[ Page 109 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1964) Amendment Act, 1977. Hon.

Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading — 109

Throne speech debate

Hon. Mr. Mair — 109

Mr. Lea — 116

On the amendment.

Ms. Sanford — 122

Mr. Cocke — 127

TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1977

The House met at 8:35 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER

AUTHORITY (1964) AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1964) Amendment Act, 1977.

Bill 4 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased and honoured to take my place in this debate...

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: ...both pleased and honoured, and being heckled by my own colleagues, particularly on a motion that was so ably moved by my colleague from Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) and so ably seconded by my colleague from Fort George (Mr. Lloyd), who, of course, claims to have in his constituency the largest city in the interior. Of course, he's wrong. (Laughter.)

I would like to join the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) and the Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace) in....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Where are they?

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes, where are they, by the way? I have some remarks to make to them a little later on; maybe they'll be in a little later. I was going to join them, Mr. Member, in wishing you all a very Happy New Year.

I wanted to make particular reference to the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) because I noticed yesterday he was seeking guidance from the Chair again, as usual, concerning the standing orders of the House. I recall that he tragically lost his rule book last year. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: I have another copy, Mr. Speaker. I would be very pleased to let the hon. member have one.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, I was thinking, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps it would not breach the etiquette of the House if I were to lob it at him.

I must say also, Mr. Speaker, that I see that the opposition's legal advice concerning motions is about as good as it was last year.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Worse!

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, it's certainly no better.

But I was particularly impressed yesterday, Mr. Speaker, to listen to the very interesting address by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), the third member for Vancouver East. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Try 70 per cent.

HON. MR. MAIR: Seventy per cent of a member. Yes, I quite agree. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, in his usual rambling speech to the galleries — particularly the press gallery — I noticed that he ran the full gamut from half-truth through to, as Churchill said, "terminological inexactitude." (Laughter.)

I must say, Mr. Speaker, when I was first nominated to run for the constituency of Kamloops and came down into this Legislature to see what went on, I noticed that the then Premier always spoke looking up like this. I thought to myself: "Poor fellow. He probably has a bad neck."

It turned out that my brother used to play rugger with the Leader of the Opposition. I'm sorry the Leader of the Opposition isn't in here right now, because I would like, on my brother's behalf, to renew acquaintances. I asked my brother if by chance the Leader of the Opposition, or Premier as he then was, had sustained some injury which caused him to constantly look up at the ceiling when he was talking. My brother said no, he didn't recall any such injury; however, he may have hurt himself tilting his head back after rugger games, as was his wont. (Laughter.)

I noted with some interest that the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, in his rambling address, quoted extensively from Shakespeare. He quoted from, as I recall, Macbeth.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): W.C. Fields.

HON. MR. MAIR: W.C. Fields. Yes, that's not Shakespeare. You're living up to the reputation he's giving you. (Laughter.)

I noticed that he quoted from Hamlet and a

[ Page 110 ]

number of others.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thanks! (Laughter.)

HON. MR. MAIR: But he neglected to quote from one play, Mr. Speaker, which in my opinion, by its title, accurately sums up his speech, namely Much Ado About Nothing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. MAIR: Now, Mr. Speaker, I....

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): You've done a lot of research there.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, you know, seven years' college education....

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): And that's just for your B.A.

HON. MR. MAIR: That's right. Mr. Speaker, I don't wish to bore the House with undue levity; I know that my friends opposite are enjoying themselves and I hope they enjoy themselves more as the evening wears on. But I did feel, Mr. Speaker, I should address myself to one or two remarks, first of all, made by the Liberal leader, particularly concerning the M.E.L. Paving settlement. I have in front of me the letter which the hon. Premier filed yesterday, and I've had an opportunity of looking at the pleadings in this matter, and there's no question about it — that there was an allegation of misrepresentation. But these sorts of allegations, Mr. Speaker...and I'm sure my friend the first or second member for Vancouver East, whatever he is, would agree that pleadings very often consider allegations in the widest form. The fact that there is a settlement of a lawsuit doesn't indicate any acceptance of any one of those allegations So while this lawsuit was, indeed, settled, I don't think that it is open to anyone to take from that, to infer from that, that an admission of fraud or misrepresentation or anything else is part of it.

MR. LEA: You're right — just because you think you're going to lose.

HON. MR. MAIR: Thank you very much. Yes, as a matter of fact, any time you're in a lawsuit, Mr. Member, it's been my experience after a year or two at the bar, you run a very grave risk of losing, particularly if you get bad legal advice.

Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I think ought to be cleared up about this particular lawsuit is the amount of it. It's been said in the press and said in the House yesterday that the amount was $2,500,000. I think, first of all, one must look at the letter the Premier filed yesterday, and you will see that, exclusive of holdbacks and exclusive of prejudgment interest, the total claim advanced was in the amount of $3,800,000. Now the total claim, exclusive of holdbacks, prejudgment interest and costs, is about $1,500,000. So the settlement was not $2,500,000 insofar as the claim itself was concerned. The balance, if you will read the letter, was made up of prejudgment interest, costs and there is an item of about $70,000 paid into court in the Yukon. Quite frankly, I don't know what that is, but the fact of the matter is that there was not a $2,500,000 settlement at all; it was a $1,500,000 settlement.

Now I know: what's a million? To those who spent it so wantonly for three-and-a-half years it perhaps is not a great deal of money. But I do think that this House ought to have it on record that the inference that the amount of the settlement was $2,500,000 is not correct. Now the Liberal member, of course, unfortunately is not in his seat. I certainly hope he's not on Air West.

AN HON. MEMBER: Here today, gone tomorrow.

HON. MR. MAIR: Here today, gone tomorrow. That's right, Mr. Member.

MR. KING: You're sitting beside their patrons.

MR. LEA: Are you referring to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer)?

HON. MR. MAIR: No, no, not the Minister of Education. He's very busy educating. That's what you should be doing; you're better at that than what you're doing here.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was a failure as a teacher.

HON. MR. MAIR: Was he a failure as a teacher, too? Oh, dear. However, he grows a nice beard, I notice. I'm delighted to see you with a beard; it indicates great perspicacity.

Now the Liberal leader, of course, Mr. Speaker, inferred in his remarks that there was, perhaps, reason to suppose this settlement was not a good one. That's not for us to judge, I suggest, because any settlement takes into consideration that both sides think they might have done better or might have done worse. A settlement is a settlement; you must take it as it is and be satisfied with it.

I think I should also comment upon his suggestion that there is something wrong in counsel not calling certain witnesses. That's an easy suggestion to make. Once again, I think the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) would agree with me that the calling of witnesses or the refraining from calling

[ Page 111 ]

them is a very difficult decision that any barrister must make. It may very well have been in this case that the examinations for discovery, read in by the plaintiff, precluded the necessity of calling the witnesses. I don't know. I only put it to this House that there are other alternative suggestions open to us in considering how the lawsuit was conducted.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): What was the charge of misrepresentation? Will you tell the House?

HON. MR. MAIR: Charge of misrepresentation? You know very well; you've read the....

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): What did you say in the letter you wrote?

MR. MACDONALD: Spell it out. Come on.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm not going to spell it out, Mr. Member. You know what the charge of misrepresentation is, and the lawsuit was settled. If it had been settled during your term of office it would have cost the government and the province of British Columbia a great deal less, but I didn't want to be so rude as to point that out.

MR. MACDONALD: Come on, tell us what the charge was.

HON. MR. MAIR: Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to....

MR. MACDONALD: He won't do it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll read your letter later.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I'll take a drink of water while this exchange is going on.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader did make a point, which I would like to dwell on for a moment, concerning the mining legislation. He made the very valid point, to the Leader of the Opposition, that it would do him no harm to take a look at the last election results and look at the constituencies where mining activity is prevalent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is Mr. Barrett?

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes, where is he? I happen to come, as my colleague the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) does, from a mining constituency. I can tell you that during the time that the NDP was in power Lornex Mines, by reason of the mining legislation on the books, was highgrading their own mine. The only way they could make any money was to take out only the good ore and not take out the marginal ore along with it.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD: Was that how you made money on the stock market?

HON. MR. MAIR: I understand that you do rather badly at the stock market, Mr. Member.

This was the sort of situation, Mr. Speaker, which made it very evident to the voters in Logan Lake, for example, that the alternative was not the NDP, but was Social Credit.

I would also, if I may, before going on to some remarks about my own constituency, discuss one or two points raised by the Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace). I thought that his basic point that investor confidence must be restored in the province of British Columbia, if we are indeed to prosper, was a very good one. But I would point out to the House that it is very difficult, very difficult indeed, to restore investor confidence in an economy and in a province when the Leader of the Opposition and his cohorts — and I think that's an acceptable word — say in debate over and over again: "If we get back into power we're going to put back the same mining legislation that was in before." That is hardly calculated to restore the confidence of the mining industry whose confidence was so badly shattered by the laws they had in.

When you hear the NDP saying that they are going to arbitrarily impose a tax on oil delivered at a proposed pipeline, when you see that they have hardly learned any lessons from the past, what they are promising is more of the same in the future. In the context of that, we are expected to restore investor confidence in this province.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that we are restoring investor confidence, notwithstanding the spectre of gloom put forward by the opposition every opportunity they have. But they don't make it any easier. It would seem to me that if they spoke for British Columbia, and not for socialism, we might have a great deal easier time in bringing business back to B.C.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Doom-and-gloom boys.

HON. MR. MAIR: That's right, Mr. Minister. That's right. You tell them about some of the things the mining companies have been saying about coming back into British Columbia, with that sort of spectre.

MR. COCKE: Who's coming back?

HON. MR. MAIR: They're coming back, Mr. Member, and they'll come back when they're convinced that we'll be back.

[ Page 112 ]

MR. COCKE: When the price goes up.

HON. MR. MAIR: When the price goes up. Tell us about what happened, Mr. Member, in the Yukon Territory during the time that the mining industry was in a slump. Tell us about that, Mr. Member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. MAIR: They've got copper, too, the same as we have.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: Certainly. The biggest boom in history.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I do believe the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) is threatening me with gestures. I am afraid that a red book might come at me, or something, and I would ask you to restrain him. I realize his enthusiasm is unbounded, and no doubt he was the one who taught the Leader of the Opposition his Shakespeare, but it does worry me when I see him with a red book in his hand — The Sayings of Dave Barrett.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to get back to the subject matter this early in my speech. (Laughter.)

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Force yourself.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, if I did that, Mr. Conservative leader, I would accomplish something you were unable to do this afternoon.

AN HON. MEMBER: He took long enough.

HON. MR. MAIR: He took a long time. I must say, Mr. Leader of the Conservative Party, it was a a very interesting exchange of ideas that we had this afternoon.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the House that the throne speech — His Honour's speech — I think has been accepted editorially as being one of the most detailed, if not the most detailed, in recent years. It dealt in the key areas that this government proposes legislation — social justice and reform, administration of justice, human resources, health, education, municipal affairs, economic development and, if I may say also, consumer affairs. I think, Mr. Speaker, that it promises a great legislative programme, and it would seem to me that if this House, with a degree of responsibility, attends to its tasks and passes the legislative programme the government proposes, the great beneficiary of this programme will be the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that one of the parts of the throne speech that particularly impressed me, and particularly encouraged my constituents in the great constituency of Kamloops, was the promise of the new highway, the Coquihalla, from Merritt to Hope. I note that my friend, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), vigorously applauds. This will be a great boon to the interior. The Trans-Canada Highway is, of course, one of the most expensive roads to maintain — one of the most difficult roads to maintain — and is now clogged and cluttered to the point that not only are the tourists and the residents of the interior hindered in their travel to and fro but, of course, the wheels of commerce grind exceedingly slowly as a result also. This will do a great deal to improve and expand communications to my constituents, to all of the interior of B.C., and to all of the southern interior particularly.

Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted, I would like to make one or two remarks concerning my own constituency, and particularly I hope to relate these remarks, perhaps loosely, but relate them nevertheless to the subject matter at hand. I think I have already alluded to the fact that any suggestion by my colleague from Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) that there is larger city in the interior of British Columbia than Kamloops will be vigorously resisted by the 70,000 citizens of my fair city. It is, of course, the economic centre of the southern interior; it is the largest city in he southern interior; and it is the administrative centre of the southern interior. I should also point out it is the judicial centre.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right next to Merritt.

HON. MR. MAIR: Right next to Merritt. That's right, Mr. Member. Now I think that it's worth reminding the House that the city of Kamloops, which is situated in my constituency, is the first place that the two national railways meet west of Winnipeg and, indeed, relies very heavily upon transportation as well as the basic industries of mining and lumber.

AN HON. MEMBER: And never the twain shall meet.

HON. MR. MAIR: Never the twain shall meet, my friend says. That's quite so.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that because the bulk of my constituency outside of Kamloops has been so hard hit by the bankrupt mining policies of the previous administration, and so hard hit by the forest slump, they have had difficult times over the last three or four years. I am very pleased to say that my colleague the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), spared no time and no effort in coming to my city and my constituency and has done a great deal to bring back investment in my city and

[ Page 113 ]

bring back prosperity to my constituency.

I am very pleased at this time, Mr. Speaker, to acknowledge the efforts of the Minister of Economic Development, who has made several trips and, as a result of one of these trips, I think that we can say safely that small industry is going to come back into the city of Kamloops and into the area and, once again, bring prosperity to my constituency. I might say that when my colleague the Minister of Economic Development and myself were first in my constituency, we went down to the town of Savona which, some of you may know, is at the western end of Kamloops Lake and was the scene of one of the most disgraceful acts of the previous government in the whole three-and-a-half sordid years of their existence, in my opinion.

There was an opportunity presented itself, Mr. Speaker, in 1973 and 1974 for a steel-ball mill to go in in the town of Savona to bring to that area a second industry to go along with the lumber industry. Because of the bankrupt and ridiculous policies of the then Minister of Highways, access was not granted, the mill did not go in, and they are still a one-crop economy. Despite all of the efforts, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague and by myself we have still not been able to get the Quebec Iron Foundry interested again in this area, although we are trying. But this is just one more example, Mr. Speaker, of the way governments can so interfere with the world of commerce that the citizens, and the citizens alone, are the ones that suffer.

Now, Mr. Speaker, Kamloops is very blessed to have within its boundaries a new mining development, notwithstanding the total lack of encouragement by the previous government....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ohhh!

HON. MR. MAIR: I'll deal with that in a minute. One of your colleagues was prepared to see the light; none of you were. Notwithstanding that, it is now coming on stream and it is going to be a great economic benefit to my community.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, in passing, that one example of the type of people that live in my constituency is the small community of Barriere, which, in order to assist itself, has formed its own economic development council and is in consultation with the Minister of Economic Development trying to bring its own economy up on its own.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss in dealing with my own constituency if I did not mention the work done by my colleague the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) . I'm getting a little tired of congratulating the Minister of Highways — his head is justifiably swelling. But he has done a first-rate job in my constituency and we are very much the beneficiaries for it. The highways, which by any reasonable analysis were left in hopeless disarray by the previous administration, have now been restored. Not only have they been restored, Mr. Speaker, but particularly in the case of the stretch of highway from Savona to Kamloops, we now have passing lanes. We now have taken one of the most dangerous stretches of highway in the province of British Columbia and made it into a reasonably safe stretch of highway.

I might also compliment my colleague the Minister of Highways and Public Works on his continuing negotiations with the Kamloops Indian band for a second crossing of the Thompson River. Let me pause here, if I may, Mr. Speaker, to mention that the reason that negotiations are going particularly well with the Indian band at this point is because of a very early and prompt decision made by this government with respect to their inclusion within the city of Kamloops. Now the opposition, who claim some monopoly on virtue and claim to be the only persons concerned with civil rights, native rights, things of that nature, I might remind you, arbitrarily took into the city of Kamloops by amalgamation in 1973 some 10,000 acres of Indian land.

Now they not only took it in, they took it in without any consent of the Indian band and, worse than that, without consultation with the Indian band. In the first three months of this government, that land was, at the request of the Indian band, removed from the city of Kamloops.

It goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, that dealings with the Indian band by the Department of Public Works and by the city of Kamloops itself are much more cordial than they were under the previous administration.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, that may be so, Mr. Member, but I think that if you were to check with the band members they would tell you that there is better reason than that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased also to point out that Kamloops is indeed the beneficiary of the new renewed mining activity, the new staking in the area. This is directly as a result of my colleague, now the Minister of Forests, then the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland), repealing legislation that was brought in by the previous administration. I might say, Mr. Speaker, I think that a clue to the thinking of the socialists can be found in remarks made by my predecessor (Mr. G.H. Anderson)....

AN HON. MEMBER: Thinking?

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, thinking is perhaps too strong a word, Mr. Minister, I agree. It is perhaps too strong a word. But when I remarked in a speech in

[ Page 114 ]

Kamloops how delighted I was to see that mining activity in terms of staking had tripled, he opined that all that did for the government was bring in the revenue that the filing fees brought in.

Now this is typical, Mr. Speaker, of the short-sighted, knee-jerk reaction of the opposition, who are totally unable to grasp the fact that the importance of more staking activity is that it ensures more mines in the future. That's the important feature.

AN HON. MEMBER: They thought it was to tie up cows.

HON. MR. MAIR: They thought it was to tie up cows I'm sure, Mr. Minister, and they thought that it was the $100 per claim, or whatever it is that the government gets. That was the important thing. They can't see that the importance of staking is new mines, that new mines are new communities, that new communities are new tax revenues, and that new tax revenues are more benefits to the people. That's too complicated.

But I was going to say to the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) that, yes indeed, it did appear that one in their midst did, very late in the game, begin to see the light. In doing a little research for these remarks tonight, I looked at some remarks made by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) on June 2 last, when he complained bitterly that if only he'd had time, and if only the mining committee that he'd set up had had time, new mining policies and royalty policies would have been brought in. Well, of course, he's not in his seat tonight, and I hesitate to call him the closet Liberal that we all know that he is. But obviously he had seen the light and was trying to drag his colleagues, kicking and screaming, into the realm of economic reality. He may have succeeded, but of course the people of British Columbia took care of the whole problem for him on December 12, 1975.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of remarks made in the last two days concerning the question of the....

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: The 11th, I'm sorry. The 12th was the day we all took aspirin.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Who are you talking about anyway? (Laughter.) I just want to know to whom you were referring!

HON. MR. MAIR: If I told you, you'd heckle me.

MR. WALLACE: I'm trying to read my mail and listen to your speech.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, you'd probably do yourself a service if you went back to reading your mail, Mr. Member. (Laughter.) I do not pretend that the world will long note, nor remember, any of the remarks made in this chamber at any time.

But I think it was the Conservative leader, Mr. Speaker, who, in his remarks this afternoon, dwelled upon the constitutional problems that Canada's having. I believe also that the Liberal leader did too. I think it's very apropos, Mr. Speaker, that in the context of the throne speech we discussed the constitution of Canada. Because there's no question on this side of the House that we stand for one strong Canada, and any suggestions to the contrary are nonsense. We do, and I think that this point must be made, stand for the proposition that any evaluation of the constitution of Canada — whether by reason of patriation of the constitution or by reason of problems with one or other province — ought to be evaluated in 1977 terms, not 1867 terms.

MR. WALLACE: That sounds reasonable!

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'll deal with five regions, Mr. Member. Be patient. If time permits I will deal with the five regions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's have some new thoughts.

HON. MR. MAIR: Some new thoughts. Well....

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought the old ones were better.

HON. MR. MAIR: I was going to say that perhaps bilingualism, including Gaelic, in Victoria schools would be a new thought that would appeal to the Conservative leader. Would it help?

Mr. Speaker, I think we must recognize that in 1867 the country was composed of four provinces, joined in 1890 by what was then a postage stamp surrounding Winnipeg, later to expand to the great province of Manitoba. And when British Columbia came into Confederation in 1871, it was quite reasonable to suggest that Canada was indeed composed of four regions: the Atlantic provinces, Ontario, Quebec, and the west. This was reflected in the composition of the Senate — 24 members from each of these regions — and reflected itself in many other ways, not in the least of which of course was the Supreme Court of Canada.

In case any of my friends across are not aware of

[ Page 115 ]

the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada, which is now the final arbiter on all matters constitutional, three members of that august body come automatically from the province of Quebec. Another three, by custom, come from the province of Ontario. The balance are made up of judges from the rest of Canada. British Columbia has not had a supreme court justice since 1962 when Mr. Justice Locke retired. We can't anticipate a supreme court judge until sometime in the 1980s.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nineteen eighty-six.

HON. MR. MAIR: Thank you, Mr. Attorney.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, you never can tell where we're all going to wind up, Mr. Member, can you? I don't think it will be you.

MR. LEA: I hope not.

HON. MR. MAIR: We all do. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, Mr. Premier, if I can do nothing more than bring unanimity to this chamber for one brief moment, then I have indeed contributed something.

But, Mr. Speaker, I think that now we must examine this country in the context of 1977, and it is no longer a four-region nation. Nobody could possibly suggest that it is. To suggest that the west, as a blanket term, can include everything west of the Lakehead simply does not make any sense politically, geographically or economically.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Right on.

HON. MR. MAIR: Going back, Mr. Speaker, to Premier W.A.C. Bennett and carrying on to the present day with our Premier, the proposition has been made, and very logically so, that British Columbia, the prairie provinces, Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes are in fact the five regions of Canada. When we talk about patriation of the constitution, and when we talk about reformation of the constitution and bringing it into 1977 terms, we surely must bring it into the context of five regions, not four. Surely the day must pass when British Columbia has only two more senators than Prince Edward Island and has 18 less than Ontario and Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. Surely we must get to the point in time where the province of British Columbia as a region and all regions have something to say as to who represents them in the Senate as newly constituted.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, we must also get to the point where British Columbia as a region has permanent representation on the Supreme Court of Canada. We must indeed surely get to the position where all of the regions have something to say in the selection of the men appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada, particularly to the post of chief justice. Now I say that meaning no disrespect to the Supreme Court of Canada. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that the Supreme Court of Canada is the final arbiter in all constitutional questions between the provinces and the federal government and is appointed by one of the parties to the dispute. We say that this is something that ought to be amended.

Now, Mr. Speaker, none of these things is unreasonable. None of these things is taken by all of the other provinces, or indeed the federal government, to be unreasonable. None of them are talking separatism. All of them are talking Canada in 1977 so that we can make Canada a strong nation made up of strong regions — strong regions which have their rights enshrined in a strong constitution with which we can all live.

Now, Mr. Speaker, just so that the record is not unduly upset, I will return for a moment to the throne speech. There's no question, Mr. Speaker, that the policy espoused by this government in the throne speech shows a marked difference in philosophy to that of those sitting opposite. We believe in the individual; they believe in collectivism. We believe, Mr. Speaker, that by encouraging commerce, encouraging business, we build a strong economy and make available for people the taxes needed to bring them the social benefits that are required in this day and age; they believe that profit is a dirty word.

MR. COCKE: You believe in corporate welfare.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, these knee-jerk reactions which the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) comes up with are so typical.

HON. MR. BENNETT: They've got six slogans.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): You tell us what you believe in and we'll tell you what we believe in.

HON. MR. MAIR: Six slogans with their membership card. Six slogans for $10 — that's a bad deal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bumper stickers.

HON. MR. MAIR: That's right. We believe, Mr. Speaker, that the people of the province of British Columbia deserve accountability in government. We

[ Page 116 ]

believe that there is nothing wrong with looking after the people's money carefully. We believe, Mr. Speaker, that if you do that then you have more money available for the people, and that's what it's all about.

Mr. Speaker, it's quite apparent to me in the short time that I have sat in this House, but particularly in the long time that I have observed members of the opposition, that they somehow think that good accountability is heartless and that dumping money down some bottomless pit is beneficial to the people of B.C.

We take a contrary view. Mr. Speaker, we feel that you can have heart with economy; we feel that when you take money from the people, as we must do, there is nothing wrong with making sure that $101 million of it doesn't slip somewhere. We do not feel that it is necessary to bring revenues into the province by bankrupting the source of that revenue through confiscatory taxation.

Mr. Speaker, we feel that the legislative programme put forth by this government will bring, ultimately, and not only in the long term but in the short term also, prosperity to this country, to this province, and it will bring it because it is sound legislation that is being proposed. It is not airy-fairy legislation that doesn't have any regard for the economic facts.

Mr. Speaker, we know that we are not the only province in Canada that has ore and timber. We are not the only place in the world that has these commodities. We recognize that we are competing in the world markets, that we must have restraint, and restraint we will practise. And by practising restraint, we will bring prosperity back to a province that was dragged down by the previous administration.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to take my place in this debate on behalf of the good citizens of the constituency of Prince Rupert. It gives me pleasure, and it gives me pride. But I'd like to point out that the role of each one in this House, all 55 of us, should be that of a British Columbian first, and of a partisan politician second. I don't have a great deal of pride, at the moment, in the government of British Columbia, as a British Columbian — not as a partisan politician, but as a British Columbian.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Your colours are showing.

MR. LEA: That's right, my colours are showing. One who wants to have pride in the government of the province in which he lives — my colours are showing. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the colours of the government benches show. I think those colours show; it's called a dark tan. You'll recall, Mr. Speaker, that one of the first acts of that government was by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who doubled the insurance rate and left for an island in the Pacific to get a deep tan. You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that whenever anybody wants to get in touch with the minister, you have to call Hawaii.

Where was the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) when this province needed him a short while ago? In Hawaii. Where was the Minister of Education? Where was the Premier?

You know, if there's one slogan that sums up that government, it was one I saw a couple of weeks ago in the press gallery, and it was: "Here today, gone to Maui." That sums them up.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Here today and gone to Mao is what your Attorney-General was. (Laughter.)

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, has that man ever taken a good look at you? (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, I think that I would be remiss in my duties as a legislator if I didn't go over some of the history surrounding the now infamous Grizzly Valley affair — not delving into any part that has been asked to be delved into by the public inquiry. Even though it would not be sub judice, I will try to be careful to keep my remarks away from those affairs which the inquiry has been asked to look into. But I do think it is important that we review some of the events leading up to that inquiry, and some of the personalities because I believe that the people in this province are of a belief that is not true.

For instance, the Premier and president of the Social Credit Party, when referring to Mr. Arthur Weeks, said that, yes, they had a vague knowledge that he existed in this world, that when they were walking down the street, on one side of the street — in Kelowna — they saw him walking down the other side of the street in Detroit. That's as close as they ever got to seeing him.

There has been a long association between some of the participants in the Grizzly affair with this government, with the Liberals in that government and with the Conservatives in that government. It goes back to 1968, Mr. Speaker.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): You have to go back to 1894.

MR. LEA: No, we're just going back to 1968, Mr. Minister, when who other than Arthur Weeks worked with none other than Bill Clancy, aide to W.A.C. Bennett, in the public relations department — an association with the Social Credit Party as far back as 1968.

In 1972 we find that Mr. Weeks had a very

[ Page 117 ]

friendly association with the president of the Social Credit Party, Peter Hyndman, in Squamish — not one of lawyer-client, but a friendly association.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I think it should be pointed out that in 1972, in that election campaign, it appears that Mr. Weeks still kept up his connection with the Social Credit Party because the paper that Mr. Weeks was publishing at that time in Squamish had four and one-half full-page ads from the Social Credit government, even though the editorials that he was writing were pro-Conservative. But why not? He had inroads into both those political parties.

In 1973 Mr. Weeks, as far as I can find out, left Squamish and went to the United States. When we found Mr. Weeks again it was in October 1974.

MR. KING: What was he doing in the States?

MR. LEA: I don't know. No one, not even Mr. Fotheringham of the Vancouver Sun, can seem to find out where Mr. Weeks was from the fall of 1973 to October 1974. The best we can guess is that he was in the States. It seems rather odd that that is the only spot in the life of Mr. Weeks that we cannot find out where he was and what he was doing. We even know that his father won trophies for his horses in the 1940s, but we can't find out about anything from the fall of 1973 to October 1974. Where was Mr. Weeks?

October 1, 1974, Arthur Weeks was hired by the now Premier when he was Leader of the Opposition, not as a research assistant to the caucus or executive assistant to the caucus, but as research assistant to the Leader of the Opposition, now Premier.

In March 1975, Mr. Weeks was involved in a cheque. It was called the "Weeks-Levi cheque affair," where a cheque was doctored by Mr. Weeks. I refer you to the March 18, 1975, article by Marjorie Nichols.

Now at that time, Mr. Speaker, you would imagine that after that kind of indiscretion a man in a responsible position as Leader of the Opposition, a man who hoped to be Premier of this province, would have dissociated himself from Mr. Weeks. We thought at that time that he had, but we now find out that no, Mr. Weeks left the Social Credit caucus but he didn't leave the employ of the Social Credit Party. He was transferred to 895 Fort Street here in the city of Prince Rupert and continued to work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Victoria?

MR. LEA: In Victoria — right here.

Now it seems that the man, over his lifetime, has had a lot of indiscretions, but the indiscretion that was practised when he was research assistant to the Leader of the Opposition in doctoring a cheque for political reasons would seem to me reason enough to dissociate yourself permanently from such a person when you're in political life in this province. Mr. Speaker, what other associations did Mr. Weeks have with that political party that's in power now? — because it's made up of Conservatives, Liberals and Social Crediters. Did he have an association with the Liberal Party? Yes, he did. He had an association with a Paul Manning. Paul Manning and Mr. Weeks were influential in bringing the three Liberals into the Social Credit Party.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Ha!

MR. LEA: They were influential in that. We have Mr. Weeks with Mr. Hyndman; we have Mr. Weeks with Mr. Clancy in the Social Credit Party; and we have Mr. Weeks with the Liberals through Paul Manning and a family association that goes back even longer than that.

So it seems a little impractical to me that when Mr. Weeks gets himself in trouble Mr. Hyndman says: "Oh, I saw him once. He was never considered a good friend. Didn't know him except he was maybe a passing acquaintance in the party." The Premier said not only he just maybe saw him once somewhere, he denied the fact that Mr. Weeks worked in the Premier's suite after the December election in 1975. He denied that when asked that by the press.

The fact is that Mr. Weeks did work in the Premier's suite, with or without pay; with or without pay he worked in the Premier's suite. I don't know the number of the office but I do know it's the same office that Mr. Harvey Beach, the executive assistant to the former Premier, worked in in the Premier's suite.

I know that he had a secretary that was paid for by the government. I know that while working there he had an appointment to see the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) for a job. I know that after he returned to the Premier's suite, the Premier paid him a visit and asked him how he had made out when he had gone to see the Minister of Economic Development. I know that Mr. Weeks told the Premier that he had made out all right, that it was still the matter of the salary to be considered.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Did you find another memo?

MR. LEA: I know the Premier said to Mr. Weeks at that time: "The salary is up to Mr. Phillips." That would imply to me that maybe the salary was up to Mr. Phillips, but whether Mr. Weeks was going to work in that office or not was not up to Mr. Phillips, it was up to the Premier.

After Mr. Weeks left his employ with government there was another ministerial aide hired to work in that office. Again, where were his connections with

[ Page 118 ]

government — with the Minister of Economic Development or with the Premier's office? We know that his association with this government was into the Premier's office, not into that minister's office. Again, the Premier's man. Mr. Weeks: the Premier's man. Mr. Ellis: the Premier's man. That minister, today, might not be in the trouble he's in if it had not been that the Premier wouldn't let him be his own man and hire his own people.

We know that Mr. Weeks knew Mr. Manning quite well — Paul Manning from the Prime Minister's office. We know that it's an old family connection. We know that you don't just phone a business acquaintance at 1 a.m. our time when that other person is in Ottawa; you must have his home phone number. And that was over the stolen telegram affair during the last election campaign. We know that Mr. Weeks phoned Ottawa on that.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was a memo, wasn't it?

MR. LEA: No, he stole a telegram, wasn't it? I mean, I didn't even know he stole it until you said.

Now on December 18, 1975, Mr. Weeks was back working for Social Credit in these buildings from morning until night, then down to the Premier's office and worked there until January 8 when he was appointed to work in the Minister of Economic Development's office. We know that all of the roads lead back to the Premier's office, yet the Premier says that he didn't really know him and that he really didn't work in his office. But we know that's not true, Mr. Speaker. We know that he did. It was probably an oversight, would you think, on the Premier's part?

Why did Mr. Weeks get a salary more than all the other executive assistants? Was it because he'd shown he was a good, first-class worker? I guess maybe he did, Mr. Speaker, if you take a look at the kind of work you may want people to do, like doctoring cheques and finding telegrams that were stolen during an election campaign. Is that the reason he got $10,000 more than the rest? Is that the reason? Or did they owe him? Did they owe him because he helped to bring the Liberals in, through Mr. Manning, and helped bring in the Conservatives through Mr. Hyndman? Is that why? When the Minister of Economic Development was asked what qualifications Mr. Weeks had when he hired him in the first place, he said: "What qualifications does anybody have?"

MR. WALLACE: What makes you think Hyndman's a Conservative?

MR. LEA: Well, he was a Conservative; he was never progressive.

MR. WALLACE: I'm not so sure about that.

MR. LEA: He was never progressive; not like my friend from Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: He carried the label.

MR. LEA: You know, the one thing that has been tried throughout by government is to dissociate the Premier from every department, from every minister, from everyone who has been employed, and from every decision that's made by this government except, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out the other day, when it's good news. Then the Premier announces it. When it's bad news, let a civil servant do it — let somebody from a Crown corporation do it when it's bad news.

There was some good news, though, which he allowed a minister to announce — or good news, I guess, from the Premier's point of view. He let the Minister of Economic Development announce that $2 million was going to Quasar. He let him announce that. But he didn't let him make the decision, because we all know that the decision of $2 million had to come from Treasury Board, where the Premier sits. Again the Premier made the decision. The Premier made the decision on Weeks; he made it on Ellis; he made it on the $2 million for Quasar.

Who made the decision for the November 8 meeting when the head of the BCPC, William Lechner, met with industry heads — among them, George Richardson, chairman of the board of Cheyenne Richardson, in the week following the meeting, bought large quantities of Cheyenne stock. Arthur Weeks didn't authorize the meeting.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA: Ellis didn't authorize the meeting. The Minister of Economic Development....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Hon. Attorney-General, are you on a point of order?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I'm rising on a point of order. As all members well know, this matter is under provincial Public Inquiries Act, and we have the commissioner, Mr. Justice Kirke Smith of the Supreme Court of British Columbia appointed. His duties are to conduct a full inquiry into the conduct of public business relating to the proposed development and construction of the Grizzly Valley natural gas pipeline. He has received in his terms of reference very, very far-reaching terms. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in order for him to effectively operate within the jurisdiction that has

[ Page 119 ]

been granted to him specific and prolonged debate would seriously hamper the due exercise of his activities.

I would refer to an article reported in the Colonist of March 18, 1969, wherein there were three commissioners appointed dealing with the Commonwealth Trust matter: Mr. Justice McFarlane, Mr. Robert Gardner and Mr. Robert Phipps. These gentlemen resigned. They resigned by letter to the government. It was a letter under the hand of Mr. Justice McFarlane. I am quoting from the excerpt from the paper — I don't have possession of the letter.

The judge said in his letter dated March 14 addressed to Provincial Secretary Wesley Black, all members of the commission felt they could not "effectively and conscientiously perform their duties, since the Commonwealth issue had been brought fully into public discussion within the political arena." Mr. Speaker, we do not wish to have to place Mr. Justice Smith in that kind of invidious position. It would be my request to all of the hon. members to conduct themselves accordingly.

I would also like to refer to the decision of Speaker Irwin, which we'll find in the Journals of January 24, 1956. I quote the last two paragraphs:

"Part of our system of government is that the Legislature exists for the purpose of seeing that the affairs of the province are properly operated and administered. To that end we appoint committees and commissions, and it would be obviously foolish to upset the work of a commission appointed by this House by unrestrained debate. It might even be termed an avoidance of your responsibilities as Members of the Legislative Assembly.

"Wherever this system of government operates it is the custom to refrain from discussion of the subject matter before a commission. In fact, in Great Britain the matter is strictly avoided in all respects."

So I would respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that by custom, by authority and by propriety, the hon. members should refrain from specific discussion of the subject matter which is before this commission. He was talking about the antecedent history of Mr. Weeks. I suppose that is not relevant, but that again is a matter to be determined by Mr. Justice Smith and certainly not by people within this assembly.

Then the members started to refer to certain tradings in certain stocks. One of the specific directions, Mr. Member, to Mr. Justice Smith is to inquire into any matter relating to trading in securities of Quasar Petroleum Ltd. and Cheyenne Petroleum Ltd. Without eliminating the generality of the foregoing, apart from which he was referring to that item and two or three other items specifically referred to in the order-in-council.... Without limiting the generality he is to inquire into and report any wrongdoing arising out of the matter. So I would, with every respect, Mr. Speaker, suggest to the hon. member that he is now transgressing that which is before the commission.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, just for the benefit of all of the members of the Legislature in this particular matter, I would like the attendants in Hansard to record the time it has taken from the debate of the hon. member who has the floor at the present time and add that on to the end of his speech so that he's not deprived of any time that is his due in this particular debate.

I think the point is well taken, Mr. Attorney-General. I would like to further advise the members of a ruling handed down by Speaker Lamoureux on May 2, 1966, in Ottawa when he was dealing with this very same matter in great detail. He has given what is considered to be one of the more definitive rulings on the matter. I'll just quote briefly from it.

He pointed out:

"The creation of a royal commission is purely an administrative matter. The commissioners are not called upon to render decisions on what has been submitted to them but are only asked to make recommendations which the government is free to act upon or not as it wills. They are, it is true, given such powers as are vested in any court of record but the wording of the Inquiry Act" — we'd have to submit here the "Public Inquiry Act" —"does not constitute them a court of record."

He confirmed that in discussing a matter before a royal commission members should not delve into the evidence itself, as: "We would not want to have a parallel inquiry going on in the House at the same time as that now being carried out in another forum."

I think this should be the guiding principle, hon. member: temper your remarks so that you do not draw conclusions or in any way get into a line of debate which would place the commissioner, who is a supreme court judge, in a bad position with respect to the inquiry he is presently conducting.

I'm prepared to listen to your debate provided you keep those broad guidelines in mind.

MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Speaker, there's no desire on my part, or on the part of the opposition, to impede in any way the public inquiry that is being carried out. What I'm endeavouring to do is not to go into what Mr. Smith is looking into, but into the actions of government — the actions of the government leading up to the inquiry itself, not the area that the judge has been asked to look into in the public inquiry.

Now, Mr. Speaker, dealing with the actions of

[ Page 120 ]

government and the opposition surrounding the events leading up to the inquiry itself, the fact that there had been anything amiss and that there had been anything unusual in trading patterns on any stockmarket was first raised by the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) on December 7. But let's go back to what really happened.

In August of 1976, the Minister of Economic Development said that Quasar was going to get $2 million. For what, no one knows. We've tried to find out. We don't know what it was for, and no one's going to tell us, I would venture to say, what that $2 million was for. Maybe the Minister of Economic Development, when he stands in his place in this House, will tell us the real reason that the $2 million was given away.

Now on December 6, from the Premier's office, they said there would be a big announcement in a few days. December 10 was the day that the Premier made his announcement in Dawson Creek that the pipeline was going to go ahead. Again, on that day the opposition said that they were concerned about the unusual trading patterns that were going on.

But let's talk about what really happened from thereon in. We know that on December 21, 1976, a cabinet order fired Weeks. We know that we didn't know about that until December 30. That's when the public learned about Mr. Weeks being fired. We also know that at that time the Minister of Economic Development told the media that the first he knew about it, Mr. Speaker, was when Mr. Weeks had returned from holidays on the 19th and told him that he had heard about the opposition remarks and that he, yes, had dabbled. The story is that the minister asked him to resign. He said he didn't want to because he hadn't thought that he had done anything wrong.

That was on the 19th, and yet we find out later, Mr. Speaker, that on December 16, on other information supplied by another member of this House from Vancouver South, the deputy minister had signed an order to investigate through the Attorney-General's department. Isn't it strange, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney-General, if he knew about that...and maybe he didn't. Maybe he didn't know that Mr. Vickers had signed that order, or did he tell him to sign the order? He did. He nods his head — yes, he did. Isn't it strange, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Economic Development didn't know? Isn't it strange that the Attorney-General, that ex-Liberal, didn't go to that Social Credit cabinet minister and tell him that one of his staff was under investigation? Isn't it strange?

AN HON. MEMBER: He just told him now.

MR. LEA: He just told him now? That seems mighty strange that the minister didn't know that Mr. Weeks was being investigated. The first he knew, he said, was when Mr. Weeks told him on the 19th. Could it be that the minister himself was being investigated by the Attorney-General's department? Is that the reason that he didn't know? Was the Premier informed? From what I can gather, the Premier is Social Credit too. Maybe he didn't know and if so, why? Was this the move for power from the Liberal camp? When we look at Mr. Weeks we find his connections are much, much stronger into the Social Credit and into the Conservative Party than the Liberal Party. Is he the sacrificial lamb? Has Mr. Weeks been thrown over so that we won't find out that every decision on this was made in the Premier's office — the decision that Weeks would be hired in that minister's office in the first place was made by the Premier; the decision that the person who followed him would go in that office for two days was the decision of the Premier's office — not the decision of the minister, but back again to the Premier's office?

Then on Friday, January 7, I met with Mr. Cross and Mr. Smith of the Attorney-General's department. They asked me to meet them the previous Wednesday because they said that maybe I could help them in their investigation. When they arrived I asked them what they were investigating, and they said they didn't know — that the Attorney-General hadn't told them what evidence had been presented to him or to his deputy. It's like asking someone to go out and investigate a murder trial and not telling him what the name of the corpse is, or if there is a corpse. "Go out and investigate it, boys. We'll tell you what the evidence is if you find something — maybe." They didn't know.

Then after that meeting isn't it rather strange that the next day we find out in the Vancouver Sun that it was a Social Credit backbencher? Then it became opportune, I suppose. It was a Social Credit backbencher, and God knows whether the Attorney-General would have even gotten that information if he didn't buy his liquor at a Kerrisdale liquor store.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Didn't buy any liquor? Just checking it out — part of your duties.

Mr. Speaker, who were the other people who went to other cabinet ministers before that and couldn't get through? Who were they?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA: What cabinet ministers did they go through? What did they tell them and why didn't they act? Did they go to Social Credit cabinet

[ Page 121 ]

ministers or to Liberal cabinet ministers? Who did they go to?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I believe the hon. first member for Vancouver South is on his feet. Are you on a point of order, hon. member?

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): I am, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is that the meeting between the Attorney-General and myself did not take place, as reported, in front of a liquor store, but rather the butcher shop in Kerrisdale. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Proceed, hon. member.

MR. LEA: Some people will drink anything! (Laughter.)

But why didn't those other cabinet ministers listen to those other people? Why didn't they, and who were they? Were they Social Credit or were they Liberals? Who were the cabinet ministers who were told? Who were the other people who told them, and why didn't they act? Why didn't the Attorney-General tell the minister involved that one of his staff was under investigation? Why didn't they tell the investigators what they were investigating? Why? Who were those cabinet ministers?

You know, the story doesn't hold up because when you look at it chronologically there are gaps all over the place.

Then they knew they'd be facing the opposition in the House. They knew that, so then they get pious: they have their meetings and then they're going to call a public inquiry. Then they're going to have a public inquiry. Smartest political move they could have made. I'll bet you a dollar to a doughnut it wasn't a Social Credit cabinet minister who thought that one up!

We have some fall guys in this — that's what we have. We have Mr. Weeks, a fall guy — a man, no matter why he was motivated or how he was motivated, working day after day after day to get that coalition government elected. The minute he got into trouble, yes, he should have been fired, but they could have at least said they knew him. The Premier could have said: "Yes, he worked in my office for no pay." He used the telephone company, and charged it to the government, to make long-distance calls while in that office in the Premier's suite. He could have said that he had written letters for the Premier while working in that office before January 8 when he went upstairs to the Minister of Economic Development's office. He could have said that. He could have said that Mr. Weeks had a secretary, paid for by taxpayers' money, working in the Premier's office, and that it was the Premier himself who arranged to have him transferred up to the Economic Development minister's office. He could have said that. But no, he said: "I think I saw him somewhere. Are you sure his name was Weeks?"

He knew him when he was the Leader of the Opposition — Mr. Weeks was his research assistant. When he became Premier he worked in the Premier's suite, and he worked there right up until he went to work for the Minister of Economic Development.

Isn't is strange, Mr. Speaker, that after Mr. Weeks was fired, as he says, unjustly, he doesn't seem to bear any animosity towards those people who treated him unjustly? Or maybe he does. Maybe Mr. Weeks knows that he's the fall guy for that coalition government. Maybe he does, and maybe we'll find out about that later, when it starts to sink into his head that there are others who are guilty of indiscretions, for the manner in which they treated their responsibility as government cabinet ministers, and who should maybe also be fired for indiscretions.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): How many shares do you have?

MR. LEA: I have none. How many do you have?

MR. LOEWEN: I'll check that.

MR. LEA: You'll check that! Get a Liberal to read it for you. (Laughter.)

Now what we have asked publicly is that the Minister of Economic Development.... We say we know, but we don't know whether that minister has done anything wrong. All we're saying is to act in accordance with the British parliamentary tradition and the way other cabinet ministers in other provinces act when there are indiscretions in their offices. That's all we ask.

That is why we are saying that the investment people out there, and the people in this province and out of this province, can have no faith in dealing with this government through that minister's office because there is a cloud over that office, not over the minister. But the minister must step down until after the inquiry, or the Premier must do his duty and ask that minister — or order that minister — to step down. After the inquiry the minister can be reinstated, or someone else can be put in his stead. That's all we're asking.

It happened in Ontario with the Hon. George Kerr. He stepped down, he was cleared and he was reinstated. That's all we ask, so that people dealing with this province through that minister's office can have some confidence that the people that that minister has around him, who are still there, are people who will hold a confidence, people who will not commit an indiscretion.

Until the inquiry has done its work there is another minister needed in that office. Nothing

[ Page 122 ]

against the minister — we're asking this on behalf of the people of this province so that there can be faith in that office. That is a reasonable request.

We know, Mr. Speaker, that if anybody should step down.... Where were the indiscretions really? In the Premier's office. He's the one who put Weeks in that office; he's the one who put Ellis in that office; he's the one who made the decision to give away $2 million to Quasar at the Treasury Board; he's the one who decided that there would be a public announcement by him and by his ministers. He is the person. The Premier made the decisions right up until it was time to make the inquiry; then the Liberals made it.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): No confidence in the economy.

MR. LEA: There is no confidence. There is no confidence in that minister at this point; there is no confidence in the government at this point. Who can walk into that minister's office and feel that their conversation or their business is going to be treated in confidence?

We have seen two ministerial aides: both gone; both terminated because of indiscretions; both aides to the minister — not a clerk 4 somewhere down in the department, not an engineer over somewhere, but two ministerial aides who acted unwisely, who worked for that minister; both put there by the Premier. That is why this opposition is asking the government to do their duty in the best of British parliamentary procedure and asking the minister only to step down until this inquiry is through.

We want to talk about this in this House because the inquiry has not been asked to look into political morality. The economy — they've been asked to look into the indiscretions that may have happened around the land deals, around stock transactions.

But that is the job of the inquiry. The job of this opposition is to ask about political integrity — political morality — in the Premier's office, in every minister's office and especially in the office of the Minister of Economic Development, who should step down on his own without being asked. That is why, Mr. Speaker, the opposition would like to bring forward this motion:

That the motion in reply to the opening speech of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor be amended by adding the words: "But this House regrets that the speech of His Honour fails to provide any adequate proposals to meet the critical state of unemployment in the province affecting many thousands of our citizens and their families and fails to deal with the impact of widespread unemployment upon the social and economic life of the province."

Mr. Speaker, this is seconded by the hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) .

MR. KING: You've got to take responsibility for the economy. You can't do it. No wonder the economy is crippled.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. KING: That minister's useless. He's lame; he's got to step down. Think of those 90,000 people unemployed — 98,000. It's a lame-duck minister and a lame-duck government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the amendment appears to be in order. The hon. member for Comox on the amendment.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment. A point of order.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the seconder is not on the amendment. The seconder has the choice of the throne debate, then the amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no, no, no!

MR. COCKE: Yes, she does. Mr. Speaker, the tradition is, and I'm sure the practice is, that the seconder has the full option. Because she loses her place, she has the full option of speaking on the....

MR. SPEAKER: You're correct. It has been the practice of the House to allow the seconder to give all the remarks given in the throne speech debate when they move an amendment, or second an amendment, because they have taken their place in the debate when they're finished.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your speedy decision with respect to the particular motion that was moved by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I was disturbed yesterday about the decision that you brought in before this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You're now reflecting on a vote or a decision that was made and taken in the House yesterday. That is improper.

MS. SANFORD: That's true, Mr. Speaker. You know, I really feel, though, that yesterday we had an opportunity to hear from you and your reasons. I'll just leave it at this, in saying that, Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed and you have lost some of my confidence in your abilities as Speaker as a result of that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 123 ]

MS. SANFORD: The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) has indicated to the public that he is under a cloud. We attempted yesterday to indicate to the people of the province that while a minister is under a cloud he should not be acting in the capacity of a minister of the Crown, that he should on his own vacate his position. If he doesn't do that, Mr. Speaker, it then becomes incumbent on the government to remove that minister until such time as the results of the inquiry are in.

We feel strongly about that, and we will continue to state that in this House over and over again. That minister deals not only with the general public of this province, not only with the businesses, but with people from round the world, and surely we in this province want some confidence in that ministry and in that minister. Mr. Speaker, the government must still consider removing that minister at the earliest opportunity so that public confidence can be restored, so that the economy can get rolling again in this province, until such time as we have the results of that inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne was a long one, but it had some major omissions in it. But I must say that I was gratified to note that the speech did contain a reference to the late Roderick Haig-Brown, an internationally respected environmentalist and author, and certainly one of the best-known citizens within my own constituency. Mr. Roderick Haig-Brown devoted his life to opposing environmentally damaging developments; he's the one who led the fight against the John Hart power project on the Campbell River in the early '50s, and he's the one that led the fight against the decision of the previous Socred government to allow Western Mines to dump tailings into Buttle Lake.

Mr. Roderick Haig-Brown was very interested, more recently, in proposals that were made to the previous NDP government on the subject of the Tsitika-Schoen, and the decision by that government to set aside that as-yet-unlogged area for further study. He felt that, unlike most of the other valleys on the eastern coast of Vancouver Island, it should not just be logged, but it should be set aside and some special status should be given to it. Mr. Speaker, the NDP government purchased the Haig-Brown property in Campbell River — some 19 acres — so that it could be set aside and used in future as an environmental centre. Roderick Haig-Brown was appreciative of this move by the previous government, and recognized the government's interest in his property as a tribute to the work that he had done these many years on behalf of his fellow citizens. He was a great Canadian, Mr. Speaker, and those of us who are interested in preserving the environment, protecting the environment, have a great task ahead of us, to continue the work that was started by RoderickHaig-Brown. I thank the government for the recognition given to him in the throne speech.

Mr. Speaker, we had a non-point of order, while the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was giving his address, by the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) . He's not in the House at the moment, and I'm sorry about that. He indicated that.... Perhaps I should make reference to this at a later time, and hope that he will return to the House.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

I listened carefully to the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker. It covered a lot of areas, gave the history of what's been going on in the province in this last year, trying to paint a glowing picture where one doesn't exist, and it referred to several areas in which the government wants to take some action. It talked about health care, and we were told that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) had announced that construction was to begin on an addition to the medical school in B.C. To make life better, we were informed about new programmes to consolidate the planning and preservation of historic and archaeological sites, and heritage buildings. We were also told that to make life better we are going to have legislation to enable the government to participate in establishing the Klondike Goldrush International Historic Park. We were also told, Mr. Speaker, that consumers need more protection, and that we will see amendments to the Consumer Protection Act. And on and on.

The speech, Mr. Speaker, also talked about unemployment. I'd like to read just one little section out of the speech, with reference to that important subject. The speech said:

"While my government has worked hard for economic and social improvement, it is concerned that the rate of unemployment as this session opens is still unacceptably high. There has been growth in the provincial economy during the year and the economy has shown an encouraging improvement in its capacity to absorb new people into the work force."

Then the speech said: "But more jobs must still be provided." At that point, Mr. Speaker, I leaned forward in my seat to listen to what proposal would be made by this government to provide more jobs. I leaned forward; I was expectant. We had been told about all these other things that were going to happen or had happened. But, you know, the very next sentence in the throne speech.... Mr. Speaker, I don't know if you are aware of this, but the very next sentence, following a reference to unemployment and more jobs must be found, made me cringe, because this is what it says. Nothing about an unemployment programme, nothing to do anything about the

[ Page 124 ]

thousands and thousands who are looking for work — what it says is this: "My first minister advises that the need for restraint and the lowering of expectations in all sectors of the provincial economy must continue." Must continue. Now what hope do the people who are looking to this government for some action, who are looking to this government to keep the promises that they made during the campaign, have in a throne speech that says we need more jobs and in the next sentence says more restraint and we need lower expectations on behalf of the people? It doesn't make sense, Mr. Speaker.

Whenever I've been asked in the last few weeks to speculate on what the throne speech might contain, and what important issues might be before us, I have replied each and every time that I anticipate a programme to put the thousands and thousands of unemployed back to work. There was no programme. Nothing! There was only a call for people to lower their expectations and to exercise restraint.

More jobs must be provided. Who's going to do it? Where are they going to come from? You know, this government found an extra $120 million — oh, no, excuse me, that turned out to be $40 million — for highways. That programme, it turned out, was not a programme to employ more people but to keep the people already employed for a longer period of time.

Surely if they can find $40 million for that, they could have found some money in order to put on some kind of a winter works programme this year to put some of our unemployed back to work. Where is that programme? It's not there. It's nowhere.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who do you think builds highways, towns?

MS. SANFORD: What I'm saying is that there were no new jobs created there — none! It was to keep those employed, already working, employed longer so the unemployment figures wouldn't be 10 or 11 or higher. They're already 8.8, Mr. Minister; they're already 8.8. Let's have a special programme put on. Let's get that cabinet together tomorrow and come up with something for these people who are looking for work.

These unemployed have been looking for work. To them the future looks very bleak; when they read in the papers what everybody else is saying, there's very little room for optimism. The Premier and maybe some members of his cabinet are the only ones who have been lamely saying that oh yes, the economy is now turned around. Mr. Speaker, no one else has arrived at that conclusion.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Upside down.

MS. SANFORD: Upside down and going backwards — that's where it's going.

The Royal Bank of Canada, in a Province article in December, said that unemployment will be rising in 1977. The Conference Board of Canada predicts that unemployment will be up this year. Walter Vandervoot of the Amalgamated Construction Industry predicts that the value of construction work in B.C. in 1977 will decline. How many jobs are going to be provided there? Bill Hamilton of the Employers Council says that the business community is pessimistic about the future.

AN HON. MEMBER: They made a mess of things, then they drag you in to try to clean it up.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members, the member for Comox has the floor. Please proceed.

MS. SANFORD: Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition reminded us that Fred Moonen of the Council of Forest Industries is not optimistic about the future of this province. Who does the Premier think he's fooling? Who? The more than 92,000 people out there who are looking for work? Is that who he's trying to fool? He's not fooling anybody else. Most of those people, or the highest rate of unemployed among those 92,000, are among the young people of our province. Last week, Mr. Speaker, I personally heard of three individuals whom I know have left this province in order to find work in another province — all young people. They're off to Alberta. And we have Stan Purdy of Canada Manpower here in Victoria advising young people to get out of town because there's no work.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Do they have a socialist government in Alberta?

MR. BARRETT: Speak up, Don! You used to have such a powerful voice sometimes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Please proceed.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, there was one brief reference in the throne speech about employment and an employment programme, but it referred only to student employment. It said that a more effective student employment programme must be introduced, or will be introduced.

But if students in this province wish to continue their education next year, and if they have any hope of earning any money to do it with, they're going to have to improve that student employment programme by twice. They're going to have to have twice the programme that they had last summer if they hope to provide work for those students this summer.

[ Page 125 ]

Unemployment is on its way up and those students are going to be desperate this summer. Twice the number of jobs are needed. The minister knows that; I hope the Premier recognizes it as well. Those young people will be sitting at home next fall, vegetating, because there is no work for them and they don't have the money to go to school unless you people come up with the kind of employment programme for those students this summer that will enable them to earn their money to get back to school again.

MR. BARRETT: The Social Credit way — give them a shovel.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: Perhaps we could get on to that tonight. Talking about the road at Port Hardy, I had a letter from the mayor from Port Hardy today, who said: "Would you please go and see the Minister of Highways about that road at Port Hardy which is going nowhere?" But, you know, Mr. Speaker, I think one of the saddest things about all this is that the government doesn't care, and I think some of the comments over there tonight indicate that.

MR. BARRETT: They've got power. That's all they want.

MS. SANFORD: You know, it can't care, because if it did it would have included something in the throne speech about this most serious problem of thousands and thousands and thousands of people in this province being without work. There is nothing there for them. I don't think they care, or they understand, the demoralization that takes place among people who are out of work. They go from door to door; they ask their friends whether or not they know where they can possibly find a job; they go to Canada Manpower; they write to their MLAs or they phone their MLAs; they become disillusioned; they lose their self-esteem. Family problems develop as a result of the breadwinner not being able to find work. Do they care? Did they put anything in the throne speech?

Mr. Speaker, not only do they not care, they have set out time and time again to attack those very people. This government attacks those people, and that attack has been led mostly by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). He is their mouthpiece on this. He is the one. You know, it is ironic that a government which is responsible for creating so much unemployment then sets out to ridicule and harass those who are out of work and who have had to turn to welfare in order to exist in this province.

The new rates under Human Resources discriminate against the single people, the young people. Welfare is being denied to those living in isolated areas. People are being herded around, but there are no jobs. Where are they going to go? The fraud squad is out hassling and frightening those who are already the most disadvantaged in our society. The downgrading of the day-care programme means that more women are not able to get out and look for work. You know, they are carrying on this attack in spite of the fact that the 1974 commissioned report for the ministry showed 94 per cent of the employables have a work history and that their work history is extensive. They have that report giving the evidence, and yet they are out attacking and a-slashing at those who are disadvantaged, without work, and having to turn to welfare for a handout. They don't care.

What has the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) proposed in cabinet to alleviate unemployment? I know he has made a mess out of dealing with the Workers' Compensation Board and the problems there, but surely he has taken the statistics which are produced in his own department and gone to cabinet and said: "We have got to have a programme to create jobs now." Surely he has told cabinet that the government can't allow all those young people to become disillusioned and give up trying, leaving the province. Has the Minister of Labour not told his cabinet colleagues all of this? Those figures are produced in his department. There's no mention of it; no mention of hope in that throne speech.

What about the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) sitting quietly reading there? We used to hear from him when he was on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, when the job situation was much better than it is today. I have not heard a word out of him for months about the 92,000-plus that are looking for work. Over there, when that minister was sitting on this side of the House, day after day we heard: "Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!"

MR. BARRETT: Now he's striking a ministerial pose.

MS. SANFORD: The unemployment rate, Mr. Minister is now 8.8 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you doing about it?

MS. SANFORD: Do you know what? It's much worse in many parts of the province. In my own area the unemployment rate is around 14 per cent — 14 per cent! The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) yesterday indicated that unemployment in his area is around 15 per cent and probably higher.

What about the Okanagan? Does the Premier know

[ Page 126 ]

what the figures are for the Okanagan?

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): That's a distressed area.

AN HON. MEMBER: It sure is, politically.

MS. SANFORD: The figures for up there are 12.6, well above the provincial average.

North-central B.C. What's the unemployment in your riding, Mr. Member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf)?

AN HON. MEMBER: If you're unemployed, you're on unemployment insurance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: That's your solution, eh?

MS. SANFORD: That's all you do? Let them wait their 12 weeks and let them go on unemployment insurance. That's the answer, is it? There's nothing in the throne speech to indicate that they are about to do anything else.

Central B.C. — it's well over 15 per cent unemployed.

So many of these unemployed have become unemployed as the direct action of this government. We have about 300 people laid off at Can-Cel. We've got layoffs on the ferries — another 420 people. With each one of these actions there is another reaction. More and more people are losing their jobs as a result of it.

The members sitting on the cabinet benches over there must recognize by now that the unemployment rates in this province are largely because of their actions. Over and over again we have seen statements. ICBC rates are grabbing up so much money that there won't be any money spent in Victoria in the next little while, according to Mr. Purdy of Canada Manpower. ICBC is taking it all. There isn't any to spend in the stores now. That will result in even higher unemployment.

Their economic policies are archaic, Mr. Speaker. They are so obsessed with balancing that budget that they allow all these people to go in despair looking for work in the province. They do nothing about it, nothing in the throne speech. Bankruptcies are up; people are leaving the province; businesses are locating elsewhere; young people are going to look for work outside of B.C.; the purchasing power of families has been decreased. That government is taking all of their money, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest that this government now admit their errors, admit that their policies are archaic, ineffectual — in fact, damaging — to this provincial economy. They should apologize to the people of B.C. They used deceit, Mr. Speaker, in order to get elected. We had a reference to that yesterday and today by this particular ad that was read out in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member. I think the....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: A $1,000 make-up job.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, could we have just a little order? I would like to direct the attention of the person who has the floor. The use of the word "deceit" is not generally accepted in any of the parliaments, and certainly by practice not in here. Would you like to withdraw the word?

MS. SANFORD: The ad that we saw yesterday, Mr. Speaker, said....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, just withdraw the word "deceit," please.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, I withdraw the word.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Please proceed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Keep trying, Karen.

MS. SANFORD: What they said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in reading that ad — the ad was again read today by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) — was that there were 100,000 people out of work. This was an ad that was carried in the papers throughout the province. It may not have been deceit, but it certainly was misleading. It was wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: It wasn't true.

MS. SANFORD: Those weren't the figures, and I think they knew it when they ran that ad. Those figures were being published at that time. The same labour research department was doing the research. I don't understand.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're giving you wrong figures now.

MS. SANFORD: The other thing they said was that they would get B.C. moving again. Mind you, I shouldn't accuse them of anything there because they didn't say in what direction. They didn't indicate to us, so perhaps they weren't trying to mislead the public at that time.

[ Page 127 ]

These people have created a recession in this province; they have done it with their policies, their actions and their programmes. There is no confidence; people are looking everywhere for work.

I wonder if the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) would consider looking at some of those ads. They may not be deceitful but they're certainly misleading and I think that ads like that should be looked at. You know, in spite of the continuing attempts by the Premier, and by others, to say that things are okay in this province, most people know that they aren't okay. The statements that you read in the paper day after day say there's no room for optimism; everything looks bleak. Yet they're not giving us anything to correct that situation. They're not even recognizing it. They won't admit it. I really feel, Mr. Speaker, that it's time that this government looked at the role that it is playing in the whole of the economy.

Do you know, we had the member for Kamloops, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, just before he sat down, make a statement which I think is absolutely erroneous — hilarious, in fact, when you look at it. He was talking about some project within his own riding, and he ended up by saying that governments sometimes so interfere with the world of commerce that citizens suffer.

You know, the system that we have had in this country for 100 years or more has been virtually one of non-interference by government. The corporations have been allowed to proceed their merry way. They've been allowed to make investments where they like, when they like; close down communities when it's their wish. And they have failed the people of Canada. We don't even have a system which can provide the work for the people of this country. We don't even have a system which can provide decent housing for a large number of the people of this province. Instead of talking about governments interfering, it is now time that governments got directly involved in a planned economy so that some direction can be given through the elected people of this province about investments.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MS. SANFORD: What kind? Where? When? How? Decisions are now made in boardrooms. They are made for the benefit of the company that's involved. The companies that are involved have to consider their profits. Those directors sitting in those boardrooms work on behalf of their companies. That's what their major concern is. They can't be concerned about closing down communities or how much it's going to cost to service a community somewhere else or what kind of housing there is. It is time that governments got involved in planning that economy, giving some direction to investment for the benefit of the people, not for the benefit of the corporation and its profits.

You people have messed up the economy. There is no confidence. Businesses are going bankrupt or leaving the province. Young people are exiting. You have failed in your first year in office....

MR. BARRETT: They haven't created one new job.

MS. SANFORD: You are unable to recognize it or admit it or apologize to the people of the province.

MR. BARRETT: Haven't created one new job except for executive assistants, and they only last two days.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't complain, Dave, you got one.

MS. SANFORD: I ask now that this government begin to undo the damage that they have done in this last year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm amazed.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): I like your tie.

MR. COCKE: You like my tie. I'm amazed, Mr. Speaker, that we could be in a serious debate of this sort where the Whip and I have been negotiating — day in, day out — for places to speak on the agenda of this House, and tonight, all of a sudden, they're mute. They've been wanting to speak. Have you no unemployment in your ridings, you backbenchers?

MS. SANFORD: They go on unemployment insurance.

MR. COCKE: Is there no one hurting in Burnaby?

MR. LOEWEN: They're all happy in Burnaby.

MR. COCKE: You know they're all happy in Burnaby. There's the member for Burnaby-Edmonds who wants to come over to New Westminster and give us some help; he's done nothing so far for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. LOEWEN: Except for Burnaby North.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): We are unhappy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members!

[ Page 128 ]

MR. LOEWEN: Of course they're unhappy in Burnaby North, and you'll be hearing from them.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, may we just direct a little order into the House and remind the member who has the floor that on the question before us just now debate must be held strictly relevant to the wording of the motion itself.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and we're talking about the economy. We're talking about the government's influence on the economy. We're talking about the fact that we are quite concerned that the Lieutenant-Governor did not include in his Speech from the Throne some aspects that we feel could very well shape up our economy. One of those aspects is our lack of confidence in this government. Mr. Speaker, can I go over a little bit of history with you, sir? On February 4, 1974, the then member for Vancouver–Point Grey, the now Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), said something I think we should all think about.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Patrick Lucey?

MR. COCKE: Patrick Lucey. He said:

"If you cannot recognize, with the kind of record that Social Credit administration gave us, what those deficiencies were, if you cannot be large enough in heart and broad enough in intelligence to admit those deficiencies, to repent and guarantee to correct them, you don't deserve to sit in the opposition, much less sit in government."

Mr. Speaker, remember those words. We're dealing with a Socred coalition that has shown no repentance. They have not corrected the old deficiencies, and their hearts are not large, nor their intelligence broad. If they are, they have shown no evidence of that in the past year that they've been in government.

Mr. Speaker, the lip service that we hear about unemployment in this province — unemployment that's been burgeoning, that's been growing while this government's been in power — oh yes, we've heard the intent, but we've seen no results, Mr. Speaker, from that government. That government is not changed. It changed in personnel but somehow that new personnel, one of whom is now a minister, said those telling things about the old Socreds, and said, Mr. Speaker...

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about it.

MR.COCKE: ...that they were not fit to serve in opposition, much less in government, as a result of the policies that he now, as a minister, has taken and clutched to his breast. It's shocking, Mr. Speaker.

They have driven our economy into a tailspin, and they're trying their best in New Westminster.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's happened in New Westminster?

MR. COCKE: Thank heaven the Royal Columbian Hospital got off the ground. Thank heaven, Mr. Speaker, the Queen's Park Hospital got off the ground.

What's happening on Columbia Street, Mr. Speaker, is of significance to this new government, and what are they doing about it?

AN HON. MEMBER: How many years ago?

MR. COCKE: Nothing. Mr. Speaker, more went on in New Westminster in the three and a half years we were government than in the 20 preceding years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing. Nothing at all.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: A hospital.

MR. LOEWEN: Nothing.

MR. COCKE: Oh, nothing. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds — the member from nothing, going nowhere — is really getting uptight tonight.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, he has been part of the crowd that have developed a system of driving our economy down the tube.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. COCKE: Yes, and when I was in Okanagan Falls I heard some very kindly remarks about the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who was then the member for Boundary-Similkameen constituency....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That old cowpoke.

Mr. Speaker, early in their period in power they blamed the NDP — everything that's happened in the world that's bad, blame the NDP. One of the greatest blamers of the NDP is the minister who now sits under the cloud; the cloud we've seen best described in Li'l Abner — you know, little Joe Bfltsk, or whatever he is.

MR. MACDONALD: It certainly isn't a halo.

[ Page 129 ]

MR. COCKE: That's right. But that early excuse has worn out now, Mr. Speaker. That early excuse doesn't wash any longer. We are waiting for results from this government; waiting for results from this government in our economy that just have not been forthcoming. Every day in every way we're getting worser and worser.

AN HON. MEMBER: Worse.

MR. COCKE: That is to coin a new phrase for the Minister of Agriculture.

Our economy is sick. Can you imagine the now Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) if he were in opposition now — wow! Remember that speech he made? Oh, we'll never forget. "Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! Jobjobjobjobjobs!" He didn't do it for 14 hours, but he sure did it. Yes, when we were a government we took abuse, we took smear, and we took innuendo, but do you know, over one of those issues....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: I would like to bring you back the Can-Cel, then Col-Cel. Think of the jobs that were saved at that time — 5,000. That was a very progressive move, Mr. Speaker, that was taken by the government of the day. The economy was helped in this province at that time. What, however, was the opposition's position?

Remember February 20. That was an infamous day, if you go over Hansard. Remember February 20. The now Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the then member for South Peace River, after an afternoon of innuendo, after an afternoon of unfounded allegations around Col-Cel, around Dunhill and around anything else that he could develop in his imagination....

MR. KING: That's wild.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, he spoke of possible leaks; he spoke of insider trading. He said: "What persons in the cabinet had access to information? What caucus members had access to information? Who did this? Who did that? How did they do it?" Mr. Speaker, when we were trying to improve the economy, what was that member doing, who is now charged with the responsibility of trying to improve our economy at this time in history? What was he doing? Mr. Speaker, as I described, it was an afternoon of allegation, an afternoon of innuendo.

He prompted the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) at the time to stand in his place and call for an election. Yes, you did, that day — as described in good old Hansard. Those remarks came from that man's mouth. But later that day, Mr. Speaker, that member for South Peace River, continuing with his charges, continuing on with his unfounded allegations, continuing on with his smear, smeared John de Wolf, prompting the now Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), who was then the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, to jump to his feet at the end of his speech, and on a point of order say as follows: "I just want to say to you and this House that I know John de Wolfe to be a person of unimpeachable integrity."

Even another member of the opposition, who has since married the clan, who has since risen to that mighty tower as the Minister of Labour, had to take on the then member for South Peace River. What did he think about the member for South Peace River and his integrity, Mr. Speaker — the man now charged to put our economy on the rails. We know where he's been taking us so far.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Did he promise us he'd put it on the rocks, Mr. Member? Well, well, well. He has been the most successful member that we've had in this House to date — under that basis. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Economic Development that same year — earlier that year — on February 4 got up in the House, and he accused us, gave his colleague, who now sits to the left of him, bushels and bushels and bushels of words about us setting up a state police force. This man of integrity, this great man of innuendo, this great man of smear, got up at that time. Let me quote, Mr. Speaker, what he said. Listen to the way he said it, because I think it's important that we know something about the man that's charged with the responsibility of getting this province going. This was February 4, 1974, in the throne debate of the day:

I listened, Mr. Speaker, on Friday last, when the member for Delta, moving the motion, and the member for Esquimalt tiptoed around the contents of the speech, but they made no mention, Mr. Speaker, of the action which will be taken by the socialist regime to establish a state police force in the province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: You backed off.

MR. COCKE: Backed off, my foot! I'll go back into this in just a second.

But he gave Grace McCarthy, the now Provincial Secretary, the kind of ammunition that she took around this province and trundled out everywhere she had a possible chance. That was the origin, this trusted man who is supposed to be leading our economy to new heights. Leading our economy to new heights — where?

Interjection.

[ Page 130 ]

MR. COCKE: Yes, and Mr. Minister, you're not much better. We've got quotes here till you-know-what won't have them.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go on, but I know what the true intent of this is. I know what the Attorney-General intends to do. Certainly, I intend to tell the people of this province what the Attorney-General intends to do, referring to the state police. We took....

AN HON. MEMBER: A lot of guff.

MR. COCKE: Yes, we took a lot of guff, but we took an opportunity — early, when you people were government — just to check on the credentials of the man charged with the responsibility of taking us to new heights. We asked the now Attorney-General whether or not he discovered any police force, whether or not those allegations were true. Of course he had to admit they weren't. Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of situation this province lives with. It's a shame to do something like that to a province such as this, a province which deserves so much better. So bear in mind that when we show concern for the economy, we show concern with good reason, because we don't feel that the man who's trusted with taking our economy somewhere is doing it.

Mr. Speaker, those statements about the police force were irresponsible, to say the least. It was a poor record, I say, in opposition, and it's exactly the same kind of record in government: a poor record in opposition with his mouth on these occasions and many, many more, and an equally poor record in government, and likely for similar reasons.

Mr. Speaker, we don't have to stand here and tell you how many unemployed there are. You know it; every one of you people in the back bench, every one of you people in government know it. You know how many people are complaining to you; you've never seen welfare requests like there are now. You're not granting a lot of them; you're driving them out of the province. There are apartments for rent all over my constituency where we saw no rental signs until recently. And it's the same thing in your constituency, Mr. Minister of Human Resources (Mr. Vander Zalm): a poor record from that minister; a deplorable record from that government in this respect, but particularly from that minister who has made all these kinds of allegations and shown that it's very difficult to trust his word.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we're asking that that minister, who has done a lot of damage, be set aside with his cloud. When all the evidence is in he can resume, if you still want him. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think there are those, if he won't make this kind of decision himself, who should.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) now had an assessment of the man who should take action on the sensitivity of his department, and take action on removing him from a sensitive position. Let's see what the Minister of Labour once said about the now Premier, in May 1974.

MR. MACDONALD: Before the marriage of inconvenience.

MR. COCKE: Before the marriage. Mr. Speaker, I quote, speaking about the now Premier of this province who should be directing our province into a better economic situation, and who should also be making decisions about the man who's let us down in the last year:

"If, as has been in the daily press by prominent political columnists, the impact of this speech was one designated to confront the minister, and if the information upon which those remarks were based were the result of liberal application of money, then let me say that never before has any political party been so badly cheated. Indeed, if the legislation before this House dealing with trade practices had been law, I would suspect that the hon. Leader of the Opposition and his party would have proper cause for complaint and for return of the moneys that they spent.

"The arguments placed by the hon. Leader of the Opposition.... "

MR. MACDONALD: Who was that?

MR. COCKE: That was the now Premier.

"The arguments placed by the hon. Leader of the Opposition amount to nothing more than mere addition and subtraction of dollar amounts dealing with probable world prices of pulp, and then having arrived at what appeared to be reasonable figures, the embarkation by the hon. member on the wildest kind of speculation to confront this government, the Government of British Columbia, with a charge he cannot sustain."

MR. KING: They have no respect for each other.

MR. COCKE: Listen to this, Mr. House Leader:

"If this is the calibre which we are to expect from the Leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition then, truly, in the province of British Columbia we are in serious difficulty.

"As I look at the remarks in Hansard I feel that having arrived at certain normal world prices for pulp, all that hon. Leader of the Opposition has done is to speculate that if certain things were done on the black market, and if certain prices were realized, then perhaps certain people have made some profits, and from that argument he attempts to bring home to this government and to this minister and to this province an involvement in international profiteering which he finds objectionable."

[ Page 131 ]

Then he went on to say: "Mr. Chairman, we are entitled to better than this from the first speech in this House by the man who calls himself the Leader of the Official Opposition."

Mr. Speaker, those words are the words of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), where he found much to be desired in the Social Credit — the words of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), where he found much to be desired in the responsible person. Mr. Speaker, all of their words are important words for us to understand.

MR. SPEAKER: I realize that, hon. member, but I would also remind you that the amendment is before the House, and I'll quote it to you: "that this House regrets that the speech of His Honour fails to provide any adequate proposals to meet the critical state of unemployment in the province, affecting many thousands of our citizens and their families, and fails to deal with the impact of widespread unemployment upon the social and economic life of the province." May I suggest to you, respectfully, that you relate your remarks to the amendment?

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and if there isn't a very close relationship of my remarks to the amendment, then I am very surprised at the interpretation.

The people who are charged with the responsibility of bringing this province back into the black.... Using their own kind of language, if they are to do that, Mr. Speaker, then they should be people who can even trust one another. But we've seen that the Minister of Education now doesn't trust the Socreds. He said that unless they change their way...and we have seen no evidence of them changing their way; we've seen no evidence whatsoever of that. We see a smirking bunch of laughing people over there. We see the minister of corpulent affairs making remarks that, really, he can't substantiate. He's been given responsibility, Mr. Speaker. We're going to be talking a great deal about him, I am sure. His responsibility, too, right now is to lean on the rest of the people in that government, particularly the Premier, who has been described by some of your colleagues in not necessarily the most gracious of language. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who has really let us down....

Now where is this government? You have before you, Mr. Speaker, a resolution indicating that they are wallowing, indicating that they are mired down, indicating that they are up to their ears in heaven only knows what. But it certainly is not the kind of work that is getting results for the people of British Columbia. Unfortunately, you are no longer in a position to blame the NDP; you are not in that position any longer.

So, Mr. Speaker, I suggest very strongly that the kind of statements that brought us the state police, the kind of statements that brought us the....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, yes. I dealt with that a little while ago. The minister beside you....

I went back in Hansard to find out where all that state police rubbish came from. I found it to be out of the mouth of that Minister of Economic Development. The now Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) had to repudiate that, but meanwhile it did a lot of damage.

So, Mr. Speaker, it's time we had responsible government. It's time we had a government dedicated to the needs of people.

Mr. Cocke moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:24 p.m.