[ Page 1241 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply; Executive CounciI estimates.

On vote 5: amendment.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 1241

Ms. Sanford –– 1245

Ms. Brown –– 1246

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1252

Mr. Gibson –– 1256

Mrs. Wallace –– 1257

Division on motion to rise and report progress –– 1258

Mr. King –– 1258

Mr. Loewen –– 1262

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

(continued)

On vote 5: executive council, $753,760 -

continued.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I don't wish to delay this vote any further. I think there has been a fair amount of unnecessary frivolous debate in this motion that covered the waterfront in an attempt to find an issue which they failed to do. But there have been certain statements made, Mr. Chairman, which I feel I have to respond to.

The first, second, third or fourth member for Vancouver East, who isn't here this evening - maybe he will arrive later; he is probably at the Union Club having a late dinner - made some statements regarding a $120 million ripoff on the matter of natural gas. I think, Mr. Chairman, we have to examine what took place in the Peace River country while the 10P was government of British Columbia.

We found that the Peace River was an economic wasteland; it was void of economic opportunity; it was void of employment opportunities; and it was void of a sound future as well. It was really a frozen wasteland while those people were in office, because they failed to heed the advice that was given to them by their own Energy Commission.

We've lost three great years in our ability to explore additional reserves of natural gas and oil in British Columbia because that former government didn't listen to the advice given to them by their own appointed Energy Commission. The handwriting was clear on the wall; it was spelled out by their Energy Commission what they had to do to develop additional reserves and additional exploration activity in the Peace River in order for additional dollars to flow to the government to provide social services for people. I don't think we can repeat these recommendations too often, because those people have a tendency of forgetting the kind of recommendations that are put to them and a tendency to want to cloud the situation with a bunch of fictitious, imaginary figures.

The key recommendations were put to them by their own Energy Commission in August, 1974. They had a chance in August, 1974, to turn the exploration activities situation around prior to their having to run to the people with a quickie election, with the hope that the true facts of the economy of this province wouldn't be known. But oh, no, they wouldn't listen. They thought they knew best.

They were told in recommendation No. I that exploration and development activity in the past season was essentially at a standstill, and was projected to remain at a very low level under prevailing conditions.

Recommendation No. 2 said: "Current natural gas and oil production are below levels that the commission considers appropriate to the best interests of the province, and such levels will further deteriorate without acceleration of activity in the industry.

No. 3: "The lack of exploration and development activity in the field has had a serious impact on the communities of Fort Nelson and Fort St. John, where the service industries are located."

Mr. Chairman, the economies of Fort St. John and Fort Nelson have never been better than they are right now. There has never been as much optimism as exists there now. There has never been as much economic activity. There have never been as many employment opportunities as exist in those communities right now.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You'll have to take that report to Fort Nelson and tell the people what it was like.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, I'm going to have to tell them that they didn't listen to the recommendations of their Energy Commission in August, 1974, when they had an opportunity to turn the economy of that region around. Oh, no, they weren't prepared to listen. But they come around here, Mr. Chairman, and double talk, and suggest that we borrowed $120 million of unnecessary cash in the back pockets of the multinational oil companies.

When they were told what the problem were in the oil exploration areas of British Columbia ... I'll read recommendation No. 3 again: "The lack of exploration and development activity in the field has had a serious impact on the communities of Fort Nelson and Fort St. John, where the service industries are located. A continuation of the depressed level of activity into another season will result in a general movement of skills and equipment out of the province, with adverse long-tem effects on these communities and on the industry." They were warned by well-paid appointees

[ Page 1242 ]

of that former government.

Recommendation No. 4: "The present level of activity is slow, because the producing companies have, in effect, gone on strike against the current pricing arrangements."

Recommendation No. 5: "Higher prices for old and new gas, and increased net-backs to the industry on crude oil, together with a mechanism for revising prices and net-backs in the future, are necessary incentives to provide higher levels of oil and gas production and are justified in the public interest."

Those are the recommendations by your Energy Commission. I could go on, Mr. Chairman, with other recommendations in which they suggested that they didn't think it would be in the public interest to have a Crown corporation or government activity in exploration activity in the northeastern part of the province. But oh no, they failed to take heed of the recommendations of the Energy Commission they'd sent out to view points of concern by the industry. They were told how they could restore economic activity in the northeastern part of the province, but they didn't listen. No, we have that record to live with in this province, that record of three lost years in this province, three lost years of exploration activity in northeastern B.C.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

This government did not heed the advice of that Energy Commission appointed by that former government because we looked at their recommendations, and on the basis of their recommendations we came to the conclusion that there was a need to turn around activity in northeastern British Columbia. We recognize that and we've turned that situation around very dramatically. Had it been turned around a little sooner, Mr. Chairman, we would have had tens of millions of additional dollars flowing into the provincial coffers to provide services to people.

But oh no, Mr. Chairman, they want to twist and turn the facts that are very clearly spelled out by their own appointed Energy Commission. We have the evidence now of what has happened because of the increase in providing an incentive for exploration, by providing a reasonable wellhead price as far as natural gas is concerned, a competitive wellhead price. The reality of the fact is that Alberta is our neighbouring province and we have to be competitive with that province as well if we're going to attract rigs to this province to ensure economic activity.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We're paying less than Alberta.

HON. M. CHABOT: Yes, we're paying less at the wellhead, but we had to be not too far away and those people are unwilling to face up to those realities. They are unwilling to face up to the fact that you have to pay the going price or a reasonable price in order to encourage drilling rigs to come to this province.

We've seen what has happened; the record is clear; the evidence is there. They can probably attempt to twist the facts, those members from the opposition, as they always do. The facts are very clear about what has has happened with the kind of cash flow that is coming to government because of the new policies we've initiated and the new incentives that we have established in order to ensure that we'd be able to look after the energy needs of British Columbia.

I think they're worth commenting on, Mr. Chairman, and I'm going to comment on some of the twisted and convoluted and unknowing remarks of the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) a little later on, because she doesn't understand what she's talking about.

Let's look at the record, just as an indication of the kind of revenue that's flowed to the provincial government because of the new policies that had been initiated. The record speaks pretty loud, Mr. Chairman. The revenue to the Crown for land dispositions in 1973 -that's a year in which that opposition over there was proud to be government, but not proud of the revenue they generated because their policies were detrimental to the economic expansion of this province - was $17,776, 441. This is just to show that the recommendations of the Energy Commission are accurate - Mr. Chairman. In 1974, $22,955, 334 of revenue came to the provincial government because of land dispositions. And that's the right to drill, for oil or gas - it has absolutely nothing to do with B.C. Petroleum Corporation, Madam Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

AN HON. MEMBER: The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) thinks the same thing.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, yes, I think the member for Nanaimo knows better, Mr. Chairman. But he has a tendency to want to fuzz the issue, to confuse the public as to what has caused the additional revenue flowing from the development of our petroleum resources in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: He said that publicly.

[ Page 1243 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: He wrote a letter to the editor as well, Mr. Member.

In 1975, after having been warned in 1974 by their Energy Commission as to what would happen unless they were willing to pay a competitive price at the wellhead, here is the kind of revenue that was derived from land dispositions. After having obtained $22 million in 1974, in 1975 it went down to $12,749, 247.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) suggests I'm entering the gallery. 1 think they're coming over to this side.

In 1976, after having examined the shortcomings of the former government, we found that land disposition revenues had established a new high: $43,226, 441. That's double any revenue ever generated by that former government - in 1976, $43 million, the highest land disposition sales in the history of this province.

Then in 1977, after this government had an opportunity to do some encouragement as far as exploration is concerned, revenue from land dispositions was $125,467, 725, and that member for Vancouver East suggests that it was a sellout. In 1975 it was $12 million.

So to point out that I'm not picking out an abnormally active year, I have to look at what has transpired in the year 1978 to date. We have more sales coming up. In 1978 we had the greatest land disposition revenue of any sale of petroleum lands in the history of British Columbia. The revenue from that sale in January, 1978, was $67,293, 000.

MR. MACDONALD: Have you sold the whole province yet?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That facetious member for Vancouver East nodded in agreement with me when I suggested that these land dispositions gave only one right - the right of exploration for oil or gas in British Columbia.

In 1978 to date we have collected on land dispositions, which gives only the right to explore for oil or gas, $99,693, 000. You have to look at the last year of the NDP's administration in comparison, and we're only into May of this year. We have other sales coming up. Compare that with a miserable $12 million which they were able to generate in 1975. Exploration has been active, dollars have been pouring into the provincial government because there is a new competitiveness, a new encouragement for exploration in British

Columbia which was absent during those dormant years from 1972 to 1975.

Reserve-- of natural gas have increased very dramatically since we've been government. While that member for Vancouver East sat in government, the reserves depleted very dramatically. We have found just recently a new building up of reserves in 1977 - 643 billion cubic feet of additional gas added to the reserves in British Columbia.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We hear the member for Prince Rupert make facetious remarks across the floor that God was good to us, or words to that effect, Mr. Chairman. I'll tell you that you can't find gas or oil unless you do some drilling and there was no drilling between 1972 and 1975. No, the activities increased fourfold in exploration activities since we've been government because there's a new attitude in British Columbia. We want to establish reserves to ensure that British Columbians will have an adequate supply of natural gas in this province.

Mr. Chairman, the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) , just the other night -and I'm just going to talk on the subject very briefly - alluded to the fact that the additional revenue which I'd indicated was flowing to the provincial government was because of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation. Let me assure her that the B.C. Petroleum Corporation has absolutely nothing to do with additional revenue. The B.C. Petroleum Corporation is just merely a substitute for royalty. It's a tax-gathering institution. That's all it is, Mr. Chairman, it just substitutes royalty. The NDP can be as proud as they can of that institution, but as my estimates unfold I'll have more to say. Mr. Chairman, I'll have more to say about some of the difficulties caused by the B.C. Petroleum Corporation and the government's great vehicle of which they are so proud.

The member for Vancouver East.... Again, I never know whether he's the first or second. I know he was elected first because the other guy came in through a by-election, so could somebody tell me which he is? So that I can properly refer to the member, could the Chairman please tell me who that member is? Is he first or second? I'm talking about the frilly haired guy over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're on a motion, as I'm sure you are well aware.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I

[ Page 1244 ]

recognize that. I'm referring to the member for Vancouver East who was mouthy this afternoon and who has been mouthy since the session started. We're discussing the motion on vote 5. I recognize that. There have been a lot of different comments made in relation to this motion, and in relation to vote 5, but I want to say this, Mr. Chairman: that member for Vancouver East had a meeting with one Andrew Schuck, the mayor of Fort Nelson. I think he ran in the last provincial election. I don't see him here. Where is he?

Mr. Chairman, there were some great revelations made to that member for Vancouver East by the mayor of Fort Nelson, the former NDP candidate, Andrew Schuck, and that was that there was a cutback in cash flow, taker-pay gas coming out of northeastern British Columbia.

I'll never forget the last session, in which the provincial government was in the process of negotiating, I guess, the best-efforts arrangement with Pan-Alberta to fill the shortfall on our Westcoast export contract. There's been a serious shortfall for some time. And that member suggested last year that we should gleefully accept natural gas coming from Alberta through Pan-Alberta arrangements and tie in with Westcoast. And now he has....

MR. MACDONALD: Keep B.C. gas for B.C.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member, you are well aware of the rules.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Now he's expressing alarm that there is a cutback once the Pan-Alberta Alberta gas is flowing through the Westcoast Transmission system to pick up the shortfall. Now he's expressing alarm at the fact that some of the gas in northeastern British Columbia is being shut in.

You've got to realize you can't have it both ways. You can't support the movement of natural gas through British Columbia to fill a shortfall on what is basically a British Columbia export contract without it displacing some B.C. gas. That's what's taking place. So don't express alarm when all of a sudden Pan-Alberta gas is starting to flow and cutting down on gas flow from British Columbia wells.

Mr. Chairman, I was going to say a few words about coal, but I think it would be premature on my part to discuss coal. I'm not going to be as irresponsible as some members have been in this House.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, now we have heard from the silver hairdo.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, Madame Runge, that's the second or third outfit I've seen you with today.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) always seems to talk up...top off ... talk off the top of his head. (Laughter.) I'm having some trouble with that; my first language is French. Is it my fault I have some difficulty with the English language?

MR. LEA: Be serious.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I am. That was my first language.

The member for Vancouver East was saying, "We've never heard of this coal policy, " and suggested it was the first time he had ever heard of a coal policy.

MR. LEA: What is it?

HON. MR. CHABOT: It was mentioned in the budget speech. He suggested the Premier had never heard of the coal policy.

MR. MACDONALD: Read it out.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It was mentioned in the budget speech. It said: "A coal policy has been enunciated to provide the basis of future development of our vast coal resources."

AN HON. MEMBER: What is it?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The members tend to suggest that that you should enunciate every new policy in the budget. There has been a coal policy paper issued: There have been press releases. And if the member was really interested in finding out what the coal policy of British Columbia is, he would have made inquiries to my office or to some official of my ministry to secure a copy of the coal policy.

I'll have ample opportunity for discussion at the appropriate time under amendments to the Coal Act, which I indicated earlier would be introduced during this session. That's why I find it so hilarious on the part of the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) , talking about the existing Coal Act and making a great

[ Page 1245 ]

series of suggestions, innuendoes and false statements about what the coal policy is liable to be in British Columbia. And he suggests that, oh yes, we are going to rush to make changes to allow people to acquire coal licences in British Columbia before there's a possibility that we might elect another socialist government in this province - God forbid!

That member knows very little about govern ment if he doesn't realize that governments have the right to change legislation, the right to change rental fees, the right to change work requirements, the right to change coal royalties. You had those rights. So why should you suggest for a moment that there is a great anxiety on the part of this government to issue a licence for the development of coal in this province?

No, Mr. Chairman, they are nothing but a group of obstructionists. They are just attempting to obstruct. Because of the fact that there has been a good budget established this year, they are going to be picayune and try to find every little area in which they think they can nitpick and attack the Premier, who is the best Premier doing the best job of any Premier in this province's history.

Mr. Chairman, I'd love to have the opportunity to talk a little more about coal, but that debate will come. We'll have ample opportunity to debate it and put to rest the erroneous and false statements made by those members opposite.

MS. SANFORD: It's always interesting to hear from the minister of mines closures on his non-policy on coal. He took a half hour to outline;his non-policy on coal.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I had to correct some erroneous statements made by that member over there.

MS. SANFORD: On the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I'm disappointed to see that the Premier has run away again tonight. I can understand him leaving when the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources is up, but when there are questions that the Premier has to answer from members of this opposition he should be here in this House and he should be answering those questions.

Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if perhaps in view of the absence again of the Premier, someone over there might be willing to take some notes and perhaps I could get these questions answered. Would the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) ... ?

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: If the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) would be quiet for a minute, I would ask him to take notes for the Premier so that I could get my questions answered. Would you be willing to take notes?

HON. MR. MAIR: This is a non-confidence motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I've been waiting for two days for answers to questions that I raised in the House with respect to statements that the Premier made about the sale of the E & N lands. He said to the province that if E & N will not live up to its commitments, the E & N should give the land back. I want to know which land he's talking about, because the E & N doesn't own any land aside from the right-of-way. I think that's a very simple question, and I have been waiting for two days for that answer. I am wondering if the Premier would be willing to come back into the House, take the notes from the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) and answer that very simple question. What lands is the Premier talking about? Does he expect the CPR to go out and buy back all of the lands that it has sold off over the years so that it can give back to the Crown the lands that it was given originally in 1883? In any case, I hope we can get an answer to that tonight.

Mr. Chairman, I was quite concerned yesterday in the House when the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) indicated that she would take as notice a question with respect to the Vietnam committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MS. SANFORD: Be patient back in there; just be patient. On February 21,1977, during discussion of the Premier's estimates the Premier informed this House that that government would meet the commitment that was made by this Legislature in 1973 to distribute funds for medical purposes for children in Vietnam. At that time the Premier indicated that they had no money set aside - just as they indicated yesterday from the cabinet benches - but he said at that time, and I quote from Hansard of February 21,1977. "1 like your suggestion about a committee." He was referring to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) . "That's fine. It will be done and money will be found. We'll get to work on something that's been a commitment for quite a few years of your administration and the first 14 months

[ Page 1246 ]

of ours."

Now yesterday when the Provincial Secretary took as notice my question as to whether or not that committee was going to be reestablished, I was concerned. When the members in the cabinet benches started shouting "there's no money, " I became even more concerned.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: I am referring to the February 21,1977, statement of the Premier, and the Premier, during his estimates....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. Perhaps hon. members would await their turn to speak in the debate.

MS. SANFORD: They're rather touchy over there on this issue, and I'm concerned about it as a result, because it was very clear. Last year during the debates on the Premier's estimates, he restated that commitment to the children of Vietnam. Now I was so concerned yesterday that I went to see the chairman of that committee, the MLA for Atlin (Mr. Calder) . He indicated to me that he too had been attempting to have that committee re-established, because as you probably know, Mr. Chairman, that committee became defunct when the House prorogued this year. The Provincial Secretary, I think, knows that that committee has to be re-established by resolution if, in fact, the people of this House are to meet the commitment to the children of Vietnam.

Now, Mr. Chairman, even the chairman of the government side of the House has not been able to get a commitment from the government members to re-establish that committee. What I'm seeking tonight is a commitment from the Premier again, as he said on February 21,1977: "Yes, we do have an obligation, and yes, we will fulfill that obligation, and yes, we will find money to do it." On those two issues, I hope the Premier will return to the House, accept his responsibilities and answer questions posed by members of the opposition.

MS. BROWN: hr. Chairman, I certainly an very pleased to take my place in this debate of non-confidence in the Premier. The main reason, I think, aside from the disastrous Minister of Human Resources, has got to be the Minister of Health, who had the gall to stand on the floor of the House this afternoon and weave a tale of fantasy about what his department is doing, without realizing that the record stands. All the statements he's made, everything he's done, are there for us to check and double-check.

But it's also interesting that the Minister of Health, of course, chose to attack the first member for Vancouver-Burrard while she was out of the House. But that's not surprising. The Minister of Health, if you'll remember, also attacked the mother of the first member for Vancouver-Burrard, who's never been in the House. So this is a habit of the Minister of Health. Next it's going to be my father, and my grandfather, and on and on. it's obvious that the Minister of Health has an obsession. And he has every right to have an obsession with me, because somebody's got to tell the world.... You have an obsession with me, Mr. Minister. I'm scared to go out. The moment I step out of the Legislature, he leaps to his feet and starts to talk about me. I can't leave the room.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, perhaps if we would just refer to standing order 61, dealing with relevancy. It does say: "Speeches in the Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to an item or clause under consideration." Now it would seem to me that under the motion that we're discussing, we're just somewhat off the relevancy.

MS. BROWN: Thank you. I realize that I really should stand on a matter of privilege and complain about the Minister of Health always attacking me when I'm out of the House.

For the interest of the Minister of Health and anyone over there who is interested, my mother is very well. Thank you very much. She often inquires about the Minister of Health too.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Health went through the list which I presented to the Premier under his estimates in which I explained to him that the cutbacks which are occurring in various departments in his ministry were causing his government to create a hardship on the people of British Columbia. The Minister of Health got up and contradicted all of these cutbacks. I want to start out by first of all thanking Hansard for having the Blues ready so that I could deal with some of these statements, since I was not in the House today when the Minister of Health mentioned them.

Mr. Chairman, he talks about my statements referring to the Prince George Regional Hospital. He says that there has not been a delay. There has been no delay in dealing with the expansion of the Prince George Regional Hospi

[ Page 1247 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It's underway.

MS. BROWN: So it's underway. You're always talking about what's going to happen, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister of Health. You're always talking about what's going to happen, and what you have planned, and what's going to come down in your budget.

That's all you're talking about, but the cut backs exist now.

Lack of medical facilities frustrate Prince George. I want to quote from the Sun:

"When patients are sent away for treat ment, their families suffer too. The stately rhythms of government in Victoria are not easily comprehended in this brash city. That accounts, perhaps, for the bitterness of the dispute that has flared this month over delays and in developing advanced hospital facilities here. The city, where the average citizen is 27 years old, the industrial hub of the north growing by half every decade, has been outstripping its medical facilities for 20 years. Recent years have been especially frustrating, say Prince George's angry doctors, with a carrot of first-class facilities being dangled always out of reach by a penny-pinching government."

Now the minister has the nerve to say it's beginning to happen, and it's going to happen, and it's on the way. But the fact still remains that you've been dangling that carrot in front of the Prince George hospital. You've been dangling that carrot in front of them, and it has constituted a cutback. The Premier should be told under his estimates about the hardship being visited on the people of Prince

George as a result of your policies.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You've never been north of Hope.

MS. BROWN: Did the minister say I'd never been north of Hope?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You've never been north of Madam Runge's.

MS. BROWN: Oh, what nonsense! That is the same level of statement as you talking about welfare recipients being put up in the Empress. You are never correct about anything.

That's the reason we have a vote of nonconfidence in the Premier, because he's so round about. He's incompetent. You're all incompetent, with the exception of the Minister of Human Resources, who is incompetent and ambitious. That's the only thing that makes a difference from the rest of you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must refer you o the general restrictions on debate on supply, once again. Page 741 of the 19th edition f Sir Erskine May says: "Estimates do not afford the proper opportunity....

MS. BROWN: You'll get into the ministry one of these days.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: It's the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman) who is disturbing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I would like to read you this short passage which will detail quite briefly why the discussion as to whether people should be in the cabinet or not is not in order in debate in Committee of Supply. "Estimates do not afford the proper opportunity for discussing from which House a minister should be chosen or whether he should be in the cabinet or which minister should represent the government in respect to estimates under consideration." Therefore, I would ask that you keep your debate strictly relevant and not dwell on the position of ministers. This is not the correct vote under which to discuss that matter.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon, in coming to the defence, albeit reluctantly, of the Premier, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) raised a number of issues. I'm merely addressing myself and trying to set the record straight as far as those issues are concerned. It's a part of the same debate dealing with non-confidence in the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate it if you want to discuss those matters but we cannot reflect in committee as to whether or not the minister himself should be within the cabinet or whether any minister should be in the cabinet.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Health went on to comment on my statement about the Vancouver School Board's health budget for 1978, where I mentioned that with a cut of $60,000 something like 200 children in the province would be deprived of the dental services which they should have. In discussing this, the minister said the city had talked about it but, in fat, that had not actually happened. Yet we find in The Vancouver Sun of April 4,1978, that the school trustees are

[ Page 1248 ]

telling us that on Monday they decided to call a meeting with the mayor of Vancouver to discuss the matter of $60,000 being cut from the health budget which would result in 200 fewer children receiving dental services in the city of Vancouver.

Now what we have is not just a Premier who doesn't know what is going on in his province, but a lame duck minister who doesn't know what's going on in his ministry. That's what we have to deal with. a burden on the people of this province - runaway Premier, rundown government. That's what you are over there.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, I believe it's standard procedure in this House not to read newspapers and I notice the member over there who used to be the giveaway minister is reading the newspaper. I think that he should be required to maintain the decorum of the House. I realize that that group over there is trying to ruin this Legislature but I think that certainly the giveaway artists should be at least required to maintain proper decorum in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On your point of order: "members are not to read books or newspapers in their place. However, this rule must be understood with some limitations for although it is still irregular to read newspapers, any books or letters may be referred to by members preparing to speak, but ought not to be read or for amusement or business unconnected with the debate." That is from page 434 of my 19th edition of May.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the truth is so painful to that group over there that even the old roto-rooter himself had to come in and try to stall the debate. You know what a roto-rooter does, don't you?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the other day when discussing this matter I said that when we're looking for a definition of parliamentary language, perhaps we might use the mirror image and find out if we would like to be referred ourselves in the same- way as we are referring to other member. Perhaps you could take that into consideration.

MS. BROWN: I like the minister's talent to be a roto-rooter but, however, you're quite right. I will withdraw that statement. But it is an indication of how desperate they are over there when he stands up on that kind of point of order when he used to read the most incredible material when he was sitting over here in opposition. Now suddenly he's talking about decorum. He's discussing a topic with which he has no knowledge, no understanding, but he's talking about decorum.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the point of order raised does not afford opportunity for debate by other members. We are on the motion.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to return to discussing, with your permission, the vote of non-confidence in the Premier and that lame duck support which he got from that limping Minister of Health this afternoon who stood on the floor of the House and tried to weave a fantasy about what his department was doing to cover the fact that his department is not doing anything. He took issue with my statement about the Grandview private hospital and indeed so many of the private hospitals in this province that are closing down.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: How many?

MS. BROWN: You should have those kinds of figures. Why are you asking me?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Zero.

MS. BROWN: The Grandview Hospital right here - and you yourself did not even deny that when it happened; you were the government in 1976, Mr. Minister of Health....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Oh, I thought you said none. You said there were people in the Empress Hotel too. Why don't you get your facts straight? He never gets his facts straight, that minister, and he has the nerve to stand up on the floor of this House and throw up a smokescreen to clothe that emperor of his who is never present in this House, that unseen guest who floats in and out of here as the minister from Vancouver South says "floating like a bee, stinging like a butterfly." He can't even get the thing straight. It states here quite clearly: "A spokesman for Grandview Hospital said Saturday that the hospital was closing because it was crushed between a wage award and the inadequate provincial government payments." Don't tell me that no private hospitals have been closed down in this....

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: In 1976 - May 3,1976.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Could I ask the Minister of Health to come to order and wait

[ Page 1249 ]

until a later time to participate in this debate.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, he went to talk about my statement concerning the health centre for children. He said: "We are being told, according to the member last night - the quote's in Hansard - about a beautiful new children's hospital being built, yet the space set aside for research at the hospital is woefully inadequate." Then he goes on to say: "The member quotes some person from out of town who came in here, had one look at a hole in the ground, where the construction is underway for a new children's hospital, and then made the statement."

Do you know who that person from out of town who looked at the hole in the ground was? Dr. Ernest McCoy, who on July I will take the post of pediatrician-in---chief for that hospital. That's the stranger from out of town who looked at that hole in the ground and said that the research facilities were inadequate.

Mr. Chairman, tell the minister to get his act together. Dr. Ernest McCoy, who on July 1 will take the post of pediatrician-in-chief of the health centre for children at Vancouver General Hospital and is head of the University of British Columbia Department of Pediatrics, said that the only way that the hospital can have success is to move with haste towards the establishment of a research institute at that hospital. He criticized it, and the minister had the nerve to refer to the person who is going to be heading up that hospital as a stranger from out of town who looked at the hole in the ground! I'm telling you, the only stranger from out of town looking at a hole in the ground is that minister over there who stands on the floor of this House and weaves his fantasy tales, believing that he can get away with it. That is the reason he waits until 1 am out of the Legislature before he gets on his feet to say anything about his ministry. He wouldn't dare stand on his feet and say one single thing about his ministry when I'm sitting here.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were having a hair-do this afternoon - tell the truth.

MS. BROWN: Oh, you're so jealous because you have no hair. I can't help that. Good grief! If I could share it with him, I would, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I trust that remark was not addressed to the Chair, and I know that all remarks should be addressed through the Chair.

MS. BROWN: Not at all. I must confess I do appreciate the hair on the Chair. (Laughter.) I mean I .... I think I should withdraw that. I withdraw that statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Chair rejected it.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, then I talked about the planned $40 million expansion programme for St. Paul's Hospital, which was rejected. Now the minister gave an argument which made some sense, if you really understand Social Credit arithmetic. If there is $40 million set aside for expansion and you decide that $40 million is too much and, instead, you say they can have $22 million, does that constitute a cutback or doesn't it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not according to Social Credit.

MS. BROWN: That's right, the minister said: "No cutback." He allowed $22 million for St. Paul's. The fact that they had been allotted $40 million before didn't mean there was a cutback. This brave new programme is rushing forward with its $22 million. You know that is up; it's not down - right? That's Social Credit financing, and that's the reason for the vote of non-confidence being in the minister's salary - for it being cut to $3, because only in Social Credit can you find a $3 bill. He said it in his own words: "Instead of the planned $40 million programme, we decided to go ahead with the total of $22 million, which will see that the hospital is brought up to date and brought into the kind of condition in which it can serve the people of the city of Vancouver." Now don't tell me, when you go from $40 million to $22 million, you're not cutting back! But that's the kind of fantasy that we have to put up with from that Minister of Health.

Of course, those poor doctors at St. Paul's. don't know. They thought they were cut back, they really did. They criticized the minister because they really thought that when he... It said here: "St. Paul's Hospital is rushing the preparation of revised and much reduced development plans after Health Minister Bob McClelland squashed a $40 million expansion proposal." Those doctors don't even know when they're getting ahead, they thought they were being squashed. "It's no use sulking, " said the hospital board chairman, "we've been put on the shelf before and we don't intend to be put on the shelf again. If it means that we're offered half a loaf or less, then we'll have to take it and worry about the other half later."

[ Page 1250 ]

Yet the minister says: "The member for Vancouver-Burrard is telling a fib when she says that the $40 million expansion program was rejected by the government." Tell that to the hospital board at St. Paul's; they think they're cut back too. They think that when you go from $40 to $22 that you're losing. They don't understand Social Credit financing, and you really ought to go out there and explain it to them.

MR. LEA: Take the major with you.

MS. BROWN: That's right. You mean the one who is after abortionists, homosexuals and bankers? Oh yes, that's right. What a leader!

Mr. Speaker, I don't know how to deal with the whole business of the training programme being halted for the ambulance service and the crew cuts, because it's embarrassing. Basically I like the Minister of Health. Yes, I do like him and it embarrasses me when he gets carried away and forgets the things he said. Because every time there is a cutback - give him credit for this - he announces it himself. He never allows anybody else to announce it for him. He takes all the credit for the cutback and then he floats in here two years later or two months later or three months later and says: "That's no cutback. The member for Vancouver-Burrard doesn't understand what a cutback is."

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've been listening very carefully, but it's just not relevant any longer. Would you please address this to the motion we're under?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, yes, I'm responding to a statement by the Minister of Health to the effect that he did not cut back the training programme for the ambulance crew.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Please continue then.

MS. BROWN: So I would like to draw his attention a newspaper article from April 2,1976, and it says that ambulance crews have been cut and training programmes halted. At the time when he announced that, he promised that he would reinstate this programme as soon as the economy permits.

He made a promise and I believe him. I believe that when the minister's estimates come up this year we will find that he will once again tell us that gradually he's trying to improve the service as soon as the economy permits. But don't say that you were not responsible for the cuts, because you announced them. Mr. Chairman, through you, the minister announced them himself. The halting of the training programme, the minister also announced himself.

Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to his attention The Province of January 31,1978, in which a brief was presented to him which said '!Makeshift Arrangements Being Made Around B.C." It lists all of the staff shortages. It starts out by saying:

"In Grand Forks, if you phone an ambulance, it will be answered in the local beer parlor which will send you one." And then it goes on to talk about the staff shortages:

"Using emergency health services criteria based on the number of calls annually, Mission City should have five full-time employees; it has none. Parksville should have five; it has two. Prince George should have 18; it has nine. Out of 28 communities that should have one full-time person, there are only 10 communities that do." Now the minister cannot, in all honesty and fairness and justice, Mr. Chairman ' stand on the floor of this House and accuse me of not telling the truth when I say that services have been cut back, that the ambulance services have been cut back, that in fact the training programme was halted and that the sending of escorts along with ambulances was cut.

I want to apologize to the minister for that, because 'it's true, I did read my notes wrong on that, and I should have said that it was escort services that were eliminated, not the ambulance services. So I want to apologize for that. Let the record show that the escort services were eliminated, not the ambulance services. But I certainly stand behind my statement about the training programme being halted, about the ambulance crew being cut. You know, it talks about Saanich but I'll let the member deal with that. It talks about all of the municipal areas in the lower mainland and how they have to deal with the service with this cutback in their crew. This is January 31,1978. It's not 1975; it's not 1974.

"The ambulance service in Langley is defective." Now that is Embarrassing for me to mention that because as you know, Mr. Chairman, the minister is the member for Langley. So I'm not going to pursue that. But it's pretty awful that the ambulance service in Langley is being reported as being defective, and I want to refer him to the Sun on that one.

Mr. Speaker, on January 31 on page A14 of the Vancouver Sun: "The economic policies of the provincial government are greatly retar

[ Page 1251 ]

ding the development of the B.C. ambulance service. A year-long lack of money to finance training resulted in a shortage of trained paramedics and halted the training of personnel in smaller communities."

This afternoon when I wasn't in the house the minister accused me of making it all up, right? What do we find? We find that in fact we were dealing with the minister's fantasies, that's what we were dealing with. I know you would like to see a great health service in this province. I know that. I believe, Mr. Chairman, through you, that if he could he probably would give this province a good health service. But he can't do it because the economic policies of his government under that weak, absent Premier, that runaway Premier.... Being a part of that runaway government, it is just not possible for him to give good health services to this province.

HON. MR. FRASER: Are you going to run federally?

MS. BROWN: Not as long as you're here, baby. I've got to keep an eye on you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, it goes on to say: "The upgrading of vehicles was for a time severely cut back because of a lack of funds. In fact, the shortage of money almost completely stopped development of the service in B.C. during this critical infancy period, " and it goes on and on and on. It talks about an incident in Saanich where a person in an apartment called for an ambulance and couldn't get it, and one thing and another. Again, I'm quoting: "The doctors are dismayed at the cuts in ambulance training." The minister doesn't apologize, you know. He says it's a high priority but it's going to have to be cut back until times are better, so I cannot understand how he can stand on the floor of this House and deny that simple fact after he has gone ahead and said it.

The final thing I want to talk about though - no, it's not final; not until my light goes green - was to read a letter into the records dealing with the halving of funds for the VGH emergency development programme. Now he must have had to dig really deep to come up with that letter. He must have had to bypass a lot of his own material to come across that letter, because lo and behold, what do I find here? "Emergency Centre Funds Halved But Board Advised to Accept. Funds for a new $20 million emergency centre at Vancouver General Hospital have been slashed in half by Health Minister Robert McClelland."

AN HON. MEMBER: That was 1974.

MS. BROWN: It was 1976.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, it goes on to say: "Ben Wosk, chairman of VGH building committee, said that during a meeting with McClelland in Victoria, Tuesday, the Health minister proposed that the cost should be no higher than $10 million."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. oh!

MS. BROWN: The old crocodile is bringing tears to my -yes.

Mr. Chairman, do you know what the Minister of Health did? This is really interesting. He offered some advice as to how they could get by with half. He said: "The new centre might be constructed within the sun if the teaching facilities were deleted." Deleted! The great Minister of Health stood on the floor of the House today and read a letter allegedly from the previous Minister of Health. Here it is, his own statement, including free advice about how they could make it within that $10 million figure.

And you know, Mr. Chairman - I have to hurry and finish - the thing that really breaks my heart is that I wasn't even halfway through the list when my time was up. I didn't mention the fact that that minister gobbled up the VON, wiped them out, cut them off, cut them back, put them out of business forever. I didn't mention that. I didn't mention the cancer ward of children at VGH; I didn't mention that. There are a number of other things that could be dealt with which I didn't deal with. I haven't even got time to talk about the $5 million that Riverview is having to operate without. You know that's been shifted from one area to another.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In vote 125 we'll afford a time for discussion of that.

MS. BROWN: Thank you. And I certainly intend, under the minister's vote, to deal with that minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The time has expired under standing orders, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: I just want to welcome the runaway Premier back in the House, and tell him that if the only kind of support that he

[ Page 1252 ]

has is the kind of support that he got from the Minister of Health today, he could do with some enemies.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please discontinue your speech, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Because his friends are doing him in.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll tell you one thing about that runaway Premier: he's going to run away with every election, and the next time and the next time and the next time. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, what's bothering that rang-tang group over there of the far left, right over all the way to red. It's because they're afraid and they know that this runaway Premier's going to run away with every election that comes up in the next year and the next.

I was very interested in listening to the lady member who was just speaking because she was talking about the individual. And I'll tell you that this government has maintained the dignity of the individual. We have not reduced him to jelly like the socialists would do. When they receive help from the government, it's because they're the needy and not the greedy.

Mr. Chairman, I was reluctant to stand in this debate because I've listened and I've been in this House for a few years. I think I first came into this House in 1966. Never, in all the years I've been in here, have I seen the level of debate reduced to the quagmire that I've seen in the last 10 days. That group over there who have reduced the level of debate and who are wasting the time of the people and wasting the taxpayers' money in this Legislature, ruining democracy, do not realize that out there in the real world, where the people of this province are, they do not even know that we're sitting in the Legislature here. I think they realize it too.

I don't know what they're trying to perform, but the people out there, as I travel around this province and as I talk to other members, are happy with this government. There is more employment out there than there has been in the history of British Columbia. There are more jobs being created every day than there has ever been in the history of British Columbia. And the thing that is bothering that rang-tang group over there is that our Premier stands head and shoulders above every Premier in any province in Canada. To sit here and have a motion passed across this floor from a group over there that knocked on the door for 20 years in this province.... Finally they were given the opportunity by the people of this province, and they blew it. Their policies alienated the people of the province of British Columbia. It's very interesting to me to see how bitter they are.

I do not really know what their purpose is because, as I say, it grieves me to see this Legislature, where democracy is supposed to reign, where we are supposed to debate the issues of the day.... And believe you me, I want to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, and I want to tell all the members of this House in the province of British Columbia, we have some real problems. And in Canada, we have some real problems. And where we should be getting down to logical debate on the issues that face every democratic nation in this country, I have seen that group over there lower the level of debate to destroy democracy.

I During the past 10 days we have witnessed nothing in this Legislature but personal attacks on individuals of this government. I suppose that we can put up with this because that group over there have become past masters in the art of personal smear and smut. They can laugh, but I remember in this Legislature last year the debate on the Grizzly Valley where my name was dragged through the muck. Did I ever hear any apology from that group over there? Not one!

But I'll tell you, the very interesting thing about this is that the voters out there understand what is going on. That is why the policies of this government are gaining more momentum every day....

MR. BARBER: As they go downhill.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh! So we're going downhill. Well, that's the interesting part about it, Mr. Chairman, because that group aver there have never listened to any facts or any figures. Here we are today, because of the dynamic leadership of our Premier, because this government works as a unit, because all ministers work together, because all the back bench realize what a great leader we have. That's why we solidly back him. That's why the people of British Columbia are behind him, that's why there has been confidence restored to this great province of ours. That is why every other province and every other government in Canada is looking to British Columbia for leadership, because of the great leadership of our Premier Bennett. That is why it is bothering that little runt group over there. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, because of the leadership of our Premier, who came into government at a time when the world was in recession - not only Canada, not only the

[ Page 1253 ]

United States, but Germany and Japan and the entire industrialized countries of the world....

MR. LAUK: And he is saving the entire industrialized world.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You know, it's very interesting to me to listen to that chap over there who stole his files and then put them in UBC. It's very interesting for me to listen to him, who is guided by the policies of Bob Williams, the $80,000 a year man.

MR. LAUK: You lying coward! You say that outside the House!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll say that outside the House any time, my friend. I told you in this Legislature...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member for Vancouver Centre please withdraw his unparliamentary remarks?

MR. LAUK: I will when that guttersniping minister has the guts to go outside this House and make that slanderous charge. You make it outside this House instead of in here, you coward!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must insist that you withdraw all of the remark you have made.

MR. LAUK: I will withdraw it, Mr. Chairman, if that minister withdraws that he accuses me of stealing files that belonged to me in the first place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I must ask the Minister of Economic Development to withdraw the remark that the member stole his files.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw anything that has a bearing on that very excitable member for Vancouver Centre, because I realize he's under tremendous pressure. I know that he's fighting for the leadership. I know that his ex-boss, the guy who sold him down the drain, has got a tremendous amount of pressure on him because of his policies. I really feel sorry for that member because he knows he's going absolutely nowhere.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, I didn't hear the member for Vancouver Centre withdraw the remarks that he made. He said he would withdraw on a conditional basis. I think that withdrawals should be without conditions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have a withdrawal without qualification, please?

MR. LAUK: Yes, I did so, having heard the minister.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I don't feel sorry for anybody because maybe I'm sort of a hard-nosed individual, but I really have a great deal of sorrow for that little member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) who was such a failure when he was Minister of Economic Development. He had to take his files home with him and put them in his basement so nobody could read them.

It's a pleasure for me to stand in this Legislature. I'm proud to be a member of this great team and to realize that in just over two and a quarter years we have picked this province up by the bootstraps, when it was on the verge of financial disaster. Under the great leadership of our Premier and our Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , we have reduced taxes to the point that they are lower today than they were when that group left office.

It's always interesting for me to see how many instant experts we have over there today. "Oh, if we-d just had time. Oh, we would have done this. We would have done that." They led this province down the drain to the brink of disaster, and now they are overnight instant experts.

I want to talk for just a few moments about coal, because coal has been tossed in and out of this Legislature and around. While that group over there was in power.... They didn't consider themselves as government. They were in power, you know - power over the people. This province lost contract after contract after contract to the other metallurgical coal producers in the world and they set this province back year after year.

MR. LAUK: Name one.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, my friend, I'll name one. I named several in this Legislature the other day and I'll name them again. I had an expert from one of the largest banks ....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, you lost them to Australia, my friend. You lost them to the United States and you lost them to France. Yes, you did. You said: "Oh, leave it in the ground. What's the hurry? Leave it in the

[ Page 1254 ]

ground."

MR. LAUK: You can't name one.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I certainly can name one.

Mr. Chairman, if you'd shut up that huffy little puppy from Vancouver Centre....

During their term in office the steel industry of the world was on the upswing and the demand for metallurgical coal had never been higher and the forecasts were great. What did they do? They went to Japan to play rugby, they went to China and planted a tree, and they went to Switzerland to take another lesson in communism - socialism, I mean. They didn't go to one country and try to negotiate one single contract - not one!

I had one of the top bankers from France in my office the other day. He said: "Thank heaven we've got somebody we can deal with. in government in British Columbia." While that group over there was in office, their steel companies had to make a deal in the eastern United States because we couldn't deal with them. They weren't interested. Their attitude was to leave it in the ground.

Now that they are in opposition, they have all this great expertise on coal. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that no natural resource becomes a natural resource until, first of all, there are millions and millions of dollars spent on exploration. Then it is not a natural resource until it is producing and providing revenue for the people of British Columbia and until people are employed.

It's very interesting for me to listen to the debate in this House about coal. We've heard all the instant experts. But who put the policies together? We do have a policy.

MR. LEA: What is it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Who did all the negotiating with the....

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You can laugh and laugh, but the people out there understand what is going on. They know how hard we are trying in a time when there is no market for metallurgical coal and when the steel industry is on the down side. But did we take the attitude that we are not going to do anything? No. We have gone out to all of the countries of this world who are in the steel market, and we have said yes, some day we will put a package together.

MR. LAUK: Some day your prince will come.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You know, Mr. Chairman, it doesn't really bother me to have them do all this sniping, because I understand and the people in business understand exactly how they flubbed up the entire market. They flubbed it. The people understand and that's why they chucked them out. That member over there from Vancouver Centre who has so much to say now, said: "Oh, leave it in the ground."

I'll tell you we are going to leave a heritage to the young people of this province to give the same opportunity to them that we had when we were growing up - the same opportunities to make money, the same opportunities to have a job. That's our obligation and we will live up to it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Listen, how stupid can they be? A depression - when we have created more jobs in the province of British Columbia percentage-wise than, any other province in Canada. I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, we had a lot of hot air on December 11,1975, when that group was chucked out. I remember the Premier (Mr. Barrett) who four months before put a halt on all spending because they were going broke in this province. He put a halt on all expenditures, put a halt on all programmes, called an election in the middle of a snowstorm and tried to snow the people of British Columbia, but they got chucked out.

.What we're trying to do, Mr. Chairman, is to formulate policies which down the road....

AN HON. MEMBER: What's your coal policy?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll tell you what our coal policy is. Our coal policy is to have exploration and development and to prove up the resources that are there.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's it. Yes, you go ahead and laugh. I've heard people from your runt group stand up here. Now turn around, Mr. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) , who will never be the member again, because I know you're an antique dealer now. You have stood in this House and said, "Oh, we'll never sell the coal for 20 years, " and, in the next breath, accused us of giving it away. I don't know why all of these companies are going to invest millions and tens of millions and twenties of millions of dollars into exploring and proving up a natural resource that they're

[ Page 1255 ]

never going to be able to sell.

It was interesting to me to listen to the Liberal member (Mr. Gibson) , Who is in bed with the NDP and whose day will come sometime.

(Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, yes, whose day will come. It's very interesting to watch him getting into bed with the NDP. But your day will come, my friend.

MR. LAUK: Mind your own business.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, and we'll have a few things to say about that.

MR. LEA: Keep out of the bedroom!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, that's the level of your debate and I understand where you're at. But it's very interesting for me to listen to the level of debate, particularly on our coal policies.

It was the member for Vancouver-Capilano that got up, and he has a specific interest. I understand his interest, because he represents a particular coal-mining outfit in British Columbia that doesn't want any competition. They want it all to themselves. I don't have to name names, my friend; you know whose bed you re in.

And then, Mr. Chairman, my little friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) gets up and tries to swan dive in. And what does he say? He says: "Oh, the oil companies, they're taking up all the leases."

Who wanted a bidding system? It was the oil companies. We put a bidding system out that will allow the little man to get in, to explore and to develop. Yes, the little man. It wasn't the policy of that little member for Vancouver Centre; it was Bob Williams' policy and Hart Horn's policy that closed the curtains on coal development in the province of British Columbia. It's taken us to travel overseas and get rid of that idea that British Columbia doesn't want to develop.

My friends, they laugh at you in every country that we go into and they say: "Are those NDPers still in there?" We say: "No, we're interested in development. We want to provide jobs." I'll tell you, my friend, we are providing jobs, regardless of what you say. You can yak over there until the cows come home, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Employment is growing day by day in the province of British Columbia. You can put all the smut and you can put all the smear and you can reduce this Legislature to all the innuendo you want to, but I'll tell you, Employment is growing in British Columbia under the leadership of our great Premier.

It's interesting to me that every province in Canada says to British Columbia: "How did you do it in these economic times of downturn, in this downturn in the economy? How did you put the province back together when it was on that slippery road to destruction?" I wouldn't give our Premier's little thumbnail for all of Dave Barrett's whole body because he is a leader, and he has led this province and he has restored confidence in this province not only to the investors but to the people who live in this province.

That's what's bothering that little group over there. They hate to see it. I've sat in this House and I've witnessed all the personal attacks on our Premier. Oh yes, I've heard it all before. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, the greatest threat to this province is the threat that that party over there will come back to power with all of their socialist theories to take over everything, destroy initiative, destroy confidence. That is the biggest threat to this province; that is a big threat.

I noticed my Liberal friend down there who's going to get up, and loll tell you something. I want you to listen, and I want you to listen loud and clear, my friend. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: You're priceless. Boy, did you impress the Japanese.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's all right, my friend. You go ahead and make all the funnies you want. I'll stake my record in two and a quarter years up against your record if you'd been there forever, because it's coming. And you can laugh, laugh, laugh all you want to, but I'll tell you, when the votes are counted in the next election, I'll be the one who's laughing. So you go ahead and have your laugh now, my friend.

There is the Liberal member sitting down there who is supposed to be interested in the overall good of Canada. I'll tell you that the province of British Columbia has done more to restore confidence in Canada in a time of very trying times than any other province in Canada. And I want to tell you something more, my friend - that just didn't happen. That happened under the dynamic leadership of Premier Bill Bennett, who is looked up to today not only by your friends down in Ottawa but by every other provincial Premier in this province, I don't care what his [illegible] is. And

[ Page 1256 ]

that's why this motion to reduce the salary of our Premier is absolutely so ironic.

You know, Mr. Chairman, we have clearly defined in this Legislature since it opened the facts of employment. I spent at least half an hour in this House talking about investment in this province, how it has increased, how there was a 22 per cent increase in manufacturing. I outlined all the figures. I might as well have been talking to the wall, because they do not pay any attention to facts and figures, as witnessed by how they ran this province into the ground and witnessed by how that Minister of Finance wouldn't pay any attention to the facts and figures. That's why this province was on the brink of disaster when he gave up the sinking ship, when his financial position was going broke and he passed it on to the member for Nanaimo. He too didn't pay any attention to the facts and figures. They never have and they never will. But the people understood what they were up to.

One of the problems with that group over there is that they're in the middle of a leadership race. And they don't know whether it's going to be Rosemary Brown or Gary Lauk or the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) or who it's going to be. But, Mr. Chairman, that is one of their problems and they're all fighting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To the amendment.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. That is one of the reasons. Because of the problems they are having internally, they have brought on this motion which is as phony as a $3 bill. (Laughter.)

They remind me of a group of laughing hyenas. But seriously, Mr. Chairman, when I think of the time and effort and the long hours that our Premier has put in, not only to restore confidence in their province for the people who reside in British Columbia, but also to the....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please, may we have some order?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS. Oh, Mr. Chairman, I remember when they first came in here. They said: "Trust us." And they said it for three or four months, and then pretty soon they dropped it and they never said "Trust us" any longer. They knew the people of this province no longer trusted them. But our Premier doesn't have to go around the province saying "Trust me, " because the people of this province have confidence in our Premier. They have confidence in the policies of this government and, indeed, they have confidence in our back bench and they have confidence in the cabinet.

I remember the day when I used to sit over there. It was only for a short period of time in history because for 20 years they knocked on the door. Then they got in and the people heaved them out and they'll keep heaving them out. But I remember when they were over there and that disastrous ex-Minister of Finance who practically broke the province used to say: "Oh, we're not going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg." And I used to stand up there and say: "No, you're not going to kill it but you're going to pluck it to death." I want to tell you they just about plucked it to death. We've been trying to nurse it back to life and it's not been an easy job.

I just want to read a few facts into the record and I want to talk about the employment figures. These were released today. It's so ironic to me that on a day when the facts come out and say that British Columbia has created more jobs than any other province in Canada because of the confidence under the leadership of our Premier, that we have restored in the province, they would bring in this stupid, ironic motion. I want to read into the record so that all will know, compared to the 12 months earlier, the British Columbia labour force has expanded at about the, same rate as the national figure - in other words, our labour force has grown at 4.2 per cent, where the national figure has grown at 4 per cent. But employment growth in this province was 5.4 per cent - the highest across the country.

Yes, my time is up. Oh, my time isn't up in this Legislature, my friends; you can clap all you want to. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity just to read a few facts into the Legislature. Just remember, don't ever let them get a chance at that, goose again.

MR. GIBSON: I will be very brief. I have no extensive comments tonight. I'll study the minister's remarks carefully in Hansard to see if any sense can be extracted from them whatsoever. But in the meantime, I did want to note that with even less accuracy than usual, he suggested that I represent a major coal company and I'm in bed with the NDP. I would like him to explain to the committee how those two things are possible at the same time for anyone.

MRS. WALLACE: We've seen some rather inte

[ Page 1257 ]

resting and unbelievable performances in this Legislature in the time that I've been here, but the performance that has just been given by the Minister of Economic Development really stretches anyone's imagination. For the man who spent over 12 hours filibustering the Agricultural Land Commission Act to stand up and accuse this opposition of wasting time in this Legislature is completely unbelievable.

We in the opposition are standing up and asking or attempting to ask the Premier questions and the Premier is never here to answer those questions, Mr. Chairman. I have asked questions of that Premier on other occasions and have had no answers. I'm going to try a new tactic this time inasmuch as the Premier isn't here. I'm going to try asking the Minister of Human Resources if perhaps he can answer and give him a little practice in answering the Premier's estimates, as the second Premier, the Premier-in-waiting. Perhaps he can answer some of the questions that I am trying to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on the amendment, hon. member. We must relate that to the amendment.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is a lack of confidence in this Premier. The Premier is not here to defend himself and perhaps Premier No. 2 can defend Premier No. 1 and give me some answers to the questions that I have been trying to get answers to for some time in the discussion of the Premier's estimates. We now have a vote of non-confidence in the Premier. I think that if there ever is a time that he can come forward and defend himself, this is the time that he should be prepared to move. He's not here. I don't know where he is but I'm going to repeat my question. I'm hoping that somehow, either he or someone will be able to answer these questions for me because without answers to the questions there is no way that I can possibly see that there is any justification for opposing this motion of nonconfidence. We must have answers. The Premier is not giving them.

One of the things that has been discussed many times during the debate on the Premier's estimates is this issue of B.C. Government News. It has been mentioned many times that it is very partisan and political in its orientation. But there are a couple of things in here that are even worse than being politically partisan. There are inaccuracies and untruths, and they have been admitted on the floor of this Legislature. Yet here in this document that has gone out and filled every garbage can around this province... In every post office you go into you find the garbage cans and waste baskets full of this document. It's being sent out.

The reforestation programme that you're talking about, Mr. Chairman, has been set back, I'm sure, a full year, by the amount of newsprint that's been used in this publication. Yet here we find that repeated twice in this document is an error - an error that has been admitted to by the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) . I draw your attention to page 4, where it talks about a $2 million programme for shellfish. The minister has indicated that that is incorrect. It is not a $2 million programme for shellfish. He's indicated that the budget %was incorrect in that, yet here in this piece of literature that has been sent out all over the province, it's not only on page 4, it's also repeated on page 7 - the same terminology, $2 million for shellfish. Now that is a false statement, Mr. Chairman, and it's been sent to every household in this province. It's a piece of political propaganda saying that this government is going to spend $2 million to enhance the shellfish industry, when in fact it is something more like $65,000 - a rank untruth, Mr. Chairman. It's absolutely incorrect, yet it was sent all over this province at taxpayers' expense.

Another item that I want to talk about, Mr. Chairman, I raised earlier, and I've had no response to it. It relates to the lack of leadership in this government on the part of the Premier. We've heard a great deal from the Premier on his policy of free trade. He is committed, apparently, to working towards a complete removal of tariff barriers, and he is committed, according to the documents that he took to Ottawa with him, to beginning that removal with agricultural products. "Protective policies are not the sole preserve of national governments. Provincial governments also use various techniques to protect local producers, thereby balkanizing what could be an efficiently functioning and freely competitive market across Canada. Among the barriers are preferential purchasing policies, Labour practice, restricting the free movement of workers, liquor board practices, marketing boards, and so on." That's the policy the minister has been expounding in this House. That's the policy he's been expounding in Ottawa. And yet in the throne speech, Mr. Chairman, under the heading of "Agriculture, " it indicates that the Minister of Agriculture has taken positive steps to urge that we have import tariffs. This is the most contradictory thing that I have ever seen presented to a legislature - one in the throne speech, one in the budget speech. One is just completely con

[ Page 1258 ]

tradictory of the other. There has been no explanation from any member of that government.

I am really extremely sorry that the Premier is not here at this point, because I doubt very much I'm going to get an answer this time either, unless perhaps the Minister of Human Resources is prepared to reply. Perhaps he knows which direction this government is. Perhaps he's prepared to take some leadership and indicate whether we're going to have a free trade policy or whether we're going to have a protective tariff policy, because one document says one thing, one says the other, and we're expected to accept that as leadership from that government. You're the people that are advocating this, Mr. Attorney-General. You're advocating both things at once and I want to know which one you are actually advocating.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Which is the one you prefer?

MRS. WALLACE: You decide which one you're going to have and then I'll tell you which one I prefer.

AN HON. MEMBER: And then you'll pick the other one.

MRS. WALLACE: I think if you ask the Minister of Agriculture he can tell you what my thinking is relative to agricultural policies. That Minister of Agriculture, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, has found himself in rather an awkward position in that cabinet where he is being overruled by the Premier.

I want to talk about something that was raised by my colleague for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) when he talked about the amount of dollars that are being spent on advertising in this year's budget. You know, the Premier got up, and in defence he said that there was only a 9.8 per cent increase overall, yet the member for Nelson-Creston had indicated that there was practically a 100 per cent increase in the advertising budget all told.

If you have got a 9.8 per cent increase overall and a 100 per cent increase in one fraction of that budget, then certainly you must have had some cutbacks in other areas. I would suggest that it appears that if the product is a poor product, it takes more to sell it and that's exactly what is happening in this budget. It is taking more to sell a very poor product because that's what this budget is. That's what the policies of this government are putting forward here. They have a poor product, and in order to sell that product they've had to double their advertising budget and cut back in other areas in order to keep within that low inflation rate, lower than the actual inflation rate.

Mr. Chairman, I'm very disappointed that the Premier is not in the House, and I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

Hon. Mr. Gardom requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. KING: I just wanted to make a couple of comments about the speech that the Minister of Economic Development made tonight. I want to stipulate, acknowledge and confirm once and for all that we did indeed lose the election in 1975. 1 surrender. I hope that lays the matter to rest once and for all because the minister spent the majority of his speech dealing with that election. I'm quite prepared to acknowledge that fact.

I was interested, also, in the minister's reference to missing files in reference to my colleague, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) . This is a matter that is raised in the Legislature very frequently. I haven't commented on it before but I do find it curious that the government expected to find the minister's personal files in his office when the government changed.

HON. MR. CHABOT: He packed them away in a government-rented truck.

[ Page 1259 ]

MR. KING: The Minister of Mines is commenting, Mr. Chairman, but I want to tell you that when we took over the government in 1972 there were no files to be found in the Minister of Labour's office.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's not true. That's a falsehood and you know it.

MR. KING: That certainly is true.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I challenge the minister's statement. There were no files in my office - none whatsoever.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's a falsehood.

MR. KING: There were departmental files but no personal files in the minister's office. It was absolutely bare. If the minister doesn't want to admit it let the records stand, Mr. Chairman. The files in my office were absolutely bare, not that I particularly cared. I didn't want the minister's files. I would doubt their value, in any case, if that minister had anything to do with them.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that the Minister of Economic Development previous to me would have a whole truckload of personal files in his office.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, when stating a point of order, perhaps you could quote which of the standing orders are in violation. I don't believe that's a point of order.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, these are rather picayune things. But the record should be straight. The files were pretty well cleaned out under that government, when it changed in 1972.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true. Departmental files were there.

MR. KING: The minister also commented on the level of debate. And that was the only really humorous part of his dissertation, because that particular member commenting on the level of debate is humorous in itself . Had it been one of the Liberal members of the cabinet, I think the point would have been better taken, because, generally speaking, they were taken into the cabinet and into that jaded Social Credit Party to try and inject some intellectual stimulus in the outfit. I think the point would have been better taken by a Liberal. But for the Minister of Economic Development to comment on the level of debate is a bit too much really, Mr. Chairman.

There are actually two humorous things. The other humorous point he made was when he shrieked out: "We've reduced taxes. " (Laughter.) And it was so humorous, indeed, that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) almost fell off his chair laughing. You know, he couldn't contain himself. I guess what the Minister of Economic Development was driving at was the reduction in taxes that occurred for the rich estate-owners, the millionaires. It's true to that extent. But the people of British Columbia - the working people, the average person in the province - certainly have not realized or recognized any reduction in taxation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Up is down.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the reason we moved this motion - that the Premier's salary be reduced - is that we believe the Premier has developed a stubborn and a petty style of administration. We believe that he's established a procedure and approach towards government which is inaccessible to people -to people from industry, to people from all walks of life - in terms of having any meaningful dialogue with the government.

I think Beale's Newsletter outlined it very well, when it commented on the Premier and the cabinet ministers of this province, and questioned the conduct of certain cabinet ministers. The point was made that, if industries in this province were subjected to conduct by their senior management staff which we have on the part of ministers in this government, they would be taking a hard look at it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it. Read it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I think the Premier has read Beale's Newsletter. It's there as a matter of record.

One of the big things that makes it difficult is that the Premier himself is not prepared to meet and discuss problems with industry, with trade unions, with people who have problems in this province. He does run away and hide. When there's a difficult issue to be faced - and we know there are difficult issues, very difficult to make decisions on -you don't solve those problems by running away and hiding. You don't solve those problem by locking the doors to your office and being ill

[ Page 1260 ]

at ease when you are finally persuaded to talk to people.

I don't know whether it's lack of confidence, whether it's hostility, whether it's arrogance or what it is, but I can tell you that the message is coming back loud and clear from every sector in this community of British Columbia that the Premier is unwilling to indulge in dialogue and his ministers are unwilling to indulge in dialogue. There are people in the forest industry who have not been able to gain access to the Ministry of Forests' (Hon. Mr. Waterland's) office without first phoning to complain to the Premier that they can't get in to see the minister. And that's true in other portfolios; that's quite true. This is why, Mr. Chairman, we have little confidence in the Premier as the chief executive of this administration. We believe that there is a complete lack of executive direction in the province of British Columbia.

We have ministers of this government running off in all directions. The spectacle of one minister criticizing another, overruling another presuming to enunciate policy on behalf ;f a colleague in a department where he has no business.... That's been true when the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) observed that it was a pretty dumb thing for the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) to do in importing Robbie Sherrell. Now I can't argue with his logic, but I think it's a pretty sorry spectacle. It shows the drift and the indecisiveness of this government when we have ministers flogging each other in public. Quite frankly, that embarrasses us because we don't want to see any of the ministers embarrassed.

What about the poor Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) ? We've had the Minister of Economic Development, the Attorney-General (Hone Mr. Gardom) and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) all enunciating labour policy. The poor old Liberal Minister of Labour doesn't know whether he's coming or going. Perhaps he thinks he's going to have an opportunity to clear everything up one of these days too, I don't know. But I'll tell you what it does, Mr. Chairman. This kind of inept drift, this kind of lack of cohesiveness in any government direction breeds great uncertainty in the community.

The forest industry doesn't know what's going on. They've been waiting for over two years for a fores ' try Act. The minister appoints a committee to study the royal commission report. He's been dangling out carrots and alternately sabre-rattling, saying what he's going to do. There's more indecisiveness, more delay while we need direct and dynamic action now to build capital investment, to create jobs in this province. Similarly, with virtually every other department we have a lot of high-blown statements but very little action.

Then there's the matter of the secrecy which this government seems to be obsessed by - the the virtual, veritable shroud of secrecy that has been instituted in various government departments. We had the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) threatening discipline and expulsion or dismissal for a cartoonist, Mr. Bierman, who had the temerity to publish some humorous cartoons about one of the minister's faux pas, of which there are so many.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Is that railroad talk?

MR. KING: He had no sense of tolerance, no sense of respect for the rights of the public service - just a punitive, secretive style of heavy-handed government that is a bit frightening and a bit outdated in this modern day British Columbia, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you call him?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I said: "Is that railroad talk?"

MR. KING: It may be railroad talk, I don't know. I think that railroad people handle the English language just as intelligently, just as articulately as hardware merchants or millionaires. Mr. Chairman, that doesn't offend me at all. I would rather be classified with the railroad workers of this province than the used-car dealers and millionaires any day. I don't find that insulting. Mr. Premier, the railroad workers of British Columbia earned their money and worked for their pay. They did not inherit their fortunes; they didn't inherit anything. So if you want to be insulting, you should find some other tack.

There is a shroud of secrecy. This government seems to be one that's afraid to allow people to express their point of view freely without intimidation from government. We witnessed the memo from the Deputy Minister of Recreation and Conservation inferring harsh disciplinary action against anyone that might belong to the wrong organization and again have the temerity to criticize government policy. That smacks of tyranny, not democratic government.

Mr. Chairman, it's the false starts, the ineptitude, the uncertainty, the heavy-handed approach in reaction to free expression in this province that give us cause for concern

[ Page 1261 ]

and a reason for lack of confidence in the direction of this government.

I want to tell you that undoubtedly there are other memos outlining the demand on public servants for secrecy and strict discipline, strict adherence to iron-heel rule in this province. Undoubtedly they will be revealed in this Legislature as time goes on.

It's the time of a frightened government, Mr. Chairman. It's the mark of a frightened leader who can't face criticism, can't face problems, runs away, sulks in the office and refuses to face the House in an open and frank manner. He refuses to answer for his administration. He seized the opportunity all through this evening, when a motion of non-confidence in his very salary was put to the House. Undoubtedly he's been down in his office sulking.

Mr. Chairman, this is not the mark of a leader. This is the mark of someone who is inept. It's the mark of someone who lacks confidence, and it's the mark of someone who breeds great uncertainty and instability in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, these things do have an effect on the community. Government is not only a case of enacting legislation and writing regulations, government has a lot to do with the style and the attitude of the chief executive officer and his ministers. It has a great deal to do with that, and when the First Minister of this province is as indecisive, uncertain and faltering as this one is, I suggest to you that irreparable damage is being done to the economy of this province.

We've had the situation where a whole area of the province, the Fort Nelson area, has its economy jeopardized by real concerns and real uncertainty as to whether or not they'll have a transportation link secured for the future. Does the minister and his cabinet come to grips with that problem in a decisive and firm way and give assurance to that area? Not at all, Mr. Chairman. They run away from the issue. They react only after there's a major demonstration on the lawn of the Legislature, and then after insulting those people who were concerned enough to come down here by suggesting that they are not really representative of the community.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You were fired from a directorship in the railway.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I have never been fired from a job in my life, quite frankly, but the people are going to fire you next time, Mr. Minister. Don't you ever worry about that. Mr. Chairman, the minister, as usual, doesn't know what he's talking about.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that we in the opposition, in my view, would be derelict in our duty if we allowed the minister's estimates to go through without expressing the lack of confidence which the people of the province of British Columbia have in this government. In my view we would be letting down the people of Fort Nelson and the 100,000 unemployed workers in this province if we did not express in the strongest possible way our lack of confidence in the direction of this government - I should say lack of direction, because there's no discernible direction.

I'm intrigued by the demonstrations tonight of certain members of the cabinet about the improved Employment situation in the province of British Columbia. I'm very happy that there is a modest improvement, which usually occurs in the months of May. The bleak winter circumstances usually don't last all through the summer. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that that kind of report and that kind of improvement is not something that the government should be taking great solace from. I don't know how there can be expressions of great joy when we still have 100,000 people unemployed in the province of British Columbia. That number is contained in the statistical report for April - 100,000 people.

I mentioned the Fort Nelson debacle, where the Premier is unwilling or incapable of making a decision. Certainly there is the danger of more job loss unless a decision is made soon. I suggest to the House, Mr. Chairman, that investors are not going to be prepared to take any chances or have any confidence in that part of the province when they don't know whether there is a transportation link or not.

Interjections.

MR. KING: It may impress the minister to play to the galleries, but we are dealing with serious matters. Whether or not there is a bevy of reporters in the press gallery to hear my remarks is not very relevant to me. I would hope that the government would pay some attention. We represent a constituency in this province in precisely the same way the government does.

HON. MR. McGEER: They've got better ways to spend their time. Even the press gallery is gone.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, the gallery might be packed tonight if the Minister of

Economic Development had not preceded me on

[ Page 1262 ]

the floor of the House. But be that as it may, I think there are important things to say to each other as legislators. It may impress the government whether or not the press gallery is full, but we are here to represent the people of British Columbia, not the press gallery. The people of British Columbia have absolutely no confidence in this government.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Hogwash!

MR. KING: I don't think it's hogwash, Mr. Chairman. It's quite true that we have an unprecedented rate of bankruptcies in this province. It's quite true that there seems to be no coherent policy by this government. There is drift. There is conflict in the statements issued between ministries. The Premier himself is either too timid or afraid to give bold leadership which this province needs.

For all of those reasons, I certainly endorse the motion that's before the House and wholeheartedly recommend it to particularly those members who presume to represent the north of British Columbia, where the economic destiny of the people of that area is hanging in the balance tonight. I suggest that you muster your courage and support the expression of no confidence in the so-called leader of this particular government, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LOEWEN: I'm somewhat humoured tonight -also saddened, of course - but also I'm remarked why I ran for this honourable position several years ago. After listening to this honourable opposition this evening, listening to their very intelligent debate, I remember once again why I in fact did run, and way the people of Burnaby-Edmonds saw fit to elect myself as a member to represent them in Burnaby-Edmonds.

I also had some other thoughts that come to mind and I can't help but remember some of the things that took place during that time two and a half years ago. The former Speaker (Mr. Dowding) in this House so well typified this honourable opposition, and I so well remember the day that he got up in front of the young people and he boasted about rescinding corporal punishment. And all the young people, all the grade 10s booed the former Speaker in this House. That is what even the young people thought of the former Speaker.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. We are on a motion, and discussion of difficulties that other candidates may have had in the last campaign in Burnaby-Edmonds is not relevant.

MR. LOEWEN: Certainly, Mr. Chairman. However, that is why the people of British Columbia elected me. That is why the people of British Columbia elected the Socreds to represent them in this beautiful province of British Columbia, and that is why the people of British Columbia elected a Premier of British Columbia to represent and lead them in this beautiful province.

Mr. Chairman, some of us realize that, to put together a good sporting team, you need strong leadership, you need a strong captain, you need a Bobby Clarke or a Ron Ellis to be a winner. Which party was it that ran on the slogan of strong leadership, and that strong leadership became a two-time loser?

Mr. Chairman, I am so pleased today to dispel any doubt that I will vote against this motion. I am sorry to disappoint this opposition. However, before we go into the rest of my speech, I would like to ... Oh, we're not through yet. I thought you were pointing to my coat-tails.

MR. LAUK: Somebody's pulling on his shroud.

MR. LOEWEN: I'm used to my colleague on my left kind of taking care of me. When I have my back turned to him, I'm not always sure. However, I also remember the days when the court reporters did not get their wages paid. I remember the days when the social workers didn't have their wages paid and yet that is a party that can pay no strong leadership. Mr. Chairman, I am proud of the fact that even though we have not campaigned on. strong leadership, we have strong leadership in British Columbia today.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted for division to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11 p.m.