theirs — stands for the unity of Canada in every possible way, as the Premier has stated on many, many occasions. Every opportunity has been brought forward. But can we be assured from the loyal opposition — can we be assured conclusively, without question — that there will not be another 180-degree turn when the winds of policy change, when the winds of chance are favourable in the other direction? Will it be possible then, when we have a new wind blowing, that they will join another direction? Will they be loyal to the last? Well, if I read this I question it. The hon. Leader of the Opposition was a signatory, so I question it very much. If we're going to believe — and we must believe them — we must have unity, and I appeal for their unity. But before we can believe it, Mr. Chairman, we have to have their admission that we'll not have another turn. I want total unity here, around the House.

MR. KING: We are discussing the Premier's estimates this afternoon, and I want to get back to the Premier's estimates, which is the business before the House. Before I do, I want to make a few remarks about the speech made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and my colleague the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem).

The member for Dewdney said he would like to see my party change their position and not respond to political whims. I know that hon. gentleman, who is a senior member of this House, would not want to mislead anybody. I know that he wouldn't want to deliberately leave the impression that an NDP convention passed what was referred to as the Waffle Manifesto, because that is patently untrue. The Waffle Manifesto was developed by a group that was identified as "the Waffle group" within the NDP. This is some years ago. They brought forward a policy which some members of the party — some elected, some not — agreed to sign to get before the convention for debate. That Waffle Manifesto came before the convention for debate and was roundly defeated. Indeed, those people who formed the Waffle group are no longer members of our party. That was their choice. In the interests of honesty, we've had some embarrassing resolutions come before all party conventions, including Social Credit. I mentioned one during my election campaign when this very Waffle Manifesto was waved again. I mentioned that a certain group within the Social Credit Party brought in a resolution recommending the circumcision, of all things, of rapists.

MS. BROWN: And castration.

MR. KING: And castration. Logical people would conclude that those kinds of operations would not have the desired effect for the particular crime. Rather stupid, eh?

Now it would be just as valid for me to come in here and say, simply because some fringe in the party brought it before the convention: "That's Social Credit policy. Will you recant?" I would consider myself untruthful if I did that, Mr. Chairman; I would consider that less than honest. How does the old gentleman from Dewdney feel? Was he honest? Was he indeed honest when he said the New Democratic Party should recant and change the position?

Indeed, it's a matter of public record that my colleague the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett), the leader of the New Democratic Party in the province of British Columbia, has always been a strong federalist — and a monarchist, incidentally. Sadly, Mr. Chairman, even had his position changed, which it has not, what would be the benefit of raising this kind of division today in British Columbia on a debate affecting the destiny of Canada? I am prepared to accept as a Canadian and a British Columbian that we are all dedicated to Canada as a nation in this House, despite our philosophical political differences. What is the advantage of raising that kind of dirt? It's divisive. Surely it diminishes the opportunity for getting some kind of high-level debate on something that transcends the importance of the British Columbia Legislature, the Social Credit Party or indeed the provincial NDP.

No member of our party — either provincially or federally — has recommended a vote for separation. The only person that I am familiar with who recommended or indicated that he might vote for the separation of Quebec was the former national leader — or the current one, I'm not sure — of the Social Credit Party, Fabien Roy. If you want to disown him, fine, fair enough. I don't even think that's very significant in terms of what we're debating here today; we're debating what we as British Columbians can do in trying to have some positive impact on all of Canada in terms of holding this great country together. And I submit that that's a worthwhile function that should not be diverted by rather cheap partisan politics, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I want to get back to the Premier's estimates. I regret the Premier is not here. His estimates are before the House. He is seeking the approval of this Legislature at this moment to have funds extended to him, payment for his office functions and for his salary. This is the customary time under the British parliamentary system when every minister of the Crown gives an account of his stewardship and responds to the legitimate questions of the opposition and to the public interest of the province. Simply put, it's a time of accountability. Well, my question is: how can the Premier of the province be accountable when he doesn't even deign to

[ Page 2016 ]

sit in the Legislature with us during the consideration of his estimates? I don't know where he's gone. I would think he'd be here; I would hope, I would respectfully request, that the Premier be ready today to answer a number of questions which I have raised for the last two days, I believe.

First, I wanted to know who the signing authority was for the Social Credit Party campaign funds which were administered and dispensed from the Premier's office. Normally the disposition of party funds would have nothing to do with the Premier, but in light of public information and public admission by his staff member that these funds were indeed dispensed from his office, I think it is incumbent upon the Premier to answer the question. Who was the signing authority, and were the signing officers, of whom I understand there were two, on the public payroll when they were performing this party function?

The other question I asked the Premier was with respect to his involvement in the police investigation of the Social Credit caucus research staff. The Premier made a statement that the police had come to his office and wanted to interview the secretaries working for the research staff. He indicated at that time it was necessary for him to alert or notify the secretaries in advance that the police wished to speak to them, so that the secretaries and the staff people would not be unduly upset at being interrogated by the police. That concerned me a little bit. I do not believe that it is a normal function of the Premier of the province or any minister of the Crown to intrude into the police and justice system of the province. It's clear to me that every other citizen involved with the police does not receive the benefit of advance notice or having the interrogation conducted in the Premier's office. Citizens out there are on their own unless they want to retain a lawyer for themselves. I think the implications of the Premier's admission that he intervened in this way are a matter of some concern. I think they're particularly a matter of concern in view of the other allegations that have been abroad — and some have not been satisfactorily answered yet — that there has been interference by the government with the system of justice in the province.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the Premier would return to the House and start dealing in a frank, candid and open way with some of these questions which have been posed to him. Unless he's prepared to do that, we're involved here in a completely meaningless exercise. He is the one person who can answer for his office. It's his pay — his administrative costs — which we're debating. No one else can answer for him. So unless the Premier is prepared to come back and answer, perhaps we should go on to some other business. Is the Premier coming back?

Interjection.

MR. KING: He went for what? He's been gone for 20 minutes now.

Interjection.

MR. KING: All right, I'll rest my case and await his return. I certainly have more questions for him.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say again that we recognize this as an important time in the history of our country. We are facing a most serious crossroad, and I think for that reason it is a time when we need to know exactly where everybody on both sides of the House stands. I suggest that we don't know where everybody stands in this matter of national unity, which the Premier so eloquently placed before this House in his statement today. He intends to carry forward with more tangible demonstrations of the government's response to the announcement of a date for the referendum in Quebec.

What the people really want — and the Premier's estimates offer a good opportunity — is to be sure that the things said in this House about matters as important as Canadian sovereignty are the truth, and that what people say is what people mean. It is very difficult for us to understand that when we have conflicting evidence.

I was interested in the response by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) to the comments I made earlier and the comments that the Premier made in the opening of his estimate debate today regarding the matter of Quebec self-determination, which is the subject of the referendum. I have a feeling that perhaps I didn't make myself as clear as I would have liked to in my opening comments about the so-called Waffle Manifesto, because there seems to be some doubt about what that manifesto says and who supported it.

I'd just like to say that the second item in the preliminary introduction of that manifesto, dated 1969 and entitled "For An Independent Socialist Canada," says this: "The New Democratic Party supports the right of the people of Quebec to national self-determination up to and including the right to form an independent Quebec state." Now I didn't say that, Mr. Chairman. That was said by a group in the New Democratic Party who called themselves and were called by others "the Waffle group." I accept the comments from the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King). In fact, I said myself when I spoke earlier that the NDP rejected that. But the important thing for the people of British Columbia is not who rejected that stand, but who supported that stand. That's what the people of British Columbia wish to know about.

The publisher of the so-called Waffle Manifesto, in introducing a number of items including the total text of the manifesto, said this:

"In B.C. NDP federal MP for Vancouver East, Paddy Neale, sponsored this document, as did six members of the NDP government elected in 1972: Hon. David Barrett, Premier and Minister of Finance; Hon. Alex Macdonald, Attorney-General; Hon. James Lorimer, Minister of Municipal Affairs; Hon. Eileen Dailly, Deputy Premier and Minister of Education; Hon. Norman Levi, Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement; Hon. Gordon Dowding, Speaker of the House."

He went on to say:

"This is not a complete list of sponsors, but it is enough to show that people who hold responsible positions in Canada also gave their signatures of support. It is the responsibility of all Canadians to find out what people stand for and, therefore, the purpose of publishing this document. This is the document the people listed above helped sponsor by signing."

Now, Mr. Chairman, for the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke to say before this House that the first member for Vancouver East, the Leader of the Opposition, simply signed this document in order that it could get on the floor of the convention for full debate is patent nonsense. If you, Mr.

[ Page 2017 ]

Chairman, were asked to sign a document for any purpose that said as one of its principal tenets that the New Democratic Party, the Social Credit Party, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party or any other party supported the right of the people of Quebec to form an independent Quebec state, I submit that you would say to the person who asked you: "You are out of your cotton-picking mind, and I wouldn't sign it under any circumstances. In fact, go away, and don't ever come back and bother me again."

Mr. Chairman, that document was signed by several members sitting in this House in support of a different position from that which was taken by the Leader of the Opposition and other speakers on that side of the House today. I submit that the people of this province have a right to know. As the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) said: "Have you changed your mind?" It's okay to change your mind; people change their mind all the time. By god, Mr. Chairman, if you change your mind in this instance, we'll cheer you for it, if you can tell us that it's the truth and you really have changed your mind.

Mr. Chairman, if they've changed their mind let them say they are sorry they signed this document. Don't say: "Well, I only signed it because I wanted to get it on the floor of the Legislature." You know if you had any responsibility at all you would refuse to sign such garbage. Don't say, as the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) said: "Well, I don't remember signing anything like that." Let me tell you, if he signed that document without reading that it called for the separation of Quebec, then that's even worse. Let them say they're sorry. Let them say that they have now changed their mind and are for the support of a united Canada, and let them convince the people of Canada of that. But right now, Mr. Chairman, I'm not convinced of that.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I am not really surprised to see an abuse of the House like we have seen from that minister twice this afternoon. That minister knows that that is a debate that is in the future. There is a resolution on the order paper, by a minion on the back bench of the Social Credit Party, hoping some day to have it debated. Therefore the subject of this debate is totally out of order, and has been out of order right from the time that minister stood up.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: We showed courage, because we said to ourselves, let him spout off and show his true nature. And, Mr. Chairman, that's precisely what he has done.

I shall take a little poetic licence myself. Mr. Chairman, until I am out of order, I would just like to say one or two words about the interpretation, for example, of a document that was circulated among a number of politicians. The request was made that this document should see the light of day at a convention. And I saw the very people that signed that document, asking that it be brought to the convention — and I was at a number of the federal conventions where these articles were discussed — working and debating against a number of the points within that document. It's a completely empty argument that this party is coming up with. You've got it on the order paper; you had it in your last election. When are you going to kill the poor old dog? It's just a fallacious, specious argument that you bring up in order to try to confuse people, and it has absolutely no relevance here.

The Leader of the Opposition has been a federalist and a monarchist ever since I have known him — and I have known him a lot longer than this document has existed.

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't say he was a socialist.

MR. COCKE: He's a social-democrat, as I am, and proud of it. And, as far as I'm concerned, we don't go around calling others, who are very reactionary, fascists. But if you wish to get into those kinds of discussions, then let's meet some time when we're not taking up the people's time.

Mr. Chairman, we have as a party, federally and provincially, been totally consistent on federalism; we have totally supported the concept of a good, strong, federal Canada in order that we should all be enriched. That's what the Leader of the Opposition was talking about today. Yet what did we hear in reply? A fallacious, stupid, silly speech from a minister who stood in this House last night and indicated that while he was Minister of Health there were four or five of my colleagues who had never been in touch with him about problems in their constituencies. One of my colleagues — he's going to hear plenty about this later — looked through his files last evening and found five specific letters. Now I wouldn't call the minister a prevaricator. The only problem was that each of the people that he named came up with exactly that same kind of thing. We're supposed to believe a minister who stands in this House and tries to put forward his attitude and his ideas around a document that's so old, so antiquated, and has gone the way of all documents at NDP conventions.

What the Leader of the Opposition and what the second member for Vancouver Centre were talking about today is the most important question that's on the minds of all Canadians. And that is: where is Canada going? It's only got one month and four days to decide. That's a very important issue. Not one member from the government has stood up and discussed that issue. The Leader of the Opposition suggested that the other side and our side should get together, and he read out his suggested resolution. What was the reply to that? No reply whatsoever. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources got up and started making fallacious charges instead of replying to a very serious question. What is the rest of Canada thinking about us in this place today? Where have we been? Our heads have been in the sand.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: And that Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who has lost his other important portfolios — thank heaven for the province, and it would be good for the farmers if he lost that one — says "knee-jerk. "

Mr. Chairman, this is an important subject, and it should be replied to by the ministers of the Crown. Instead of that the first minister, whose vote we're to be debating right now, walked out of the House before the Leader of the Opposition had an opportunity to read his resolution — didn't even pay attention to it, didn't give it the time of day, wandered out of the House. I have never seen such a display of arrogance in all the time I've been here. W.A.C. Bennett was always given a sort of a label as being relatively arrogant, but, do you know, he's been put to shame by his son. He used to sit here by the hour through his estimates. Oh, yes, he'd turn his back; oh, yes, he'd pretend not to be listening; but he'd be in this House during his estimates. But that first minister has hardly been in here all afternoon. What would be the point?

[ Page 2018 ]

The Leader of the Opposition made a very important statement in this House, and this is the kind of behaviour we get from the government of the day — a government that cannot give one word of response, in over two hours, to a very important question concerning every citizen in this country. I'll be hanged.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The member says he'd like to see it. They've tried for a long time — your folks — and it hasn't worked.

And the minister of logs, lumber and sawdust over there adds his usual contribution, sitting in the far comer, mouthing off and not really saying anything important. Why don't you get up and talk about your policy with respect to this country and its future?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I wasn't going to rise in this debate. I thought that the comments made by the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) were sufficient. However, after the comments by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), I felt that I should get up.

I used to ask him a question, probably the question that was raised by the Minister of Energy. It seems to me that when the content of the Waffle Manifesto was read, the preamble was there, and it stated that the members who signed the document supported it. You can't hide behind the fact that you were just going to sign it to put it on the floor of the convention for debate. It's an endorsement, and I just make that point....

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I bring your attention to Motion 2 on the order paper. We have been most patient this afternoon, but surely now is the time that the Chair should rule on whether or not this debate is in order and whether or not the minister is in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for New Westminster's points are well taken. It is normally not customary to discuss an item on the order paper, and if it is brought to the Chair's attention then the Chair must caution the minister.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I could say my comments were in correction to the member for New Westminster, who has debated for the past ten minutes or so the matter of the Waffle Manifesto. Take my remarks as correcting him, Mr. Chairman.

I want to comment on the fact that in his estimates the Premier has made comments about Canadian unity — several times, as I recall. In the past 14 days or so — I'm not sure how many days we've spent in this House listening to the opposition — he has made those comments. He has said to the opposition: "Give us your input on Canadian unity." He got silence — absolutely no response.

The Premier came into this House at 2 o'clock today and at the first opportunity he stood up and made a statement to this House. As I recall, Mr. Member for New Westminster, he was making a statement concerning Canadian unity. He was going to put a motion before the House to allow debate on the most important issue of Canadian unity.

Who came first, Mr. Chairman? It seemed to me that the Premier of this province stood up, made that statement....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I am responding to a certain extent to the member for New Westminster, who talks about the great speech that was made and the motion that was put by the Leader of the Opposition — after a statement was made by the Premier of the province stating that a motion would come forward to this House. It seems to me that the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition.... Let me just go through this. I think he said: "...building a better Canada." He draws from his files his 1973 speech and talks about building a better Canada. But when this Premier was first elected in 1975, who went to the constitutional conferences in Ottawa and laid out a plan for a united Canada with regional representation? It was British Columbia and this Premier.

This provincial government has shown leadership to the rest of the provinces in Canada. Where has the opposition been? What kind of constructive comments have they made in the past 14 days or so that we have been dealing with the Premier's estimates? Absolutely none. They have dealt with personal attacks on members of the government. They have been repetitious and to a certain extent, I would suggest, they have been poorly researched.

All of a sudden, after the Premier makes a statement to members of this House that a motion is going to come forward to this House so we can debate the issue of Canadian unity, the Leader of the Opposition becomes a statesman. He digs out his speech from 1973, makes his comments and proposes a motion, only in response to a statement made by the Premier that the issue of Canadian unity is important, saying he wishes everybody in this House to have the opportunity to debate it.

I have to say that the Leader of the Opposition wants stage centre and he will get it whenever he can for his personal benefit. He doesn't concern himself with the rest of his colleagues who don't have the opportunity to drag out a speech from 1973. He doesn't consider the fact that all members on both sides should have the opportunity to gather their thoughts, prepare their debate, come into this House and deal with this most important issue. No, he doesn't consider that. He jumps up and deals with this 1973 speech and the position he took at that time.

The unfortunate reaction that concerns me most of all was that after his performance, after failing to be a gentleman statesman who recognizes the time for debate of an issue like this is when the motion is put to this House, all the sheep jumped up and applauded a great show. I suggest to them that it would be much better if we all had the opportunity to gather our thoughts and develop our positions and comments on the issue of Canadian unity, rather than use it for a performance in this House. I welcome the opportunity to gather my thoughts and to put together my position and my comments.

AN HON. MEMBER: It won't take long.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're not being nice.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you gather all of theirs it won't take you any longer.

[ Page 2019 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: If I gathered theirs I'd just gather wool. And if we had wool we could make a blanket.

Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed, though, because I think in all fairness and in all seriousness we all should have that opportunity to prepare ourselves for a constructive debate in this House and come forward with a united position to the other provinces of Canada — to say British Columbia is showing that leadership and making an all-out effort to show all Canadians, those people in other provinces and in the province of Quebec, that we want a unified Canada for all time.

I'm disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition took this opportunity to do his usual grandstanding. I can only say that when the motion comes to the House I'm sure that all members on both sides of the House will welcome the opportunity to debate the issue of Canadian unity.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on his speech this afternoon. I think it's a demonstration of his and this party's concern about national unity. His call for the unity of this country, but also for the unity of this House on that issue, was not unsubtle. His speech called for cooperation by the government members from the point of view of expressing to our fellow citizens in the province of Quebec our deep concern during this important time in their history and our history.

The response by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) could be described as nothing more than squalid. I don't think that it would be appropriate to carry on describing the revulsion that most British Columbians feel and will feel at that kind of response to a call for unity.

The minister who has just spoken has asked the members of the opposition to be constructive in their criticisms of the government. On many occasions when we have done so, as today, we have been spurned and rejected on the most narrow partisan basis.

The Premier has just walked into the chamber with a bag of mushrooms, Mr. Chairman: a symbol of the Social Credit members kept in the dark and fed fertilizer.

Their only response to a sincere effort to join together as true Canadians is to reject and spurn that sincerely made offer. Well, the people of this province will judge that performance. We are accused of personal attacks, of being sheep, of not having come first; we're accused of all those things when we make the sincere effort to be positive and constructive in this chamber. Let the record show that the government's call for positive criticism from the New Democratic Party is two-faced and insincere.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Premier's estimates, it occurs to me that there are many questions of grave concern to the public of British Columbia that have gone unanswered. The Premier has had ample opportunity to respond. He has chosen not to. He has given an excuse, however, which should be analyzed. The excuse on one occasion is that the matters raised, for example, on the administration of justice do not concern his ministry. Other examples raised by members of the opposition requiring answers are best answered, he said, by other ministers.

His second excuse is that the questions are silly. And all the questions we have asked to this day have been in an attempt by the opposition to bring to public light the secret decisions, negotiations and meetings concerning the Premier's office. They were questions concerning the administration of justice, We have many issues facing the province. The most important issues are economic, including employment, economic, development, our future and the tremendous impact of inflation and high interest rates.

There is also another issue nagging at the public consciousness: the issue of equality in the administration of justice in the province of British Columbia. It is clear that the Premier has not put his attention to that issue. Every day from my constituency and around the province people are expressing their lack of confidence in the equality of justice in the province of British Columbia. We want to be constructive. We have called for public inquiries. We have called for a judicial inquiry into the issues facing the administration of justice in this province, and such constructive proposals have received back-of-the-hand treatment from the first minister. He advised his Attorney-General that under no circumstances will public inquiries be launched.

There have been no answers given. There is a precision in the use of language, to the extent that the public is frustrated in its right to know. We contend that all these issues are positive. As I've said before, I believe that the government's accusation that the questions are silly and negative comes from their view that if we don't agree with them, the questions are silly and negative. Their approach is that we are destructive if we don't support government policy. It is our job to point out to the public the weaknesses and the inadequacies of government policy. It is also our job to point out where improvement is needed.

Right now the only way to dispel the cloud over the administration of justice in this province is by a full, open and fair public inquiry into the question of the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), the question of the Deputy Attorney-General, the question of campaign funds, and the question of the Eckardt commission. All of these major questions involving judicial or quasi-judicial issues should be before an impartial judge, with a full public hearing and report. We suggest that only in that way can confidence be rebuilt in the system of justice in this province, so that no citizen can be heard to say that there's a law for the rich and a law for the poor or that there's a law for the friends of government and a law for the rest of us. Now there is no citizen who can honestly make that statement. There is no citizen in this province, of whatever political stripe, who can honestly say that there's a fair system of justice in the province of British Columbia. The only way to solve that is by a full and fair public inquiry. Perhaps out of that inquiry would come recommendations for changes in procedures — however long they've been employed — which will assure the public that the complaints made in recent months about decisions concerning the administration of justice and the policy of law enforcement will never arise again.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Certainly if there's a full and fair public inquiry into the question of campaign funds, then maybe we can have as a recommendation proposed legislation which will ensure that the secrecy of political party slush funds does not act as a destructive monster in the background. It's a monster that threatens to destroy the free political system. Secrecy of the source and application of campaign funds undermines confidence in the free political system. Citizens in this province today cannot be sure who is running their province — the people they have democratically elected or the people who

[ Page 2020 ]

have signed a cheque, secretly, or passed a satchel of thousand-dollar bills from one member of the Social Credit Party to the next. Who is running the government of this province?

A full public disclosure of the source and application of campaign funds is another question we have been asking the Premier. He has defended himself on some details, but he has not stood and said as the first minister of this province that he can assure us that steps are being taken to protect the public from the erosion of the political system caused by the secrecy of the source and application of campaign funds. It's his responsibility and we call upon him to do so, to stand in this place in this committee and say: "Here's what the government has decided, to rectify this problem." He has not done so. We are waiting for him to do so, and the people of the province are waiting for him to do so.

If it's positive criticism the Premier wants, he has merely to open his ears. What's blocking his hearing, Mr. Chairman, is a narrow partisanship — a very narrow view of the political system in this province. It takes a big man to accept positive criticism, and it takes a big man to hear it.

MR. RITCHIE: For over three weeks now all we have listened to is repetition, personal attacks, negative nonsense, and how lazy the members on this side of the House are. It has been three weeks of wasted time. Our Premier tried to encourage the opposition here a few weeks ago to get into some constructive debate, but to no avail. They have continued with their personal attacks, with innuendo, allegations, false allegations, and all of that garbage that goes on. I think it's about time that you were really shown up for what you are. I resent some of the remarks made this morning by your leader when he talked about a united Canada. I'm not a native-born Canadian; I'm an immigrant to this great country. I resent the type of talk that went on there, particularly when I know of some of the other background material that your party represents.

But now it would seem to me that what they want to do is change their image. They've taken on a new approach and now they want to change their image. Let me tell you, you may be able to change your approach, but you won't be able to change your image.

The leader, in his opening remarks, said that he invited the back bench to respond to his remarks concerning a united Canada. I'd be glad to do that. I hope that I will be permitted to do so now.

I have to say that those remarks were hypocritical.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. One member today has already been cautioned about the use of that word, and I would ask the member speaking to withdraw the implication or the word that he just used. Would the member withdraw it.

MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I repeat: I'm an immigrant to this country and I know the value of a united country. I also know what your philosophy can do to a country. I know also what your philosophy can do to people.

On the question of a united Canada, yes, I support a united Canada. If I may, I wish to quote from a document that will prove that what we heard this morning is really only window-dressing and playing politics. May I read from this article, the NDP Waffle Manifesto:

"Our goal is the building of an alliance between English Canadians and Quebec socialists. Towards that end, be it therefore resolved that the New Democratic Party will continue to struggle against the War Measures Act, the Public Order Act, and all similar substitute legislation. We demand the immediate release of all persons arrested under such legislation.

"The New Democratic Party supports the right of the people of Quebec to national self-determination, up to and including the right to form an independent state.

"The lasting solution to the relations of our two peoples can only be determined when popular representatives from both sides sit down and negotiate on the basis of the principle of equality of the two nations of English Canada and Quebec."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Nelson-Creston on a point of order. Would the member for Central Fraser Valley take his place.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I think that the rule of anticipation is a very serious one, and it's obviously being flouted. In spite of members bringing it to the attention of the Chair and the Chair bringing it to the attention of members, certain members seem to be persisting in anticipating debate on the order paper — I think it's Motion 1 or 2, standing in the name of the hon. second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Again I would advise the member for Central Fraser Valley that while passing reference is in order, detailed discussion is out of order.

MR. HYNDMAN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, perhaps the Chair would consider giving us a little more guidance on this topic in the near future. It seems to me the one point of view on anticipation is correct; but on the other hand, the document in question, being a broad document, surely may have some of its content referred to or quoted from by a member in debate on a different point. If the member opposite proposed to debate the issue raised on the order paper, obviously the rule of anticipation would apply; but surely that rule cannot go so far as to preclude in a different discussion any reference to that document or an extract from it. Perhaps in due course we could have some guidance from the Chair on where the dividing line is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. As always, those lines are very difficult to specifically define. Again, general discussion appears to be very much in order, but specific and detailed discussion would be very much out of order in those circumstances. Again, it is a most difficult line to formally draw in the way of a binding decision on this committee, and I think members will have to use discretion and good judgment on their own. The Chair will do its best to see that those discussions and observations are kept somewhere within the realm of order for the discussion at hand.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I hope that the House will recognize the fact that I am responding to an invitation from the Leader of the Opposition concerning his remarks, at the opening of this sitting, on the vote in Quebec — the united Canada. That's what he talked about. He invited us to

[ Page 2021 ]

speak, and I will be very pleased to sit down and rise again if I have the opportunity to pursue this. But I prepared myself very quickly to respond to his invitation only because it disturbed me greatly to hear the things he said, considering the fact that he signed the documents that I am now referring to. Not only did he sign them, but other members over there also signed the documents. I would challenge anyone over there who did not sign the documents to say so. We know the ones who keep quiet are the ones who signed them.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. If the member for Central Fraser Valley would address the Chair....

MR. RITCHIE: Fine, Mr. Chairman. It's typical, but if they have the courage to stand up and say they did not sign the document, then I would welcome that. I wish to continue reading from that particular document.

"Socialists in both English Canada and Quebec must confront not only the domestic establishment but the paramount power of the American empire. For both peoples, national self-determination and socialism are inter-related goals, neither of which can be achieved without the other."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Nelson-Creston on a point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very serious precedent which is being set here, if we're going to disregard the rule of anticipation in this Legislature. I think there should be some ruling. Are you ruling that that line of debate is in order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair has said that while broad discussion would be in order, we are not going to allow or permit a detailed discussion. The member for Central Fraser Valley has been cautioned. You rise on a point of order. I subsequently caution the member for Central Fraser Valley once again that detailed discussion is not permitted at this point. With that, I ask the member for Central Fraser Valley to continue.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I would like your guidance here. As I indicated, I am responding directly to the invitation of the Leader of the Opposition with respect to the question of a united Canada. If I am not permitted to continue with my remarks — which I have prepared myself for — then I will be glad to take my seat and do so at another time. But, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you give me that direction. This material is all documented; it's available, and it very directly associates itself with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. It's only because of the remarks that he made this morning that I went to the files and dug this up. Had it not been for that, I suppose we'd have had the usual type of debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Prince Rupert on a point of order.

MR. LEA: A solution, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Prince Rupert offers a solution.

MR. LEA: If the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) would ask for leave of the House to withdraw his resolution on the order paper, then we could dispense with that and the member for Central Fraser Valley could then indeed carry on with his speech. I think that would be a solution that the House could accept.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It possibly may be a solution, but it is not a point of order, hon. member. Again, the member for Central Fraser Valley continues on vote 9.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, does that mean that I am not free to respond directly to the invitation of the Leader of the Opposition that...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair has indicated the parameters, of which it advises the member who is presently speaking, and can do no more than caution the member, as it has done, that the debate in detail on the point that the member is currently canvassing is not in order. It may very well be that at a future time, on a future motion, in a wide-ranging debate such comment could be in order, but at this time, under vote 9 — notwithstanding the comments of the Leader of the Opposition — the member speaking must adhere to the rules that bind us in Committee of Supply.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: Would you care to repeat that? It sounds just about your calibre. Why don't you speak up? Say it again.

Mr. Chairman, I take it that I'm not permitted to take the Leader of the Opposition up on his invitation to respond to his remarks in reference to the vote in Quebec — the question of a united Canada. I'm not permitted.... I'm new in this House, Mr. Chairman, and I require your direction, so if I'm not permitted to do so at this time, I will be glad to take my seat and continue with this at another opportunity.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair is not advising the member not to reply to any speech made in this House. The Chair is simply advising the member, at this time, what is and what is not in order under vote 9, and what is currently in the orders of the day presently before the House. There is still wide scope for debate in the Premier's estimates, as has been determined, but not on the matter standing as Motion 2 on the order paper.

MR. RITCHIE: Well, with that then, Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to take my seat and pursue this matter further when the opportunity arises. Thank you very much.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I listened to the member who has just taken his seat, the member for Central Fraser Valley, talk about something called "changing an image." It struck me when I heard that that the only person in this chamber who desires and needs to change an image is that member himself. Every time he makes that attempt, he just confirms what is a fact in the first place. Having run into difficulty with the Chair with respect to the content of his debate, he had to sit down, indicating that he wasn't prepared

[ Page 2022 ]

and not interested in advancing something positive about Canadian unity.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Protect me from that wild man from Kamloops, please, Mr. Chairman. His face is getting red already.

The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), speaking a while ago, said that there were — and proved that there were — two systems of justice prevalent in the province. He used the age-old phrase that there's a law for the rich and a law for the poor, or justice for the rich and justice for the poor — something of that nature. Many of us have known that for a long period of time, and I don't wish to embark in that direction of debate here, although I feel the content of what the first member for Vancouver Centre was saying is right on the mark. There are two systems of justice, I know it. I'm sure you, Mr. Chairman, know it from your personal involvement outside this chamber in the vocation and profession that you follow. I discovered it from the vocation I followed in a different field of endeavour, in the trade union movement. But we know that.

I think what has been proven this afternoon is that there are two systems of justice within the conception of the Social Credit government — two different ideas as to how debate should be developed. Let me advance that. Last evening, when we listened to the Premier make a few remarks before moving that the committee rise, thus ending the debate for the day, he did make a statement that sounded as if he was advocating that people in Quebec vote yes in the referendum. I went this morning to look at the Blues to see whether I had heard him correctly, and when I read the full context of what the Premier said, it was obvious from that that he was not advocating that people vote yes; it was a slip of the tongue on his part, an inappropriate phrase about the referendum that's to take place in Quebec. I was pleased that the Premier dealt with that this afternoon and corrected what might have been an erroneous impression. I was pleased to hear the Premier do that and clear the record, because 1, like other members in this House, wish to see this country, within which I was born.... And that's neither here nor there, just a simple fact of life. I had no choice in that matter; it happened.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: A long time ago.

MR. HOWARD: The only thing that's a long time ago is the mentality of the small-business minister over there who keeps interrupting. If you, Mr. Chairman, were as assiduous in enforcing the rules about interruptions of that nature from the government side as you have been for members on our side, we'd have a much better system here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HOWARD: What I'm getting to, Mr. Chairman, is that it's neither here nor there where one was born — one resides here, one is here.

But I was pleased that the Premier made that correction, because by making that correction and by making it clear, he did advance the interests of all of us who want to see Canada remain intact as a country. I was pleased too with the statements he made following that, because the Premier was talking about Canadian unity. I was also pleased with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, whose position in this matter, as it has been enunciated by others, has never altered over the years — an impassioned speech from the heart about his feeling for what is Canada and what we should try to do about it in maintaining it together.

I was pleased, as other members on this side of the House were, with the prospect before us of having a unanimous view expressed by this chamber, by this Legislature, of having a unified declaration made representing all of our views in concert, one with the other, about the need to maintain Canada together. I had the feeling — and I'm sure other hon. members did too — that when the Leader of the Opposition sat down, we would be embarking upon one of those rare events in this chamber: speaking in a single voice. What a rude shock we got when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), the bile building up in his gut and spewing out with that kind of degrading partisan speech, indicated that he for one is not interested in developing a unified voice within this Legislature about Canadian unity, but is interested in causing hard feelings, carrying on an attack of a personal nature, an attack based upon absolutely inaccurate information, repeating over and over again something which is false, and by that repetition hoping to make it true. He thus pulls down the level of debate that we might have expected to have about this very fundamental question of Canadian unity and maintaining Canada in its current form and looking countless years into the future to see it develop for ourselves and our children.

When the motion with respect to this subject matter comes up for debate, I'm sure there will be no difficulty on this side of the chamber about having a respectful, considerate and thoughtful contribution to make to that debate. I would hope that the Premier would have a discussion with his Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and his Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who repeated the same thing, and other ministers on that side, and lay down the law and say: "Look, we're seeking unity in this chamber about this subject matter. Put aside your partisan differences. Here's one issue, one item when we want to be together, united, and exhibit to all of Canada the fact that we all in British Columbia are vitally concerned about keeping this country together."

We have two systems of justice. We have two systems of dealing with debate as far as government is concerned, apparently. We have two ideas as to questions asked and proposals put forward. One idea is that of the government, advanced yesterday by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), who said he would like to write out the questions that we in the opposition should ask — that we should clear them, basically. That's a type of approach. The other approach is the one that we want to put forward, which says no, we're not interested in government advancing to us the subject matter as to what should be asked and what should be dealt with. The only thing the government is interested in, in terms of what it identifies as something called constructive criticism, is something that will endorse whatever government's doing. If we go in that direction, they say that's fine. If we are critical, we must be, because there are thousands of people in this province who are also critical and who want and need to have the matters raised and dealt with.

I want to make a preliminary remark, if I might, Mr. Chairman, about something that I raised earlier and that the Premier responded to during these estimates. It relates to the agreement that the Premier signed on behalf of the province,

[ Page 2023 ]

also signed on behalf of the government of Canada by Otto Lang on April 18, 1977, relating to the ferry system and coastal transportation. The Premier said that that was a good deal. He identified it as getting onto first base. He used phrases like: "We didn't bat a home run this time, but we got onto first base and we're there." Using that analogy, the only reason the Premier got on first base — if he did get on first base — was that he got hit in the head by a bean ball thrown by Otto Lang, a curve ball that caught him. It looks like he'll be on first base for the rest of his tenure of office.

Here's the document. This is what was signed. Let's read what the Premier signed away. First, "the agreement shall be for a five-year period," from 1977. And "it shall be reviewed on the fifth anniversary of its execution." That's 1982. Now, if I were the Premier, or if the Premier would do this by himself.... One, having admitted that he got taken by the feds; and two, recognizing that Otto Lang, that sharpie from Saskatchewan, is no longer there as a negotiator, realizing that the federal government wants desperately to build its forces in this province, I think the Premier should go back to the federal government right now, if he hasn't already, and say: "Look, can we reopen that agreement? It's a bad deal." Admit that he made a mistake when he signed it — that's what I think the Premier should do. Maybe he's done it already. Maybe he has already realized the error of his ways and has already communicated with the federal government asking them to reopen the agreement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Never. Bill would never do that; he's too stubborn.

MR. HOWARD: Well, he might. He might, because it's not a very good agreement for British Columbia. In the first place it's subject to review in the fifth year. What's subject to review in the fifth year, Mr. Chairman? The whole agreement? No, just "the appropriateness of the index used as a basis for calculating adjustments to the annual subsidy." That's all. Now what's the index that they use? The index is a mileage index comprising the mileage across the Strait of Georgia between the lower mainland and Vancouver Island and the mileage between Port Hardy and Prince Rupert. For these purposes they compute that to be 337 statute miles.

Here's another thing the Premier signed away: that that 337 statute miles can only be revised downwards, not upwards. If B.C. Ferries decides to make the northern terminus of that route to the north coast, say, Stewart instead of Prince Rupert, is there any provision in this agreement to revise that index upwards? No. The Premier signed it all away. It said: "It is further understood and agreed that the statute miles herein stated shall constitute the maximum mileage and that there may be downward adjustments." Never upwards. That's what he did.

It also said: "The province shall assume sole responsibility for the subsidizations that may be required of the ferry, coastal freight and passenger services in those waters of British Columbia." Then they enumerate where the federal subsidy is to be and talk about the cancellation of the subsidy to Northland and the like.

Clause 2 of part 4, which is what the Premier committed himself to, said: "The province agrees" — remember, this is the B.C. Ferry Corporation — "with the federal government that it will assure reasonable and adequate service and appropriate supervision thereof." What happened to that "reasonable and adequate service" on the north coast of British Columbia right now? What happened in January with that "reasonable and adequate service" which the Premier put his name to? It's gone — all for the purposes of satisfying Boeing corporation and the jetfoil, all for the purposes of satisfying Sam Bawlf and one of his dreams, all for the purposes of manipulating ferry service to give an advantage to certain vested interests here in the lower part of Vancouver Island and in Seattle. As a consequence, we don't have any ferry service into Prince Rupert right now. I don't know when we'll have it. But the Premier signed that document saying that it will assure "reasonable and adequate service and appropriate supervision thereof."

That's what his signature means on a document: he'll break it at the first opportunity when it suits the convenience of anybody else. He's also, in this agreement, signed away, Mr. Chairman, forever, by this phrase — "that Canada shall be relieved of any and all obligations for the provision of subsidy or other financial assistance over and above the subsidy provided in this agreemen...." Written away and signed away forever! Is that what the Premier calls a good deal?

He did say, as well, once having gotten his foot on first base: "Oh, yes, we didn't get as much money as they get on the east coast; we didn't do as well as they do on the east coast about this, but we got to first base." What happens on the east coast with respect to subventions and subsidies from the federal government to services there? Just take what they call the CN marine transportation system. There are seven services out there subsidized. The total amount of the subsidy, Mr. Chairman, is $118 million to one company on the east coast. The total cost to CN of providing that particular service is $150 million, and of that total cost the federal government provides a subsidy of $118 million — a far cry from the $18 million the Premier was so anxious to grab when that agreement was waved in front of his nose.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

There is another $12 million on top of that to what they call "local operators" on smaller runs, feeder runs and that sort of thing. Things like that were provided in the agreement that the Premier signed. There's a subsidy to the Nootka Sound Service Ltd., the Kyuquot Freight Services Ltd., the Ahousat Freight Services Ltd. and smaller routes, smaller operators. On the east coast small operators like that get a $12 million subsidy to keep their ships in operation and provide a service to those people. Mr. Chairman, it's not a question of trying to rewrite history, as the accusation of the Premier indicated. It's a question of trying to represent the views of people in Stewart, Kincolith, in Kitkatla and people in coastal communities all up and down the north coast who lost a shipping service.

The Premier guaranteed that they will lose it forever by signing that sellout agreement. If I were him, I would certainly hang my head in shame about that, and I would go back to Ottawa — if he hasn't done it already — and say: "Look, we blew it. We made a mistake. How about revising this so we can get a fair shake out of you guys before the five years are up?" Those five years are up in 1982, Mr. Chairman, a couple of years from now. It may well be that we'll be in the midst of or through a provincial election by that time, in which case the present Premier won't have the opportunity to go back and represent British Columbia in trying to revise that agreement. Somebody else will have the opportunity to

[ Page 2024 ]

do it, and no matter who it is, they'll make a better deal than he did. Somebody who may not even be in the cabinet could go back, somebody brand new to politics with no sense about negotiations at all could look a deal straight in the face and realize it's possible to make a better deal than the one the Premier made.

Mr. Chairman, he may decide to reply to that and he may not. That's neither here nor there. We know that the Premier picks and chooses the questions he wants to answer and discards the ones he doesn't want to answer. Every time he puts to one side a valid question that's in order and refuses to answer it, it it leaves our sense of responsible government and democracy a little bit lessened thereby. It's a little bit less than it was the day before.

He refused to answer with respect to uranium in Europe. He refused to answer with respect to the communication from Etienne Reuter concerning what took place at a particular meeting. He refused to answer a series of questions about the jetfoil. He refused to answer questions posed by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) about justice matters. He refused to answer questions relating to the operation of the Social Credit campaign fund structure out of the Premier's office. Where else do we go in terms of refusal to answer questions? Even if the Premier would stand up, Mr. Chairman, and say, "I can't tell you the answer to that," or, "I'm not going to tell you the answer to that," or even if he would hide behind the rules of the House which say that a minister does not have to answer. That would be better than sitting in dumb silence and refusing to even acknowledge the fact that legitimate questions exist. Maybe that's his style and his manner.

It doesn't help the course of debate; it doesn't help the progress with respect to the estimates of the Premier's office. It certainly doesn't help the sense of responsible government that has been struggled for and fought for for decades and, indeed, centuries, commencing in England and then inherited by those of us in this country and developed over decades in this country. It doesn't help that understanding of responsible government and what it means. It demeans the process. It demeans the concept of responsible government to ignore legitimate, proper questions.

There's one question I need to repeat. The Premier may not remember it from yesterday, busy as he is with very important matters of state, but it had to do with the disclosure by a person working in his office, paid by the general public, paid by the taxpayers whether voluntarily or involuntarily — it doesn't matter; he was employed. He was chosen by the Premier, hired by the Premier, and paid out of funds voted by this Legislature. He was a public servant who disclosed that there was at least one secret bank account belonging to the Social Credit Party. It did not belong to the Premier's office. It was not public business; it was private business. At the moment that became public knowledge, at the moment that this public servant in the Premier's office disclosed that he was running two functions — that he was operating public business on one side and political party business on the other — the Premier had an obligation to examine what was taking place within his office.

AN HON. MEMBER: Unless he already knew.

MR. HOWARD: I would give the Premier the benefit of the doubt, that he did not know what was going on in his office prior to that time. There's very little concern now what goes on there. But I give him the benefit of the doubt, that he did not know what was going on prior to Mr. Tozer disclosing that secret campaign funds were being handled through the Premier's office.

Once it was disclosed, once the Premier heard about it, any responsible officer of government, any responsible minister — especially the first minister — would have said to the people working in his office: "What's going on here? Tell me about this. What do you mean, a secret fund, that you, Mr. Tozer, have authority over? Where is the secret fund? Where did it come from? What's it used for? Who were the signing officers?" Any responsible person would have done that. Did the Premier do that? Did he go to Mr. Tozer and say: "Mr. Tozer...."? Maybe they were on informal terms; maybe he called him by his first name, Tony. Maybe he said: "Look, Tony, you and I have known each other for a long time. What's going on here? What's this business about these secret funds?" Did the Premier do something like that?

While Hansard cannot visually record what's taking place, I think the written record should perhaps show that the Premier is ignoring the whole thing; he is talking with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) — obviously about something important, but he's completely ignoring the question. By ignoring the question he's in effect saying: "It ain't none of your business." Now he can say that to me as a person — that's fine. We're here as peers, although being a peer of the Premier becomes a bit revolting at times in consciousness. But we are here as peers; he doesn't have to reply to me.

It just happens that, because of the parliamentary process that we have, people cast ballots and elect a number of MLAs to be their representatives and to try to voice the questions for which the people back home want answers. So the Premier can tell me that it's none of my business, and I'll accept that. But when he ignores this basic question, as he is now doing, he's telling people all over this province that it's none of their business that he had a man working in his office whose salary was paid for by the taxpayer, and that that man was mixing together private and party business. The Premier is telling the general public that that particular subject matter is none of their business. Did the Premier inquire how long those funds had been in existence, and how much money had come in and gone out and for what purpose? I think the record in Hansard needs to show that the Premier is again ignoring that question; he's in conversation — laughingly now — with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) — obviously about very important business, but this is important business too. By ignoring that particular question, the Premier is again telling the people of B.C. that it isn't any of their business. "Sure, you, the general public," the Premier is saying, "paid for Mr. Tozer's salary, but it's none of your business what he was doing while he was in my office."

I see, Mr. Chairman, that you're drawing my attention to the fact that my time has expired. Perhaps I'll have an opportunity to listen to the Premier reply to these questions. I have a couple more questions that follow along from that.

MR. BARBER: It's some mystery, I suppose, to some people, why the Premier refuses to answer questions about the involvement of his office and his party in the peculiar activities of the last campaign and the several months on either side of it, wherein it is alleged things were done that shouldn't have been done perhaps contrary to the Election

[ Page 2025 ]

Act and certainly contrary to a political ethic that should be honoured by the political leadership of this province. Some people wonder why he won't answer. Some people are asking: "If he doesn't answer, what's he got to hide?" Some people are wondering, if a man refuses to reply to questions about his own political conduct, what he's trying to cover up. These are questions being asked by many people in British Columbia today; they've been asked by this opposition for, I guess, almost three weeks during the course of the Premier's estimates. I said some time ago that before the Premier expects us to pay him for next year we want to find out what he did with the money we gave him last year. It's as simple, straightforward, clear and traditional a position as we could possibly take.

Last year eight people appointed directly or indirectly by the Premier resigned under curious circumstances or were fired for curious reasons. Eight people took a dive for Social Credit last year. Eight people carried the can for Social Credit in this province last year and lost their jobs because of it. Why did they do that? You'd think that the leader of Social Credit might want to explain; after all, it's his record that's in jeopardy, not anybody else's. You'd think that the leader of a party that had eight people lose their careers and resign or be fired in disgrace would be concerned that his party not also fall into disgrace by misapprehension of the facts. So we have now for day after day after day asked the Premier to apprehend us correctly of the facts as he sees them. Why were they fired? Why did they resign? Who forged those letters? Who arranged that letter-writing campaign? Who was clipping newspapers in the Alexis Building? What did all those guys do in the Premier's office? What did they do on the Premier's instructions?

I will freely admit, Mr. Chairman, that there is an ancient tradition in British law. Briefly it is this: no man can be called to testify against himself. That's an honourable precept of British law; no man can ever be required to testify in his own case, and in fact any number of people, presumably guilty of some offence or another, have often found refuge in that British principle of common law — no man can be called to testify against himself. Accordingly such people find refuge in silence. The American tradition — as usual, different than our own — nonetheless finds some respect for, and pays it to, the same principle. The American tradition has a fifth amendment which requires simply that no man can be required himself to incriminate himself in any matter before the courts. Once again people in that system take refuge in silence when, were they called and cross-examined and required to testify on oath, they might be embarrassed by the outcome.

I don't know what the Premier is or is not guilty of in regard to contraventions, say, of the Election Act, but I do know this: the longer he remains silent the more he is condemned by the people of British Columbia. The longer he refuses to answer questions, the more questions are raised about what actually happened in his office during the last campaign and subsequent to it. The longer this Premier finds refuge in the fifth amendment principle, the more often people will ask: "What's he trying to hide? What's he trying to cover up? What would he rather not say at all in order to avoid saying anything that might finally prove to be embarrassing?"

If the Premier knew nothing about secret trust funds and those who donated to them, let him stand up and say so plainly and clearly, and let him as well advise us who did know and how it was that in his office they could get away with putting together trust funds in the apparent value of a quarter of a million dollars without his knowledge. What kind of an office is he running if he doesn't know about these things? What sort of maladministration can he be criticized for if he is unaware of these activities? Nonetheless, perhaps he would rather be criticized for maladministration than for malfeasance — and if he doesn't know the difference between the two words I'll explain it. Presuming that he does know the difference. perhaps he's chosen instead simply to be criticized for being an incompetent administrator who doesn't know what his own staff are doing. If that is his defence, let him plead guilty to such incompetence and let him as well tell us what he surely must have found out some time ago. Who were the signing officers" What moneys did they spend? For what purposes did they spend it? Did they do so knowing that they were contravening the Election Act? How did they raise the money? From whom was it raised, when was it raised and what political promises were made at the time of its raising?

It's true that in the British system no man can be compelled to testify against himself, and indeed, today the opposition cannot compel the Premier to testify to these matters. We have no force in law to do that. We do have the ability to ask the questions again and again. We do have the opportunity to put the people's business, as we see it — perhaps wrongly, perhaps rightly — but nonetheless as we see it, forward again and again until the Premier informs us of one or two things: one, that he will not answer any questions about dirty tricks, taking refuge in silence for whatever reason; or two, that he will answer questions honestly and forthrightly.

We've put questions — repeatedly — about the secret trust funds and about the obvious contravention of the Election Act by people in his office. It would be understandable if people with no great political experience working actively in a campaign for, say, their very first time inadvertently contravened the Election Act. I'm sure there are members of our party who have done it, I'm sure there are members of every party who've done it. New, naive, inexperienced and uninformed people might well have, in some inadvertent and innocent way, contravened the act. I don't doubt it for a moment. In apolitical campaign literally thousands of people mobilize their energies and their convictions to work for a political object. They do so for no pay — well, at least in our party — and they do so for no reward other than the pleasure of seeing people in whom they have confidence putting forward their ideas and their policies.

If the people who arranged the trust funds, if the people who collected the money, and if the people who spent the money were politically naive, then it might be understandable that a contravention of the Election Act occurred in this province. But the point is, the people who were apparently responsible for that illegal collection and illegal distribution of funds were not naive at all. One of them was a former cabinet minister of the government of British Columbia. So the defence of innocence also fails. Compared to the Premier's current defence of silence, it doesn't fail quite as miserably. Nonetheless, neither of them is any defence at all.

The Premier may not feel obliged to tell us who was responsible for those trust funds operating contrary to law in his own office, but we feel obliged to ask about it. If the Premier, for instance, Mr. Chairman, decides not to answer, one could reasonably ask whether or not this very day those secret trust funds are still in existence, still being collected

[ Page 2026 ]

for, and still being handled, possibly contrary to the provisions of the Election Act of the province of British Columbia. Are those trust funds out of business now? Has the Social Credit Party cleaned up its act? Are they now handling political donations in strict accordance to the law in this province? Or is someone in the Premier's office still bagging money and spending it a thousand-dollar bill at a time?

The defence of innocence is not credible. The defence of silence condemns the man who adopts it. The man who has adopted it in this province is the Premier himself, who won't give plain, straight, simple answers to perfectly straightforward questions. So because he may have forgotten the questions, let me say them again. Who collected the money for the trust funds? Were they on the public payroll when they did so? Did they report to you, Mr. Premier? Were they instructed by you to set up the trust funds in order to avoid the scrutiny of the law, and the scrutiny of your own party? What was the money spent on? Who did it come from? What political promises, if any, were made at the time of its collecting?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Waaugh!

MR. BARBER: "Waaugh," the Premier says; the best answer we've got out of him so far is: "Waaugh." These are legitimate questions. You may not care to provide legitimate answers, but we're going to ask them again and again.

The Premier seems to think that he can outlast, out-tough and out-stubborn the opposition. The Premier seems to think that his silence alone will finally browbeat us into giving up, and that appears to have been his political strategy for the last three weeks. But he's wrong. There are 26 of us. We've got a lot of energy, a lot of questions, and we've got a lot of time. If the Premier thinks that he can simply outlast the opposition by remaining silent in reply to our questions, he has badly misjudged who we are, what we stand for, and what we're concerned about.

So let me repeat it. We're concerned about these things. We're concerned that no one in the Premier's office contravened the Election Act. We don't believe the defense of innocence, because these were not naive persons who were working in the Premier's office; these were persons with considerable political experience. We want to know why eight people were fired, or made to resign, under a black cloud that will hurt their careers — in the best circles — for years to come. We want to know why they quit. We want to know what they really did.

I'd like the Premier to tell us who in his office forged the Townsend letters. Did Ron Grieg? You asked him. What did he tell you in reply? Did he also — following someone else's example — adopt a defence of silence? Was that Ron Grieg's reply? He took the fifth amendment. It's a heck of a thing for a employee of the Premier to do, but until the Premier tells us, it is only reasonable to conclude that that might have happened. After all, there is no other explanation coming forward. I'll say it for the fourth time. The defence of innocence is not credible. The Premier cannot pretend that the people in his office accidentally, naively and innocently made a few mistakes. They were not political naifs. They were people with political experience spanning years and years in this province. They probably knew, or thought they knew, what they were doing. Did the Premier know what they were doing? Did the Premier know who was forging the letters, writing the phony letters, circulating the letters? Did Sheila Schneider know? Maybe the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) can tell us that. Did Sheila Schneider have anything to do with the letter-writing committees in the minister's riding? He blushes. Yes, your see-through pate is blushing. I shouldn't joke about the minister's pate.

These are questions that have been asked again and again, by no means just by the opposition. They've been asked by people on hotline shows and in legitimate letters to the editor. They've been asked by members of the media. They've been asked by members of the Social Credit Party who've come to us and said: "What's been going on? I belong to a party which once had principles and now we have Liberals." There's one laughing now. "I belong to a party that once honoured political tradition and now breaks it. Our party, I'm ashamed to admit," they say, "won't even work nights." So on behalf of disgruntled Socreds, as well as on behalf of the media, who also cannot get answers from the Premier, and certainly on behalf of the New Democratic Party, we ask a few questions.

I'd like to go to a few others as well right now — not just the involvement of the Premier's office and the dirty tricks and the forgeries and the letters and the secret trust funds, and all of the political bagmanship with which Social Credit has traditionally been associated in this province, but also the Premier's meddling involvement in the jetfoil service. A couple of days ago I tried to describe a pattern of events. Let me briefly restate it.

As early as 1974 the Boeing corporation of Seattle, for perfectly sound reasons, attempted to market its jetfoil in the Pacific Northwest. As part of that attempt they put on an experimental run, the first in a series over a period of years. As the result of those experimental runs it was determined by our government — and, indeed, originally by that government — that the jetfoil was not economic. To say it is not economic is not to say that it's technologically unsound, or even unfit for babies and tourists; it's simply to say that it's not economic. If it were economic, Mr. Chairman, I can only conclude that smart business people some time ago would have found a way to put it into service. After all, they're there to make a buck.

I don't quarrel with that, as long as it's an honest buck. I have no objection at all. Genuine free enterprise is something which I personally and strongly support, and so does my party. An honest buck is a fine thing and there's no problem earning it. I'm sure that could it be earned on a jetfoil service, it would have been earned some time ago. The vessel was available. The corporation was willing. The route was evident and the market was potential. However, for six years at least, the Boeing corporation has failed to persuade business people that it was economic to run a jetfoil service from Victoria to Seattle. Why is that? Chiefly, I think, because that service could not compete with the Marguerite. Why was that? Because the Marguerite has charm and character, a special nostalgia, a special sentiment and a special ambience that people enjoy when they travel on it. That's why the Marguerite has succeeded. That's why the CPR put it there. That's why the NDP saved it. That's how it worked — until this year.

This year Boeing corporation has had done for it — by an overly generous Premier — three great favours. It is a matter of indisputable record that the jetfoil was not previously economic — otherwise business would have introduced it years ago. You have to ask: what has changed in order to make it economic? As far as we can tell, the only thing that

[ Page 2027 ]

has changed is that this government scuttled the Princess Marguerite under false pretences.

The first great favour they did for the Boeing corporation was to remove its competition. They got rid of the Princess Marguerite under false pretences. They told us it wasn't safe for babies and tourists. Unfortunately, the Premier didn't tell his own mother. She sailed on the ship on October 5 last year together with the Skillings family, and I'm sure they had a good time. So apparently, last October it was safe for the Premier's mother; but apparently in January, when the announcement was made, it had suddenly become unsafe for babies and tourists, to say nothing of the Premier's mother.

The government's claim that the ship is unsafe is untrue. It is simply, patently false. The ship is not going to be sliding into the water. Its plates are not going to be buckling. No great gouge will suddenly appear in the side and the ship go tumbling under the waves. Of course, you needn't take our word for it. We don't expect you to do that, now or ever. That's fair enough, we wouldn't take your word for such things either.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Fred, Barney and Bam-Bam over there aren't marine experts either.

However, the Edwardson & Co. report — have you read it? — says on page 4: "Nothing in this report should be construed as to suggest that the vessel is unfit for her present service." Don't believe the NDP if you don't wish to; that's fair enough. But you might believe your own marine consultant, Fred. The government's claim that the Marguerite is"unsafe for babies and tourists" is false. However, it has been the basis, at least in part, of their decision to scrap it.

Once again, I refer to the public comments made by the former Minister of Transport, Mr. Davis, who on "The Jack Webster Show" said that he didn't think the Marguerite wasunsafe at all; the issue was not the safety of the vessel. The member will certainly contradict me if I misquote him, but I quoted him earlier and he said I was quoting him correctly. The first Socred minister responsible for the Marguerite — and an honourable man — said: "The vessel is not unsafe. The problem with the Marguerite is the obsolescence of its engines." That's a fair criticism. They're old, they may well be obsolete by modern standards. Fair enough. In that case you replace the engines; you don't scrap the ship.

Nonetheless, the Boeing corporation has had three great favours done for it this year. First of all, the government scrapped its only competition, the Princess Marguerite, and attempted to do so under false pretences. I want to advise the Premier, however, that it has not succeeded. The people of Victoria, the people in my own riding, most certainly — ask Sam Bawlf — don't believe your government's claim. They are not convinced. They don't buy it. You overstated your case. You overplayed your hand. You exaggerated to the point that no one believed you. If it was only a slight exaggeration, maybe people would have accepted it. But you tried to go too far. You tried to tell them the ship was unsafe for babies and tourists, and no one believed you. You cried Bawlf too often. That's the first great favour: goodbye to the competition for the jetfoil.

The second great favour done for the Boeing corporation of the United States of America was the decision by the government, proudly announced by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) — but he doesn't talk about it much anymore and I don't blame him — that the vessel Queen of Prince Rupert would be an adequate substitute for the vessel Marguerite. What a joke. A vessel that currently carries 387 passengers, the government would have us believe, is an adequate replacement for a ship that carried 1,800 and was, I believe, licensed by the coast guard to carry 2,000 at maximum. Who on earth is going to believe the Minister of Finance that a ship that carries 387 can replace a ship that carries 2,000? Even by the Socred A plus B theories of Major Douglas, that don't add up. It makes you worry a bit, does it not, that it's the Minister of Finance who tells us 387 equals 2,000?

Nonetheless, they would have us believe that two trips a day plus the jetfoil might make up for the difference.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: I read your statement of January 31; I've got it on my desk.

They also told us that the problem of it being an endloading vessel with a side-loading dock could somehow be solved. Well, the problem has not been solved and they're abandoning that notion, which means they're abandoning the tourist buses and the automobiles. There is more evidence of total chaos in Socred planning and marine policies, more evidence of promises they can't keep, because they were totally absurd to begin with — converting the ship from an end-loader to a side-loader for the summer, and then you have to convert it back again because the board of B.C. Ferries tells you to do so. What an absurd way to do the people's business. But that's what they did, and that was the second great favour the Premier did for the Boeing corporation.

First of all, he gets rid of the competition, called the Marguerite, underfalse pretences. Now the jetfoil can theoretically compete. Secondly, he replaces the Marguerite with a hopelessly inadequate — may I say it? — little bucket, that has none of the charm or character, none of the class or style that the Princess Marguerite has always had. The Rupert is a wonderful vessel on its own run. To say the least, it is lamentably inadequate on the Victoria-to-Seattle run.

Interjection.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. BARBER: They're downgrading it into a hopeless little bucket. In its current form it's a lovely ship, but after you get through renovating it, it is going to be a hopeless little bucket. Do I make myself clear? After you get through fixing it up, you will have turned it into a hopeless little bucket.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Have you seen the plans for the Rupert, Mr. Minister? After you get through with it, you will have turned it into a hopeless little bucket that cannot compete with the jetfoil, because that appears to have been the second great favour done for Boeing.

MR. KING: They're going to use it as one of the spans in the fixed link.

MR. BARBER: They're going to use it as one of the

[ Page 2028 ]

spans in the fixed link, my colleague from ShuswapRevelstoke says. It may well be true. Nonetheless, that's the second great favour.

The third: a secret meeting which took place in the Premier's office on March 13 of this year — a secret meeting between the Premier and certain businessmen invited to make a deal. We've asked repeatedly why the Premier saw fit to meddle. For instance, why didn't the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) call the meeting? I'm sure they would have attended. Why wasn't the meeting held in public? I'm sure we would have attended. Why weren't the people of Victoria consulted? I'm sure they would have attended. But, no, that's not the Socred way of doing things. They prefer to do their business in secret and hope that we never find out.

Well, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) discovered yesterday that we eventually do find out all these things. This government is a sieve, Mr. Chairman, and every unpopular thing they do is speedily reported to the opposition. I don't know how we find out so many things, but I do know that it occurs. The government is a sieve, because some of its own supporters are so discontented with the maladministration of Social Credit that they're blabbing to New Democrats regularly, often and sometimes daily.

So we know that the meeting took place, and we know who was there — we think. We may have missed one or two, but we've got a pretty good idea. We think we know what the Premier said, but we want to know for sure, because after all, why go on gossip when you can get it straight from the Premier's mouth — that is, if the Premier will talk. But once again, he seems to follow the British defence and the American fifth amendment of silence. He won't tell us why he called the meeting, who attended or what deals were made. We can only presume he won't tell us because he doesn't want us to know. Surely that's logical and perfectly rational. He won't say because he doesn't want us to hear.

We suspect there's another reason. We suspect it's because representatives of Boeing Co. met with him sometime earlier and asked for the three great favours. Sure enough, some time later the three great favours were delivered to this great American corporation. First of all, they scrapped the Marguerite; secondly, they replaced it with the Prince Rupert; and thirdly, they put public money up front to finance a jetfoil.

Lo and behold, Mr. Chairman, the jetfoil has now been made artificially economic. It never was before. If it had been, business would have done it before. But they didn't, because they couldn't. It wasn't economic until the Premier intervened. Now it is economic.

The argument, I think, is self-evident, and the logic is straightforward. If it were not so, the business people of Victoria, who are a very able lot — and I have great respect for many of them — would have found a good, quick way to make a good, quick buck some time ago. But they couldn't make the money on the jetfoil, because they couldn't compete with the Marguerite. So the government did them a favour and scrapped the Marguerite; did them another favour and replaced it with a ship which they are going to turn into a hopeless little bucket, which cannot possibly compete with the Marguerite; and thirdly, have apparently put up $50,000 at the first meeting from the B.C. Development Corporation.

We also have to ask the Premier what authority he has to make commitments for BCDC. Gosh, I remember some years ago he stood up in this House and said: "Things have changed. No more political interference with Crown corporations. They decide for themselves. And we're appointing the best business people we can to govern them. No more political interference under Social Credit." They would have had us believe that. Well, I think Robbie Sherrell knows better now, and so do we. We know that you meddled in the affairs of BCDC. We know that you put together a secret deal at a secret meeting in your office on March 13. We suspect we know why you did it.

However, having made the same comments 48 hours ago, and having seen the Premier lapse into his usual defense of silence, we invite him once more to take his rightful place in the debate and answer questions.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: He's not stunned by anything except his own inertia. We ask him to answer these questions, and others that have been put forward. Let me conclude....

MR. LEA: Who let Fred out of the quarry?

AN HON. MEMBER: We're stunned by your brilliance.

MR. BARBER: Fred, Bam-Bam and Rocky are stunned by the arguments of the opposition, and I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. They may be aware of the consequence of what would happen if the Premier ever answered any of these straight questions with a perfectly straight reply. We welcome his replies now or anytime in the future, as this debate rolls on.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, we have posed a number of questions that could be thoughtfully answered very quickly, and I think it would be useful to get on with the business of the House if the Premier would indicate an answer to an even more elementary question: does he intend to answer any questions during his estimates? I mean, can we have an indication of how the Premier wants his estimates handled? Does he intend to answer any questions? Mr. Chairman, here we are again, 4:30....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Five-thirty.

MR. BARRETT: Five-thirty — give him an extra hour. No answers — a day of debate, and still no answers.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

HON. MR. ROGERS: Adjourned debate on Bill 7.

SPECIAL FUNDS ACT, 1980

(continued)

MR. LEA: Start with the Annacis crossing.

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, hon. member, if you recall, I believe I dealt with the Annacis crossing some time ago.

[ Page 2029 ]

Mr. Speaker, Bill 7 is the Special Funds Act. Several things have been said about B.C. Place by the members opposite during discussion on Bill 7. One was said by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), which I think he'll rue and regret. He should probably publicly apologize to the people to whom he made the remark. He made some very uncomplimentary remarks about Mr. Narod and other people involved in B.C. Place.

MR. BARRETT: Who said that?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, your first member for Vancouver Centre, and if you read the Blues and see what he said, you too might be embarrassed at what he had to say.

One of the other comments, which was made by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), went on at length about the fact that we are building a palace for Americans to come and play football and baseball. I wonder how you get away with that in your own caucus. It seems to me that one of those gentlemen that came to this country to play football stayed and remained to go on as a member of the Legislature, and in fact sits not very far from you. Nonetheless, you seem to oppose the idea that people from different countries should be able to cross the line and perform in sports.

I want to tell you about some of the things that are going to happen in the amphitheatre. Not only will the amphitheatre be able to accommodate 60,000 people, it will accommodate soccer, basketball, in all probability hockey — it's one of the things that's been proposed to us; certainly we're looking at the possibility of an ice surface in the facility — baseball, football, indoor rodeos, circuses, boat shows, religious meetings, car shows, and the one that I would least like to attend, rock concerts — nonetheless it's one of those things that people like.

People have said to me: "Why are we building this facility? After all, it's not something utilized by people throughout British Columbia." But a recent survey by the Pacific National Exhibition of people attending Empire Stadium indicated that 40 percent of the people attending were from outside the lower mainland and were staying in Vancouver either with family or in hotels and motels. When you consider the relative population base of the lower mainland, it's fair to say that Empire Stadium — limited though it may be — has sufficient drawing power to bring people from throughout the province. If you talk to the people in Seattle on the success of the Kingdome, they'll also advise you that Canadians make up a substantial portion of the people that go to the Kingdome, because they like the facility. They find it acceptable to know that they're not going to be out in the elements in the middle of winter when they go to watch a football game.

We think back to Empire Stadium, which was a temporary structure, constructed in 1953, and several members have said it was unnecessary. I find that amusing because at the same time I thought of the Queen Elizabeth Theatre, which was built not that many years ago. There were people then who said it was unnecessary, that it was a waste of government money. If you think back, what we had in this province before the Queen Elizabeth Theatre was the Georgia Auditorium, which is down around the area where the Bayshore Hotel is. I was thinking, can you imagine having Frank Augustyn and Karen Kain come to Vancouver to perform in the Georgia Auditorium? There's no question about it that the Queen Elizabeth was a worthwhile venture. I don't think anybody questions the restoration of the Orpheum Theatre as a home for the VSO. I wonder if members question the aquarium in Stanley Park, which is a facility in the city of Vancouver...

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I thought the Premier had a chance to speak on this bill. Maybe he'll get a chance later.

...to which people from throughout the province go, and, of course, the Museum of Anthropology at the University of British Columbia, which is a facility in Vancouver and again is used by people throughout the province.

British Columbia Place is going to work in conjunction with the Urban Transit Authority. In fact, if it wasn't for British Columbia Place the progress of rapid transit in the city of Vancouver would be greatly hindered because....

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: That's quite correct, and I'll tell you why, hon. member, because you seem to express some interest in the matter. The properties include the Vancouver and Lulu Island Railway line, better known as the Arbutus Corridor — which is owned by Canadian Pacific Railway. That's one of the properties being acquired by British Columbia Place. So is the Dunsmuir Tunnel. Neither are required for Transpo and neither are required for B.C. Place, but both are required by the UTA and the UTA desperately wants both. So the people of British Columbia Place have met with the people from the UTA. We have determined that when they have selected the routes and the rail lines that they want for the urban transit program, then, and only then, will we confirm the final site for the amphitheatre.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, hon. member, they couldn't have been obtained otherwise, because if the space was not acquired from the CPR, then those lines would be necessary for the maintenance of the freight yards that exist in the case, and one overlaps the other. The Dunsmuir Tunnel was required by the CPR because the lands we are using are used for general warehousing; unless we acquire the lands they are still going to need the tunnel. So the acquisition of the Kitsilano trestle and the Dunsmuir Tunnel are contingent on B.C. Place. As it turns out we have no use for those lands but the UTA desperately needs those lands, so it's a very worthwhile swap. In fact, if anything, B.C. Place will expedite the construction of rapid transit in the city of Vancouver, and very much so. In fact, the only restricting factor in the location of the amphitheatre in Vancouver — and we expect to have it finalized, I think, within 24 hours, but it may be not until the end of the week — is the one restriction on where the UTA would like that line.

I want to talk for a moment about other international expositions: the one in Brussels, the one in Montreal, the one in Osaka, and the one in New York city. They all had only one big drawback; that is, in hindsight the organizers have all agreed that had they given consideration to what they would end up with a year or two after the fair, they might have done some more active forward planning. Brussels, Montreal,

[ Page 2030 ]

Osaka and New York are all connected with the major metropolitan areas via transit but they had no concise plan for what they were going to end up with afterwards. In conjunction with Transpo, and in agreement with the UTA on B.C. Place, we are going to have — and know what we're going to have before we start.... We will know what we'll have in 1987 and 1988 before we finish 1980 and 1981.

The successful World's Fairs and the successful expositions have all been either where they're immediately adjacent to major metropolitan areas or where they've done sufficient forward planning to know what they're going to end up with. That's what we really want to do in B.C. Place. Not only do we want a facility that is covered with seating for 60,000 people; we also want to have a facility that can be utilized for as many as 500 different events in one year — more than one event per day. We are, at the present time, looking at the possibility — because of the length of the Canadian football field, it changes the viability of the thing from an American point of view, quite frankly — of moveable seats so that two different events can take place in the same structure at the same time. If, for example, you're having an indoor tennis tournament, you move half a bank of seats across and you can have another event on the other side. It's the flexibility of the building that's important.

This building is not being built for the sports set alone. The B.C. Lions, I believe, play 16 or 18 games a year. There would be no point in building any kind of a structure for a group who would only use that. By the time you add the Whitecaps and any possible baseball team.... Hopelessly inadequate. The structure must be for as much as possible.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: No it doesn't, actually. It says: "Do not pass Go; do not collect $200." Now you know the man who owns Boardwalk and Park Place.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I thought it said: "Take a ride on the Reading."

Mr. Speaker, one of the fascinating things about B.C. Place and those of us that are involved in it is the incredible array of proposals that have come forward from a very wide-ranging number of people. It is our mandate and our plan right now to leave the greatest possible degree of flexibility in this structure. Not only can it be utilized day and night, but it can be utilized by as many different groups of people as possible. I wonder if we went back and followed the recommendation of the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), who said we were only building a structure for visiting Americans.... How do the people of the Metropolitan Opera of New York feel when visiting Canadians come down to perform there, or how does the National Ballet Company of Washington, D.C., feel when Canadians go down to perform there? I think those concerns are unfounded.

We are at a point in B.C. Place already where construction has begun to the extent that test holes are being drilled to determine the footings. The matter is going to continue.

As I look at the clock, I would suspect that since the members have established a tradition of adjourning the debate, I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:45 p.m.