[ Page 1207 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings.

Oral questions.

Surrey Inter-Section and Crisis Centre. Ms. Brown –– 1207

B.C. Place. Mr. Lauk –– 1209

Speech from the Throne.

Mr. Howard –– 1209

On the amendment.

Mr. Lauk –– 1213

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 1215

Mr. Hall –– 1217

Mrs. Dailly –– 1221

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 1223

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1225

Mr. Lea –– 1228

TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to draw the attention of all hon. members to the fact that we have invited to the floor of the House today a former Speaker of this Legislative Assembly. Please welcome Mr. Gordon Dowding.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce a guest who is perhaps one of Canada's more distinguished parliamentarians. He has spent his career representing Toronto (Greenwood) in Ontario and was external affairs critic in the House of Commons for many years. He has a special interest in British Columbia since he represented Japanese Canadians, largely from this part of Canada, in the Supreme Court of Canada during those many difficult years following the Second World War. I would ask the House to welcome Mr. Andrew Brewin, who is with us today.

MR. KING: I would like to introduce to the House today a former executive assistant of mine, now a resident of the fair city of Cranbrook, British Columbia: Mr. Jack Currie, along with his good wife Marcelle, and my own better half, Audrey.

MR. HANSON: I would like the House to join me today in welcoming a number of members of the Grace MacInnis Club of Victoria, which is the backbone of the NDP, as you know. They are led by Margaret Hobbs, who is a former member of this House. Her name was attempted to be deleted by the Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act last year, which we had to put back into place — so you can't get rid of Margaret Hobbs. Will you join me in welcoming her?

MR. SEGARTY: In the gallery this afternoon is Nancy Banks, from Cranbrook, and Avril Dishaw, from Kelowna. Both are students at the University of Victoria. I would like the House to welcome them this afternoon.

MR. BARBER: Needless to say, I join in Gordon's welcoming of the Grace MacInnis Club. As well, I would like to welcome to the gallery today, from the mighty neighbourhood of James Bay in the capital city, Sid Blackburn, Carolyn Chamberlayne and Simon Carroll, good friends of ours. I hope they feel comfortable this particular afternoon.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), I would like to introduce and ask the House to welcome students from Lambrick Park Secondary School, part of whom are in his constituency and part of whom are in mine.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have two guests in the gallery today. One is a good friend from the interior whom I have known for a long time and who was very closely associated with the packinghouse workers in that area — Alma Fauls, from Oliver. Also in the gallery is a young friend and supporter of mine, whom I don't want to pass up. He's a student at UVic and he's in the gallery this afternoon, Dominique Roelants. Would the House join me in welcoming them?

Oral Questions.

SURREY INTER-SECTION
AND CRISIS CENTRE

MS. BROWN: My question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources. The unsupervised placement of a 17-year-old girl by the Ministry of Human Resources in a hotel in Delta, where she was later arrested for drinking, would seem to indicate, Mr. Speaker, that young people in the care of the ministry are at risk. Would the minister consider diverting funds from her public relations capers to funding Inter-Section and crisis lines in Surrey, to ensure that there will not be a repetition of this near-tragic incident?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would recommend in phrasing all of our questions, and indeed our speeches, in this House, that we use language which perhaps would not encourage repercussions on the other side of the House.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: First of all, Mr. Speaker, may I respond to the member by saying that the charge of unsupervised placement is incorrect. I, too, read the account in the press over the weekend of the 17-year-old girl who was placed in a setting in Surrey, which I wish to look into. I've had a report from my ministry. I understand that my ministry, without divulging some of the confidential background of a very difficult case…. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I take exception to any member of this House who says that our ministry staff has not considered the very best placement they possibly could for some of the very difficult placements under their care.

In this province we have had, in this past year, 4,000 children taken into care, and I would like to, in this week particularly, commend the staff of the Ministry of Human Resources, who have done an outstanding job of looking after some very difficult cases — cases, Mr. Speaker, that natural parents, adoptive parents, emergency placement homes and foster parents have not been able to handle. This is just such a case. As I have reported to the media earlier today, I am very concerned about this case; I am concerned as well that there will be placements in hotels throughout the province. We have a wide range of services to care for children who are difficult, young people who are difficult. We use these services, we use some outstanding foster-care placements, and we use some outstanding facilities in this province.

This member has brought to the attention of the House, and the newspaper report has brought to the attention of the people, just one side of the story. I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that although I am not free to give the total confidential report of a case that is a very, very difficult one for not only myself to report on but for my ministry to deal with.... But as I do so, there are two things I would like to have emphasized here: (1) our ministry will continue to deal with the young lady who is now, and has been prior to being placed in that hotel, in an emergency shelter. We will continue to deal with that young girl until we can help her the very best as is possible. We will continue to give her the kind of attention that we are giving to many troubled youngsters in this province.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I want to share with the House the fact I have re-emphasized to my ministry that only in the

[ Page 1208 ]

most isolated and extreme cases do I feel that a hotel setting should be used. It is my belief, and I have had a report from my deputy minister, that the very best care was taken to make sure that this young girl was looked after as best as is possible. I hope the member will accept that.

MS. BROWN: A supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. I would certainly like to agree with the Minister of Human Resources — not just this week but every week — that the staff of the ministry, working under incredible odds, are doing an excellent job. Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, this student, this young girl, when she was arrested, was not being supervised. The question I would like to suggest to the minister is that $40,000 of the department's funding would probably have been better spent dealing with the shortage of staff in the department rather than decals and buttons and cassettes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I did not detect a question. This sounds like debate, and this is not the purpose of question period. But the hon. minister wishes to answer. Please proceed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the member raises a figure of $40,000 to 200 offices throughout the province of British Columbia and to a staff of 5,000 who are attempting this week to tell of the services of the Ministry of Human Resources and to pay tribute to the many thousands of volunteers who bolster the services of that ministry. And may I say that, on a budget of close to $700 million, I am not sure of the $40,000 figure that the member.... But then I am never sure of the figures that that member puts before this House, having found them to be erroneous before. But may I say that if her figure is correct — and I certainly haven't had that substantiated by any member of my ministry — that is a very few cents to tell the people out in the province what this ministry has done.

This morning, Mr. Speaker, I was at a Ministry of Human Resources office in Victoria, where I heard of some very highly successful programs that are being put forward by my staff members. I have heard no complaints of short staff. I found no complaints, as I've been going through the province, of people who are without service. But I'll tell you what I have found, Mr. Speaker. I have found the people of the province not knowing where to go for help. And I hope that after this week is over they will have found out where they can get help from the Ministry of Human Resources.

And may I say this in conclusion: I hope that the members on that side of the House will stop playing politics with the poor people of this province.

MR. HALL: A supplementary to that very political minister. The minister talks about people wanting to know where services are. Mr. Speaker, on February 23 there was a full-page article in the Vancouver Sun regretting the minister's inability to provide the services in my area, talking about people who were wanting to help. Mr. Speaker, my question, before the minister gives me a political answer....

Interjection.

MR. HALL: Wait for the question. My question is: in view of the fact that Inter-Section needs some money, in view of the fact that the crisis line needs some money, in view of the fact that other associations composed of volunteers who want some money, who have been trying to get some money off this minister and who referred in this meeting to this whole-page article about the tragedies in Surrey the minister knows well.... I'll ask the minister this question.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Do your homework, Ernie. Don't go by the newspaper.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's hear the question.

MR. HALL: You talk to your friend Mr. Vogel about it, Billy, and you'll know, if you ever meet him these days. I want to ask the minister this question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister meet with representatives of the crisis section of the Inter-Section Society of the community resources in Surrey at a public meeting with the attendant publicity the minister will always give to these kinds of meetings when they sometimes happen in shopping centres and malls throughout the province? Will you meet with these people at a public meeting to discuss their needs and their requirements?

MR. SPEAKER: The question inquires into the future activity of the minister. However, the minister wishes to answer.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, may I report on a past activity? I met with the crisis centre people at a public meeting last Saturday, and it was interesting that the MLA for Surrey, Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm, was present but I didn't see that the other MLA was present at that public meeting.

Mr. Speaker, may I also give information to the hon. member for Surrey...?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. We cannot hear the answer.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: May I also give him the information, because he refers to newspaper articles which did not give the whole story, because they left out the fact that the Surrey emergency shelter had been offered $23.50 per diem guaranteed for a nine-bed facility. That is what they apparently had asked for, and we are just waiting for their submission as to whether or not they accept the ministry's program.

MS. BROWN: It's not the same one.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: That is the emergency service, which is also mentioned in that article. On the crisis line, we are at this point in time negotiating since the public meeting I held with them last Saturday, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HALL: The minister is dealing with two separate organizations. I may respond to her that I would have been pleased to attend the meeting on Saturday. Had I had the courtesy of an invitation to that conference — I had in my pocket the $3 she was charging to go — I would probably have left the conference, as many other people did when they were told it was being catered by the Social Credit Women's Auxiliary.

[ Page 1209 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I think it is in the best interests of all members to protect the purpose of various functions in the House. The function of question period, as I understand it, is to seek information from the administration via question. The last two individuals have stood to make statements, and I have detected no question — unless I missed it entirely.

B.C. PLACE

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Environment in his capacity as minister in charge of B.C. Place. By the way, I take this opportunity to put in Hansard that the first member for Vancouver Centre congratulates the minister on his elevation; he won the cabinet sweepstakes. Has an agreement been reached between the government and Marathon Realty — an arm of the CPR — concerning the exchange of public lands for the 120-odd acres in False Creek in the city of Vancouver for use as a stadium site?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. The agreement between the government of British Columbia and Marathon Realty — through its parent company, Canadian Pacific Railway — is an agreement only in principle and not in finite details.

MR. LAUK: Supplementary question. Has the public land to be exchanged been identified before the agreement or as a result of the agreement in principle?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, if I repeat the answer a second time.... Or maybe the member could refer to Hansard tomorrow. But the agreement has been in principle that exchanges will be made of government property and Crown-owned property for property currently held by Marathon.

MR. LAUK: I repeat the question to the minister. Has the public land been identified?

HON. MR. ROGERS: To the member, Mr. Speaker, negotiations involving the British Columbia Place properties and Marathon Realty are continuing at the present time, and they're not specific.

MR. SPEAKER: The bell terminates the question period.

MR. LAUK: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, the voice of the minister trailed off.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member stand on a point of order?

MR. LAUK: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I could not hear the minister's answer.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: No, his voice trailed off. I wonder if he could say what it was.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member. I think that the answer is on record and perhaps we can refer to it when the Blues arrive in a few minutes.

MR. LAUK: Has Hansard got the answer?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker wisely advised all members of the House during question period to ask questions and not enter into debate. I point out to the Speaker that that admonishment, or — let's put it more generously — that advisement, should well have been received by the hon. Minister of Human Resources, who took of her own time while standing on her feet the better part of six minutes in answering three simple questions which she inevitably did not answer.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Permit me to respond to the point of order.

The question period is regulated by, first of all, the motion which is moved on opening day which permits question period at all, and then by agreement of a committee which was struck to establish the guidelines for question period. I have to report that those guidelines do not include any process whereby the Speaker is permitted to time either questions or answers. We are depending upon the reason of both the questioner and the answerer. If at any time it appears that they are unduly long, the Speaker would undertake to draw that to the member's attention. Thank you very much.

MR. LAUK: Further to the point of order, could the Speaker advise what he considers to be unduly long?

MR. SPEAKER: It would have to be determined at the time.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order. For the edification of the hon. member across the way, perhaps if he would read Votes and Proceedings of Monday, February 28, 1977, the points which he raised are, I am sure, covered.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in the debate, I think very appropriately I'd like to first express my appreciation of the opportunity of both sitting closer to you physically in the chamber and having the opportunity to work with you in the pursuit of the orderly development and progress of business in the House. I look forward to a long life together in that capacity, both on this side of the House and on the other side.

I would like also to express, through you, sir, to the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson), my appreciation of the opportunity to have seconded the motion which elevates him to the position of Deputy Speaker. I wish him well in that function.

I would like to express also the thought that I had anticipated from some earlier conversations he had made that perhaps he would have been chosen to that position from a

[ Page 1210 ]

position in this House identified as independent. However, he has overcome that difficulty by way of a bridge, and I must say that's an awful price to have to pay for one vote. When the final tabs are in, it will be something in the neighbourhood of $500 million for that particular project.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Is this a gong show?

MR. HOWARD: If it's a gong show, Mr. Speaker, all the dingdongs are on that side of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Perhaps we could select temperate language. Please proceed.

MR. HOWARD: I enjoyed listening to the mover and the seconder, especially their references to the free enterprise system, and the applause they evoked every time they mentioned that word, almost a kind of knee-jerk reference. I wondered, though, why each of the honourable gentlemen when they spoke and made reference to that matter of free enterprise had to look at their notes and read the words — perhaps because of an inability to make declarations of that nature coming from the heart. I think that's understandable, because it's not possible to talk of free enterprise coming from the heart in support of it, because it's a heartless system, a system that has a balance-sheet morality to it, measured by m.p.g. I don't mean miles per gallon, Mr. Speaker; I mean money, power and greed. Those are the identifying points of the system which the hon. gentlemen lauded.

Let's look, though, in our discussion today, at the government, because that's what we're talking about. There is a legacy attached to the Social Credit members of the government which that particular party had placed upon it by some of its predecessors, a stamp of identification. It's the stamp of identification of the likes of Robert Bonner and Phil Gaglardi and others in that particular category. It's not a particularly ethical stamp. It's not a particularly ethical inheritance. It's not the inheritance certainly of other hon. gentlemen who have graced this place and who belonged to that particular party, like Eric Martin or Bert Price or, indeed, the gentleman who served with distinction in the office that you now hold, Mr. Speaker. I'm talking of a dear friend of many of us, the late Tom Irwin, who also was a member of the House of Commons in Ottawa. That's not the authority that Social Credit has inherited. It has inherited the legacy of an approach by government that bespeaks manipulation, connivance, adjustment of principle, a kind of elastic morality that permits them to do anything and say anything to remain where they are. That's what we will be dealing with in part in this Speech from the Throne and in the days ahead — this administration, this government. I was going to say this Premier, but he has moved now. Vested in the hands of the Premier is the crux of everything that goes on in government. That's the focal point of what it is we will be dealing with in subsequent days.

I intend, in a moment, to move a motion, an amendment, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps for the interest of the chamber, without moving it at this point, I might read it so that hon. members will have it in their minds. At the appropriate time I propose to move that at the end of the question we add certain words, namely these: that we feel it, however, to be our humble duty to submit to Your Honour that it is essential that Your Honour's government should possess the confidence of this House and of this province, and respectfully to represent toYour Honour that such confidence is not reposed in the present advisers of Your Honour.

I would have enjoyed the opportunity to have had placed in there reference to the reason this confidence is not reposed in the administration is because the president of the executive council has not been resolute in establishing and enforcing standards of conduct and behaviour appropriate to the high and noble expectations of His Honour. It would of course have offended the rules of the House to have inserted that, and I would not want to do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: We don't know what the problem is.

MR. HOWARD: Well, we know what the problem is; perhaps the hon. gentlemen opposite may not know.

AN HON. MEMBER: They know who the problem is.

MR. HOWARD: The other day I read in the newspaper an off-the-cuff comment, I understand that it was, by the Premier to the effect that if his government was defeated on a want-of-confidence motion here in the House, he and his government would not resign and there would not be an election. I wondered what he was getting at by that, and I thought about it some time since then. The other night in bed I was thinking about the Premier [laughter]...

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that that's that member's problem and not mine. [Laughter.]

MR. HOWARD: ...and I must say that it was a strange activity for me to engage in, to be thinking about him. And I finally concluded, in thinking about what the Premier had said...

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, and then I woke up and discovered it was a nightmare.

... that what the Premier was saying to his members opposite, to his government supporters, was: "Look, this vote that we are going to have on this amendment is a free vote." That's what he was saying. "Vote any way you like." He wants you to stand up and tell him what you think. He wants you not to to stand up converse in the back rooms about your disagreement with some of the functions that his government has been engaged in; he wants you to stand up here and be counted. And that's obviously what he meant by that reference — if defeated he would not resign. He wants it to be a free vote, and hon. gentlemen opposite will have the opportunity to examine that aspect of it and stand up and tell the Premier directly to his face by a vote what they think — I mean, whether they support him or whether they don't.

MR. LEA: They've sure been doing it behind your back.

MR. HOWARD: Oh, yes, but the government is not going to fall if you exercise your independence in this regard. There are some things that concern can be expressed about, Mr. Speaker. For instance, in the early 1950s — 1952-53-54 — there existed a fund....

AN HON. MEMBER: This really is a gong show.

[ Page 1211 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They're opposition.

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if you could protect me from this hon. and empty barrel from the Peace River rattling on, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Please continue with the debate.

MR. HOWARD: In that period of time there existed a thing called "The Social Credit Education Fund." Now that fund was a slush fund; it was the private preserve of some people in the cabinet; it was one of those secret accounts. The custodians and the trustees of it were Robert Bonner and Robert Sommers. The Premier of the day, the late W.A.C. Bennett, didn't know anything about that fund. We see a similarity last year in there being secret accounts existing, secret accounts outside of the Social Credit Party, and the Premier didn't know anything about that fund, oh, no. This Premier, like his predecessor in office in 1952 and 1953, didn't know anything about that secret fund, didn't know anything about the Adams' or the Taylors who gleaned the money and set it aside for specific, near-illicit purposes in terms of the campaign. In fact, it's interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that one of the trustees or the collectors of money for that special fund that existed over here last year was Austin Taylor Jr., who, I understand, has got some association with an investment firm to which this government sold some ferries a few years ago — some kind of hanky-panky.

When hon. members opposite get a chance to cast their vote on this particular amendment, they'll have an opportunity to vote as to whether they agree that passing out $1,000 bills...whether they think that's fair and proper and the correct thing to do. They'll have an opportunity to vote as to whether they think it's correct and proper to have something in the neighbourhood of a quarter of a million dollars in unreported election campaign expenses hidden from public view; they'll have an opportunity to stand up and say to the Premier that they think that's right or they think it's wrong. That's one of the things that you will be dealing with.

In September 1975 — I'm trying to give an indication of a pattern of thought that exists — threats were made against the life of the then Premier of this province, my colleague the now Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett). In any society, especially a democratic society, where such threats are made, the almost automatic response would be to deplore a threat against a person in public life. Any responsible person would, as a minimum, express regrets that such a thing could take place in our society.

At that time, the gentleman who now holds the office of Premier in this province was then the Leader of the Opposition. His response to the news that death threats had been made against the life of the then Premier was basically to say: "It serves Barrett right." He didn't express any regrets at an intrusion into our democracy or any concern about what might happen in a society if that sort of thought was given support and succour. No, his statement at that time was an inflammatory statement, I submit, one that basically supported those who had made the threats, an endorsement to go ahead because, after all, the Premier at that time deserved it.

I only say that with sadness in my heart, but it's an indication of the attitude and the concept of the man who is Premier in this province. When we have an opportunity to vote, those of you who so desire will have an opportunity to vote either to endorse that action in 1975, endorse those comments, or to vote against them, without fear of your government being defeated.

Just the other day, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity of picking up the Vancouver Sun and reading it. I came across an article I want to refer to, written by one Tony Begbie, as a special to the Sun, involving a visit that he made — this was the Saturday, March 1, 1980, Vancouver Sun — to Dachau. Well, Dachau, as I discovered from reading the article — I had heard of the place before but didn't know the significance of it — was the first concentration camp established by Heinrich Himmler in Nazi Germany. We all know from the later recording of history and after the war what took place in those concentration camps.

Mr. Begbie, if I could just read a very brief reference from it — and this is 40 years or more after this camp had been established — said:

"It is an intensely moving experience to walk through the museum that exists now at Dachau and see the well-documented evidence of Nazi brutality. Haunting faces stare back at you from grainy black and white blowups. There, inside a glass case, is a striped prisoner's uniform, muddy and threadbare. Over there, in another glass case, are the records of families who have disappeared forever. A theatre shows a film in several languages. When you leave the camp, you will take with you a feeling of unreality."

Myself, Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine mental processes of people who engaged in that sort of brutality in Germany against more than six million people. I cannot encompass within my mind the inhumanity that existed, nor the psychotic glee that people would have stripping skin from prisoners while they are still alive and then making lampshades from human skin. I know it from reading it, and it does make me a bit sick at heart to think of it and talk about it.

When I look at that and read about that and think about that, I cannot help but remember clearly and vividly that the last election campaign was started by this gentleman who now holds the Premier's office, identifying those of us in the NDP as Nazis, a deplorable thing for a Premier to say. When it was pointed out to the Premier what he was saying, he feigned ignorance of the use of the words "National Socialist."

When you vote on this particular amendment that I am going to move, you will have an opportunity to stand up and vote for or against a person who didn't have the decency to admit that he made a mistake. You'll have that opportunity.

I want to mention, if I can, another reference to a subject matter that has concerned me and others in this House for some time. It relates to the previous Minister of Labour, now the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), who had a responsibility with respect to Indian affairs when he held the post of Minister of Labour. This was discussed in the last session very briefly. I would like to quote what the then Minister of Labour said, as a preliminary. This is on July 23 last year, page 948 of Hansard: "At no time did the government of British Columbia indicate that we would negotiate with the Nishga tribe or with the government of Canada on the question of aboriginal rights or land claims." At the time I disagreed with him. I indicated that the Nishga people had

[ Page 1212 ]

heard otherwise, had thought otherwise and had said otherwise.

In November 1975 the then Leader of the Opposition was in Terrace and met in the Slumber Lodge Motel with the executive of the Nishga tribal council. He discussed with them the matter of Indian land claims. The then Leader of the Opposition, now the Premier, handed to the tribal council executive a copy of a resolution passed unanimously by the Social Credit convention just shortly before that particular meeting. Part of that resolution says as follows. This is provincial Socred policy. "We must encourage and formulate a mechanism whereby actual negotiations will take place between the Indian people, the province of British Columbia and the federal government." Notice that: "negotiations."

Further on, the next point: "We must inform the general public of British Columbia that after negotiating and arriving at a just settlement....," and so on. I stop there, because the references are to negotiating. Those are the words of the gentleman who is now the Premier. He met with Nishga tribal council people, gave them the resolution, committed himself that if he became the government his government would enter into negotiations. That's what he said.

Shortly thereafter he did become Premier. His Minister of Labour went to New Aiyansh on January 12, 1976, and attended a meeting there which was taped. It is interesting to read what the Minister of Labour said: "The letter of invitation from your distinguished president received after the December 11 election asked the government of British Columbia, which it is my pleasure to represent, to come as a third party in the land settlement negotiations." Now, admittedly that's talking about the invitation.

Then he said: "And the fact that I am in attendance here today is to be regarded as an expression of the wish of the government of British Columbia to acknowledge and accept its rightful place as a full and necessary participant in these discussions."

Suddenly he moves from negotiations to discussions. Later on, on two separate occasions in the same remarks of the Minister of Labour, he talks about these negotiations and the need to have meaningful negotiations. Then he stands up in this House and says that at no time did the government commit itself to enter into negotiations. The proof shows otherwise.

The question I am wondering is: why in heaven's name did the Minister of Labour then let the Premier make such a fool of him by permitting him to make those kinds of statements which would put the Minister of Labour, as they did, in the position of having to stand up in this House last session and say something to us which is not in accordance with the facts?

Now that's not the former Minister of Labour's doing. That's not the current Attorney-General's doing. That, I think, is the doing of the Premier. Again people will have an opportunity when we vote to determine whether or not they want to support that type of double-dealing — of telling people one thing out of the depth of his commitment and then denying that later on and forcing the Minister of Labour into the position to deny.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to these things there is the whole question of the record of competency of the government, and as to whether or not it is competent in the sense that we as British Columbians should expect it to be competent in the handling of our affairs. It applauds itself on being businesslike and administratively effective, and yet all that's shown up is a record of being able to lurch from one crisis to the other with no meaningful plan, no meaningful projection into the future. Those things that it has touched have been bungled and have been mismanaged.

When people vote later on on the amendment, they'll have an opportunity to vote for the fiasco or against the fiasco created with respect to B.C. Ferries. You'll be able to vote as to whether you think it's a good thing that the city of Prince Rupert and the north coast should be without a ferry service for two months — all because this government didn't have the foresight to see that by putting the Queen of Prince Rupert on the run to Seattle, they were going to leave the north coast without service for two months. That's bungling, straight incompetence and callous....

If someone is going to object and say, "Oh, no, we knew what we were doing," then it's callous disregard for the rights of everybody living along the north coast and in the northern interior as well. You'll be able to vote as to whether you agree that that type of action by government should be supported because of the loss of income as a result of tourists not being able to travel here. You'll be able to vote as to whether or not you want to support the idea that there's a loss of thousands of dollars to small business people who rest on tourism, a great deal of their activities on tourism, all the way from Prince Rupert through the riding of Skeena, through the riding of Omineca and into Prince George where countless thousands of dollars have been lost and where there are literally hundreds of hotel reservations that have been cancelled because of that bungling activity of chopping off a twomonth period with no ferry service to Prince Rupert. You'll be able to vote to support that type of incompetence or vote against it.

You'll be able to vote to endorse the complete and horrendously stupid decision about the Heroin Treatment Program up in Vancouver Island here — whether you agree that that money should have been spent or not. You'll have the opportunity. A complete fiasco, and that's part of the record of this government that the Premier is asking you to vote for or against — and committing to you beforehand that there won't be elections. We'll stand up as free, independent men and women and tell the Premier what you think of this type of horrendous, horrendous incompetence — not behind his back. Now I think, Mr. Speaker, just before I seek to close my remarks and move the amendment....

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: I understand that's a subject matter that if I so wanted to indicate, I would indicate it to Mr. Speaker. Obviously the government House Leader doesn't talk with his chief government Whip, because I told the government Whip that information earlier today.

Perhaps the crowning indignity visited upon our democratic institution took place on February 18 — that was when there was a federal election. That was the time that somebody prominent in this House exhibited his lack of interest in the whole process of democracy, showed the worst possible example for citizens in this land and visited upon decent, responsible people the incredible insult of saying he wasn't even interested in voting — a fundamental right to be preserved and to be protected.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's one vote?

[ Page 1213 ]

MR. HOWARD: I mean, what's one vote?

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: He knew what one vote was when he dealt with the member for Delta.

I can imagine, Mr. Speaker, after listening to the Speech from the Throne, after listening to statements later on about this government's relationship with the government of Canada, the question of unity, the question of constitutional arrangements.... I can imagine the Premier of this province sitting down and talking with the Prime Minister of Canada and saying, "Mr. Prime Minister, we need this and we need that, and we want these changes made," and Prime Minister Trudeau would look at the Premier and say: "Listen, man, if you don't vote, you've got no right to bitch." That wouldn't be the Prime Minister of Canada's comment in isolation from the view expressed to me by hundreds and hundreds of people when they heard of this latest failure of "citizen Bill."

When you vote, my friends, you have the opportunity to stand up and say to the Premier: "That's right on, Mr. Premier. I think you should have ignored the democratic processes. I agree with you that you shouldn't have voted." A fine thing to do. Show the way to everybody else in this land that you don't want them to participate in the democratic process. You'll have the opportunity to go the other way and say, as has been said privately by some Social Credit backbenchers: "Shame on you, Mr. Premier. Shame on you!"

I have to express my indignity and my shame for you by voting against you, and by voting for the amendment that I now move, seconded by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

I move, so seconded, Mr. Speaker, to add at the end of the question the words: "that we feel it, however, to be our humble duty to submit to Your Honour that it is essential that Your Honour's government should possess the confidence of this House and of this province, and respectfully to represent to Your Honour that such confidence is not reposed in the present advisers to Your Honour." Implicit, though unstated, in there — and I wish I could have put it in — is that the reason for this is because the president of Your Honour's executive council has not been resolute in establishing and enforcing standards of conduct and behaviour appropriate to the high and noble expectations of Your Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I consider the amendment itself.... I was looking feverishly through my edition of Sir Erskine May to draw to the attention of all members of the House a courtesy to which we have grown accustomed and, I think, one which we should seek to preserve. I find it on page 418 of the eighteenth edition where it says: "In the upper House, however, a lord is now alluded to by name, but in the Commons" — from which House we gain our precedent — "each member must be distinguished by the office he holds, by the place he represents or by other designation, as the noble lord, or the Secretary of State for foreign affairs, or the hon. member, or the right Hon. gentleman" or other such phrases. You'll find them there on page 418. We resist calling each other by our Christian names in this chamber.

The amendment I have in hand is properly signed by both the mover and the seconder. The motion appears to be in order.

The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), seconder of the motion.

Order, please. Is the member for Dewdney standing on a point of order?

MR. MUSSALLEM: I am quite surprised that the hon. member for Skeena stated that there was lack of cooperation in the House and said that we did not ask to identify who was the designated speaker. I didn't hear it very clearly, but he mentioned that this happened. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I'll be looking for Hansard when it comes out. I've asked him in the hall only a little while ago: "Who is your designated speaker?" He said: "I'm not going to tell you." Those were his very words.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, please. This is a matter which is not the business of the House. It is a matter which is considered between Whips, who establish things like speaking order and designated speakers. Please, let's not bring that into this chamber.

On the amendment.

MR. LAUK: I intend, even though I am entitled under the practice of this House to speak on the main motion, only to limit my remarks to the amendment. I am pleased that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) has retaken his chair, so that I can refer some of my remarks to his statement on St. Valentine's Day of this year dealing with the so-called Lettergate affair.

The amendment to the motion, as stated by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), is designed in such a way as to focus attention upon the conduct of the president of the executive council, the Premier of the province. The Lettergate scandal, as it is called, is not so much a question of law; it is not so much a question of the Attorney-General and the RCMP investigation to find out whether a forgery had been committed; it is a question of the free political system and whether or not all of us in this province can expect that that free political system will survive untampered with by a conspiracy to destroy its integrity and to destroy freedom of expression in the press.

The facts involving the Lettergate case, we are told, do not directly link the Premier with such a conspiracy. I say that is not so. I say there is evidence, sufficient to bring before this House, to indicate that the Premier was involved in such a conspiracy and that that conspiracy involved the entire structure of the Social Credit Party — from the Premier's office to his leadership of that party and on down.

May I refer, Mr. Speaker, to the statements made by the hon. Attorney-General on St. Valentine's Day. He gave a press release absolving all people of criminal culpability. On the other hand he made the comment:

"Whether criminality exists in any letter or not, the practice evident in these instances discloses — except in the justifiable cases where noms de plume may be used — a cowardly, reprehensible and irresponsible attitude involving the use of a medium for the expression of opinion which has become a traditional feature of newspapers in our society."

I want all hon. members of this House to keep that statement in mind as I go through the evidence implicating the accused.

The Premier, although not directly linked to the use

[ Page 1214 ]

false names and forged letters, as leader of his party has set the moral tone for the members, official or otherwise, of his political party. It is his leadership which we must assume has led to this disdain for the political system, for this contempt for the political process. His watch-word, his calling-cry to his comrades-in-arms is "victory at any cost" — at any cost, including the undermining and subversion of the free political system.

We know from Nixon's Watergate that the head of a political party need only give the appearance of approval for unsavoury practices to encourage the employment of such practices by enthusiastic followers. I ask the Attorney General: who provided that kind of leadership in this sordid affair?

Let me read from the Attorney-General's message. On page 7 he says: "You will appreciate that counselling involves recommending the commission of an offence. If the offence is committed, the person who counsels it is a party to the offence itself." What the Attorney-General did not deal with was the definition of conspiracy which may or may not involve criminal conduct. For that purpose I refer to Stroud 's Judicial Dictionary, vol. 1, fourth edition, in which it is stated:

" It is sufficient to constitute a conspiracy if two or more persons combine by fraud and false pretences to injure another. It is not necessary, in order to constitute a conspiracy, that the acts agreed to be done should be acts, which if done would be criminal. It is enough if the acts agreed to be done, although not criminal, are wrongful."

Again, on page 564 — I refer to the judgment of Mr. Justice Willis in the Mulcahy v. Regina case, where he stated:

"Much consideration of the matter has led me to be convinced that a number of actions and things, not in themselves actionable or unlawful if done separately without conspiracy, may, with conspiracy, become dangerous and alarming, just as a grain of gunpowder is harmless, but a pound may be highly destructive, or the administration of a particular drug may be most beneficial as a medicine, but administered frequently and in larger quantities with a view to harm, may be fatal as a poison."

Not fatal, Mr. Speaker, to the New Democratic Party, but fatal to the political system in which we live.

Although we may not find a conspiracy here to commit a criminal offence, let's look at the evidence for conspiracy — an action by design by two or more people in concert to undermine the political system of free and fair elections. Fact number one: on May 27, 1975, the leader of the Social Credit Party writes a letter to "Dear friends," marked "personal and strictly confidential." He sent, presumably, pamphlet material outlining a program: "It is hoped that this new material will be useful to those in the constituency who are directly working in the field of communicating in hotline shows, and in the preparation of material in the letters to the editor column in newspapers circulating in your area."

I ask hon. members to pay close attention to his very precise and considered choice of words — "who are directly working in the field of communicating." This letter enthusiastically encouraged them to use pre-prepared material on current issues to be used by those in the constituency who are directly working in the field of communicating. Now let's analyze that phrase. "In the field of" can mean only one thing. Under the Premier's leadership of his party, and his direction, there were certain individuals who were designated as special party workers who were assigned by special skill to work in the field of communicating and who were assigned to prepare letters to the editor and call hotline shows.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I have to determine something for the direction not only of the member who now has the floor, but also for the Chair. Although the member has not alluded to it, I must suggest, perhaps even warn, that the imputation of false or unavowed motives is not permitted in the content of speeches, and is only possible if the member has a substantive motion which he wishes to move.

MR. LAUK: Thank you for that. I was most aware of that and have jotted down copious notes to avoid that problem. I asked hon. members, and I would ask Mr. Speaker also to perhaps....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let's hear the debate.

MR. MACDONALD: The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) has been chattering away in his seat in a loud voice on a very serious matter which is being debated, and I think he should be checked by the Speaker, and also the minister down below there. This is not a funny matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would remind all hon. members that the only person who is to be recognized is the one who is in possession of the floor, and he ought not to be interrupted. I think that it is the precedent which we have established in this House that an occasional outburst is permitted. However, as soon as it becomes any kind of a flow, it must be resisted. Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: I thank all hon. members for their courtesy. I mentioned the words "in the field of communicating," and I suggest to the hon. members of this House that that was a carefully chosen phrase to identify in his letter that group of people who were designated by special skill and training to work in that field of communicating, and who were assigned in the Social Credit Party to prepare letters to the editor and call hotline shows. Who were these people? How were they trained, and by whom? What were they taught to do?

Fact number two: on May 28, 1975, the leader of the Social Credit Party sent a letter to presidents and regional directors of the Social Credit Party. In his letter he referred, in the bottom paragraph.... "For the convenience of your letter-writing team, these address sheets for the media are enclosed for distribution and their convenience." First we have "those in the field of"; now we have confirmation the next day of a "letter-writing team," again evidence that those in the field were highly trained people in each constituency, designated by the leader or his party's executive for the purpose of writing letters to the editor. At this stage we know that such specially trained teams were in operation; what we don't know at this stage is what detailed instructions such teams had, and from whom.

[ Page 1215 ]

Fact number three: on September 22, 1978, senior researchers of the Social Credit caucus advocated phony letter-writing to party workers, and such advice was tape-recorded, and 170 tapes were distributed out of the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain's (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy's) office, who was then Provincial Secretary. I would ask this. Is it likely that at this stage the Premier's office was unaware of advice given by caucus staff at such a level in the presence of high party officials? Wouldn't righteous members have brought it to the attention of the leader of their party at the first available opportunity? Is that likely? I say no, Mr. Speaker.

Fact number four: I'm referring to September 18, 1979, at the Social Credit constituency meeting in the Colwood Community Hall in the Esquimalt–Port Renfrew constituency. Jack Kelly, the chief of Social Credit caucus research, stated.... "He urged the use of phony names in letters to the editor. He also said that the research department has used this method, taking names from the telephone book. They have used about 50 such aliases." Fifty aliases were used; police investigated only five. The 50 so-called investigations were not the aliases referred to by Jack Kelly, 45 have yet to be identified.

Is it likely that the head of research in the Premier's party caucus in Victoria would be supplying such aliases over the months, since 1975, without the Premier's knowledge and condonation? Let's discuss the Premier's denial of this, Mr. Speaker. He had something to say about that. On September 27, 1979, he says to the press: "We had no intention of having our party try to manipulate the media through hotlines or letters to the editor."

MR. BARBER: When did he say that?

MR. LAUK: September 27, 1979, in the Vancouver Sun: "We had no intention of having our party try to manipulate the media through hotlines or letters to the editor." Yet in the letters I've referred to on May 28, 1975, he calls upon his party officials to do just that with letter-writing teams. Now ask yourself about credibility when you're looking at this evidence.

Fact number five: on October 11, 1979, Ron Grieg....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I seem to be disturbing the hon. member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair), Mr. Speaker. I have heard on the best of authority that he is most disturbed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let's hear the debate.

MR. LAUK: On October 11, 1979, Ron Grieg of the Premier's office resigns under suspicion of involvement with one of the phony letters.

Fact number six: on November 3, 1979, a senior researcher of the Social Credit caucus states that she was working under the instructions of the director of the caucus, the executive assistant to the caucus, Mr. Mitchell, when advocating phony letters.

That's the evidence, Mr. Speaker. We have no direct evidence of the conspiracy. We have circumstantial evidence, and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) knows the strenuous rules of circumstantial evidence applied in the court of the law. Let's apply them here. Let's be fairer to the Premier than he's been with the people of the Province of British Columbia.

The first rule is: "Where a case depends on circumstantial evidence, the evidence must be such that a reasonable person could conclude the accused's guilt and that such evidence could not admit of any other rational conclusion than that of guilt."

The second rule is: "By 'any other rational conclusion,' it is not meant any other 'possible conclusion,' but rather a conclusion based solely on the evidence." The evidence here admits of no other rational conclusion to right-thinking, reasonable people in this province. The Premier was involved in a conspiracy to try to manipulate the media through hotlines or letters to the editor, and although there is no criminal responsibility, there is a moral one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, I would have to refer you to page 419 of the eighteenth edition of Sir Erskine May, and perhaps would suggest that in your extensive research in order to prepare for this speech, you should have read this entire page. I can't take the time to read it to you now, except that an example of that which is called unparliamentary, even contemptuous, and requires the prompt interference of the Chair, is an imputation of false or unavowed motives. I wish the hon. member would consider this as he continues his speech.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I chose my words not to indicate any reference to "false."

I can only conclude by using the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Williams') own words, that all those from the top to the bottom — not just those scapegoated, not just those fired, not just those treated like "little people," not just those used by that party on the other side with contempt, running them through like a meatgrinder.... The responsibility rests in the Premier's chair; it always did, and it always will.

There's no use hiding behind the Criminal Code and saying: "Ah, there were no offences." This is the free political system we're talking about, a free electoral system we're talking about, and it's not a question of partisanship. It's a question of all of us joining together and protecting that system, and the Premier's chair is the one all members should be looking to. You shouldn't be looking over here. You, with us, should be looking at that chair and pointing the accusatory finger where it belongs.

Let my speech conclude, Mr. Speaker, with the words of the Attorney-General, who said: "It was a cowardly and irresponsible attitude which set the low moral tone of such behaviour." It is an attitude which threatens the integrity of this House and our free political system.

HON. MR. McGEER: I am sure it will come as no surprise to you, sir, to the members of this House or to the public of British Columbia that I will not be supporting the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). It comes in two parts, Mr. Speaker. One part the member had the courage to put in print and lay before the House in the Journals; the other part he didn't have the courage to put in print, but in it he intended to make an implication about the leader of the government.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

[ Page 1216 ]

Mr. Speaker, the confidence that the government enjoys is first of all displayed by the people of British Columbia. They had their choice in 1975 and at that time rejected the government of the members opposite. They had a chance in 1979 to review that decision in terms of the progress made by the NDP and their stewardship of the public affairs of this province, and that of the present government, and they rejected the members opposite again. There will be another test in the future. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that unless the members opposite begin between now and then to display some grasp of the issues in British Columbia, some knowledge of what is required to bring sensible government to this province, they will be rejected again and again and again.

Mr. Speaker, if I have one regret about the outcome of this past election, it's that the House and the people have been deprived for the first time in many, many years of the benefit of the kind of constructive opposition that has characterized the parties in this House other than the NDP. Because it is beginning to show that without the benefit of those members to prop up the official opposition in debate their case begins to collapse.

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite suggested that the government of British Columbia and the people who supported them, and I presume the people opposite who presented the constructive ideas and debate when they were in opposition, are motivated, as the member said, by money, power and greed. That would be the case presented by the opposition: that those who represented the other parties in the House when they served here, those who represent the government now and their supporters have that motivation.

The public of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, should be reminded that that is the philosophy and the attitude of the New Democratic Party. After all, that is what motivated them when they were in power: to reject all forms of private enterprise and the people who supported that philosophy of government, because it was motivated by money, power and greed.

It is no accident that British Columbia today is a have province. It's a have province, Mr. Speaker, because it has had the kind of sound administration and advisers which that member opposite suggests should not have the confidence of the people of British Columbia, despite the fact that they have returned such people to government again and again and again and will do so far into the future.

Why, Mr. Speaker? Precisely because of the words used by the mover of that amendment, who believes in his heart, as do the members of the official opposition, that others in society are motivated only by money, power and greed and are unworthy to operate public or private enterprises in this province, because they do not share their philosophy. It's because of that philosophy and what flowed from that philosophy between the years 1972 and 1975 that during that period our province was rapidly sliding from the place of freedom and prosperity that had been built up through a century of progress into one that was beginning to show conspicuous evidences of sliding back.

I refer, Mr. Speaker, to things that other opposition members have said in this House when the former member for North Vancouver-Capilano came and explained to the House that in a time of world-record mineral prices, the NDP had managed to bring despair to our second-largest industry in the province, the mining industry. They had done the reverse of the alchemist's dream of turning ore into rock. I can remember that during those days gas was on the decline in British Columbia, because as long as the NDP were in power, believing that everybody who hunted for and developed the resources in this province was motivated by money, power and greed, the NDP drove them out of this province, every last one. Mr. Speaker, during that era when we were beginning to wonder whether we had supplies to carry ourselves into the future, we had only one problem on our hands: a government that believed that people who brought prosperity and progress to this province were motivated by money, power and greed. And so they left, Mr. Speaker — and so they left.

It would not have been so bad to have had those who could make this province move ahead leave it, if there had been others in government who were competent to make up for the exodus. But that's not what we found at all. We had a Minister of Highways who suggested, "Yankee, go home." That's mentioned in the throne speech as coming to be the world's number one industry in the future. That's what the government member, the Lieutenant-Governor's adviser, suggested as a policy for British Columbia, and what will become, according to others — not to this government — the world's number one industry.

Some of us had the misfortune to take over Crown corporations either commenced or managed by the NDP. I was one of those unfortunate souls. The private industry was deliberately driven out of the province by the NDP. That would not have been so bad if the people who replaced that private industry that was driven out — because they believed in money, power and greed — had the confidence and the ability to substitute something in its place. But, instead, what was created was a corporation run by the NDP that lost more money than any corporation, public or private, in Canadian history.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's performance.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker, that is performance.

When you talk about confidence in advisers to the Lieutenant-Governor, we need to think about whether the public of British Columbia and this House should have confidence in ministers who have brought progress and prosperity to British Columbia, who have given administration with a fair and even hand. The Minister of Tourism who doesn't say "Yankee, go home" but "We've got a special smile for you."

The Minister of Labour, who now sits as the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Williams) took over the labour chaos that you left behind. Remember in those dark days of the mid-1970s, when this province set a record in Canada for man-days lost for labour disputes, and Canada set a record in the world, surpassed only by Italy, for man-days lost. We had a Minister of Labour brought in who brought peace and common sense to this province, to everybody's benefit.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that there were some in your government — and, I daresay, some in the media — who praised a minister on your side. But the record is there, and anybody can go and look at the man-days lost in British Columbia and Canada and the world. People who want power but don't believe in money,

[ Page 1217 ]

power and greed and reject the philosophy that has brought progress everywhere in the world, including British Columbia, and who say that "we have something better," should be able to demonstrate by their own record, either by encouraging those who can bring a better system, or themselves, if they're going to operate it from government, something which is as good or better. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, you're not worthy to serve in government, and not worthy either to serve in opposition.

The public of British Columbia do have to look to alternatives in the future. And if the alternative they have to look to is somebody whose philosophy is going to destroy the prosperity of British Columbia, as indeed you demonstrated you were capable of doing between 1972 and 1975, then the choices for British Columbians are perhaps not what they should be. The other provinces in Canada, in the main, can look to better choices than that. We don't have to look in other provinces in Canada to find the kind of opposition that has a dismal record in office and has no concept of the future and of where this province should go and has demonstrated an inability to substitute, to administer or to function.

There's no question in my mind that the public, the government and the House should utterly reject....

MR. LEA: Have you ever seen a voter up close?

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, I can tell you, Mr. Member, I've had the great pleasure of serving for some years in what was the largest riding in British Columbia, and during more provincial elections than I suppose any member who sits in this House. So I've had plenty of opportunities to see voters at close hand. Having run in seven provincial elections, worked in eight of them and worked in some seven federal elections, I would like to observe that the partisanship and the enthusiasm and the election practices of various parties are not always what any of us would like to see. I think that if the member opposite has made one constructive suggestion, it wasn't in his debate today, but in his amendment which he proposed on opening day, which I was pleased to support as a member of the government. I think such a standing committee would be most worthwhile, and it would give all of us an opportunity, perhaps, to mention the sorts of things — on all sides of the House — that we disapprove of in election campaigns, which involve hundreds of thousands of people. And I'm sure that you don't like some of the things that occur on this side of the House; nor do I. And I'm sure we don't agree with all of the things which happen on your side of the House.

MR. LEA: Is that an apology?

HON. MR. McGEER: It's no apology; it's a statement of fact. I think it will be very healthy, Mr. Speaker, to have some of those practices with which we may all disagree thoroughly aired before a committee. Perhaps in the future the workers for your party and for our party will be more respectful of the things we say between elections — of which we heartily disapprove. It is only through this that we are going to improve the conduct of election campaigns, because it bears entirely on the people who serve in those election campaigns — their motivation and their degree of partisanship. I think that there are plenty of things that could be aired on both sides of the House. Let he who is without sin in this matter cast the first stone.

I think all of us, if we've worked in any number of elections, are aware of the fact that election campaigns are not perfect. So perhaps that will be one of the more positive stances that will emerge from this election.

As far as this amendment is concerned, Mr. Speaker, and the general approach of the NDP, I would only say this: if you are to serve the interests of your party, and the interests of the public of British Columbia, then you need to take some leaves out of the book of opposition members from other parties who are no longer with us, because the essence of opposition is constructive ideas and a demonstration that your party has a clear vision of where British Columbia should be going, not just in the matter of government enterprises and your philosophy of government — which, you admit, is that the others are motivated only by money, power and greed — but how, given power again, you would be able to manage well, where you mismanaged before; where you would be able to encourage resource development in this province, where you drove it out before; where you would be able to direct Crown corporations, where you mismanaged them before; where you would be able to bring labour peace to British Columbia, where you brought labour warfare before. Those are the things that the public, and, indeed, the government, is entitled to know if you aspire to power.

By putting this amendment forward you are saying: "You shouldn't be in government now; we should be in government." Isn't that essentially what that says? The members opposite are nodding. Even though the public rejected you twice, with your leader over the present leader of the government today, you aren't satisfied with the mandate given you by the public. You want to walk into the House and take over power. Well, Mr. Speaker, I say that that's an unworthy approach for those who say they believe in democracy.

Instead, what you should be doing is laying clearly before the House, for the benefit of the public of British Columbia, precisely what you would do if you were in power — especially how you would correct your own errors; especially how you would broaden your philosophy; especially how you would develop a program that would be for all the people of British Columbia, instead of the limited friends whom you have in this province. That's what's needed, Mr. Speaker, in debate. That's what's needed by this party. And I hope the members of the House will reject, as they should, the amendment put forward by the member for Skeena.

MR. HALL: The previous speaker always answers these debates with a flourish. He's taken over from a previous minister of defence, who used to be the member for Chilliwack years ago. He will remember his speeches like I remember them; and I think we remember his speeches, as he remembers those speeches of those days — just defence, not much substance, a great deal of self-congratulation, and some moralizing. He talks a lot about greed and power and money. I remember reading all about those qualities, Mr. Speaker, way back in 1975, when a small group over here suddenly disappeared. I don't know what their motivation was, and I'm not allowed to cast any aspersions on the motivation of that small crowd of people who disappeared one night, but I know that the only member who's been thrashing around the morality of the situation is one of those who disappeared in the dead of the night only to reappear somewhere else.

[ Page 1218 ]

He also mentioned the disappearance of another body, another agency. He talks about the insurance companies. He said that the New Democratic Party government of 1972 to 1975 drove away the insurance companies. By his record that may be true. I suppose we could examine that. Indeed, I suppose one could argue by his lights they were driven out. But I'll tell you this, Mr. Speaker: they came back and they have left again, but the second time they left, they were shouting "double-cross." They didn't shout "double-cross" the first time, because we put down exactly what we were going to do, just as he asked us to do.

Every election I've ever been connected with, and I've been connected with as many as the member opposite — in fact, I well remember canvassing and working against him in a by-election in 1963; unfortunately I wasn't successful — I have never known any time in any election when this party did not put its policy down on the order paper in the election. In fact, Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons that that party knows, and has used, is that we kept our promises. He talks about greed, power and money. He talks about the attribution of those kinds of characteristics to political parties. I can only refer him to the authority on this particular subject — it's a book which he can find in the library, called Politics in Paradise.

Mr. Speaker, just dealing with the last two things that the minister mentioned — one was labour chaos and the other was the attitude of the ministry that I happened to have for all but about four weeks of the three years that we were there. I'm going to tell you that your facts are wrong. No Minister of Tourism ever said the kind of thing that you said. When he talks about labour chaos, he really is whistling in the dark. Because every single person that examined our program, our policies in labour, in the labour code, in the introduction of the various mechanisms, knows that that was a terrific success. And if it was all that bad, Mr. Speaker, why haven't they changed it? They've not changed it at all.

But he likes to confuse us with those statistics, as he used to do when he gave his Liberal budgets from this side of the House. If he wants to talk about money, let him repeat and recycle all his old speeches about the river treaties and all the rest of it. Really it's a little bit too much.

But lastly he talks about morality. He's not easy with some of the things that happened, and he's sure that we're not easy with some of the things. That's the kind of line that we're hearing a lot of, Mr. Speaker: that somehow we're all bad. I reject that. I say if you find something bad you should do something about it. And I'm going to tell that minister he can do something about it. He can find out who was in charge of all that dirty tricks stuff in the office down the corridor, because he's now got him working for him. If the minister wants to know anything about election practices and some of the things that were recounted by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), let him ask who was then the chief of staff of the research department. It's been well documented in the press. Because he's now a senior assistant to himself.

Mr. Speaker, dealing with the want of confidence motion in the government, in the Premier, the leader of the government, his ministers....

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I wonder...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister on a point of order.

HON. MR. McGEER: ...if I may be permitted an interjection.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: I would like the member opposite to step outside in the hall and say that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. minister, you may rise on a point of order. You may not rise on an interjection. The member for Surrey continues.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I'm almost tempted to use that old line: I know this won't go any further.

I want to deal with the want of confidence — moved by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) — in the government, in the Premier as leader of this province, of his ministers and indeed of his party that works so hard. And I have some respect for a political party that works hard to elect its members, a lot of respect for it, and I'm sure that the back benches particularly on the other side have some respect for the party members who work so hard to get a government and a member elected.

Now I want to look at the record that we are complaining about, a record that deals first of all with something that we can start off in this House about; that is the House itself. Mr. Speaker, I've only been here since the last election this time around. I was on an enforced leave of absence for a while, but I was a student from afar. I notice that in the last two years, two years when it's fair to say we've faced unparalleled difficulties in this province, unparalleled shortages, unparalleled inflation, the energy crunch, the constitutional proposals and problems that have been discussed, perhaps almost ad nauseam at times, certainly the economic slowdown.... We faced all those problems in the last two years at an unprecedented rate which I think every politician must admit has never been seen before. While that has been going on in the last two years, the parliament of this province has met for so little time. In 1978 it met for 66 days. It sat 66 days in 1978, with the majority government before the election, with all the brains and all the ideas they were claiming to have. They met for only 66 days to grapple, in the legislative sense, with the problems that I have just listed.

HON. MR. MAIR: Did you vote against adjournment?

MR. HALL: I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, first of all to bring the member to order, or shut him up one way or the other, and also to advise the member that I wasn't here then, as I said in the first place.

In 1979, when everything was worse — when the Premier felt compelled to go to the people for a mandate, for a message from the people to the government; when he felt compelled to foreshorten the parliamentary life of that particular parliament — he came back here and we met for 48 days. We met for only 48 days in 1979, plus one day in which we had to un-deregulate Seaboard Life, making 49 days altogether. There were no proposals, there was no legislation, that would go anywhere near meeting the problems I have listed since the end of 1977, first of all in a 66-day session and then in a 48-day session.

On that ground alone, in terms of grappling with the problems, in comparison with other provinces who tried to tackle these things, we, as a Legislature, led by this government, led by the man over there who, by the way, seems to

[ Page 1219 ]

have gone away again.... He is not here to listen to the debate. He has run away again from the very issues we are trying to deal with. The proposals and the legislation that would have met the problems in 1977 have gone unnoticed in the actions of this government. In effect this Legislature has been on strike. It seems to me that is the first thing on which I would like to register my complaint and my want of confidence in this government, as far as dealing with the problems that face not only British Columbia but the rest of the country, in that legislative performance.

It said in the Province — and I always read the Province, because we seem to get the news early — there were 22 pages in the throne speech. I only got a document with 8 pages; I am wondering where the other 14 are. I wonder if somebody could check Judge Eckardt's chambers in Laurel Point and see if they are there. I wonder where those missing pages are.

In supporting the amendment, Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the performance of the government, elaborating on some of the words of the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). I think the first thing that was difficult for me to understand, in looking particularly at the last few weeks, was the inexcusable conduct — as far as I am concerned — of the Premier, the leader of this province, in not exercising his franchise in the recent federal election. I just can't understand that. That really bothers me. I think that is far and away beyond partisan politics.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you vote?

MR. HALL: Yes, I did.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, would you bring him to order again? He casts the most ridiculous statements across the floor. That was a long, long time ago. You've been passing that rubbish around for a long time.

When the Premier of the province fails to exercise his franchise, how does that leave the teachers of the province? I would like to pose this question to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) if he were here. In what position does it put the teachers of this province who are trying to teach such things as civics and social studies to the students of today who are asking questions much more than we used to when we were in school? Where does that place the teachers and educators of this province, when they see a complete abandonment of that responsibility? He scratched himself from that particular debate. He is a no-show; he is a non-runner.

From 1966 to 1972, when I was on this side of the House before, we used to complain about the empty chair at federal-provincial conferences of the Premier of the province of that time, Mr. W.A.C. Bennett. That was a serious thing in British Columbia. I think it cost the Social Credit Party of that day a lot of votes and a lot of support.

Now we have this kind of thing happening from this Premier. I want to suggest in the most sincere way I can that in my view that is not satisfactory conduct by a leader of the province. He is our leader as far as the province is concerned, and I find that conduct less than satisfactory. As the children in our schools today are trying to grapple with the problems of Confederation, we have a non-starter, who is taking his name from the list.

But what about the rest of the time since the government obtained that new mandate in 1979, the slim majority that the side on the opposite enjoys? What's happened since that near rejection in 1979? What has it contributed to the national debate since May of last year? What has been contributed to those debates on our behalf, in the debate that is going on in Canada today? Basically two things: one, that he wants a redrawing of the boundaries into some regional situation. It seems to be almost an obsession with the Premier to redraw boundaries.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: Yes, they're on my desk and I've read them.

Mr. Speaker, the second one is that he wants some kind of non-elected but provincially appointed representation. Well, Mr. Speaker, no comments from the government about this, no comments about the Ryan proposals.

The minister who used to be in charge of constitutional affairs laughs, he guffaws, sniggers. He says: "Ho," when I mention the Ryan proposals; he doesn't even wait to the end of the paragraph. He's either a very quick learner, a very fast reader or he perhaps suffers from extrasensory perception or something. Maybe the only government in the whole of the country that made no comments about the Ryan proposals is yours.

AN HON. MEMBER: Rubbish!

MR. HALL: "Rubbish" he says. Well, perhaps you could tell me other rubbishy governments that didn't make counter-proposals or comments about the Ryan proposals. I'm not asking the government to endorse the Ryan proposals. I'm not endorsing them. I'm pointing out that this government hasn't done anything about them at all; they went on a holiday. They went on a holiday and they switched horses for constitutional matters in midstream. To speak of the only government that hasn't had some word, some encouragement for the commencement of talks, some comments, basis of debate, call it what you will as all of these words can be used, as politicians know, from the politicians in this province to the politicians in Quebec particularly while the politicians in Quebec are leading the current fight against separatism.... Let's look at the comments, Mr. Speaker. This is the only government that has made no significant comments about those proposals.

Proposals from Newfoundland: Premier Peckford said that Mr. Ryan's proposals were in keeping with his personal view of the way Canada's political development should proceed. I'll just put one sentence to each province.

Prince Edward Island: Premier Angus MacLean stated that many of the divisions proposed in Mr. Ryan's document are sufficiently fundamental in nature so as to open a new type of federalism for Canada.

Nova Scotia — Premier John Buchanan etc. accepted; New Brunswick — Premier Richard Hatfield; Ontario — the Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Don Stevenson; Alberta — Intergovernmental affairs minister Johnston; Northwest Territories and the Yukon; Roy Romanow from Saskatchewan.

But perhaps worst of all, Mr. Speaker, worse than that silence is the habit that we got into between '66 and '75 of knowing there'd be no contributions of any significance in matters like that. We've now gone into the same. From '66 to '72 the silence was deafening from the other side. The empty chair that I mention again — we're now getting into the same

[ Page 1220 ]

kind of bunker mentality, the same siege mentality, the same "run away and hide" we're experiencing now.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps worst of all of the record that we're citing chapter and verse today is the record of the government in dealing with the fairly simple question of political morality, of campaign funds and administering itself. There is not much difficulty in those three things, not much difficulty at all. Two previous speakers, Mr. Speaker, from this side of the House have outlined in some detail the errors, the omissions, some of the facts that have surrounded the tragic and really dreadful chapter that we had — Lettergate, campaign funds and so on.

But what has troubled the people of British Columbia, the press, the opposition, and I presume many members of the government itself, over the last eight months in particular, has been the kind of reactions from self-styled spokespeople acting completely out of concert. Here I think we can do no worse, Mr. Speaker, than to look back on the eight months with the clarity of hindsight and realize that it's not just eight months we're talking about. Some of these events that we're talking about took place, as the member for Vancouver Centre mentioned, way back in the letter-writing campaign even in 1975.

It is, I suppose, centred mainly around the conduct of the government, its leader, some of its MLAs and staff in what have been some of the most bizarre events that I've ever seen in politics in a couple of countries that I've been actively engaged in the political life of. Now eight or nine months after the election, with the benefit of this clearer vision and a greater sense of the order of those things, some of my friends have made speeches today enunciating some of those problems, dealing with the morality and dealing with what should have happened.

In case this House would like some more independent testimony than that of the member for Skeena, the member for Vancouver Centre and even myself, let me get the words of the other member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) on the record. That way, Mr. Speaker, we can have the whole picture of what I think, as the second member for Surrey, and what the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the first member for Surrey, has to say about the government handling of some of the problems.

My colleague said that the government blew the handling of the scandal — they blew it. Earlier Friday, my colleague, in this cutting dated November 17, 1979, in the Vancouver Sun, said: "The government blew the handling of the scandal. I don't think it was handled properly. We blew it. It's all hindsight now. I'd be telling something other than the truth" — that has a certain familiar ring about it — "if I said the matter had been handled correctly." That's what he thought about what was going on. So it's not just me, and it's not just the member for Vancouver Centre or the member for Skeena; a whole pile of ministers and ex-chairman and people have had comments to make about it.

The interesting thing is, following that revelation by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), whose executive assistant was well featured in this particular story, came dashing to the defence. She said that she didn't believe that either the new Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs were criticizing any individual. I don't know what they were criticizing, but they said they blew it, that it wasn't handled properly. I don't know what they were really saying if they weren't criticizing somebody's handling of the situation. If you handle something, somebody's got to handle it. And if they said it wasn't done properly, then that somebody who handled it handled it badly; that's fairly simple to follow. But the Minister of Human Resources rushed to the defence, said there had been many people involved, and said: "I don't think their comments reflect on any individual." Well, I think they do. I think those comments from the ministers reflect on the people who were supposed to be handling it. When all else fails, one goes to the leader, one goes to the head of the whole affair.

Lettergate, the dirty tricks, the bag men, the inquiries, the hundreds of man-hours of policemen's work investigating, checking, double-checking, looking into each others' eyes, I suppose, in the dead of night and wondering what they should check next. I have never in my life seen such a number of inquiries into one government and one political party's existence in written history in this province. It used to cost us about $25,000 to $30,000 a day to listen to the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips). I don't know what it has cost us just in RCMP wages to check into the Social Credit Party of this province. It's just incredible.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, can I withdraw the words "the member for South Peace"? I must have woken him up. Eavesdropping and the RCMP investigations — what a record! It's a history that must make many of the members of the Social Credit Party ashamed of themselves.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: Eavesdropping means when you listen in to two other people's conversation.

It's a history of activity that really is a shame for the members of the Social Credit Party, who are entitled to a different standard of behaviour from their elected representatives.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We not only have the inaction on matters that should have been attended to, both governmentally and legislatively, but we've seen obstructions as well to those few rights that have been afforded to the opposition. After that lengthy period of inactivity that I've described, we've had no meetings, nothing referred to the standing committees of the House — no meetings of those committees. The Crown corporations committee has been totally frustrated by its chairman: no meetings were called, meetings were called and then cancelled. Requests for information from the public accounts committee have been denied by ministry officials. Now that denial has been confirmed by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) himself.

We've no confidence in a government that's been a party to all of that. We've no confidence at all in a group of ministers who have been a party to the things that have been itemized in the contributions made by this side of the House. How can we have any confidence in a government where the Premier hides at the first sign of trouble, disappears instead of voting, and governs by press release and order-in-council? It's a government that turns down honest requests from volunteer health and welfare organizations, that uses lottery funds for political partisan purposes, that sees friends and

[ Page 1221 ]

ex-MLAs lobbying, pressuring and influence-peddling. How can we have any confidence in a government that produces a worn-out, threadbare list of campaign promises as some sort of advice to His Honour?

MRS. DAILLY: I rise to also support this amendment. In my 14 years as a member of this Legislature, I've taken part — yes, I'm getting on — in many motions of non-confidence in this government, and in the former Social Credit government.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I heard that insulting remark, but I don't worry because I know where it came from, and I am really not bothering to pay any attention to that sexist minister. I don't mind being referred to as a woman, but when he brings in age.... There are levels.

In the vast number of motions that have been expressed on the floor of this House, there, of course, has always been a basis for moving a vote of non-confidence in the government. But never before have we had so much basis for calling for the resignation of a government and its leader, because this present Social Credit government has not only shown that they are inept and bungling in handling the affairs of this province from a financial point of view — and all that will come in future debates, Mr. Speaker — but they also have set a new low in political ethics for this province.

I intend to deal with just one aspect of what I consider points out very graphically and clearly why this government and their present leader should not remain. And that area I want to deal with specifically is the area of the relationships of this government and its advisers and ministers, including the Premier, with the press. You know, Mr. Speaker, no politician is ever pleased when he or she is subjected to public criticism through the media, and I know because, as a former cabinet minister, I certainly had my share of it. And none of us are ever pleased with it, deserved or undeserved. But there are many politicians who overreact to this criticism, and out of that overreaction there are some very strange things that happen. But I think it's not just a matter of overreaction; I think it's a complete misunderstanding of the role and the rights of the press in this province, as we have seen handled by that government.

The Premier of this province has actually made attempts to manipulate his appearances before the media, and this was done in an apparent attempt to heighten the subsequent coverage and at the same time attempt to make the media appear to be on an unwarranted witch-hunt. And not just the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Premier, who has just left the floor of the House, tried very hard to throw off in a very contemptuous and arrogant way any suggestion that there was any such thing as dirty tricks involved in her government. And many of us have seen her appearances on TV where she tried to brush off anything that made it appear that her government had been involved. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) actually suggested, when contacted by the press on October 12, 1979, that the dirty tricks campaign reflections on her own office were just foolishness, and she added that the reporters who wanted to pursue the matter were sick. That is the attitude that the Deputy Premier of this province has towards the press, which was simply trying to do its job.

We have in this province, with this government, with this Premier, with this Deputy Premier and with many of their advisers, including other cabinet ministers, a complete contempt for the functions of the free press in this province. One of the basic functions of any press, Mr. Speaker, has been well stated by a very famous editor who said that the function of the press, of any press, is to give information with exactness and truth, and not to omit anything. The public has a right to know. And that's all that the press of this province were attempting to do, and have been attempting to do, in their time, during this whole period of Lettergate, etc.

To attempt to have only certain information published, and to attempt to prohibit the publication of other views, which, I contend, Mr. Speaker, has been done and attempted by this government — and I want to repeat that — and then to attempt to prohibit the publication of other views, is a step that could lead us into a police state.

I do wish the Minister of Human Resources were here, because if I recall, that was the minister who ran up and down the breadth and width of this province years ago, before a provincial election, stating that the NDP was on the verge of a police state. By the way, Mr. Speaker, if I recall, she never did apologize for that to our party with an unqualified apology. That is a shameful example of the level in which this government wants to take government in this province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to attempt to prohibit publication, as I said, is really the first step to a police state, and surely all of us are morally and philosophically opposed to this. That is why I am calling on the members of the Social Credit caucus, who themselves, I know, must be shocked at some of the things that have been going on in some of the higher offices in their government. Here is your chance to stand up and show that you, too, do not want to be part of this handling of the press in a way which could inevitably, if not checked, lead to a police state.

The only way politicians in government can truly say that they endorse the freedom of the press is to do it by their deeds and their actions. We have had the Premier of this province say that he endorses the freedom of the press, so let's look at the actions of the Premier of this province and his government in the last year to see if those actions match his words.

Any government which truly believes this must be prepared to make available to the press all the information it needs to do the job. But this Premier only professes to want to see that the proper information gets out to the press. You know, sometimes I think that if this government had its way, with reference to the press and publications and news, they would limit us to only one publication in the province of British Columbia, and that would be the B.C. Government News.

In March 1978 we had an attempt — and I'm going to document why I do not think the Premier of this province puts his actions where his mouth is — by the Premier's staff to have a press conference to which only selected media were to be invited. In other words, this present Social Credit government was trying to give information only to those reporters in the press gallery that it believes it can trust. The Premier of this province and his cabinet ministers obviously condoned it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Rubbish!

MRS. DAILLY: Someone says "rubbish" across the way. I have the quote right in front of me. I think that cabinet

[ Page 1222 ]

minister must condone what he calls rubbish if he just thinks it's rubbish.

Reporters are, it would seem, to be rewarded by this Social Credit government for their behaviour according to how they feel about the government. But, unfortunately, it's not the job of a reporter in Canada to be trusted by the government. Instead, and indeed, a reporter who is entirely trusted by any government is probably not doing his job. If any reporter were to succumb to this carrot-and-stick approach advocated by that government, the readers of any publication in B.C. might find themselves with a little more government-sponsored news, but they would also find themselves with a much less balanced view of what's really going on in the provincial administration.

The media's job is to disseminate all the facts, not just those facts that will keep it in favour with the government. Any government that attempts to do that, which this government did, is showing complete contempt for the integrity of the press of this province. No reporter, except the most naive reporter, would expect that the government actually would expect them to cooperate with that goal. If the politicians truly understand the democratic process, they should never use their power to undermine it actively. But we have a government here, Mr. Speaker, that by their actions show they do not understand the democratic process.

Then again, let's look at the actions of the Premier, who says he believes in the freedom of the press. In June 1978 we had the scene of the Premier getting very upset over a news story that he apparently did not like, and saying to two newsmen in the legislative corridor that he wouldn't talk with reporters anymore on an individual basis. From now on he would only communicate through the press or through press releases and conferences. Mr. Speaker, I must say, though, that the Premier of this province actually has broken down and talked to the press, individually. As a matter of fact, the other morning on the radio I heard the Premier being interviewed by a reporter in the corridor. The reporter asked him a very serious question. What the question was is irrelevant to my point. Do you know what the Premier said to this reporter? "Isn't it a beautiful day?" And he wandered off. Now that's what I call complete contempt. It's really strange, because we've listened to those ministers across the way calling across this floor, and not one of them has yet been able to come out with a positive defence of their own government. Not one of them. How can they? For the last four or five years they tried to blame everything that went wrong with them on the NDP. That won't wash anymore with the public. So you are wasting your time to get up in the next four or five hours and try to talk about how terrible the NDP was. The people of this province have a chance to weigh both parties, and they want to hear what you have to say in defence of your own government.

MS. BROWN: And under your own names.

MRS. DAILLY: And under your own names, as the member for Burnaby-Edmonds just said.

Now, Mr. Speaker, regarding the manipulation of the press and the letter-writing campaign, I am not going to go into that again, because I know you will say we are becoming repetitious. Certainly the public of British Columbia has had a lot of fine reporting on that, despite the attempts to muffle the reporting.

All speakers who have spoken so far have pointed out the hypocrisy of the Premier, who professes that he's against and was shocked at the idea of letter writing....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the word "hypocrisy" will need to be withdrawn. Will the hon. member please withdraw?

MRS. DAILLY: I withdraw that, Mr. Speaker. May I just say that people are stunned in weighing the statements that the Premier has made on one occasion regarding letters and who they were written by, compared to his actual actions. Those actions and deeds have already been documented by the reading in this House of letters written by the Premier himself. I think it bears repeating just this once, if I may, Mr. Speaker. The Premier said: "It is not our party policy to condone this letter writing, we do not approve of letters going to the editor...." etc., etc. Then we have here documented the actual letters that he personally sent out.

In December of 1979 we also have another attempt by the Premier to have an off-the-record chat with the media. Most reporters dislike the suggestion by any leader of any government that they have an off-the-record press conference. Do you know why they dislike this and why they resent being put in this position, which the Premier of this province put them in? If subsequently, and independently, after that off-the-record discussion, those reporters should discover facts that have been given them off the record, they are bound not to use them. In other words, we have seen here again an attempt by this Premier not to give out the full information and to manipulate information that goes out through the media to the public.

As a matter of fact, one reporter suggested, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier perhaps wanted a dress rehearsal for the questions he was going to be asked later. But do you know what the Premier replied? "No, that's not true, because they may not be the same answers." Can one use the word "duplicity," Mr. Speaker, when referring in a descriptive way to the leader of a government? I understand I can, and I would like to say that that is the height of duplicity by the Premier of this province.

"Off the record simply will not do."

I quote Marjorie Nichols from the Sun. She says:

"Suppose the off-the-record session had actually taken place. Suppose that Mr. Bennett had made some startling revelations concerning secret funds and police investigations. The reporters would then have been in an untenable position. They would either have had to break their word to keep the utterances confidential, or by keeping their word they would have had to betray the public trust."

Mr. Speaker, we should pay tribute to the press of this province who had the courage to walk out of that press conference.

Then, of course, we do have the latest episode, and this one endorsed by the cabinet. This is from the Times of 1980; we're right up to January now.

"The legislative press gallery was told by the Premier's press secretary that members of the media will be banned from the entire west annex of the Legislature when the cabinet is in session. That order means that reporters will have no access to the offices of the Premier and the Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations, as well as to the cabinet chamber, for

[ Page 1223 ]

several hours each week. He said the cabinet made the decision after one gallery member was seen on the breezeway outside the second floor cabinet room."

Well, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, they are getting twitchy, and their whole manner here today shows a certain twitchiness that makes it quite apparent that they have no defence. One of the members over there has just said: "Get down to something meaningful." May I assure the House that nothing more meaningful has ever happened in this province than the handling by this government of Lettergate and dirty tricks, and to the public of B.C. It's one of the most meaningful things. The problem is, Mr. Speaker, that this government, the Premier and his cabinet laugh and joke about this issue, and it shows that they must lack political ethics themselves. I think that is the danger of this government. Their blundering and ineptitude certainly are going to bring a lot of suffering to the people of this province. But, as far as I'm concerned, a government that has no political ethics is demeaning the whole parliamentary system of this Legislature, and it is building up lack of respect for the whole political system. I accuse that government of lowering the respect for the political process in this province as no other government in this province has ever done before.

Now, Mr. Speaker, finally, at the Social Credit convention, speaking to the party faithful, the Premier really showed his contempt for the press and their rightful function as a press. He actually suggested to the people at the convention, his party faithful.... I think he made a point in saying: "God help democracy if the press become the final court in the land." And the party faithful cheered and cheered. And as this editorial said: "The issue was surely not that the press had reported the matter of the phony letters and the taped Socred dirty tricks strategy, but that the media kept on reporting every new development and repeating the old news." The messenger, in other words, had made too much of the message.

But that is not a judgment — I would like to close on this note, Mr. Speaker — for any politician or political party to make. Every person who reads a newspaper story, or listens to a radio newscast, or watches the news reported on television, makes that kind of judgment for himself or herself. It is a subtle exercise in weighing, accepting and discounting information. All of us undertake it countless times a day in daily living. It is a personal thing, and will be there as long as there is freedom of information. And our parliamentary system will be here long after many of us are gone. What I'm concerned about is, I want the people who are in charge of this system to preserve it so that future generations can look up with respect to a government, and not with complete contempt and disrespect.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to introduce a famous Canadian who is in the gallery this afternoon?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: I have the honour to introduce a highly distinguished and well-known Canadian actor, Mr. Barry Morse. Barry, will you stand?

Barry Morse is a reverse brain-drain — back to Canada — and the new artistic director of the Globe Theatre, which a group with boundless imagination are going to reconstruct on the site of the Maltwood Museum property, to build a replica of the old Globe Theatre and to bring to Victoria an entire Shakespearean festival, unique to Victoria, recreated in an Elizabethan environment. We're delighted to have you here today, Barry.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, when I looked up in the House and saw Mr. Morris, I found myself groping for my credit cards. [Laughter.]

I know that the members opposite will pay close attention to what I have to say and won't heckle, because I've always said you live by the sword and you die by the sword. As you well know, Mr. Speaker, I have always sat in my place quietly with respect for the members opposite, and I am sure that they will give me that same respect.

I was very interested on opening day in the Speech from the Throne to hear the amendment of the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) concerning a committee for election practices, and then to hear again today the amendment calling for a vote of non-confidence. There is a problem when you call morals into issue, which seems to be the case now. You run into a problem, for one thing, of selective sanctimony. I thought it was rather interesting yesterday, in light of the amendment of the member for Skeena on opening day and his amendment today, to hear the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) introduce Mr. Gordon Townsend. Mr. Gordon Townsend, as you all know, is a wronged man. Mr. Gordon Townsend is a sufferer for democracy. He is a pillar of law and order and a bulwark of righteousness. He has now been adopted, of course, by the members opposite as their patron saint.

We heard a little earlier today some quotations from the Criminal Code on conspiracy, I think it was. But we didn't hear anything about breaking and entering. Well, I happen to remember the patron saint of the New Democratic Party very well, because I remember the day in March 1976 when, along with a band of 25 or 30 ruffians, he broke into the cabinet room — broke and entered the cabinet room, hollering obscenities, hollering the usual Marxian slogans, and making a general pest of himself. Had it not been at that time, Mr. Speaker, for the courage of the Premier of this province, a very serious situation would certainly have developed. There is no question about that. It was an act of unparalleled courage on that occasion to turf out the patron saint of the NDP and the symbol of their selective sanctimony for the day.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, my friends, we are going to hear more about this in the months to come. I want to tell you that during the time of the so-called Lettergate matter it was a great temptation to many of us to see if we could find something else about the other guys. But I want to tell you that that temptation was very quickly resisted. If we are going to take our lumps, let's take our lumps, and that we have done. For a matter that wasn't a very serious matter, for a matter that was a very minor matter, really, we have taken our lumps, and we continue to, and we will take them. But it is amazing how many people have come forward with some very interesting things about how the New Democratic Party conducts its affairs.

I want to tell you a little story, Mr. Speaker. Unlike some members opposite, I won't identify the person involved for fear of embarrassing him, but I have among my constituents and, I think, among my friends, a lawyer in Kamloops, whom I will call Mr. X. Now Mr. X....

Interjection.

[ Page 1224 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: I knew you'd have difficulty with that, but follow the alphabet down logically and you'll get to it. It's the same way you sign your name, Mr. Member. [Laughter.]

Mr. X, as long as I have known him, Mr. Speaker, has been a Liberal, a dyed-in-the-wool Liberal. In 1975 he came to me, and he said: "I'm afraid I can't support you. I have to support the Liberal candidate."

I said: "Fair enough." And he did, which was his right, of course, and he did it well.

In 1979, however, in the provincial campaign in Kamloops, there was no Liberal candidate. Mr. X came to me and said: "I'm sorry I can't support a person of my own choice, and I'll tell you frankly that I can't support you."

I said: "Well, that's fine. Support the person that you wish." So he did. But, you know, there was a curious coincidence in April and May 1979, Mr. Speaker. At the same time that there was a provincial election, there was a federal election. Mr. X, being a devout Liberal, actively sought the nomination for the Liberal Party federally. But he thought: "What I'll do is also get involved in the provincial campaign. I will go down to their headquarters and give them $400 so they can beat Mair." He went down to the NDP headquarters and gave them $400 of hard-earned money. He said: "Mr. Lapa" — who, incidentally, is a fine gentleman — "here is $400. Use it to beat Mair, and beat him badly."

Well, you can imagine his surprise in 1980, in the nomination for the Liberals where he was very active again and had to disclose his donations. It turned out that he hadn't given $400 to Mr. Lapa at all. He thought he had, but they'd used it for the federal campaign.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. MAIR: Here he is on the one hand fighting the federal campaign for the Liberals, and his money is working for the NDP. I didn't ask for this information, Mr. Speaker. I didn't seek it out. It came to me by way of a column written in the Kamloops News.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's not dirty tricks — that's socialist philosophy.

HON. MR. MAIR: That's not dirty tricks at all. If that were a criminal matter, it would be stealing, but we won't talk about criminal matters. What's the civil term — conversion, is it?

Mr. Speaker, as I say, normally one would let that pass and laugh it off and say: "Poor Mr. X — wasn't that a good joke on him?" But now I'm beginning to wonder whether it was such a joke. Here is a man trying to exercise his democratic privileges and rights in supporting the person that he wants, and he has that money converted so that it's actually running against him and fighting the candidate that he wants to win in the federal election.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if the opposition wish to pursue this course throughout what I'm sure is going to be a very lengthy session — and I welcome it.... I only hope you quit by my birthday, which is December 31. That's all I care — you can sit for the rest of the time, as far as I'm concerned. But if we persist in this course of not dealing with the province's business but trying to talk about "Lettergates" and silly things that should have been dealt with better, I'm sure, but are no big deal, then we will be here wasting the public's time for the next ten months. As I say, we will deal, if need be, more with that subject in due course.

But let's talk about something that the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) said a while ago. I was very surprised, Mr. Speaker, because I would have thought that that member, of all people, would have taken the time not only to have read the constitutional proposals put forward by the province of British Columbia, but to have put them in their proper context and to have read what the leading constitutional people in Canada are now saying about those proposals. I'm not talking about Professor Edward McWhinney, who happens to be somebody that nobody pays attention to except the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) and the CBC — I rank them accordingly.

AN HON. MEMBER: He pays attention to you.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, there is one redeeming feature then, Mr. Member. But if I understand the second member for Surrey, his point was that we should have answered the Ryan proposals. I'm sure that the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) in due course will make clear what our position is relative to the Ryan proposals, but let me put this before you and the House, Mr. Speaker. Why on earth would we in British Columbia react to the Ryan proposals when they are virtually a carbon copy of the proposals we put forward as a province in 1978?

Mr. Speaker, under the leadership of this Premier, far from British Columbia being an empty chair at constitutional conferences, it has provided the leadership at constitutional conferences for the last four years. I don't suppose it behooves any member or any minister to talk about how hard they work, but I will indulge myself for a moment and say that nobody could have worked harder than I have, nobody could have worked harder than the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations and certainly nobody could have worked harder than our Premier in trying to keep this country together.

Mr. Speaker, I won't belabour the point; I will ask in all fairness that the members opposite read the statement made by the Hon. Tom Wells to the Ontario Legislature. He is their minister for intergovernmental relations, and he responded to the Ryan proposals because at the time their House happened to be in session. He pays great tribute to the Ryan proposals, but at the same time puts them in the context of following the Pépin-Robarts proposals, their own Macdonald committee proposals and, most importantly, the proposals put forward by this government two years before Mr. Ryan's.

So I think that those who have dealt with the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, when he was Attorney General, and myself and the Premier during the last three years would be very surprised to learn that we were empty chairs or that we are any kind of pushovers. This province, as no other province, can be proud of the leadership provided by this Premier in trying to save our nation from a very serious constitutional problem.

Mr. Speaker, I said that I would be brief, and I will. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), who lost his seat in the last election, used to say: "They've legislated me out of the seat." What happened to poor Bawtree? It seemed to me he was the guy who lost his seat by reason of the redistribution.

Mr. Speaker, let me speak for all of the members of this

[ Page 1225 ]

government and all of the government members of this House in saying that never has a party been more united behind a leader and never has a leader more deserved that support than our leader.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the remarks of the minister from Kamloops, he falsely attributed the introduction yesterday of Gordon Townsend to me when in fact the introduction was authored by my colleague from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell). It continues to prove that the government has great difficulty surrounding the true authors of the Townsend letters.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We have the point of order, and it can be corrected in the record. The minister rises on the same point of order.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to correct the record and acknowledge that the member is quite right. I can understand why he would want to get off the record in introducing that hooligan to this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Shall we use temperate language whenever possible.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you at the outset that I will not be supporting this amendment. In all my life I have never heard such utter garbage on the floor of this Legislature as I have heard here this afternoon. After being away from this Legislature for eight months, if this is the best they can get up with, they're the ones who should resign. They don't deserve to be opposition.

Instead of coming in here and talking about things that are of interest to the people in this province, such items as the economy, which their leader said on the was going to be the main topic of debate, what do they bring in? They bring in a vicious attack on one of the best leaders that this province has ever had and one of the greatest Premiers of any province in Canada. It's not an attack on the policies of this government, it's a personal, vicious attack on our Premier.

It's not new, my friends. It's not new at all. I remember when our present Premier was elected in Okanagan South to fill the vacancy created by his father. He came in here, and he was elected at a convention of the Social Credit Party to lead this party back to power. It was a continual vicious attack by the then Premier of this province, who jumped in, the hopscotching member for Vancouver East, the guy it cost the party $80,000 to even find a seat for — heaped personal abuse. That's why this attack is here today.

I can remember the then Premier talking about "daddy's boy," not talking about anything that had anything to do with anything, but personal attacks on our present Premier. What did our present Premier do? Why is that runt group over there so dissatisfied today? Because it was the able leadership of our present Premier that put this party back together and in the election of 1975 led the people of this province out of total chaos, out of total financial destruction, out of total economic disaster. That's why the opposition over there are attacking the Premier. They've got nothing positive to say. Have you ever heard one positive suggestion come out of them? No, sir. Not at all. It is under the able leadership of our present Premier that this province is today the envy of every other province in Canada, my friends.

I'll tell you something else. The Premier of this province doesn't need the job. He didn't come in here to seek personal power. He came into the leadership of the opposition party to lead this province out of utter chaos. And today the time and effort that he has put into it, at great personal sacrifice.... He isn't running to be a powermonger. He's running to serve the people of this province and to lead the people of this province. The time and effort he has put into it will be recognized by the young people of this province, because someday they will have the same opportunities that we had when we were growing up in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are they going to get an education?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, they are going to get an education, all right. They're not going to get it from you, my friends.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'll tell you more, my friends.

AN HON. MEMBER: How come you're red in the face?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll tell you why I'm red in the face. I'm embarrassed for you, my friend, and I'm embarrassed for your whole party; that's why I'm red in the face.

AN HON. MEMBER: I think you're a communist.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll tell you a few things about communism too. That's why I asked where do you come from. What party do you support? It was our Premier who organized the free enterprise party in this province and put it back together so that people today are enjoying one of the highest standards of living of any province in Canada. He led the party back to power; that's why they're mad. He led them back to power in 1975, he saved this province, and he did it again last year. That's the problem; that's why they're trying to attack them. They're hoping that we might stumble and fall, because they have no policy. The only way they'll ever come to power is if we stumble and fall. It won't be because we haven't done a good job under the able leadership of our Premier.

I am tempted to compare leadership under the socialists and leadership under this government. But it wouldn't be a fair comparison, because there is no comparison. They had no leadership; they did absolutely nothing for this province. That's why it wouldn't even be a fair comparison.

When this nonsense about letters started — and I'm very glad that we're going to be checking into fair election practices.... I'm very glad that our Premier accepted that amendment the other day in the Legislature, because we will have the opportunity, all of us, to check into fair election practices in this province. But what I was going to say is that after the dirty tricks or whatever you want to call it started coming out, who had the leadership ability to stand in this province and say: "I take the blame"? To me that is real leadership — a man who wasn't responsible for it but a man who had the guts to stand in front of every citizen of British Columbia and say: "Put the blame on me." That to me is leadership.

[ Page 1226 ]

I want to tell you, my friends, that group over there were pretty disappointed. They mentioned the convention last fall, one of the largest conventions the Social Credit Party has ever had after an election or before an election. The election had just been a few short months before. Normally what happens is that political activity falls off. We had one of the largest conventions the party every had. Why? It was to come and give a vote of confidence to our leader, and they did it and they did it in spades.

So we're a government which was open and honest, and we're a government which responds mostly to their false charges, and we're a government which is not afraid to have inquiries into what we are doing because we are open and honest. But what have they proved? Time after time after time again there have been false accusations. The same thing was proven on the letter deal, but what have they got to do? They are digging, and they are trying to find something to condemn this government about, and they are trying to find something to condemn the leadership of this province for, our Premier, because they have nothing else that they can find. The leadership of this province has been in such good hands that they can't find anything to condemn him for, so they are digging in the mud. They are wallowing in the mire of their own mud, that's what they are doing.

That party over there mentioned rights of individuals. I remember serving in opposition when they were government, and I remember how they tried to do away with the democratic rights that men had fought and died for through centuries. I remember how they tried to do away with debate in this Legislature, and they stand over there piously today and talk about the rights of individuals and talk about democracy. It's enough to make anybody sick to their stomach.

Now we want to talk about election practices. I don't pay much attention to this kind of crap, but it seems to me that I read something about the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) writing letters or getting his mother to write letters or something like that. I didn't pay any attention to it because it's a nothing issue so far as I'm concerned. Maybe he'd like to stand up and explain the letters. Maybe they'd like to tell us about all their paid hackeys. In the group that they happen to support, writing all the letters.... Where do they get their information? It's paid for at the taxpayer's expense.

What about — and again I have a faint recollection of this the NDPers trying to get Conservatives to run in the...?

AN HON. MEMBER: In Burnaby.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Was it Burnaby? I don't want to talk about things like that.

I'm glad that we accepted that motion and we can talk about fair election practices in this House. Did you ever see an Australian boomerang? Oh, my friends, that pleases me. I'm glad. We'll let all of the people of this province get to know what goes on.

Now I want to talk about our Premier again, a man who has shown more leadership ability than any other Premier in Canada. When they asked for revisions to the constitution, it was under the leadership of Premier Bill Bennett that this province put together the best package and took it down and sincerely laid something in Ottawa that they could grasp. That was under the leadership of our Premier. When the Prime Minister came to the provinces and said, "We've got some economic difficulties in Canada; we want the advice of the provinces," it was under the leadership of Bill Bennett that the province of British Columbia outshone every province in Canada. That's leadership, my friends.

Now I said I wouldn't compare, but I just have to make this little comparison about the guffaw that we used to have when the guy from Vancouver East was leader of that runt group, the NDP, when they were in power and would go down. It was a big laughing matter; he used to be the laughing-stock of the bloody country, the worst Premier to put on any performance. He was the worst Premier of any province and I was ashamed to be a British Columbian — to say: "That's my Premier down there acting like that." You want to compare leadership. There is no comparison because they had no leadership whatsoever.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the people of this province and the workers of this province enjoy today the best standard of living of any province in Canada — under the able leadership of Premier Bill Bennett. The people of this province enjoy today the second lowest taxes of any province in Canada — under the leadership of Premier Bill Bennett.

MR. COCKE: And where is the highest unemployment in Canada?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I'll talk unemployment with you. Do you want to talk unemployment, my friend? I'm talking the issue. You made the amendment; I'm talking the amendment. I'll argue the economy with you any day. Why didn't you bring it up? Your leader said the economy was going to be the big effort of debate. I'll gladly debate the economy, because when you guys were in power, you killed the economy of this province. That, my friend, happens to be one of the reasons that the Premier of this province has had to work day and night, practically seven days a week, and work the rear end off his cabinet ministers to put the economy of this province back together. But today it is the best economy of any province in Canada, my friend, and has the greatest future — under the leadership of Premier Bill Bennett.

Now you compare that with the leadership that you had when you had the greatest opportunity to have the greatest economy.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, I suggest that we bring the debate back within the confines of the rules. The hon. Minister of Industry and Small Business Development has the floor. l would ask him please to address the Chair, and I would ask all other members not to interrupt him so long as he has the floor. Please proceed.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Names, he talks about names. What have they been doing since the Legislature opened but calling names across the floor, digging up smut? And he talks about names. Do you not want me to call our Premier Bill Bennett? I won't then; I'll call him the greatest Premier this province has ever had and ever will have. If you want me to use that terminology, if you want me to use that nomenclature, I'll be happy to, because under the leadership of Premier Bill Bennett the people of this province....

[ Page 1227 ]

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would you call the minister to order. He has used the name Bill Bennett at least ten times; he's been here a few years and should know better.

MR. SPEAKER: The point is well taken, and we resist naming members by their Christian names in this House. Please proceed. And would the hon. member please address the Chair; it will assist me greatly.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize for that. But it just shows the disdain they have for our Premier; they can't even bear to hear his name. That is the disdain they have for our Premier, because they envy the job that he has done in leading this province back to economic security.

Now under the leadership of our Premier, in a time of economic problems in the world — and I'll talk to you during the main debate about this, my friends — where no jurisdiction is bringing in new social programs, no jurisdiction is cutting taxes, we're not only cutting taxes, but at the same time we're bringing in new social programs for the people of this province. I'll tell you, my friends, if that isn't leadership, I don't know what leadership is. If that isn't leadership, what is leadership when all the world is having economic problems? All the world is having economic problems. In the province of British Columbia, under the leadership of our Premier, we're cutting taxes and bringing in new social programs. Now that's why they can't stand it over there — a man who led the province, led free enterprise party, back to victory. And then since we've been government we've done the greatest job of any jurisdiction anywhere in the world. That's why they can't stand it and that's why they are not able to argue the debates.

Under the leadership of Premier Bennett, what did we have in the last few years in the labour situation? Fewer work stoppages every year. What did they have when they were government — a party that is supposed to be labour's friend? There wasn't a working wife in this province who could make a decision whether to buy a new fridge or go on a vacation, because she didn't know whether her husband was going to be working the next day or not — under the leadership of a party that proposes to represent the working man. I want to tell you, under the leadership of Premier Bennett, the workers in this province have security of tenure; they know there is going to be a job for them; they know that they're not going to be out on strike tomorrow; and the wives in this province can make some plans, because they know the paycheque's going to come home.

MR. LAUK: You can do better than that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I didn't see anybody clapping too much for you when you were up, so don't feel too bad. By the way, I'm surprised to see you back. Why don't you go to your basement and read your files?

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Leadership? I didn't hear anything.... You had a leader then. What was his name, the man who jumped into Vancouver East? I didn't hear him stand up and condemn you for taking those files out of my office.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Please address the Chair.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I want to tell you something else about the leadership of our Premier. The workers in this province happen to be the highest-paid workers of any jurisdiction in Canada and, probably, in North America.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you'll never know, because I don't think you've ever worked a day in your life, my friend. Oh, he was once Minister of Highways — potholes. The roads in this province were going to pot under your leadership. Under the leadership of Premier Bennett, we've had the greatest highway development that this province has ever seen. Not only that, but the highways we build today are being paid for today, and it's only because the economy is strong under a great leader that we're able to do that.

The people of this province have one of the greatest education systems of any jurisdiction in North America, and more is coming because of the leadership of our Premier.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I'm having difficulty keeping the debate flowing through the Chair. The more often we interrupt the hon. member, the more difficult it becomes for me. Please help me.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to harass the opposition any longer, because I know they're having difficulty containing themselves. But I do think they're getting the message.

To be very, very serious, the province of British Columbia has never been in better shape. Wages are high, there is employment, there are amenities and the future is secure, all because of the policies that have been brought down under the very, very able leadership of our Premier, a Premier who has worked practically 18 hours a day for the last four years, weekends included, trying to clean up the mess that was left by that group because they had no leadership when they were government.

As you know, Mr. Speaker — or if you don't, I'll tell you — the reason we've had to work so long and so hard, and the reason there has been such a strain on our leader, is because of the financial mess that we as government had to clean up. It's because of the economic disaster that occurred in this province while they were government. It has put a tremendous strain on a great leader, but he has come through shining at every turn of the wheel. That's why, today, this province is the best province in Canada. It's because of the leadership and the long hours of work and the ability of our Premier to make decisions and his ability to lead his cabinet and his government. It hasn't been easy. It hasn't been easy cleaning up the mess that they left. But because of the leadership of our Premier there is once again confidence in the province of British Columbia. There is confidence by the people who live here, and there is confidence of those who would invest here to create jobs for our young people. Confidence has been restored again under the leadership of our Premier.

[ Page 1228 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'll talk about the leadership of our Premier in handing the B.C. Railway, ICBC, tourism or anything you want to debate. I'll debate with you any day the record of our leadership against the record of your leadership. I'll debate the record of our leadership in giving security of energy to the people of this province and to future generations. I'll debate the leadership of our Premier with them any day against their record. I'll debate the leadership of our Premier in dealing with the mining industry and in recognizing that in British Columbia we live in a very fragile environment, a province not like Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta, a province that has the responsibility of looking after the Pacific fish run. That's not the responsibility of Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta, but the responsibility of British Columbia: the responsibility of fragile valleys, the responsibility of one of the greatest fresh water systems anywhere in the world. Under the capable leadership of our Premier, when tough and reasonable decisions have to be made, they will be made. Under the leadership of our Premier this province will remain the beautiful province it is to live in. We will leave it in good shape for future generations, under the leadership of our Premier. Under the leadership of our Premier we will have economic development as well as preservation of the environment, because our leader is a very sensitive man and has great regard for the environment and great regard for future generations.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, this is the voice of the present and future. This is today's leadership and tomorrow's leadership, and it is the best leadership to be found in any province in Canada.

I sat over there in opposition for three short years — because that is all the people of the province of British Columbia would allow them to be government. I sat over there in opposition. I didn't think I was a very good member in opposition, because I am a builder, not a tearer-down. I am not a person who goes around tearing things down. But I would hang my head in shame if I hadn't done a better job when I was in opposition than they are doing.

I was looking forward to coming into this Legislature and having some debate on issues and policies. I was looking to that group over there, who do so much yakking about the economy, for some solid suggestions. But I tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am going to be disappointed. And I will tell you why I am going to be disappointed. Because, my friend, we have a leader in this province who makes us the envy of every other jurisdiction in Canada, and because of that great leadership they will not discuss the issues, because things are too good. That is the real issue. It's leadership, and I tell you we've got it, and I support it.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development kept talking about "our Premier" and "our leader." Well, he is their leader, but he is our Premier — everyone in this province. That is why we are concerned — not because he is their leader but because he is our Premier. That is what this debate is all about.

We've had every reason to be concerned about our Premier for quite some time, because what we are talking about in this amendment is the ability of our Premier to give moral leadership to the youth of this province. That is what we are talking about; we are talking about the moral leadership of a Premier and a province.

I would like to go back and review some of the leadership in this province under our Premier. I would like to go back to the first hint we got that we may be in trouble. I would like to go back to when a big car pulled up to a curb, and our Premier stepped out. The reporter and the television camera zoomed in and asked our Premier: "Did you have your seatbelt done up?"

Our Premier said: "There are no seatbelts in the car." The next scene was the TV camera zooming in to the seatbelts on the seat that the Premier had just vacated. That was the beginning of the big lie in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now we're getting to the issues.

MR. LEA: Now we're getting to the issues, that's right. Then I'd like to go to the next thing I can recall that concerned me, and that was the forgery of names on the back of two cheques that were made out to Norman Levi. Who forged names on the back of those cheques? None other than Arthur Weeks. Who did he work for? He worked for our Premier when he was Leader of the Opposition. A forger worked for our Premier, a man who lies about seatbelts. We had a forger working for our Premier when he was the Leader of the Opposition.

That's not the end of the Arthur Weeks story though. When the Social Credit won the election in 1975, Mr. Weeks moved into the Premier's office before moving to the office of the Minister of Economic Development. The Premier denied that Mr. Weeks worked in his office, but it's true, he did. Again we have cause for questioning the moral leadership of this province.

Did it end there? The person the Premier put his faith in when he was Leader of the Opposition, Arthur Weeks, and again put his faith in as the Premier, had to be let go because that person traded confidential information on the Grizzly Valley on the stockmarket.

You know, Social Credit, this is your life! If we want to go back further, we can go back to Sommers and Bonner and campaign funds from the past. We can go back to Phil Gaglardi when he said: "My friends, it is greed that makes the world go round." We sure have a Premier today who believes it's greed that makes the world go round and who is committed to a government that goes along with the greed.

We also have to look at a Premier who appoints a Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) who went around this province when she was in opposition, lying here and lying there about secret police forces. She lied every place she went in this province about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA: Every place she went she lied, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I will have to ask you to withdraw the words "lying here" and "lying there."

MR. LEA: Not telling the truth here and not telling the truth there.

[ Page 1229 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I think that the same phrase attributes to an hon. member of this House something that is unacceptable, so please withdraw.

MR. LEA: I'll withdraw and I'll explain it in a different way.

The Deputy Premier, when she was not in the House, but president of the Social Credit Party, went around this province, and everywhere she went she said that the NDP were starting up a secret police force. That's what she said. Everybody knows that and everybody's admitting it. Other ministers over there are saying that's right. She did say that. It was a lie.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You're a liar when you say she lied.

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

MR. LEA: No, don't bother, Mr. Speaker. He's the guy who attacks his own Premier when he's out of the House, but when he comes in here he hasn't got the guts to stand up and attack the Premier.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is not an option that I have, it's an obligation that you as members have placed upon me. I must ask the hon. minister to withdraw the words: "You are a liar when you lie." Please withdraw, hon. minister.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'll withdraw: "You are a liar when you lie."

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. LEA: I can understand why the Minister of Municipal Affairs is concerned, because when he's not around our Premier, he says our Premier isn't much of a leader. I wonder what he'll say when it comes to voting, as to whether he's much of a leader or not.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You're lying.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, Mr. Minister. The same request applies.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, he's attributing statements to me that I've not made. Those are untruths, and I will not accept untruths.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the parliamentary language for such an instance would be that at the conclusion of this speech, if the hon. minister would rise and say that a statement that was made was incorrect, it would be accepted as being parliamentary. We cannot use the words "lie," "lair," "lying," "having lied," or any allied words. I would ask the hon. minister to please withdraw.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw if the member will withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If there is a correction to be made in a speech, the appropriate time to make the correction is at the conclusion of the speech, and I would trust that the hon. minister would do so as soon as the member takes his seat.

On the same point of order, the Minister of Agriculture.

HON. MR. HEWITT: It seems to me that the member for Prince Rupert has made accusations a number of times, has used the words "lying" and "liar," and he has not withdrawn those in total. I would ask first of all that maybe the Speaker would ask him to withdraw all remarks relating to "lying" or "liar." If not, maybe Hansard could be reviewed at the end of the session today, and then maybe the member would come forward and apologize to this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I think that we have already requested the member, at least on one occasion, to withdraw the word or any imputation of wrongdoing to any hon. member, and if he persists we shall ask him to withdraw again, according to your instructions.

MR. LEA: I'm afraid that we cannot just examine the leadership of our Premier from the scandal which plagued this government in the last short while. We have to go back to the other parliament, and we have to start taking a look, because we tend to forget the number of people who had to resign or be fired in disgrace from government service because of immorality of one sort or another. We have people trading in the stock market on confidential information which they received while serving government in this province. We had Art Cameron, who worked for the Minister of Economic Development in those days. He had to resign because he happened to purchase some stocks that he had confidential information about. Arthur Weeks had to resign for the same reason. He should have resigned twice, but he only resigned once.

Let's carry on, right up until now, when we look at the latest scandal which has plagued this government. Ever since this government has been ridden under with scandal, there is only one thing the Premier can be described as doing as he goes around the province trying to pull those chestnuts out of the fire by announcing grandiose schemes for the city of Vancouver that he thought of in four hours on the weekend. It finally came out. It took him four hours to plan B.C. Place. Well, maybe that is leadership, Mr. Speaker. How many people can plan B.C. Place in four hours? But, you know, he's been running around doing that. He's been announcing a bridge across the Fraser River that he says will cost $130 million. It's funny that the same bridge was going to cost $250 million in 1975 dollars.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: NDP dollars.

MR. LEA: Oh, you'll never build it for $130 million, my friend. The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) knows that, Mr. Speaker. Why would the Premier say that?

Who has had to resign lately for a government steeped in nothing but scandal? Well, we had Dan Campbell. He's the person, Mr. Speaker, who told the media that it is none of the province's business how Social Credit spend their campaign funds; it's none of the province's business where they get their money from, and it's none of our business how they spend it.

The only thing I can say that will help Mr. Campbell is

[ Page 1230 ]

that I think he honestly believes it. Because when you've been associated with our Premier the length of time that Mr. Campbell has, in opposition and as Premier, then you can follow the story through: why wouldn't Mr. Campbell think it was all right? He worked with Arthur Weeks in the office of the Leader of the Opposition when our Premier was the Leader of the Opposition. He worked with Arthur Weeks in government when the Premier was our Premier. I mean, why wouldn't Mr. Campbell think that it was quite all right to say the things he said and to do the things that he did?

That's what the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) was pointing out: that it seems the Premier can't tell the difference between right and wrong. Probably, in psychiatric terms, there's a name for that. Not being a psychiatrist I don't know exactly what the term is. But I do know that there is something really wrong with our Premier when he can't tell the difference between right or wrong.

The Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) attacked the press for even raising the matter of Lettergate. She said: "You're trying to make this just like Watergate, and you're all nasty and go away." Of course, that was before George Lenko was discovered to have handed out the tapes that were denied by the Deputy Premier.

But, you know, Mr. Speaker, the thing that is really perplexing is to look at those people who surround the Premier. We now know where the Premier stands when it comes to morality in government. But what about those people who surround him, those people who came in, I'm sure, with good cause, who wanted to do a job for this province but got a taste of power and won't give it up for anything? What about the three Liberals who sat on this side of the House? You'd think after you were demoted you might then get it together to say: "I think I'll leave this ship of state without a captain." But no, take a minor post, hang on, carry on.

You know, Gordon Gibson summed it up fairly well. Gordon Gibson said about those three Liberals who walked across the floor: "You know, they thought they were going across to a bicycle club and they don't like it that much now that they've discovered they're in a motorcycle gang." But look at them. Now that they're in the motorcycle gang they want their tattoos and their spurs and their big hats because, boy, they're going to ride it right to the end, Mr. Speaker. That's what they're going to do. There's no shame now with the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom) because now they'll sit over there. Both have been Attorneys General, and both have had to make dirty little statements on behalf of Social Credit — the kind of statements they used to condemn Bob Bonner for making. The kind of statements that they condemn Bob Bonner for making are now being made by them, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of that old wicked party, as they used to call it in the old days.

But when it comes to the ex-Attorney-General from Point Grey, they say that absolute power corrupts, but the absolute lack of power really corrupts. That's what we're watching today, Mr. Speaker: a man with his portfolio sitting right on his desk. He can tell you anything you want to know because he's got it all right on his desk these days after being demoted. What was he demoted for by our Premier? He was demoted for running an incompetent portfolio.

That's some of the leadership we've seen. He's a Premier who decides he's going to put the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey in the cabinet as Attorney-General. Now I want to ask you. Is that leadership? Is that the kind of leadership that the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) was talking about? As a matter of fact, is it leadership that he put him in the cabinet? That's what you have to ask. What this motion is all about is all of the advisers to His Honour.

You notice where the Municipal Affairs minister (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is sitting and you notice where the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) is sitting — and, by the way, I hear he didn't want to be the Minister of Health but he is anyway. Look where they're sitting: one step and they're out. That's why the Minister of Health is being a little noisy today, Mr. Speaker. He doesn't like much being that close to being out, although he always says he doesn't like being in.

You know, it's kind of surprising that the only two ministers who stood up outside of this House and said they were concerned about the leadership around the scandal were the Municipal Affairs minister and the Minister of Health. And look where they're sitting: one step and they're out. And what about the old chairman of caucus? You know, it wasn't his fault. He wasn't even there when all these dirty tricks were going on, but not only did he lose his chairmanship of caucus, under our Premier and his leadership he didn't go in the cabinet. Who did go in the cabinet, under our Premier and his leadership that we're discussing today?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not you.

MR. LEA: No, not me. That's right.

Who did we have? Well, we had the member for North Okanagan (Hon. Mrs. Jordan). I think that's one of the best choices he could have made. You know, you can't just knock the guy. I mean, he has to just by accident make a good decision once in a while — and he did. But if we're going to examine the morality of the leadership of this province, then I think we have to take a look at what it means to live in a democratic state. I'd like to make some remarks about that.

As the opposition to us likes to hand out so often, they like to draw that philosophic difference between us and that side of the House. Yes, there is a great philosophic difference. I believe that every member in this House believes that we should govern ourselves according to law, according to order. On both sides of the House law and order is believed to be the governing factor of how we should run our society, but I think the difference begins there. We both agree with that. But on that side of the House with those ultraconservatives — not conservatives, ultraconservatives — they believe — at least the Premier believes — that you must have law and order to make sure that the inherent evil in man is in check. On this side of the House we believe that you must have law and order to ensure that the good in man has a chance to flower in an organized society. That's one of the biggest differences. It's something that Premier does not understand. If he did understand, he'd know that one vote means a terrible lot. One vote means everything in our society, because without that one vote we do not have a democratic society; we have an autocratic government like the one that Premier would like to have.

You know, I've heard members on that side of the House brag to me. They say: "You know, the Premier doesn't run us by personality; he does it by the weight of his office. He doesn't lead us by showing leadership, he does it by saying.... The fear is if you don't do what I say, you don't end up in the cabinet." That's the kind of democracy a person who doesn't think it's important to have one vote would naturally try to put into effect. And in case people of

[ Page 1231 ]

this province missed the fact that he doesn't think that a vote is important, he then carried it on a little further and said: "Even if my government is defeated in the House on a no-confidence motion, on the budget or anything else, we won't resign, we'll just carry on."

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like everyone in the Legislature, in the gallery, first of all to look at the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). Look at him. He's one of the Liberals who used to stand on this side of the House, talk about democracy and tell us how bad the old evil Social Credit was, how he didn't like the way they handled their campaign funds, how he didn't like the way Robert Bonner was the Attorney-General. Well, I wonder what he thinks today now that he is in that old motorcycle gang over there. I wonder what he thinks when he has to be the presiding officer to decide whether MLAs of the old Social Credit are going to be charged criminally or not.

What did the person before him have to do? Well, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General before our present Attorney General had so many royal commissions and RCMP investigations going on that he had little time for anything else. That may have been one of the saving graces for the province, when you think of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are charitable.

MR. LEA: I am being charitable. I could have said something nasty. It's more like my nature to do that, but I thought today we'd be just a little soft.

Mr. Speaker, those people over there have joined that party to do one thing: to keep NDP out of office. What can you expect of a party whose commonality is negative? They've never said in any place what they're for, only what they're against; their commonality is that they are negative. That's their commonality, the reason that they're together and in a political party: to be against something, not for something. And who do they follow? The leader, the Premier, who is always against something and never for anything. When was the last time the Premier stood up in this House and talked about his vision for this province, whether it's social or economic? He's never done it once. Never once has the Premier taken his place in this House and said: "Here, I have a vision. Here's what I would like B.C. to be. Here is the kind of society that I'd like to see in B.C. Here is the kind of value that I would like to see our society hold in British Columbia. I'd like to see us get away from the greed we see. I'd like to get us away from people who are only self interested. I'd like to take our province into cooperation. I'd like everyone in this province to cooperate with one another." But no, never that. Because the commonality, the raison d'être of that group is negative.

They can sit over there and they can squirm and they can have little giggles, but I can remember when the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) was a Conservative. Mr. Speaker, what he thought of Social Credit then is absolutely astounding. He thought that they were terrible; he thought that they were immoral; he thought that they were bankrupt of economic ideas. You know, he was right. It only took him three parties — Liberal, Conservative and now Social Credit.

AN HON. MEMBER: Action Canada.

MR. LEA: Yes, he belonged to Action Canada.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Don't you laugh now — we may even find that out about you, although knowing you, I find it pretty hard to believe that you belong to anything with action.

Mr. Speaker, what are we going to do with them? They don't understand that they've actually done anything wrong. They stand up and they say: "Well, you know, all parties do it. All parties forge letters. All parties forget to declare $250,000 in election expenses." All parties have thousand dollar bills so the Dan Campbells of this world can run around paying things in cash, so that there will be no record of what they've spent campaign money on. All parties tie the can to the chairman of caucus when it wasn't his problem in the first place, because that's the way they are. Where did he go? I'll tell you, he's not going anywhere in that cabinet.

So, Mr. Speaker, they'd have us believe that they actually have faith in our Premier. They'd actually have us believe that, after he's taken them from a 35-member caucus to a 31-member caucus in one easy election. If there were an election today, you'd be wiped out, and you have confidence in him?

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, tell them to put their money where their mouths are. Tell them to put their writ where their mouths are, because if they've got the courage of their convictions, then they will talk our Premier into taking this decision of whether there's confidence in him or not to the people of this province. We all know what would happen then, don't we?

I'll bet you there isn't one person in that caucus over there who would go to the Premier today and say: "Why don't you call an election, Bill?"

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Is there one? Well, the only person who may do it is the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman), and he'd only do that so he could move up to this end. He's tired of sitting down there. I thought he'd go in the cabinet. He thought he'd go in the cabinet. The first member (Hon. Mr. Rogers) thought he'd go in the cabinet. Everybody thought he'd go in the cabinet, but what....

MR. LAUK: He's too competent for the cabinet.

MR. LEA: You know, the funny thing is that only the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has gotten up to defend the Premier. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) has gotten up to defend the Premier. But what about the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair)?

HON. MR. MAIR: I did.

MR. LEA: Oh, you didn't. You've had little call, but you don't want to fall into the next seat, right out of the cabinet, so you're not going to get up because you can't find it in your heart to defend him, can you, Mr. Minister? You can't find it in your heart to defend him, and the member for Surrey, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), Mr. Speaker, can't find it in his heart or his head to defend the Premier.

[ Page 1232 ]

I'll just make you a dollar wager that neither one of those ministers takes his place to defend Bill Bennett, because they've already condemned him outside of this House, and neither one of them is going to get up in this House and defend our Premier.

And the new Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), is he going to get up and defend the Premier? Is he going to get up and defend him? No, he's going to sit there, Mr. Speaker, and be a good little boy. He hasn't even got the feel of it in the old chair yet; he's pretty cosy; he's not going to say anything; but I bet you he doesn't defend him all that much up there in Prince George North.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Look, it would be really interesting to go into your ridings with you and hear you defend your Premier, because, I'll tell you, I have to defend him to Social Crediters in my riding. They're really angry. Why, I had two Social Credit members on the Queen Charlottes wanting to know how they could write and complain about a Premier who didn't even think it was important to have one vote.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Did they recognize you?

MR. LEA: Yes, they did. They recognized me because they were now coming into an NDP meeting.

But, Mr. Speaker, I would like to just tell the government and the government supporters in the House that we are going to keep a record of who gets up to support the Premier.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Well, I'll tell you, if you did, you got up and down so quick they're not going to notice in Kamloops, because you want to hold your seat with both hands.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: It's better than saying nothing in a short while, like you do.

MR. SPEAKER: Please address the Chair.

MR. LEA: I'm going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, you just are going to be surprised at how little those members say. Now, the hon. member for North Okanagan (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), we can't expect her not to get up and defend the Premier.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: No, what I'm saying is that you're going to get up and defend the Premier, because you haven't been there long enough, like the Minister of Labour, to get used to it. Come on, get up and support the Premier. Look at them, they're not going to get up. Well, who's going to get up if I sit down?

AN HON. MEMBER: Just watch!

Mr. Mussallem moved adjournment of the debate. Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.