[ Page 1195 ]

CONTENTS

Matter of privilege

Telephone tapping of minister's offices.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1195

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Future of the ferry Princess Marguerite. Mr. Barber –– 1196

Role of A-G's office in allegations against member. Mr. Macdonald –– 1196

Death of James Bay Lodge resident. Mr. Cocke –– 1198

Matter of urgent public importance

Allocation of coastal services.

Mr. Lockstead –– 1198

Ministerial statement

Commission of Inquiry report.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1199

Routine proceedings

Speech from the Throne.

Mr. Ree –– 1200

Mr. Strachan –– 1203

Presenting reports

B.C. Energy Commission annual report.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 1205

Labour Relations Board report as at December 31, 1979.

Hon Mr. Heinrich –– 1205

MONDAY, MARCH 3, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today Mr. and Mrs. David Nichols. I'd like the House to welcome them, because David and Barbara are today completing their honeymoon.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery with us today is Mr. Chuck Emery from the constituency of Boundary-Similkameen. Mr. Emery is a member of the B.C. Marketing Board. I'd like the House to bid him welcome.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Speaker, visiting with us this afternoon is Professor Donald G. Balmer from Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon, and he is accompanied by his 23 students. Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, as Professor Balmer has been coming here on a regular basis since 1957, I would ask this House to make him especially welcome.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, from among those students I would like to introduce Bob Henry. Bob's grandfather visited this House a few years ago. He was the state senator for Colorado during the war. His uncle, James Henry, is a lawyer in Denver and is married to my cousin, Catherine Graham, formerly of Bellingham.

MR. SPEAKER: That would make him twice welcome, wouldn't it?

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like each one of you to welcome my guest this afternoon. As each of you know, the Esquimalt–Port Renfrew riding is known as being the centre of the armed forces on the west coast, both for the army and the navy. In that tradition my guest followed in those footsteps and served as a member of the second anti-tank regiment in the 6th brigade in the 2nd division and saw action in the eastern European war zone in World War II. My guest has been very active in the political scene of the greater Victoria area, and these activities have made him well known, not only in greater Victoria but in British Columbia. It is with great pleasure I ask each of you to welcome my guest, the one and only Gordon Townsend.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce three members from the Canyon City Band, who have come down here to Victoria: Alvin Azak, Chester Moore and Harry Nyce.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to welcome Mr. Townsend. I haven't seen him since he broke into the cabinet meeting about three or four years ago.

I would also like to welcome to the chamber and welcome back my squash partner. I nearly lost him in the federal election. Gerry Kristianson got third prize, I think, in Saanich. I am very pleased to welcome him back to our House as an observer.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, important to all members of the Legislative Assembly are those who serve us within the constituencies as constituency secretaries. They relay and help deal with those problems of our constituents while we are busy in the House. Here today from the constituency of Okanagan South is my constituency secretary, Jan Duncan, and her husband, Glen Duncan. I ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. John Emerson who are in your gallery, sir. They are from the great city of Vancouver and are here to watch the proceedings of the House.

While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, if I may I would just like to bring to your attention that this is the day that marks the beginning of Human Resources Week in the province of British Columbia when we honour all of the 5,000 people who serve in the Ministry of Human Resources and the many volunteers who assist them in their work.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I don't rise to welcome anyone but I do rise to bring you a message. I apologize for my attire; it was necessitated by the glint in the eyes of some of the hon. members in the opposition — that I get here on time. I would like you to know that the daffodils that were to be on the tables today froze this morning on the corner of Portage and Main in Winnipeg. But there is the daffodil blitz with the private sector from Victoria, cultural and recreational people from Victoria and His Worship the Mayor of Victoria, who are taking the good message of "Come to visit British Columbia and enjoy our spring" from our province to Calgary — where yesterday we had the privilege of meeting the B.C. curling team, who are at the Canadian championship and lost their first game — and Winnipeg today. They will be in Regina and Edmonton tomorrow. I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that tourism in British Columbia is very healthy, and in Victoria it has absolutely taken off.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, there are six representatives from the Vancouver Status of Women in the gallery. They're here to meet the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). I wonder if the House would take this opportunity to wish them luck, first of all, and then to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you please state the matter.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that by a letter dated February 22, 1979, I received the following information from an agent designated by the Attorney-General: that pursuant to section 178(12) of the Criminal Code of Canada, a specially designated judge authorized the interception of my private communications. "This letter is for the purpose of notifying you of the said authorization pursuant to section 173(28)(1) of the Criminal Code."

Mr. Speaker, l have now determined from a transcript of testimony in proceedings held in the county court of Vancouver dated January 29, 1980, that for a period of approximately one year my private communications by telephone out of my residence and out of my office in the parliament buildings, and by a room monitor out of my headquarters in Richmond, were intercepted. This is the earliest opportunity to bring this matter to the attention of this House.

[ Page 1196 ]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the interception of the communications to which I have referred constitutes a breach of privilege. I would ask you to take this matter under consideration and advise this House if I may, as a matter of privilege, move the following motion:

"That a Special Committee of Privilege be appointed to consider the matter of the interception of a member's communications brought to the attention of this House on March 3, 1980, and that the said committee report its findings to the House, the said committee to be comprised of eight members to be named by the Special Committee of Selection, and that the committee so appointed have the following powers: namely, to have all the powers and privileges of the Legislative Assembly under the Legislative Assembly Privileges Act."

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps I should say, while I am waiting for the statement to arrive, that the motion is not part of the statement, but the motion will only be moved should the statement be found to demonstrate a prima facie case. And in trying to determine whether a prima facie case does exist, I have to determine first of all whether the first opportunity was taken in which to bring the matter before the House, then, secondly, whether or not the facts as presented would lead to such a decision.

I want to thank the hon. member for having acted according to good practice in this House, in having advised that at least a matter of privilege was to be raised, although this is the first that I see the statement itself. Nonetheless, I would like to commend that practice to all members. If, indeed, a matter of privilege is deemed to be before the House, or even before a member, I appreciate the opportunity of at least knowing in advance.

I will reserve decision, hon. members, and seek, by the facts that are presented in this statement, to come back to the House with as early a decision as possible. I think all members know that in some of these instances, particularly where considerable time is taken to come to a decision, it can be sometimes three, four or five days, up to a week before a decision can be reached. I'll try to do it much earlier in this particular instance. I will reserve decision on the matter.

Oral Questions

FUTURE OF THE FERRY
PRINCESS MARGUERITE

MR. BARBER: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Can he inform the House whether or not the vessel Princess Marguerite will be sailing on the Victoria-Seattle run this summer?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that the question has been directed to a minister who does not have responsibility for the subject of the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you for drawing that to our attention.

MR . BARBER: With respect, Mr. Speaker, were that so, that same minister would have not made the announcement two months ago that the Marguerite was being discontinued. So, accepting what I anticipate would be a ruling, I will redirect to the minister allegedly responsible and ask the Minister of Transport: will the vessel Princess Marguerite be sailing on the Victoria-Seattle run this summer?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, as the government has already announced, the Princess Marguerite will not be running in 1980 on the run from Victoria to Seattle.

MR. BARBER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Elworthy, general manager of the B.C. Steamships Company, has announced on his own authority that it will indeed run this summer. Has the minister requested the resignation, therefore, of Mr. Elworthy?

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the minister might not have heard the question. May I restate it? Mr. Elworthy has on his own authority announced that the vessel will indeed run. That seems to contradict the government's policy — at least today. Has the government, therefore, requested the resignation of Mr. Elworthy?

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure what the first member for Victoria is referring to. I read in the press — if that's what he's referring to — that, from reliable sources, the Princess Marguerite would run. I didn't know it was Mr. Elworthy or Mr. Smith or whoever. I don't know who the reliable sources are. You should maybe ask the Victoria Times that wrote the article.

MR. BARBER: Whether or not he's aware of it, there is indeed significant conflict between the policies of the independent — I believe the Premier used to call them — board of directors of B.C. Steamships and your administration. Has the minister taken any steps whatever — anything? Have you done a thing to resolve the obvious conflict between Mr. Elworthy and his board of directors and your government and its current policies?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, this government has decided what we will do with the Seattle-Victoria run and we have announced that.

MR. BARBER: To your eternal regret, you'll discover.

ROLE OF A-G'S OFFICE IN
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MEMBER

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney-General. Did the Attorney-General have a conversation with officials in his department or officers of the RCMP relating to investigations into allegations that might involve the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) prior to December 18, 1979, when the Associate Deputy Attorney-General announced that no charges would be laid?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The answer to the question is no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: Will the Attorney-General indicate to the House the date on which he had a conversation about this matter with his Deputy Attorney-General relating to these allegations?

[ Page 1197 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in view of the precision with which the question is asked, I would like the opportunity to consult with my diary so I can give a precise answer.

MR. MACDONALD: A further question. I asked the Attorney-General on December 21, 1979.... The Attorney-General stated that he was satisfied that the decision of the Associate Deputy Attorney-General and his Deputy Attorney-General was the correct one.

Did the Attorney-General have new information at the time he made that decision? If so, what was the new information that either he or his deputy or associate deputy had that the RCMP and regional Crown counsel did not have?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'll take that as part of the notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEGGATT: My question is also directed to the Attorney-General. Would the Attorney-General advise the House if, after the decision and announcement were made that no charges would be laid, he consulted a lawyer in private practice in regard to this whole matter?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The answer to the question is no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEGGATT: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Attorney-General advise the House whether he in fact contacted any lawyer in private practice surrounding this matter subsequent to the decision that was taken?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to a number of practising lawyers on a number of matters. What is the matter to which the member refers?

MR. LEGGATT: To clarify the question, did the Attorney-General consult with regard to the process surrounding his decision — in other words, the process of overriding a decision of a local Crown counsel and supplementing it with his own decision or the decisions of his officials in the Ministry of the Attorney-General?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I consulted with a number of distinguished counsel with respect to the system which has been developed over the years in this province for the administration of criminal justice.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, another question to the Attorney-General. On December 18, 1979, the Associate Deputy Attorney-General announced to the press that no charges would be laid, and he made other comments. Did the Attorney-General authorize the release of that statement in any way?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I was informed that the Deputy Attorney-General had made a decision in a matter that was within his responsibility, and I was advised that he would be making a statement.

MR. MACDONALD: A further question to the Attorney General. Having been advised prior to December 18, 1979, that a statement was to be made, did the Attorney-General investigate as to what the statement was to be or on what grounds it was going to be made before this press statement was to be issued?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the member is attempting to return to matters which I have already taken on notice.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, with respect, this is a different matter. This is the question of the release of information to the press. As I gather from the answers of the Attorney-General, prior to the release of the information to the press the Attorney-General was apprised of the matter. On what basis did he decide that a release should be made by the Associate Deputy Attorney-General? On what grounds did he make that release? Apparently the Attorney-General approved it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member would read my answer to his previous question.

MR. MACDONALD: I would ask the Attorney-General a further question. Can he inform the House what additional information either he or Mr. Vogel or his Deputy Attorney General or his Associate Deputy Attorney-General or any other member of the Attorney-General's Ministry had, over and above what the RCMP had and recommended, and over and above what regional council had and recommended, that led him to the decision that the decision not to proceed should be upheld? Was there any additional information?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the member insists on asking questions that I have already taken on notice.

MR. MACDONALD: May I assume from that answer, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney-General will then bring the answer to that question back to the House?

MR. SPEAKER: He has taken the question on notice.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney-General on the same matter. On October 17, 1979, one Henry Friesen, the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley and a journalist named Frank Klassen of the Abbotsford News held a midnight meeting that lasted, on their own admission, one and one-half hours, after which the complainant, Henry Friesen, attempted to withdraw his charges of wrong-doing against the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley. Did the RCMP conduct an investigation into that meeting with a view to charges being laid for obstruction of justice under the Criminal Code?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I know of no such investigation. I'd be happy to take the question on notice.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the gravity of that kind of meeting during the course of a police investigation into wrong-doing, did it not occur to either the Attorney General or his ministry that an investigation through the RCMP respecting obstruction of justice be conducted, rather than having the matter raised at this late date during question period?

[ Page 1198 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the question deals with allegations only. I'm advised that the investigation of all matters associated with the incident were complete.

MR. LAUK: With respect to the meeting on October 17, if the Attorney-General was satisfied that a charge of obstruction of justice could not be founded — based on no investigation, it seems — did he ask for an investigation to be conducted with a view to a public mischief charge against the complainant?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, as I said a few moments ago, all the matters associated with this incident have been fully canvassed.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have just one other question for the Attorney-General, who said that before the Associate Deputy Attorney-General went to the press and made this announcement, he was aware that the Associate Deputy Attorney-General was going to do it. How did he become aware? Was it by a memorandum, or did somebody come to talk to him about the situation? How did he become aware that this announcement was going to be made?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I was so advised by the Deputy Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: I ask you then: did you discuss the case that we are talking about with the Deputy Attorney-General prior to the announcement and assume what I would suggest is the responsibility of your office prior to the announcement?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You are making assumptions, Mr. Member, which are not justified. No, I didn't make inquiries into the case before the announcement was made.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, because of the gravity of these questions to the Attorney-General and his reluctance to give information so obviously in his attention, I am puzzled at why the Attorney-General would arrive at question period unprepared.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member has a question?

MR. LAUK: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Attorney-General if he would not bring the answers to these questions to the House at the earliest opportunity — that is to say, tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I think we're all aware of the procedure for questions taken on notice. The minister will elect to bring the answer to the House when he is prepared, or not at all.

MR. LAUK: In view of the fact that we are not receiving answers to these questions, the question period will now be terminated. [Laughter.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, as I understand the provisions of standing orders, the bell will terminate the question period.

DEATH OF JAMES BAY LODGE RESIDENT

MR. COCKS: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health to take on notice. In November of 1979, while there were only three staff attending the needs of 208 residents at James Bay Lodge in Victoria, an elderly gentleman by the name of John Pascoe fell from a window to his death. As a result of the inquest which followed, the coroner's jury recommended that the government increase the minimum staff requirements for long-term care programs. Has the government decided to act on that recommendation?

HON. MR. MAIR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me see if I can read my answer: I – will — take — that — as — notice.

ALLOCATION OF COASTAL SERVICES

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, under provisions of standing order 35 I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the impending chaos and disaster to the coastal communities of British Columbia which inevitably will occur this spring unless this government's incredible mismanagement of ship allocations is reversed today.

The disastrous social and economic threat includes the very real possibility of food and commodity shortages as well as punishing travel restrictions for the residents along the entire mainland coast from Howe Sound to Ocean Falls to Bella Coola and Bella Bella, due to the incomprehensible withdrawal for a two-month period at least of the Queen of Prince Rupert in order to put it on a run it was not designed for. That also includes the threat of a crippling blow, the second delivered by the present administration to lower Vancouver Island's critically important tourist industry and all the small businesses and their employees who depend on the Princess Marguerite service that is now being scrapped. The threat goes beyond these immediate regional impacts, because clearly all British Columbians will have to pay for the mindless waste of money caused by this government's shocking indecision and lack of planning which brought about this unforgivable bungle.

The urgent need for immediate action by the elected representatives of the people of both sides of this House is clearly demonstrated by the spectacle only yesterday of the cabinet's appointed president of the B.C. Steamship Company, Mr. Arthur Elworthy, relying on the previous solemn undertaking not to interfere politically with Crown corporations, announcing that the Princess Marguerite will be run to Seattle this year, only to have the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) announce the same day that the government will not allow the Marguerite to sail regardless of the corporation's directors. The decision of the government can only be described as a comedy of errors which has already resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars to the small-business sector and thousands of jobs in the community, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 1199 ]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members. I think I have the matter well in hand.

Hon. members, may I perhaps just interrupt the business long enough to refresh the memory of all members. In raising a matter of urgent public importance under standing order 35, in stating the matter it is not necessary — as a matter of fact, not even desirable; as a matter of fact, not even permitted — to enter into the debate itself. Therefore just a very brief statement of the matter is all that is required.

Now may I rule immediately on whether or not this can be allowed today. The matter to decide is not whether or not this is urgent, as in the mind of the member it definitely is; but we have to decide whether it is urgent enough to set aside the business of the day immediately for its debate. I would rule that an opportunity exists immediately, since we are presently embarking on the debate in reply to the speech. Therefore, since an opportunity is at hand immediately, I would have to rule that the motion cannot be allowed.

Order, please. The member for Skeena on a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: The point of order being that, with respect, sir, there is an assumption that certain hon. members who are scheduled to speak today will raise that particular item...

MR. SPEAKER: You have that opportunity, though.

MR. HOWARD: ...and that being the case, I think one must appeal your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. member knows the Chair is not aware of any order of speeches. It is an arrangement between Whips. Nonetheless, there is no appeal to that ruling in any event.

Shall we proceed?

MR. HOWARD: Then I need to follow the other course of appealing your decision that there can be no appeal.

MR. SPEAKER: There is an appeal to the ruling. Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 25

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

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY REPORT

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement with regard to the report of the Hon. Mr. Justice P.D. Seaton, which was tabled in the House by the Provincial Secretary on February 29, 1980, that report being pursuant to the Public Inquiries Act and the commission of inquiry pursuant to order-in-council 1885, of July 5, 1979.

It is gratifying to note that at the conclusion of the hearings the commissioner said: "I see no evidence of sinister conduct on the part of anyone. I see no evidence of improper motive on the part of anyone." It is equally gratifying, Mr. Speaker, that the commissioner, upon a careful study of the transcripts of the proceedings during the inquiry found nothing to cause him to withdraw from either of these views. In this regard it is to be noted that in the course of the inquiry the commissioner had the opportunity of considering not only the conduct of the Deputy Attorney-General, but also that of other senior officials of the Ministry of the Attorney-General.

The conclusions of the commissioner serve as ample justification of the confidence which I continue to have in the Deputy Attorney-General and the responsibilities which are reposed in him.

Aside from those clear conclusions the report is valuable for the enunciation of the fundamental importance of an independent judiciary to all persons who would maintain a free society enjoying liberty under the rule of law. The Hon. Mr. Justice Seaton in his careful review of the development of this vital aspect of our judicial system has restated the determining principles which are the root and function of the judiciary in this nation, and has reminded all of us, judges and judged alike, of the obligations which must be understood, accepted and discharged if the central ingredients of an independent judicial system are, and are seen to be, preserved.

Mr. Speaker, I wish all members to know that upon the receipt of the report from the commissioner, the Deputy Attorney-General, under the direction of my predecessor, together with those officials of the ministry who are responsible for providing for the support services and facilities necessary to the effective functioning of the judiciary, undertook an extensive examination of the manner in which that responsibility has been discharged. I am pleased to state that throughout the court services division there is the fullest appreciation by all those whose daily tasks bring them into association with the judiciary that it is their paramount duty to conduct themselves in a manner which assures that the judges whom they serve may discharge their independent judicial responsibilities in the justice system so as to provide the highest standard of service possible for those persons who require its attention, yet administer the effective accountability measures which the development of the system demands. Notwithstanding this, Associate Deputy Attorney-

[ Page 1200 ]

General Sheppard, in his role as chief administrator of court services, has undertaken a program of in-service instruction throughout the more than 80 court registries in the province to ensure that the personnel in the court services division have reinforced for them the matters to which the commissioner has made reference in his report.

Further, members should be aware that the recruitment program in this division of the ministry does take these matters into account, and the Justice Institute is used to provide training for all court clerks and sheriff officers, which encompasses the special obligations which their responsibility to the judiciary casts upon them.

Additionally, in recognition of the danger identified by the commissioner, which these administrative responsibilities may pose to the independence of the judiciary, the Deputy Attorney-General has adjusted responsibilities within the executive of the ministry, designed to ensure that the functioning of the court services division in the provincial court will be in accord with the procedures adopted for the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the British Columbia Court of Appeal by statutory amendment in recent years.

Hon. members will have the opportunity to consider legislation at this session dealing with these important aspects of the ministry's responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, as Attorney-General for this province, I wish to state unequivocally that I and the officials of the ministry who are charged with the superintendence of the administration of justice in this province have accepted without reservation the obligation of ensuring that in the discharge of those responsibilities no conduct will be countenanced which has, or may be seen to have, the effect of impairing the ability of any member of the judiciary to render a fair and unbiased decision, a just decision in accordance with the law.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a very brief reply, and congratulate the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), who has also made some very important remarks on this subject. I think we are all glad that Mr. Justice Seaton found that the Deputy Attorney-General had acted in good faith, and I wouldn't have expected anything else; but there was indiscretion. And it is up to the Attorney-General, as perhaps he has indicated, to spell out the guidelines very clearly. It's not an easy line to draw, because you want an expeditious and fair administration throughout the justice system, but on the other hand there has to be absolutely no political interference with the pros and cons of any case that may be decided by the judges in the provincial court system — or any system, for that matter.

I'm rather surprised that the Attorney-General should say that the court registry personnel are being got in touch with on this matter, as if it were to safeguard the judges and see these principles are upheld. It would seem to me that it's not for them to stop somebody who's dialing a judge or something of that kind coming from the Attorney-General's office. It's for the Attorney-General to spell out the guidelines and make sure that doesn't happen. And in the conclusion of his remarks the Attorney-General addressed himself to possible legislative changes. I would hope those would be forthcoming at an early date, because I would think myself that the powers of the Judicial Council should be enhanced and spelled out in this realm, and perhaps in other realms where it's important in the administration of justice.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I at this point would beg leave to introduce relatives and friends who are in the gallery. Leave granted.

MR. REE: I have the pleasure today of introducing my eldest son who has been in Victoria this past weekend and endeavouring to advance his studies by going to the University of Victoria next fall. His name is Scott Ree. I'd also like to introduce a young lady from West Vancouver who is with him, and who is at present attending the University of Victoria, Colleen Cattell. I have the further honour to introduce two other young people from the city of Vancouver: Karen Wesson, who is the daughter of a secretary I had who gave faithful and valued service for some period of time; and her friend, Pius Amstutz — both from Vancouver. I would ask this House to welcome them.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pride and pleasure that I stand here in this House now assembled and on behalf of the people of British Columbia present the following motion, which will be seconded by my colleague from Prince George South (Mr. Strachan). The motion reads:

"We, Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of this present session."

As stated, it is with pride, as we enter this new decade, to have the honour and the privilege of moving appreciation of this throne speech. The honour is enhanced in that I represent the people of North Vancouver–Capilano, and to all of them I express my thanks and gratitude for this opportunity. The trust they have bestowed in me I will do my utmost to prove warranted, not only in the deliberations and debates of the next few months but in all my endeavours on their behalf.

Mr. Speaker, if I may digress for a moment, I, on behalf of all the members here assembled, wish to welcome you back for this second session of the thirty-second parliament. I know we shall all be richly endowed from your profound rulings.

I would also like, on behalf of the members, to congratulate the hon. member from Delta (Mr. Davidson) on his election as Deputy Speaker. I am confident he will carry out his duties in a manner befitting that office and to its credit, as did the erstwhile Deputy Speaker. We are indeed fortunate to have two such competent members holding these offices and whose wisdom and expertise will be of benefit to us all.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday last when His Honour was presenting the throne speech, I was proud to be a member of this government with its commitment to national unity, its commitment to one Canada and all the provinces and territories thereof being within one Canada. In the last two weeks I've heard many advocating that British Columbia alone or together with its western sister provinces should follow the course of separatism. Regretfully there are always such people bent on destroying the work and the results of the positive majority, usually for their own selfish purposes. Certainly our Confederation has had and still has many complex problems and stresses, but Canadians, being of an innovative and an imaginative nature, through peaceful negotiations have

[ Page 1201 ]

survived the last hundred years and as a united country will survive the next hundred years. This does not mean, however, that we as British Columbians should continue to tolerate a subservient position to that of other regions of the country, but rather in the alternative should continue, in leadership, partnership and by example, in utilizing the resources available to us towards constitutional change within the country where our widely diverse interests may have a stronger and more effective voice in federal decision-making on matters that affect the provinces.

This government under the leadership of our Premier has in the last four years initiated specific constitutional proposals. These proposals, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, would give British Columbians and those of the western region of the country equality and partnership with the remainder of Canada in order that we might all take full advantage of the benefits to be derived from the enjoyment of our abundant natural heritage. Yes, I am proud to be a Canadian and proud to be a part of this government that will work towards strengthening Canada — towards building and not demolishing.

MR. NICOLSON: Were you proud enough to vote?

MR. REE: I voted.

Mr. Speaker, today in British Columbia there is a rising tide of optimism not felt since the days of our pioneers. This optimism has recently been gaining in momentum in spite of forces outside of our boundaries which at any other time would have created an economic crisis of disastrous proportions. It is an optimism that the future of British Columbia and other parts of the northwest sector of this continent hold the destiny of North America, not just for the next decade but also for the next century. It must be recognized, however, that this optimism would not be here, nor would we have the opportunity of building towards our destiny at this time, had a solid foundation not been put in place in the past ten years. The people of British Columbia are indeed fortunate that under the able stewardship of our Premier a strong foundation for growth was built in the last decade, in spite of setbacks in the early part thereof.

The government, recognizing and believing in the benefit to the people of the individual enterprise system, and with the mandate of the people of the province, developed a climate whereby individual enterprise could flourish. It was under this climate and with sound financial management that the industry of the people of British Columbia was able to build a foundation which will provide benefits for all, a foundation upon which the structures of the eighties can rest secure and ensure the needs of the people of British Columbia in the twenty-first century.

Mr. Speaker, there are those of mischievous intent who have been labelling this government as a stopgap government. If this is their honest opinion, then the only direction of which they themselves are capable is that of going backwards. All we have to do is look at the performance in the last decade and ask in what direction this government is going compared to that provided by our opposition. The NDP exercised power for approximately 33 percent of the decade, while the Social Credit Party governed for the remainder. Yet in all areas of performance, whether in economic growth, in industry, or the providing of services to the public and need to the less fortunate of the province, the NDP's percentage, except in one instance, fell far short of 33 percent.

We have been labelled as a cold, hard government not interested in the people's needs. Yet during the decade 79.5 percent of all money spent on health-care facilities construction was spent under the Social Credit government. Seventy-five percent of all new beds for extended care have been provided under the Social Credit government. Seventy-four percent of all moneys provided for health-care services was provided under the Social Credit government. In education the same percentages are reflected in moneys spent, not only for schooling but also for post-secondary institutions under this government. These are just a few examples of the benefits to people which were made possible through sound fiscal policy, a policy of paying our way from current revenues and not by encumbering future generations.

The exception whereof I spoke and wherein the opposition reversed their trend of minimal percentage of participation was in their so-called forte. That was in labour relations, and under their term of office there were more industrial disputes and more man-days of work lost than in any other three-consecutive-year period in the history of this province. In fact, during the last two years of their government they had the distinguished record of three times the number of man-days lost than this government has had in its last two years, and they had these lost man-days at a time when they had a smaller workforce than we have today.

Further, we often hear from across the floor how wonderful the opposition was in creating the B.C. Petroleum Corporation. That corporation was their energy policy. That creation and that policy ill-served the people of British Columbia at a time when there were clear warnings throughout the world of a coming energy shortage. Not even in one of the three years they were in office were more wells drilled than in any other year of this decade. The reserves of this province diminished during their tenure, but since the Social Credit government has come to office we now have greater reserves than we had in August 1972.

Those are the facts of which the NDP is proud. Their energy policy was the creation of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation. This was the wagon to which they were hanging their star. The only difficulty was they were not attaching it to a star, they were attaching it to a horse, but the horse was at the rear of the wagon. Then when reserves diminished and exploration and development in the province had almost ceased, they threatened the private enterprise sector with penalties, being all the same as whipping this horse which was tied to the reverse of the wagon. They got their results. They continued in the same direction — backwards.

In December 1975 the driver of the wagon was replaced, the whip was put down, the horse was moved to the front of the wagon and given an incentive. The financial statements of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation will tell you the rest of the story, including, if you'll read the foot-notes, that we have now replaced the horse and put an engine in there that is running in high gear.

Mr. Speaker, the results of the last five years and the foundation that is being built for the economy and the benefit to the people of this province indicate that we are not a stopgap government. Our pause is only a momentary stop on the threshold as we move to erect on our foundation that structure which will carry us into the twenty-first century. The blocks are being put in place, the resources are being marshalled, and the architect's signature is being affixed to the plans. It is these plans which we shall be deliberating in the next few months, plans with a far-seeing vision of the

[ Page 1202 ]

future prosperity of this province through sound management of all our resources with a minimal environmental impact.

Last month this government announced its energy policy, and it wasn't a whipping-boy policy. It was a policy under government stewardship to ensure the energy security in this province for the benefit of future generations. It was a policy directed towards utilization of our hydroelectric power potential, towards establishing the feasibility of coal and wood biomass conversion, towards harnessing solar energy and towards the development of other forms of energy, save nuclear power.

The policy was also directed towards the husbanding of our present petroleum reserves and minimizing our dependence on petroleum imports. It is a policy through the enabling legislation, to which His Honour referred, under which we in British Columbia will develop employment opportunity and security in present and new energy-related industries, many of which will involve the future processing and finishing, which we do not at this time enjoy, of our other natural resources. This policy, however, does not give free rein to the development of energy for energy's sake. It sets out the stewardship role of government in ensuring that development must first be subject to the thorough scrutiny, and for the needs and benefit, of the people, without unwanted environmental side effects.

I was pleased when His Honour reaffirmed the policy of providing sound financial management of the material resources of this province, a policy that has stood well for the people of this province in the last five years, a policy of a balanced budget under which we have all benefited, so that today the people of British Columbia enjoy lower taxation than any other province of this country, save one. Yet with this lower taxation, this government has still provided benefits for the people not elsewhere enjoyed on this continent, and, as indicated in His Honour's address, will continue to provide these benefits for their enjoyment. To this end, I am referring to GAIN, SAFER, Pharmacare, allowances for the handicapped and disabled, long-term care, acute and extended care programs, homeowner grants and health care. To add to this, I was most pleased at the commitment of this government to implement denticare later this year. It was regretted that this was not implemented earlier, but it is a credit to our Premier and to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) that such a program was not hastily put into place until full discussion with the dental profession and thorough study had been held and a responsible program devised. This program will be of great benefit to the health of the people of British Columbia.

His Honour referred to a program that we will receive in the House to assist the municipalities of the province with an opportunity to redevelop their downtown areas. This, I am sure, will be well received by us all and is a further indication of our concern and assistance to the community areas of the province and the small businessmen who founded and built these areas. I am confident that this assistance, together with that at present being provided under revenue sharing and proposals with the changes in the Highway Act announced by His Honour, will add a new vitality and pride in the municipalities throughout the province.

As a member of one of the oldest professions [laughter] — actually I almost said a member of two of the oldest professions: politics and, naturally, law — I was gratified when His Honour announced that we would receive legislation to allow the provincial Judicial Council to discharge more effectively its role in the administration of the affairs of the provincial court and its members. We have in the past been well served by the members of this court in the dispensing of justice for all, and I believe it is only fitting that they receive more authority over their affairs, for the benefit of all that may come before it and under their scrutiny.

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago I was in Delta, when the Premier and the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) announced the Annacis Island bridge and highway development proposal. I wish to commend this government on its proposal, in recognizing the needs not only of the people of the immediate area, but also of the lower mainland. There are the usual detractors to any progressive venture, but this new transportation route will greatly assist the movement of people and their needed goods and services in one of the fastest growing areas of Canada.

I was pleased, in reviewing this proposal, that the planned route will have a minimum disruption of existing and built-up residential and commercial areas. This, as has been suggested, is not a stopgap proposal, but part of the planned needs of the people of the lower mainland.

It is not a policy of this government to change the lifestyle of the people by forcing them out of their cars by not providing automobile transportation routes, but it is a policy to allow each individual to have a choice as to his mode of transportation. Thus I am pleased to see this new transportation access. And the government, as indicated in the throne speech, is actively pursuing, in conjunction with the municipalities, planning for LRT. The new Annacis Island route, I am confident, will be a valuable adjunct to that planning.

Likewise, Mr. Speaker, I was at the announcement of the proposed British Columbia Place development for the north shore of False Creek. May I say that it has sparked tremendous enthusiasm in not only the lower mainland, but all of British Columbia. It is a most imaginative proposal that, during and after construction, will have resounding benefits for all the people of this province. This development, in conjunction with Transpo '86, will make Vancouver a showplace of the world, besides revitalizing the downtown area. The setting for an amphitheatre and a major exposition could not be more favourable, when you consider Vancouver as being a world terminus of all modes of transportation.

I am most proud to be a part of the committee charged with having an influence in this development, and I know my colleagues and myself welcome this challenge as an opportunity to contribute to the progress of this province. We have been questioned as to whether British Columbia Place and the amphitheatre will become reality. May I assure this House, and the people of this province, it will become reality. We in British Columbia have the industry, the expertise, the resources, the knowhow and the desire to make it a reality. It will be a testament to what can be accomplished through a partnership of the private sector and government under a free enterprise system.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that it will become a reality, because under that same partnership we have a major, although not as large, development in my constituency. In North Vancouver–Capilano there is underway a $70 million development called the Lonsdale Quay. It is at the foot of Lonsdale, and even before construction has started, it has initiated substantial revitalization and development of the area. Under the auspices of the B.C. Development Corporation, the government and the private sector will provide a people's place on the waterfront. Besides a seven-acre park,

[ Page 1203 ]

there will be walkways and promenades through and around residential, commercial and office buildings, and also a marine training centre. The location, like British Columbia Place, will enjoy the waterfront and view of our mountains.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What about that great drydock we were talking about?

MR. REE: That, under the influence and auspices of this government, is going to come to pass, Mr. Minister. In fact, Mr. Minister, they are even now working on some of the projects for the setting of that drydock into place. I believe the whole expenditure there is $63 million, to the benefit of my constituency, Mr. Minister.

We in North Vancouver will be the envy of our neighbouring municipalities with this Lonsdale Quay. And if I may quote the mayor of the city of North Vancouver: "When this Lonsdale Quay is completed, Granville Street will merely be an extension of Lonsdale Avenue."

The private sector has shown overwhelming interest in this development in North Vancouver, and I am confident the same interest will be shown in British Columbia Place, and the same resulting benefits for the city and the province obtained. Yes, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia Place will become a reality for the enjoyment of all British Columbians.

Interjection.

MR. REE: It's five years since you people started. You've stopped and gone backwards.

Interjection.

MR. REE: They never did start.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's let the member continue.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I regret time does not permit me to comment on all the matters proposed in His Honour's speech — although I know my colleague from Prince George South (Mr. Strachan) will remedy my omissions — but before closing I wish to compliment His Honour and his ministers on the ambitious program that will be placed before us. It, and what is now in operation, will result in an economic structure on our solid foundation that will be the envy of all North Americans.

We enjoy abundant resources and wealth in this province second to none; and with that, together with the labour stability we have achieved under the former Minister of Labour and which we continue to enjoy under the capable guidance of the member for Prince George North (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), the destiny of this province in the eighties and the next century will more than satisfy the most optimistic of British Columbians.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to second the Speech from the Throne. At the outset let me extend my best wishes to you, sir, and also to the newly elected Deputy Speaker (Mr. Davidson). I'm sure all of us take pride in the knowledge that the member for Delta will serve the office of Deputy Speaker in a most exemplary manner.

As we enter the second session of this great thirty-second parliament, Mr. Speaker, let me also take the opportunity to formally welcome all members of this assembly. As I look about I see the enthusiasm beaming from every face. I feel a tremendous sense of anticipation for all members assembled: enthusiasm for our upcoming deliberations and discussions; anticipation of the warm, friendly and meaningful dialogue that will prevail in this chamber during the ensuing days, weeks and months — Mr. Speaker, anticipation of the harmony, accord, felicity, camaraderie and good fellowship that is such an overwhelming feature of this House now assembled.

Mr. Speaker, His Honour's speech enumerates a substantial number of programs that will bring great benefit to all citizens of British Columbia. More importantly, His Honour articulates so well the fundamentals of our great free enterprise government which we enjoy as citizens of this province.

Mr. Speaker, one of the underlying tenets of free enterprise is that the government has the responsibility to paint the white line down the highway, show direction and encourage the journey; however, at all times remembering that the government can only encourage the journey, but not take that journey. To do so is to rob the individual of initiative, the freedom of endeavour and the joy of success.

Mr. Speaker, our members opposite will not share our government's preference of free enterprise over socialism. But let me quote, if I can, American labour leader Samuel Gompers, who writes: "Socialism holds nothing but unhappiness for the human race. It destroys personal initiative, wipes out national pride...and even plays into the hands of the autocrats."

I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that Sam Gompers really had a handle on the perfect and better union. Seventy Years of Life and Labour was written in 1935.

Direction and encouragement, Mr. Speaker: that is what is contained in His Honour's Speech from the Throne. Now outside this House the critics have tailed in their perusal of the text. They have called it empty. Mr. Speaker, the only thing missing in the speech, from a critic's perspective, is something to criticize.

The critics I heard following His Honour's speech employ the philosophy of strudel pastry: puffy on the outside, flaky and light as soon as you're through the crust.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) has dealt extremely well with a number of programs contained in His Honour's address. I would like to speak, sir, to a few of the items that are so important to me as the member for Prince George South. Mr. Speaker, since our election the government has shown tremendous advantages in encouraging the forest industry. As the member for Prince George South I am pleased to comment on our government's further commitment to British Columbia's major industry.

Mr. Speaker, as we enter this decade we now enter a tremendous transition period with respect to the management and harvest of our forest wealth. The transition period, Mr. Speaker, takes us from the period of liquidation of old forest growth to the extensive expansion of our second-growth forest. It is a policy that will serve future British Columbians for years to come. Mr. Speaker, these are not empty comments. They are based on fact and on past performance. As you know, sir, section 9 of the Forest and Range Act requires a complete assessment of forests to this House now assembled within fifteen days of the opening of the Legislative Assembly. This is the type of legislation that our government has in place — action legislation.

[ Page 1204 ]

Let us now look at the reforestation programs in our province, Mr. Speaker. In the fiscal year of '74-75 — remember those — some $13 million were put towards the perpetuation of our province's greatest resource. It doesn't sound bad at the outset, but it pales considerably when you compare it to the 1979-80 figures of $40 million. His Honour, when speaking of our substantial increase in the reforestation program was not speaking of an empty program. Now we see seedling increases of 30 percent to 100 million seedlings and an expansion to encourage the private sector in forest management and responsible silviculture. We are, sir, a government committed to integrated resource management that will guarantee future generations of British Columbia the tremendous security and economy that everyone in B.C. now enjoys.

Mr. Speaker, a member from the central interior cannot speak of the forest industry without mentioning the tremendous economic development that has occurred during our term as government. Solid encouragement of our industry is further contained in His Honour's address. The items dealing with our province's economy are manifold. Our government will rationalize the financing of our great resource railway, the British Columbia Railroad. We have sound policy and encouragement for the great energy potential of the province. We have in place now the British Columbia Utilities Commission, a positive policy towards the use of wood waste and our biomass and the knowledge and commitment to develop our tremendous British Columbia coal potential. Pretty sound policy, Mr. Speaker. Specifically stated, an encouraging policy that is even more encouraging when one recalls the member opposite when he sat as a member of government and said: "I feel that nuclear power should be given serious consideration." That's Hansard, January 26, 1973.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

HON. MR. MAIR: Is he still here?

MR. STRACHAN: Yes, the member is still here. It's Hansard, January 26, 1973. It's page 10.

That member then tried to rationalize his argument by comparing projects the size of Three Mile Island to the minute amounts of radioactive materials used in nuclear medicine.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ed Broadbent, right?

MR. STRACHAN: You're warm.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy as a British Columbian when I realize that our future generations will not have to fear or face a dependency on nuclear energy.

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN: I think it was, Mr. Premier.

I am also encouraged by His Honour's comments about our agricultural industry. The constituency of Prince George South has a large agricultural base, particularly in the Robson Valley, Mud River, Hickson and Punchaw regions. The Ministry of Agriculture, during our government, has adopted a very positive posture of encouragement for the farm producer.

The Prince George South producers are largely concerned with forage crops and subsequent cattle shipments, and I am pleased to note the steady and mature growth on this all-important facet of our agricultural base. As a matter of fact, the solidity of the cattle market is amply demonstrated by assessing the cattle shipments during the past decade — yearly shipments numbering over or very close to 100,000 per year. I should also note that the only significant decline in cattle shipments occurred in 1974 and 1975, when we saw declines averaging 20 percent.

HON. MR. MAIR: Who was government then?

MR. STRACHAN: It's in Hansard. We can look that up.

At this juncture I would like to speak to the throne speech on behalf of the city of Prince George. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Prince George has experienced dynamic growth during the past 20 years, growth that began during the great government of the 1960s and growth that has made Prince George one of British Columbia's most dynamic communities. Those of us in Prince George were delighted to hear of His Honour's comments with respect to downtown development. Thanks to good city planning, Prince George has grown in an orderly manner, and we have initiated some downtown development and face-lifting. Therefore we are extremely pleased to see our government specifically calling for further legislation to aid our community. I am sure all members now assembled share this enthusiasm with me.

Continuing on a municipal note, Mr. Speaker, I also applaud the forthcoming legislation from the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) which will allow provincial highways in cities over 30,000 people. I should also point out that the city of Prince George is now entering the final planning stages of a substantial highway and bridge development program with the Ministry of Highways, and I am sure that this is also legislation that all members now assembled will welcome.

However, as I comment on the tremendous growth that is occurring in our province and the manner in which our government is assisting the total British Columbia community, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the fact that when the members opposite were government they probably, too, would have introduced legislation that would have assisted the growing pains. However, they did not have a chance, because there were no growing pains. Everyone was leaving. During the last year of their term of government 65,880 people left the province. With this type of exodus one does not really have to worry about helping municipalities with growth problems. However, with the election of our government in 1975 we have seen the trend reverse itself, and we are once again enjoying a healthy population growth. As we grow our government is acting in a positive manner.

I have mentioned programs to assist our British Columbia municipalities, but let us look at the people programs as our province grows. His Honour mentioned that in British Columbia we have 11 percent of the Canadian population but 15 percent of the nation's new jobs. Our critics might try to trot out statements about unemployment in the province. However, one only has to read the "Help Wanted" ads in any paper to know that there is an abundance of work available.

I am delighted to hear His Honour comment on the legislation that will be introduced by the Ministers of Labour, Education, and Universities, Science and Communications. Legislation from these ministries will enable our young people to gain the training so necessary to our province's future.

If I can be parochial for a minute again, Mr. Speaker, and

[ Page 1205 ]

comment on behalf of Prince George South and the community of Prince George, let me enumerate some of the new programs initiated by our province by Prince George's College of New Caledonia, programs now 100 percent funded by government. The College of New Caledonia has introduced substantial adult basic education programs which include basic job-readiness training, employment for women, English for new Canadians and basic employment training. The College of New Caledonia technical division now includes electrical electronics, chemical metallurgical technology, surveying technology, the access to nursing program for practical nurses, a long-term care aid program and pulp and paper technology. These programs have all come about during the tenure of our government, and the list of programs currently in planning stages is tremendous.

Mr. Speaker, His Honour spoke to the House of social programs that our government has introduced and will be expanding. Our programs speak for themselves, but let us not lose sight of the fact that our social programs speak most emphatically of good government and sound fiscal policy. We have heard in a session past — and I'm sure we will hear again in upcoming sessions — there is nothing wrong with a deficit. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would submit to this House that you can only shovel so much out of the wagon and then it's empty, and to pay for social programs you need a sound economy. Good social programs are the result of a sound free enterprise policy. That fact cannot be denied, and our record in government clearly demonstrates the advantage to all who live in a healthy free enterprise economy.

Mr. Speaker, as an assembly we are gathered to discuss the business of the people and the legislation of the province. His Honour's speech has mentioned a host of legislative items that will come to this House, and the business of the people will be served as we deliberate this session. I should like to say that our government has the utmost respect for the office of Speaker and Deputy Speaker and for our standing orders, particularly standing order 43, contained on page 13, which speaks to members who might wish to wallow in irrelevant debate. We know that this will not be the case in this session, Mr. Speaker, and I commend you for the exemplary manner in which you maintain the office of Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, His Honour's speech has clearly articulated the positive and fortunate position British Columbians enjoy, and His Honour spoke at length of the potential of Canada's greatest province, British Columbia. Accordingly I second the Speech from the Throne.

Mr. Howard moved adjournment of the debate.

Tabling Reports

Hon. Mr. McClelland tabled the annual report for the calendar year ended December 31, 1979, for the British Columbia Energy Commission.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich tabled the report of the Labour Relations Board of British Columbia for the year ending December 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 3:40 p.m.