[ Page 1233 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Speech from the Throne.

On the amendment.

Mr. Mussallem –– 1233

Mr. King –– 1235

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1241

Mr. D'Arcy –– 1243

Mr. Strachan –– 1246

TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 1980

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Without encroaching upon the members' time at all, I was thinking over the dinner hour of the congratulations I might bring to the House on the style of debate that we had this afternoon. I thought that I should perhaps read to you from Beauchesne's fourth edition, section 128. It says:

"A personal attack by one member upon another is an offence against the House in the person of one of its members which, on account of the respect due from every member to the character and dignity of the House, as well as the importance of preserving regularity in debates, calls for the prompt interference of the Speaker."

This afternoon there were many instances in which the Speaker felt that he should interfere, but not wishing to interrupt the debate itself and hence disrupt the flow of debate, I refrained from doing so. Nonetheless, I must add that section 128 of Beauchesne does apply. I wish that hon. members would be cognizant of the fact. And although any one member perhaps may not have been guilty of an offence, nonetheless, the cumulative effect does have a very gross effect upon the overall debate.

I think a word to the wise is sufficient.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, indeed we all appreciate your words of wisdom. We hope that we would have the same wisdom that you have for the Chair. We honestly respect your decisions. I do confess that the House was a little unruly today. I'm sure that we will change very rapidly with that admonition we've just received.

I think, to bring this debate into focus, it is necessary to read the amendment to the motion:

"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."

How could we possibly get further from the fact. His Honour recognizes the fact that the public voted for this government, and to place such a motion on the order paper is undoubtedly a parliamentary procedure, but at the same time it is facetious in content. The vote implied dissatisfaction with all members of this House and particularly with the Premier. The scurrilous attacks today on his person were, I think, beyond the realm of parliamentary procedure and should be considered an abhorrence to us all.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) thundered greatly and talked of the philosophical differences between our party and theirs. Certainly there are great philosophical differences. We have and do consider the dignity of mankind, whereas the opposition have demonstrated very clearly that they have the philosophy of socialism, wherein the end justifies the means. I just chanced to come on a statement that the end justifies the means in the socialist atmosphere of the master-and-serf philosophy, where the parliamentarians are the masters and the public are the serfs. That is the way, that's the socialist philosophy, and I have it here before me. I have the words from Hansard for September 24, 1973, by Mr. Gabelmann:

Maybe the government has got to be involved in building homes. Maybe we have to say that land can no longer be owned privately. No one ever suggested air should be owned privately. Air was given to us by God, or whoever we believe gave it to us, and so was land, Mr. Speaker. It is foreign to my philosophy that land or anything on this earth that is natural should be privately owned.

That is the difference in philosophy, yes, indeed. We stand for a different philosophy. We stand for the sanctity of the individual and the dignity of mankind and we do not stand for the master-and-serf philosophy that is a socialist ideal.

It was a matter of great shock to me that the name of Mr. George Lenko would be brought up in this debate today — that George Lenko, an honoured and respected young man who did his duty as he saw fit, would be considered by the opposition as breaking his responsibility by sending out certain tapes that he never heard or read. That this man would resign because of this seems foreign to me.

I wonder which of you have thrown the first stone, which of you could say he has never made a mistake. Certainly he should have heard the tapes, but he did not and he mailed them. I think we have sunk to a new low today when we brought this young man into focus and said to him: "You did wrong; you have to quit or you will get fired." It is a shame, one of those low levels parliament gets into in the heat of debate.

MR. MACDONALD: Who was really responsible?

MR. MUSSALLEM: The responsibility, if I may say, is this: the responsibility is that of the ones who encouraged and abetted a mistake — an honest mistake made by a single individual. I do not want to debate what happened. I only want to debate the lowness of an attack on a man who is not here, an attitude of a great victory because they got this young man to leave his vocation in which he wanted to make a place working for the government of this country. It is a shame that we have come to these low depths. He did no wrong except to mail some tapes that he never heard and that none of us here ever heard.

That is the only thing. The engineer of the tapes made the statement: "Yes, I made the tapes. I am responsible. I am the only one involved. I'm sorry and I resign." But that is not enough. To this day, eight months later, we find this matter being dragged out here which, I think, is indeed a great regret.

The hon. member goes on in speaking to this motion.... "The terrible people" — referring to us. They called the police force that we had "a secret police force." Well, I want to tell him that I am one of the people who believed it was and I still think it was but they never had time to bring it into effect because it was not only the police force; it was the road on which socialism travels. It was the first mark. The people who came to this land from the countries of Europe would tell you all. I only tell you what I understand. That is the way that socialism starts. First it's with the police — that is the direction. Then the next thing, strangely enough, is a freeze on land.

[ Page 1234 ]

They said to us: "You'll never remove that land freeze." Of course we'll never remove it. It was improperly done, incorrectly applied. Our government before was embarked on a land freeze, but in an orderly, proper fashion.

What did the land freeze do? It made millionaires out of every land developer in British Columbia. They talk about low-cost homes, but they raise the price of land beyond the reach of the individual. That's what the land freeze did.

That is what we're afraid of. We are afraid of socialism and what it represents. We are afraid of the way they get to where they are going. The people from Europe will come and tell you this is the route that socialism takes. This is what we are afraid of, and this is what the people of British Columbia were afraid of when the NDP were turfed out in 1975. They don't want to ever have that again. I talked to members of that party, and they said to me: "There's only one thing we did wrong. We'd be government today, but we went too fast." What does that mean? It only means: "We would have got there anyway but we should have got there a little slower." That's the difference in our philosophy.

I am not sure whether it was the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) or the hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) but one of them referred to the thousand dollars that Mr. Dan Campbell paid for hotel bills, etc., through one of the caucus staff. Here's another thing I decry. An honourable man who served this government well, who served this province well for many years, was not a businessman, but a school teacher. This man made a mistake. Most businessmen would not do it. He flashed a thousand-dollar bill and said: "Here, go and pay the bill."

I can understand that happening. But what's so wrong about it? Why are you so happy, I say to the opposition, that this man lost his position and lost his job? What did he do wrong? Let me make it clear here today that it was not government money. This is party money. This was party money that he had a right to spend any way he saw fit. That is not the business of the government but the business of the party.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the elections act?

MR. MUSSALLEM: There is nothing wrong with paying bills with a thousand-dollar bill. I will say it was injudicious. I will say that. But what joy you take! I say that the opposition has come to a new low when they take pride in accomplishing the fall of a fine and honourable man. Now that you're bringing up money, I want to ask questions. There was a former minister of the NDP who gave up his seat so that the honourable leader could find a seat. I was told he received, at a certain sum per year, a total of $80,000. Is this true? I have heard this many times. If he did, I ask where the money came from. Right after an election where did the money come from? I want to know. I think I'm entitled to know.

You bring up the question of $1,000. Where did the money come from? I want to know. I was told it came indirectly from government funds. I've been told. I make no charges, but I'd like to know. If they want to bring up the fact that Dan Campbell paid $1,000 for a just and proper bill, then I think I'm entitled to ask where the $80,000 came from.

MR. LEGGATT: Where did the $1,000 come from? Where did Dan get the $1,000?

MR. MUSSALLEM: It's party money — $1,000 to pay bills. We have meetings, we have budgets and they're paid for. I admit it was injudicious, but why should you take joy in such an action?

Where did such a large sum come from? Who paid it? Right after an election, when their money has all been spent — it should have been spent, and I presume it was — where did this money come from? I have been told that it came indirectly from an improper source, and I charge....

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Never mind. Let us come and tell this House where you paid off  "the $80,000 man."

We haven't mentioned this before, but I get tired of hearing these scurrilous attacks. Furthermore, this same man was working in the NDP caucus for what I was told was $24,000 a year. Is this true? I ask these questions. Where is he today? Was it government money again? These are things which should be answered. It is very important. This government is so open it is distressing to the opposition, but we do our work and we do it well. We do it with confidence and we do it under good leadership. There is nothing hidden in our government. It is the strange anomaly of government; I don't understand it. When the Premier's father sat in that same place he was called almost every name in the book. He was derided in every way that you could get your hands on. There were a lot of compliments, of course, but mostly derision. But what's the difference today? Today he has suddenly become an honourable man — and so he should be; he always was. The Premier today is following in the footsteps of a great man and doing a job for British Columbia which we should be proud of. I am proud that we have his son. I have said many times that W.A.C. Bennett was Canada's greatest Canadian; I still believe that. I tell you that his son is following so closely in his steps, every motion he has is almost like his father. When this government has the audacity to attack the Premier on no grounds at all and on such facetious little items as a thousand-dollar bill paying a just and honourable debt, because a young man like Mr. Lenko would mail out some tapes that he never heard — and that's an attack. Is that parliamentary? Is this the great NDP? What a shame! We've fallen to a new low.

We find the Premier under attack for mailing out pamphlets to inform the public of British Columbia on the process of our government. Well, I want to know here, Mr. Speaker, why shouldn't the pamphlets be mailed out? What was wrong with that? I think it was fitting and proper, and it should be done again and again. People have precious little means of finding out what's happening in their government unless the government tells them in print. I've never seen them question what the pamphlets had in them. Our opposition only questioned the fact that the pamphlets were sent. There's no attack on the content, but attacks on sending them and informing the people. There are the people who talk about open government. You are seeing open government in process.

The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), to my shock and dismay, brought out the old adage about the national socialist red herring again. I am thoroughly and completely disgusted with this ridiculous attempt to suggest that the Premier was calling them Nazis. At the same time, I'm amazed that he brought in the inference of the skinning alive of people under the Nazi regime. I didn't think it was proper

[ Page 1235 ]

and fitting for this floor. To allude that the Premier was unconsciously indicating their skinning people alive…. Maybe they are, theoretically; maybe they did, theoretically. I'll tell you this much: the national socialist statement was made by the Premier, and you know and we know what it meant — the socialists nationally of Canada. But they turned it around. And that's what this opposition is good at: turning everything around. So it doesn't fit. It becomes a square peg in a round hole. In truth, that is the problem with the socialist philosophy: it's a square peg in a round hole. It's a master-and-serf philosophy that we do not support.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the hon. members of the opposition and to this whole House — every single member in this House — that the majority of British Columbians support our Premier for what he has done and is doing. We have never had a Premier of this calibre. That these people would endeavour to create an attack, facetiously, without grounds or purpose, I think is beneath an honourable party. The national socialists — this is a socialist party; they admit that. But they must also admit they have a national socialist party, and what's wrong with that? We don't deny that. We don't have a national Social Credit Party; we have a provincial party.

We have a provincial party, but you have a national socialist party. Now what is wrong with calling you national socialists? I see nothing wrong with that. And what's all this talk? Sit down, Mr. Lauk.

But again I say with clarity and purpose that every man of this caucus.... I respect and honour the leadership we've had, not only from the Premier but from the members who are doing their job, the best I've seen in this House in my many years here.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister was on his feet first. On the amendment?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The only reason I ask is that you will recall that at one point I promised to recognize the hon. minister at the conclusion of a speech if he had something to say. Would the hon. minister please defer to the opposite side of the House, who would in turn logically be ready to speak? The hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke would be the natural rotation. I appreciate the deference.

MR. KING: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the member for yielding the floor so that the rotation of speakers can take its proper course.

Mr. Speaker, I may say that I rise in support of the amendment which has been put forward by the official opposition, and I do so for quite a number of reasons which I shall attempt to enumerate for the House tonight. But first of all it might be appropriate if I commented fairly briefly on that rather incomprehensible presentation made by the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), which in my view was completely lacking in logic and lacking in any natural sequence of the member's suggestions.

He talked about the end justifying the means. I suppose members on the government side are well equipped to talk about that philosophy, because that is precisely the philosophy which has landed this government in so much hot water. It is the philosophy of the end justifying the means that led them to attempt to manipulate the media in this province and to indulge in unethical campaign practices which resulted in their scapegoating of junior staff, including Mr. Lenko, whom the government fired or whose resignation they accepted. Mr. Speaker, it was not the opposition that fired George Lenko; it was not the opposition that fired Mr. Grieg, Mr. Kelly, Ms. McKay and all those other Social Credit staff who received the tender mercies of the caucus chairman's euphemistic term "a menial reprimand."

Mr. Speaker, it was not the opposition that was responsible for any of these events. It was that government and their propensity to allow their quest for power at any cost, their philosophy that the end justifies the means, that landed them in the whole controversy that has resulted in this government's lacking credibility with the public in British Columbia today. I mean that very sincerely and very seriously. There is absolutely no credibility as far as the public is concerned in the programs that this government has hurriedly tried to put together as a diversion from their internal problems, as a diversion from further scrutiny of the lack of leadership in this governing party. They have no one to blame but themselves. It was not the opposition that brought to light all these misdeeds, the lack of moral fibre, the lack of proper character by the governing party, particularly the executive council. They have no one to blame but themselves.

As far as other diversions are concerned, where attempts are made to direct attention away from all the sordid details, the whole litany of misdeeds, the whole litany of unethical practices that this government has committed which are there for the world to see, which are not only a matter for discussion in the media in British Columbia, but throughout the length and breadth of Canada and, indeed, North America, they have brought disrepute and disrespect to this chamber and to the people of British Columbia through their own misconduct — no one else's. And to now try to suggest that in some way the opposition, or our treatment of staff in our caucus office, is in some way associated is not only spiteful, it's irresponsible, Mr. Speaker. If there are any suggestions regarding the source of funding to any of the NDP caucus staff, Public Accounts is the source for anyone to check. And senior members of this Legislature, if they have any respect for the institution whatsoever, if they have any intelligence, in terms of knowing where to find information that is readily available to a member of this House, should be ashamed of themselves for making the kind of inferences and suggestions that were made here tonight.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have no confidence in the government; I have no confidence in the Premier; and certainly we disagree in philosophical terms. But I'm saddened to see the institution of parliament and the institution of the Premier's office brought to disrepute by questionable conduct, by seedy practices which have been apparently endorsed by the government party in terms of their staff practices. The Premier has lost the confidence of the public, and that's witnessed throughout the length and breadth of this province by the people that are coming into my constituency office and my colleagues' constituency offices and ripping up Social Credit cards and saying, "I did not elect the government to indulge in this kind of conduct," and taking out memberships in the NDP. The governing party must know this is the case, although they put on a brave face through some braggadocio. They know that the public is concerned, that the public is aggrieved by the kind of reputation that this government has brought on British Columbia.

I submit that the Premier did in fact set the tone for the

[ Page 1236 ]

kind of seedy practices that their workers have apparently indulged in on all fronts, and I support my colleague from Skeena when he said the Premier's reference to national socialism was the benchmark by which the Social Credit members of the executive council, members of this House and staff took their signal. I suggest that the reference that was made to national socialism on at least four occasions by the Premier, when he called the election in 1979, was not made in ignorance of the import of that statement. I suggest that the Premier knowingly, and with complete appreciation of the implications of what he was saying, insulted thousands of veterans in British Columbia who happen to be supporters and members of the New Democratic Party. He insulted loyal British Columbians who had fought in the war against fascism, and he did that because he was not concerned about what type of rhetoric or what kind of conduct he indulged in as a method toward winning power at any cost.

That's completely in keeping with the kind of conduct that the former president of that party, and now Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and now Provincial Secretary, indulged in when she talked about a secret police force and a cache of arms for that secret police force, knowing that that was not the case. But the end justifies the means — because we don't like the NDP, we are going to feel free to make any scandalous statement, any prevarication whatsoever as a method of paving the way back to power for that coalition.

Given those kinds of signals from senior cabinet people, from the top echelon of that party, is it any wonder that Jack Kelly and Ms. McKay and Lenko and Grieg, and a host more that I can't even remember the names of.... It's almost like a resurrection of the Watergate scandal. I wish I could read out all of the names in the same laconic fashion that Sam Erwin did when the investigation was going into that equally seedy practice south of the border, which damaged the electoral process down there.

They have the gall to stand here today and suggest that they should go scot-free and not be asked to assume any of the ministerial responsibility for that direction. They sit here and expect us to blithely brush aside the devastating internal corruption that has eroded the effectiveness of the governing party to the point where they can no longer effectively govern on behalf of the people of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, that's what the amendment is about. The government in a free society and under the British parliamentary system is required to enjoy the confidence of the population and the confidence of this Legislature.

It is completely appropriate that we challenge each and every member in the governing party tonight, or sometime in the future whenever this motion is called, to stand up and take the position, remembering that you will have to return to your constituencies and look people in the eye and tell them whether you condone all of the seedy practices that this government has visited upon the people of British Columbia, or whether you say: "No, enough is enough. I am going to represent people rather than political expedience." The choice is yours.

It seems that the the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), the "Minister of Defence" on that side, is the only Liberal who is prepared to get up and in however lame fashion attempt to defend his coalition. He had a lot to say about labour chaos in this province. He had a good deal to say trying to divert attention from the essence of this motion. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that not only was that farcical, but it was particularly.... I can't use the word "hypocritical," Mr. Speaker — I won't do that — but it was very difficult to digest coming from one who has further eroded the credibility of this government, who by his conduct has demonstrated contempt for the independence and the integrity of a quasi-judicial agency of this very government.

I refer, Mr. Speaker, to a decision of the Labour Relations Board, decision number 73/79, in the case of the Association of Commercial and Technical Employees, Local 1728, the complainant, and Dr. Patrick McGeer, the respondent. I want to read to you some excerpts from the decision which that quasi-judicial agency arrived at with respect to a minister of the Crown, a minister who is a lawmaker and a minister who consequently has a bounden duty not only to represent the law well and respect it, but to set an example so that others might respect the law that is passed by all members of this institution.

At page 33 of that decision it says:

"Instead there evolved what can only be described as a program of public coercion, the clear purpose of which was to mount intense and irresistible community pressure on the FANDU membership to give up that membership in the union."

The minister is accused of coercion in a decision by the Labour Relations Board of British Columbia. At page 35 it states:

"Moreover we are satisfied that the statements we have labelled as coercive could reasonably have the effect of compelling or inducing the faculty at NDU to cease to be a member of FANDU. We accept that the statements must have had the chilling effect alluded to in the testimony of Salvo, and that the NDU faculty members must have felt intense pressure to shuck off their lawful union membership."

It goes on. At page 37 it states:

"The difficulty with the position advanced on behalf of Dr. McGeer, however, is that there is a distinction, and sometimes this can have important legal consequences between the introduction or enactment of legislation to reflect and crystallize a government policy and the use of other techniques to achieve one ministry's objectives. When a government introduces legislation, it is debated publicly in the House. Once passed into law, with or without refinements, the government is accountable to the public for that action. This process provides a necessary check on the use of legislative power. That check does not exist where a minister or his officials engage in the kind of conduct under consideration here. The right of the faculty members of NDU to engage in collective bargaining was guaranteed, at least prima facie, by the Labour Code, and as we said earlier, the unfair labour practice provisions of the Code were intended to safeguard employees from various kinds of interference with that right."

The conclusion is marked on page 39, and it states as follows:

"We have weighed with care the desirability, indeed necessity, of the widest possible ministerial freedom of expression against the harm which section 5 of the Code was intended to eradicate and the fundamental freedom it was designed to protect. It is our conclusion that in the manner and to the extent earlier indicated a violation of section 5 did indeed

[ Page 1237 ]

occur. Pursuant to section 38 of the Code we so declare."

Here is a minister of the Crown wilfully and flagrantly breaching an act of this Legislature, and that same member has the unmitigated gall to stand up in this House this afternoon and suggest that there has been a disregard for labour's rights under the previous government. What a farce! What a complete sham! Never in my experience in the Legislature of British Columbia has this kind of contempt for an agency of government been manifested and taken to hearings and condemned as clearly and decisively as the case I have just alluded to. Never! I wonder what the Minister of Labour thinks of that. I wonder if the Minister of Labour or the Attorney-General issued any statement about the impropriety and the inappropriateness of a cabinet colleague breaching a law that they are sworn and bound to not only administer but to protect and uphold. We never heard a word from any of them — not a word.

The point is that we have a government that is contemptuous of the institutions of parliament. We have a government that is contemptuous of the electoral processes. We have a government that is even contemptuous of the law when it comes to serving their own aims and objectives. That, I submit, is a very dangerous situation.

Can it be any wonder that junior staff members, taking their lead from the kind of statements that the Premier has made, taking their lead from the irresponsible statement that the Provincial Secretary has made, and taking their lead from the Minister of Science and Technology's contemptuous conduct in ignoring the laws of this province which protect the right of working people to belong to the union of their choice.... Can it be any wonder that they have indulged in questionable tactics in terms of fighting elections and in terms of manipulating the press? Of course not. Not when in the private sector — which this government likes to refer to so often — there is that kind of internal rot. It is not the secretary and the office boy who are dismissed, Mr. Speaker. It's the board of directors. They're the ones who are responsible.

On every front there has been conduct by this government and its ministers which can only be calculated to lower the esteem of the Legislature, to bring disrepute on the government and to destroy any public credibility that they may have enjoyed in the past and certainly since the last election.

From the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), problems with the law to the extent where they have found it necessary to bug his office....

HON. MR. MAIR: You know better than that.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Minister of Human Resources rises on a point of order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I stand on a point of order. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is not in the House to defend the statement that has just been made which is completely erroneous. I ask the member who has just been standing to make his apologies not only to this House but to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, my hands are tied unless the remark that was made was unparliamentary, which I cannot....

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The remark was unparliamentary.

MR. SPEAKER: Was the remark unparliamentary?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: In order to refresh my memory, what was the remark? I'll rule on it immediately.

MR. KING: The remark was from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: "problems with the RCMP."

Interjections.

MR. KING: Problem with the law?

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. members allow me to look at the Blues and come back to those? I did not hear an unparliamentary statement, and I apologize.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I'm attempting to recite facts here.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the House allow me to peruse the Blues and come back to the House tomorrow?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I heard the remark from the member opposite on the speakers in the building. I think perhaps, to be charitable, it may have been an error on his part, but I would ask him to withdraw the remark that myself, as minister, had troubles or problems with the law which led to the incident which is before this House for consideration. I think it's inappropriate; I think it's improper. At least an apology should be forthcoming, if not a complete withdrawal. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, his ignorance of law and justice is showing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Now that the phrase has been drawn to my attention, inasmuch as it appears to be an attack on an individual member, I would ask the hon. member to please withdraw the phrase and perhaps be a little more selective in his selection of language.

MR. KING: Fine, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw. The only thing I want to clarify is that I did not say: "...which led to bugging his office, trouble with the law." I was referring to his problem of the bugging. Let there be no mistake about that. That was my intention.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member withdraws. Please proceed.

MR. KING: The point I wish to make....

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, if we didn't have so much

[ Page 1238 ]

chatter from the other side, perhaps they would better be able to understand my remarks.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Can we be a little more restrained on both sides. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke has the floor.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I hope this time is not being deducted from my speaking time, because I don't want to waste it on that kind of frivolity.

I did want to comment on the fact that the minister's offices were bugged by the RCMP — his ministerial office in the Legislative Assembly, his office in his constituency and, apparently, his home. I want to observe that it is my understanding that under the Criminal Code the RCMP is obliged to present its request for a listening device to be implanted in such a telephone before a judge, with the provision of some evidence to justify that kind of intrusion into one's privacy. I suggest to you, sir, that when that kind of presentation was made to a judge and he found, apparently, satisfactory evidence to issue that permission against a minister of the Crown, it does little to confirm the confidence of the people of British Columbia....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Attorney-General rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I must rise and suggest to the hon. member that he has drawn an inference with respect to these matters which would suggest criminal conduct on the part of a minister of the Crown. There is no justification whatsoever for that.

MR. LEA: How do you know?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The evidence which is presented before the judge is evidence that a particular interception is required in order to conduct an investigation. It was made perfectly clear by the Crown in the particular case involved that there was no such evidence involving the minister. Yet the member has drawn the clear inference that because this occurred it reflects upon a minister of the Crown.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is clear that the subject which has been approached by the hon. member who now has the floor is not only one which is inflammatory but may well be one which is damaging to the character of one of the members of the House, which, of course, is not allowed. In addition to that, it seems to me that the entire matter being referred to is one upon which a decision is still pending, if I am not mistaken, and perhaps ought to be one which should be avoided until a decision is with us. This is a warning I hope all hon. members will take to heart, and I trust that we can return to reasonable debate. Please proceed.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in the first place, the interruptions are such that I did not have an opportunity to complete my statement with respect to the minister. That's true, and I intend to complete it. In the second place, the Attorney-General's sensitivity is understandable, but he does not have to put words in my mouth. He is barely able to represent himself adequately. I resent him putting words in my mouth and I do not accept the inference which he attributed to me. If that is his submission, so be it.

My point is this: it has been a history in the British parliamentary system that where a minister and his conduct in office is called to question in any way without presuming guilt, without presuming to view the evidence, that minister would stand aside until such time as the whole matter is cleared up. And I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in this case that course of action would have been a very honourable one to take.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On a point of order, the hon. House Leader.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member is suggesting that the minister's conduct is called in question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I cannot hear the point of order.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that the hon. member has suggested that the hon. minister's conduct has been called in question. That's not true. It's not true, and the hon. member should withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in any event, should the action or conduct of any member of this House be called into question and should that be fair debate in this House, it would have to be made on a substantive motion, and I have to tell you that I do not have such a motion in my hand.

The hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke proceeds.

MR. KING: I'm talking about proper respect for the parliamentary system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

MR. KING: I have nothing to withdraw.

Mr. Speaker, that and other matters which I have outlined with respect to statements made by the Provincial Secretary, with respect to statements made by the Premier, and certainly with respect to questions raised about the administration of justice in this province, when it came to a member of the governing party, are such that the credibility of this government has completely collapsed in the public mind and certainly in this chamber.

[ Page 1239 ]

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Attorney-General has overruled Crown counsel....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: I would be ashamed of myself if I belonged to a governing party which had indulged in all of the shabby tricks imaginable.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: Then I'd be ashamed.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: I call for order in the House. I call for orderly debate in the House. I would ask the hon. member who has the floor to cease and desist from debate which is only in order under a substantive motion, and I would ask all the members not to interrupt the man who has the floor and if, indeed, he is making any remarks which are incorrect, he accepts the responsibility for his own statements in this House. Shall there be any corrections to be made by any member they will be made at the conclusion of his speech. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke has the floor. Please proceed.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to raise the question of the Attorney-General overruling Crown counsel's recommendation to prosecute or to take proceedings, at least, against a government member — not only the Crown prosecutor's recommendation but the RCMP — and to suggest that in light of that the ethical conduct of the government could well be called into question and certainly a further signal to party workers, party functionaries and staff that this government is prepared to indulge in any kind of protection to mask the practices which their electoral run for power has been revealed to endorse.

Mr. Speaker, they are the things that this amendment embodies and it is proper that they should be brought to light in this chamber for debate. I can understand the reluctance of government members to face the music and to face the reality of what each and every member of that governing party is indeed a party to and a part of. It's a style for which low party functionaries have taken the rap to this point, completely escaping the concept of ministerial responsibility, completely flying in the face of any parliamentary accountability and then responding in a very inflammatory and really hostile and surprised way when they are called to account in this Legislature. Shame on you! Did you expect to do it all with impunity? Shame on you.

Mr. Speaker, one of the members talked about all the wonderful things this government had done. I want to say to you that the internal problems that they have had, the lack of ethical conduct by this government and their membership has resulted in the complete stultifying of any legislative initiative or approach that they should have been taking, with the exception, Mr. Speaker, of secret cabinet order-in-council. They seem to like to hide everything. They brought in a cabinet order-in-council last summer which changed the farmland classification for taxation. They brought it in after the last session of the Legislature had adjourned. In the secrecy of cabinet they brought through an order-in-council which changed the whole system of taxing agricultural land.

At this point I want to tell you a little bit about the impact that has had in my riding and undoubtedly throughout the province of British Columbia. In the Salmon Arm area it resulted in this article appearing in one of the local papers, referring to one Henry Krebs, an 89-year-old gentleman, and his picture is here on the front page:

"Old-timer may lose farm. Eighty-nine years of age, Henry Krebs, who farms within the district of Salmon Arm, is in danger of losing his farm because of reclassification of farmland. His taxes in 1978 were $1, and in 1979 they were increased to $2,900."

From $1 to $2,900 on an 89-year-old farmer. By secret order-in-council, Mr. Speaker, not by legislative debate, not by consulting members of the opposition and indeed their own back bench about the impact that this kind of surreptitious cabinet order would have on the farmers of this province. Taxation without debate, the exercise of power without debate — it's completely consistent with their contempt for this institution. It's completely consistent with contempt for the Labour Relations Board. It's completely consistent with their contempt for the niceties of proper election practices. They don't want to debate in this Legislature. They don't want to be called to account.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this kind of secret order-in-council system of government smacks of dictatorship, of contempt for parliament. It's something that should not be countenanced in this province. That's another reason I support the amendment.

I've got dozens and dozens of cases here — which I shall be dealing with as the legislative session proceeds — of the harsh, unfeeling and inhuman impact on farmers of the tax policies of this government. Senior citizens all over my riding are being forced off farmland that they have worked for years. This 89-year-old gentleman was born on the same farm that he is now being forced off.

I can understand a policy that would have attempted to drive farmland into use, but to think that without the benefit of debate in this Legislature they would bring in this kind of punitive, secret policy which has the effect of thanking those pioneers who built up our province by kicking them in the pants and saying: "We are going to increase your taxes to such an unrealistic level that your only alternative will be to flee the land" — is that the thanks, is that the compassion that this government shows for the senior citizens, the pioneers of British Columbia?

This minister got up and bragged about their taxation policy. The other minister complained about scurrilous attacks on members of this House. I have never heard such inflammatory attacks on anyone as the member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) made on one Gordon Townsend earlier today, using terms such as scoundrel and so on. They have a double standard, Mr. Speaker: one for themselves and quite another for the people of British Columbia. They're contemptuous; they think they have a God-given right to wield power without even the benefit of democratic parliamentary debate. Shame on them!

I'm going to be dealing a great deal more with this issue of farmland reclassification. I'm going to be dealing with it a great deal, because it is injuring hundreds and hundreds of senior citizens in this province who have pioneered and farmed the land, produced food for this province, and now in their twilight years are being forced to vacate their homes

[ Page 1240 ]

because of the narrow and punitive taxation policies of this government. This government has such contempt for the Legislature that they did not see fit to provide for proper debate of this kind of policy initiative before visiting it on the people of British Columbia. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it's all part and parcel of the same syndrome: a government under siege. A government rocketed from disaster to disaster by their own misconduct are not only unworthy of governing; they are incapable. It's sloppy practice; it is punitive policies against old people such as the farm population which are a manifestation of that inability to plan for the proper and orderly governing of this province. It's brought about by the dry rot that has beset that party from the very core.

I want to say very seriously, Mr. Speaker, that when the vote is taken on this motion, each and every member of this House is going to have to account in his own constituency for how he voted. You're going to have to justify voting for the kind of conduct that would force 80-year-olds off their farms. You're going to have to vote for the kind of ethical standards that you think should be the benchmark in the province of British Columbia. Are you going to validate the shabby record of the government that sits across this House today? Are you going to stand with some independence of mind, some higher devotion to the principles of good government on behalf of all the people of the province, show your independence for once and say: "Enough is enough; we support the amendment."? That's where you should be, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Unless there is a point of order, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is next in rotation.

The Attorney-General on a point of order.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, during the course of his remarks the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke said that the Attorney-General overruled recommendations of Crown counsel and the RCMP with respect to commencing proceedings against a government member. That is not true, and I would ask the member to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member withdraw the statement or allow it to be corrected in the record?

MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that statement. It was the Ministry of the Attorney-General. Apparently the minister is not in total command of that ministry.

MR. SPEAKER: The matter stands corrected. The Attorney-General on a point of order.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In the continuing abuse of the rules of this House by that member, Mr. Speaker, he has only worsened the situation. It wasn't an overruling by a member of the Ministry of the Attorney-General whatsoever, and I would ask the member to withdraw.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It must be the same point; otherwise I must dispose of it first. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Is the minister implying, in terms of my colleague making the decision, that there was no recommendation from Crown counsel or the RCMP to proceed with charges? If indeed that was the case, we have been misinformed by the media, and I would suggest to my colleague that he withdraw. But our information is that the Crown counsel and the RCMP recommended charges be laid. If that information is correct, I would advise my colleague to withdraw his statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Any further opinion on the same point? If not, then all hon. members in this House are honourable members. Their statements are accepted as they are proffered. If any member inadvertently or because of lack of information makes a statement which is incorrect, he then will stand corrected at the suggestion or request of another member. I am not the judge as to which is truth or which is not truth. I must accept the word of an hon. member. There has been an incorrect assumption or statement, and I ask the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke if he will either withdraw the statement or allow it to stand corrected in the record.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is not a debate; this is a point of order.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I withdrew that the Attorney General had ordered them and said that in my understanding it was the ministry. In good conscience and in all truthfulness, that is my understanding, and I'm not prepared to withdraw that.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. The Attorney-General is satisfied?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I'm not satisfied. This member's understanding is wrong and I would ask him to withdraw.

AN HON. MEMBER: On a point of order, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it on the same point?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General has admitted on the record in this Legislature that his ministry officials overruled the decision of the RCMP to lay charges in this case.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same point? It appears we may entering a debate here, hon. members.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I made no such statement in this Legislature. The members' facts are wrong, and I would simply ask them to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: In the instance where a remark is made which is incorrect, it stands corrected as stated by the Attorney-General. Therefore it is a matter not of withdrawal but of correction, and the official record has taken notice.

On a point of order, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, before the member

[ Page 1241 ]

for Shuswap-Revelstoke leaves the chamber I would also ask him to withdraw a statement which he made during his diatribe to this House: that the conduct of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was called to question by the RCMP, as he alluded to certain circumstances. Mr. Speaker, I find that implication to be offensive, and I ask him to withdraw that statement.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister misunderstood. I attempted to outline the sequence of events, as I understand them. I said that the minister's conduct could be called into question, I think, by the public, not by the RCMP. I pointed out that the RCMP must have laid a body of evidence before a judge in order to gain permission for the bugging. Now that was my statement, and that's correct as I understand it.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. We will remedy this. In the absence of immediate Blues, we will remedy this by simply asking the question: did the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) impute any improper motive to the minister? The answer is no.

On a point of order I recognize the member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. NICOLSON: It appears we might be embarking upon what could become a new practice of the House. I think that there are two matters here to be undertaken. I think both members really rose under standing order 42, at which time they can correct a statement made during a speech. I think that the proper time to rise and ask for a withdrawal is at the time. In order that we not embark upon a new procedure, I would appreciate it if you would give this some consideration, in terms of delineating between the two.

MR. SPEAKER: The member makes a good point. The Minister of Municipal Affairs. I want to thank the minister for deferring to another member a few moments ago. Please proceed.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The previous speaker spoke about a style, and he continually harped on a style. Well, I frankly think that his style, and certainly that of those who supported him on the other side in his presentation, is one which we should all detest. I have never heard such horrendous claptrap and innuendo. I was surprised to see the amount of support he received from other members on the same side of the House.

I should remove the tag, Mr. Speaker. I came into the House wearing a "Hello" tag. Actually, that's because I had the pleasure of attending the official opening of our new Social Credit Party office in the 1100 block Blanshard Street. The Premier officially opened the office, and we had hundreds of people attending. The support was tremendous. I think it's indicative of the support for the Premier and for the party, not only throughout the province but right here in Victoria on the Island.

I would like to have spoken in a positive way about the very positive aspects of the throne speech. I'll try to be as brief as possible, since we're dealing with an absolute negative, but not unsuspected, I suppose, amendment by the opposition.

I wish to take this opportunity of showing my full support for the government and, particularly, for the Premier of our province. I came prepared, and I hope I'll have the opportunity later, to discuss those things that I thought perhaps the opposition might have raised, as there had been mention of them previously in the media. I thought perhaps we could talk about energy or the economy or our natural resources or perhaps employment, but no, as I said, we're dealing with a very negative and ridiculous amendment. But it's not surprising. I don't believe that the members on the other side have any understanding of the word or the meaning of leadership. They've never had leadership; they don't understand leadership. If they had understood leadership, would the people of British Columbia have booted them out after only three years of office? If they understood leadership, would they have driven the mining industry down, down, down in only three short years of rule? Would they have killed the forest industry in only three years if they had understood leadership? As a matter of fact, I'm reminded again of their approach to forestry in British Columbia. They went out and purchased millions of trees that they might plant in the area of False Creek in Vancouver. What were they, at the expense to the taxpayers? Hundreds of thousands of dollars went into the purchase of alders, scrub willow and swamp birch; that was their understanding of leadership in our greatest resource — forestry.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, we have the greatest leadership right here in British Columbia today in our Premier. As we have the opportunity of speaking to the very positive Speech from the Throne, I think we'll have an ability to express it. Hopefully there will at least be some recognition for those very positive approaches from the other side of the House, but I have some doubts.

Not only has our Premier shown tremendous leadership in the province, about which I would like to speak in a few moments, but we've also had tremendous leadership shown through his participation at the national level. We in British Columbia have enjoyed a tremendous growth in employment over the last several years, and certainly all knowledgeable British Columbians recognize this and are appreciative of it. We have seen in British Columbia, unlike anywhere else in the world, with the exception of Alberta, a reduction in taxes. We have seen in British Columbia tremendous improvements in all of the social programs, and yet, unlike governments elsewhere, we've been able to do so with a balanced budget.

Our Premier, and this government under his leadership, was able to bring in a program that was watched and commented on by people throughout Canada, the United States and the rest of the world, a program that no national government could take on at this time, a program of subsidizing the mortgages, or making available low mortgage loans to our young people wanting to get into a first home, a program that was brought on stream when the forest industry needed some additional help, when we needed some boost to the economy because of a downturn in the U.S.A. where much of our market is. But this British Columbia government was able to do what no national government anywhere in the world could do.

Mr. Speaker, the truth is there is no leadership issue. This government has done a tremendous job in that respect. The real issue, I think, was well brought to our attention by the introductory remarks by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), who put forth the motion. I would just like to go over

[ Page 1242 ]

his introductory remarks very briefly. I think it ought to be on record, because every British Columbian who cares about the province, its future, our children and their children's children, should hear that message time and time again. The mover said: "I have no use for our system." He spoke against the system. He hates the system. He says the free enterprise system is a heartless system. He detests a system that has effectively worked throughout the western world. I'm wondering, Mr. Speaker, what would happen to the economy of this great province and country if ever — somehow, unfortunately — that member should be in the position of sitting in one of these chairs here and repeat what he said as a member of the opposition. I wonder what would happen to the economy of our great province. What would happen to the industry, the jobs and the investment we need in a growing economy, if he were to repeat that statement sitting on this side in one of these chairs? Disaster! That is the difference. Fortunately, the majority of British Columbians will have no part of socialism.

Do we again need to remind that member for Skeena? I am concerned, because even those statements which he made as a member of the opposition could certainly be of tremendous harm to us in British Columbia. Do we need to remind him that we need only compare the systems that exist in great countries like Canada, the United States and most other nations in the western world with those economies that exist in Russia and China and Cuba and most of those eastern nations, where they too say: "We're socialists."? Does he want the lack of social programs that exists in those so-called socialistic countries? Does he want the rule of Afghanistan as opposed to the rules which we enjoy in a free society in the United States and Canada? Does he not appreciate the great programs that have been provided by a free enterprise system, the social benefits we enjoy in the areas of health care, in long-term care, in human resources, in handicap programs, in the programs that are provided through my ministry to assist municipalities to make decisions for the community at the local level? Does he want to do away with all of that? Mr. Speaker, I think we should repeat his statement over and over again, and remind British Columbians of the consequence that could follow from such ridiculous thinking.

I want to remind that member as well that this beautiful building, with all of its marble and all of the things we enjoy, and that indemnity he is paid — and I don't deny him this — for serving as a member, and the ferries he spoke of which run up and down the coast and back and forth from the Island to the mainland, were provided not from the profits of government but from the hard work of free enterprisers who pay their taxes. When that member from Skeena.... I'm going to go to his constituency and I'm going to read that message from Hansard to all of those people throughout his constituency. I don't believe for one minute that northerners are not good, hard-working, free enterprise people. I'm going to read that message time and time and time again at every opportunity in that man's constituency.

When he speaks of a heartless, free enterprise society, is he speaking about such free enterprise-based groups as the Kinsmen, the Kiwanians, the Lions, the Rotarians, the Elks, the United Way, the March of Dimes? Are these free enterprise groups that heartless bunch of which he speaks? I think it's disgraceful.

But, Mr. Speaker, socialism comes in various shades, all red, but various degrees of red. There are those in Russia who call themselves socialists; there are those in China who call themselves socialists; there are those in Britain who call themselves socialists; there are those in B.C. who call themselves socialists; and, yes, there were those and there are those in West Germany who call themselves socialists. It's all a matter of degree. But from what I've heard today, maybe we've got one of the worst bunches of the whole lot in the whole of the world.

We are a fortunate people in British Columbia. The reason we enjoy all the benefits we enjoy is not only because we have good government now, and it's not only because we have a tremendous Premier at the helm of this government; it's because we have many people who on their own initiative are prepared to get out there and pick up a shovel and do a day's work. They expect rewards, but they'll return what needs to be returned, as they've always done, in order that we might provide programs for British Columbians. They don't want to be herded into some factory that's going to be ruled over by some socialist who thinks that because he's suddenly become a minister he's now an expert on everything in what was otherwise the free enterprise system. They don't want it. If we ever see that day — and I hope it'll never come, for the sake of a great province, which I chose to live in — not by birth; I picked it — and I think it's the greatest place in the whole of the world.... If ever that free enterprise system — which that member for Skeena called heartless and which he detests terribly — should be replaced with socialism, I'd feel terrible for my children and for their children. I care about my kids. I care about their future. I don't need to sit here because I'm out of work, Mr. Member, as you may be. I'm here because I care about my kids.

They talk about leadership. Take a look at our great country, and compare British Columbia and what's happened in these last several years to every other province — I don't care where — in the whole of this great dominion, and nowhere will you see the successes that we've experienced in British Columbia. That didn't come about because we came in on an easy gravy train, like the NDP did back in the early seventies when they inherited a surplus and a province in good shape. No, that came about despite the fact that we were left with a chaotic situation, a deficit and everything going to wrack and ruin after only three years of disaster. Is it not leadership when you see in British Columbia, unlike anywhere else in Canada, a reduction in taxes? Don't you think it's leadership when we appear to be the only province in the whole of the country where in fact we can operate on a balanced budget? Don't you think, Mr. Speaker, it's leadership when we can introduce a great program like BCRIC, which is an example for the whole of the free enterprise world, a program engineered and brought about by our Premier and this government, a program which is now giving every British Columbian an opportunity to invest in the future of this province and get back some of its wealth?

Mr. Speaker, what about B.C. Place? While everywhere throughout the country we have cutbacks, we have a tremendously imaginative program in B.C. Place, which is not only going to be a fantastic place for all British Columbians and all of those who enjoy the beauties of the lower mainland; it's going to be a fantastic place for tourists, who will come from all over the globe to visit the most beautiful city in the world — Vancouver. It is going to add to the economy. It is certainly going to be a tremendous example of the type of leadership we have seen in British Columbia during these last several years.

[ Page 1243 ]

And what about the city of Victoria — a most beautiful city, which is attracting tourists by the thousands and tens of thousands and more every year? Here we have the promise of speedy action on a beautiful convention centre, and similarly in Vancouver. We are seeing example after example of progress through good leadership, like no other place anywhere in North America, let alone Canada.

Mr. Speaker, there is one other thing that really bugged me during all of that diatribe from the other side. That was the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) getting up and questioning the morals of our Premier and making some ridiculous statements. Let me say this very clearly: I think our Premier has more morals in one hair on his head than some members have in the whole of their beards.

I'm proud of British Columbia and I'm pleased to have this opportunity of speaking against this ridiculous amendment. I want to get up in response to the Speech from the Throne and again speak in a positive manner about a positive and very beautiful province which holds nothing but promise under a good system with good leadership. I want all members to turn down this ridiculous amendment and proceed with the activities of the House, to assure that we can continue to provide good leadership and good government in B.C.

MR. HOWARD: I gather I am permitted to rise pursuant to standing order 42, with respect to correction, and simply say that, in listening to the first member for Surrey, his comments with respect to what I had to say were a complete distortion and fabrication for his own peculiar purposes — typical Social Credit connivance and misinterpretation. What can one can expect from a pro-fascist in any event?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I don't know where that member was during the war, and I don't care really, but I can tell him where I was. I know what fascism is, and I would ask that member to withdraw immediately and apologize for that ridiculous remark — which I somewhat expected.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has asked for a withdrawal. Hon. member, would you withdraw?

MR. HOWARD: I thought it was quite appropriate that if he can identify me as a communist, I can toss the word back at him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will you withdraw the remark?

MR. HOWARD: I have no hesitation whatever. Let it stand on the record that he is not gentleman enough to withdraw the accusations he made against me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member withdraws.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I wish to welcome you back to the House and congratulate you on the W.D. Bridge that I gather is going to be constructed. Hopefully it will have tracks as well as traffic lights.

AN HON. MEMBER: Double tracks.

MR. D'ARCY: Double tracks, yes.

This afternoon the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) preempted me. I was hoping to get the opportunity to introduce Mr. Barry Morse, because I felt I knew him intimately, when I was much younger, as one of the deep throats of CB Radio. The reason I have to mention that is that I have to contrast it with today, when a lot of young people, including my own children, think of Barry Morse as the guy who shows up on the scene immediately after traveller's cheques are stolen and has the aplomb, of course, to never be suspected.

I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate the four new ministers who have been elevated to the boat deck of the Titanic, particularly the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich). Those are difficult portfolios in any government, especially under this one. I welcome the member for North Okanagan (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) back into the cabinet. Particularly I want to wish the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) well. Certainly under this government that is a very difficult position to hold, and I hope he manages to hang on to his good humour, which he has always shown in the House.

Before I get into my remarks, Mr. Speaker, regarding this lack-of-confidence motion in the Queen's head adviser, I wish to just make a brief reference to the speech just concluded by the first member for Surrey, the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He has made the suggestion, and I think it's rather a foolish and insensitive suggestion, that a great many public organizations in this province, in fact, have a partisan point of view. I would like to suggest that as a member of this House who has been associated with many community groups and service clubs, both before and since I've been elected to this assembly, I have yet to know of a single local organization of any of the groups that the minister mentioned which had a political point of view. Not only that, it's been my experience that the elected executives of those clubs and organizations at the local level have objected very strenuously to anyone who attempted to bring political discussions or partisan talk into those service clubs or community organizations. Certainly everyone has a secret ballot and a right to take a position in an election, actively or inactively, but there's no room for that sort of thing in the public organizations of this province. It seems to be a figment of the imagination of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

I am very concerned about the leadership of the government of this province. Government is big business in British Columbia. Whether I happen to agree with the policies and points of view of the government is one thing. I feel very strongly on one area, Mr. Speaker, and that is that the government of B.C. must have the confidence of the major industries in this province. It must have the confidence of small businessmen. It must have the confidence of ordinary citizens and working people. It must have the confidence of other provincial governments, of the federal government, and it must have the confidence of foreign governments with whom we are doing business. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the current Premier of this province and the government that he heads do not enjoy the confidence of any of those interprovincial or international or local groups that I have mentioned, regardless of their point of view. Most of them probably don't have a point of view.

It is bad for this province, bad for every citizen, every investor, every pensioner, every property owner and every industrialist to have a situation where no one within the province, even within his own party, even within his own government, has confidence in the Premier and his policies.

[ Page 1244 ]

Little more than a year ago the Premier said (it was a good speech, a good line) B.C. is not for sale. I, for one, believed him to be sincere when he made that statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were alone.

MR. D'ARCY: Hope springs eternal.

Since that time we have seen the spectacle of the government actively supporting greater and greater exports of natural gas — the one domestically consumed fuel, Mr. Speaker, of which British Columbia has an abundance. We have seen the Premier actively support greater and greater amounts of coal to be exported in an unprocessed state. We have seen the government hand out coal leases galore for a pittance, both in the Kootenays and in the Peace River area of the province. We have seen the government idly standing by while Kaiser Resources was transferring effective control to Japanese interests. We've seen the government standing idly by while substantial tracts of land in British Columbia were sold to foreign interests.

We know that the government deliberately, in the area of transportation and tourism, sold outside this province three ferries, as well as the Gray Line tour line. We know that the government, with the effective lobbying of certain backbenchers, has actively followed the policy of issuing more and more restricted hunting permits for the exclusive use of guides and outfitters, who sell those permits to persons not just outside the province but in most cases outside the country. That reduces the number of big game permits available to British Columbians. But the Premier would still have us believe that B.C. is not for sale.

The Premier told us in 1975 and in 1976 that there was not going to be government interference in Crown corporations; there was not going to be political interference. The government was going to appoint the boards and they were going to do their thing in businesslike way.

I'm not going to get into a long discussion of the current ridiculous situation surrounding the British Columbia Steamship Company, Mr. Speaker. I do have to note that it would appear that the B.C. Steamship Company's biggest crime and the Princess Marguerite's biggest crime is that last summer and last fall she began to make money. When you make money and you are a government enterprise under Social Credit, that means you get the skids pulled out from under you pretty darn fast, and that's exactly what's happened to the B.C. Steamship Company.

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise one other notable question of government interference with a Crown corporation. I would note that what has come to be known as Hydro-bashing is a very popular sport in British Columbia with politicians in the Social Credit Party, with politicians in the New Democratic Party and certainly at the municipal level as well. In fact, one individual working for that corporation suggested to me that they had adopted the mantle that used to be worn by the CPR 30 years ago, where you could blame the weather and crop failures and Lord knows what else on the Canadian Pacific Railway. Now in British Columbia it has come to be B.C. Hydro.

In any event, for once B.C. Hydro last year took a responsible position that nearly all British Columbians could agree with before the National Energy Board on the question of Westcoast Transmission's application to export greater amounts of natural gas. B.C. Hydro, at those hearings, when they intervened, took the position that since this was a fossil fuel, since it had a preferred rate, a preferred cost of delivery relative to hydroelectric electricity and petroleum, and since we could control the price in British Columbia.... Therefore they made the very logical assumption that the use of natural gas for residential, commercial and industrial purposes in British Columbia was going to grow in relation to other forms of energy. They also made the point that there were large parts of British Columbia, particularly Vancouver Island, that were not yet served by this resource which belongs to all British Columbians, and therefore we really had no knowledge of what our demand was going to be for this fossil fuel over the next 20, 30 or 40 years. Even though we had some knowledge of what the supply might be we had no knowledge of what the demand might be. It was a very reasoned and cautious position, Mr. Speaker, as I said before, one that nearly all British Columbians could relate to.

As soon as the government heard that B.C. Hydro had taken this position before the National Energy Board, there was immediate political interference from the Premier and the Minister of Energy through the board of directors of Hydro, telling them to cease and desist from their involvement at those hearings that were taking place before the National Energy Board. I consider this a very serious case of immediate and direct political interference with a Crown corporation that was taking a responsible position before a national export agency.

Mr. Speaker, what ever happened to the non-political boards of British Columbia Railway? What happened to the McKenzie commission, which made certain recommendations, some of which the board may have been interested in. But we certainly know that none of those recommendations were acceptable to government, and so they didn't take place.

Mr. Speaker, what is the government's and the Premier's position on energy developments in the northern part of the province? Nearly six months ago British Columbia Hydro announced that they were about to apply for a water licence to build a dam on the Peace River at Site C, because they said, and I believe them to be correct, that if the demand for electricity continues to grow in British Columbia, another hydroelectric project needs to be commenced. I'm not advocating here that Site C is the one that they should build first; I only note that it happens to be the one, for better or for worse, that B.C. Hydro has furthest advanced on the drawing board.

They were told by government that the ground rules for issuing water licences and issuing permits to go ahead with hydroelectric projects were about to be changed, and just to hold the phone for a little while. Mr. Speaker, that was six months ago. The government, in spite of an energy policy statement that really was no policy at all, in spite of being in office for now a little over four years, has yet to decide exactly what is likely to be changed — or if anything is likely to be changed — in the ground rules regarding the applications to government for permission to go ahead with hydroelectric projects. And so the large Crown corporation shakes its head and says: "My god, here we have a government that can't make decisions, even on policy changes."

What about the other energy proposals in the north? I should say in the central part of the province really, Mr. Speaker, because we are told by a great many people, including the Aluminum Co. of Canada, that they are prepared — once again, for better or for worse — to go ahead with a major project known as Kemano II. We also know that over and

[ Page 1245 ]

beyond that project B.C. Hydro has considerable interest in what may happen to certain waters involving the Bulkley River and the Morice River, and yet we see no action by government to take any leadership, environmentally or economically, on this proposal either.

Three or four years ago, B.C. Hydro announced that they were ready to proceed with the thermal project at Hat Creek. I'm not advocating that that go ahead at this point. I would want to point out, however, that they indicated to the government that they were prepared to proceed with this if the government could tell them what emission control standards would be acceptable. They asked the Premier, they asked the Energy minister, they asked the Environment and Land Use Committee. They have still to get an answer on that point, and so naturally the Hat Creek thermal project has gone on the back burner and all of the investment that B.C. Hydro has put into that project, using your electric bills and mine to pay for it, at this point is completely wasted because the government is unable to make a decision on emission control standards on a project that's been on the Premier's desk for three years.

Perhaps the Premier, since he is in the House now and is getting somewhat vocal, could tell us where he personally believes hydroelectric development should take place in the north, if it's to take place at all. Does he prefer the Nass? Does he prefer the Stikine-Iskut? Is he going to give Hydro a go-ahead on the Liard? Could the Premier perhaps tell us whether or not he and his government and his Intergovernmental Relations minister intend to fill the empty British Columbia chair in the discussions which are currently going on between Ottawa, the Yukon Territories and the state of Alaska over Northern Power's proposal to build a dam on the Yukon River, thereby, Mr. Speaker, cutting off any options B.C. may have in the future for a Taku diversion? That chair has been empty for some time.

I'm not advocating the Taku diversion here, but I am suggesting very strongly that if there is an empty chair involving British Columbia energy resources going on interprovincially and internationally, the Premier is completely derelict in his duty by not even having an observer there. Where was the Premier and his government and where are the Premier and their government when just over the border from Abbotsford there is still the possibility of a nuclear power plant right in the foothills of Mount Baker, a partially active volcano? Where was the Premier?

Mr. Speaker, while we're on the subject of nuclear power plants, why has there been no mention of nuclear power either in the energy statement or in the statement made the other day regarding the moratorium on uranium exploration and uranium mining? There has been no statement surrounding the possibility of nuclear power plants in British Columbia.

What is the Premier's and the government's position on the question of tanker traffic on the British Columbia coast? Every political party in Canada saw before the Premier and his government that the best proposal, from British Columbia's point of view, of getting arctic and Yukon petroleum south to the lower 48 was the Foothills proposal. It was the best proposal environmentally and the best proposal economically for British Columbia. Every one in the country saw that except the B.C. government; they were the last ones to show any leadership on this question. We don't know for sure whether this is needed, but I would suggest that the government's foot-dragging on the issue made the question of tanker traffic on the west coast, possibly two routes, absolutely inevitable. There'll be tanker traffic through the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and at the same time we hear certain Social Credit activists from the past trotting out that old Kitimat pipeline proposal.

Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit Party when they came into office in 1975 never was pretending to have a big heart. Naturally there was a lot of apprehension among a great many organizations in the health-care field and the social-services field, but since that time the confidence that was felt in 1975 and 1976 by commercial and industrial interests in this province — confidence in the judgment and the ability of the Premier and his government — has absolutely disappeared, until major segments of the industry today are saying that almost anything would be better — almost anyone would be better.

What's happened to the people who were supposed to know how to run the store? These are the people who gave us the Family Relations Act that was tossed out of the courts. These are the people who gave us the Seaboard fiasco. It was the Premier and his government that gave us the Heroin Treatment Act. It was the Premier and his government that had to face, on the eve of a provincial election last spring, an auditor-general's report that stated that several million dollars were inadequately accounted for during the period this government was in office.

I would find it rather interesting to know whether the Premier and his ministers would be pleased when they are on one of their many trips — if they happen to be visiting, let's say, West Germany, looking for investment in British Columbia or for money to borrow for one of their major capital projects, which they seem to have to borrow money for, or merely looking for markets for British Columbia goods — I would wonder how they would take to having the government of West Germany, the government of Helmut Schmidt, know about the kinds of remarks that have been made in this House today by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem); those insulting remarks, Mr. Speaker, on the integrity and morals of a government of a country which has the firmest currency in the world, the lowest inflation rate, and the lowest unemployment rate of all developed western democracies. They like to make those statements in this chamber, but I sincerely doubt the Premier is going to continue to encourage his ministers and his members to make statements like this, as to whether they are having a positive effect on international and national confidence in the government of British Columbia, which I discussed earlier.

Mr. Speaker, we have had people in this debate today, as we have had over the last few years, rant and rave and boast around the allegation that this government has reduced taxes. Only one tax in this province has been reduced since this government took office. It took them four years to do it, and only after increasing that tax for the first period of office. And that was the social services sales tax, which is now 4 percent; it used to be 5 percent when they took office; for most of the time in between it was 7 percent.

What else has happened, though? Is the government across the way going to suggest that they have lowered property taxes in British Columbia? Is the government going to suggest that they have lowered car insurance rates? That is in effect a tax, because you have to have it if you're going to drive a car? Is the government going to suggest that they have lowered ferry rates since they took office? Is the government

[ Page 1246 ]

going to suggest that they have lowered Hydro rates? Let's get down to one of the most nefarious taxes of all that this government has been involved in, and that is personal and corporate income tax. This government raised personal and corporate income taxes. By the way, Mr. Speaker, I'm not talking about the tax points that were transferred due to a change in federal policy; I'm talking about the basic personal income tax that was raised three percentage points by this government when they took office. It has yet to be lowered. That applies to corporation income tax as well as to personal income taxes. The reason I referred to it as a nefarious tax increase is that we all know that income taxes have a built-in inflation factor. As people's wages and salaries and business earnings increase, hoping to keep pace with inflation, they find that even though they have the same — or even a lower — real disposable income, in fact their income tax as a percentage of that has gone up.

While this government has been in office, the government take out of the gross provincial product has been increasing every single year, in spite of what they say come budget time. Hydro income as a percentage of gross provincial product has increased. Car insurance as a percentage of gross provincial product has increased. Property taxes have increased as a percentage of the gross provincial product.

Mr. Speaker, during this period of time that they have been in office, the real wages and salaries of British Columbians have declined. They have declined and so has small business net revenue after taxes. To put it in five concise words, Mr. Speaker, inflation in British Columbia has been higher than salary growth in real terms.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has left the chamber. I suppose he's gone into the bunker. He is seldom in the House these days. The one thing that really worries me is the confidence that all British Columbians seem to lack in the Premier and his government.

In the eight years I have been in this House, Mr. Speaker.... When the Premier entered the House — whether it was the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) or the member for South Okanagan (Hon. Mr. Bennett) — the members of his party applauded, particularly at the opening or the early stages of a session. On the few occasions of this session when the Premier has entered the House, there has been no applause from the treasury benches, Mr. Speaker, and there has been no applause from the back bench. That is the level of confidence that his own appointed cabinet and elected backbenchers of the Social Credit Party have.

Mr. Speaker, I think we should record for Hansard that the Social Credit Party applauds the entrance to the House of the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) in far greater terms than they are concerned about their own leader.

As a British Columbian and as a Canadian, while I disagree with many of the policies of the government, it disturbs me greatly that so many major segments of the British Columbia economy and British Columbia society, regardless of how they voted last April, feel deep in their hearts that they simply don't trust or believe in the judgment and integrity of the present government of British Columbia. Unless the government can turn that around somehow, I would anticipate that they will go down to a resounding defeat, which they clearly richly deserve, in the next provincial election.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) has been out in the library doing some research on the Taku diversion. He possibly hadn't heard of it before. However, in the period between now and when the Premier, or whoever succeeds him, dissolves this Legislature and goes to the people I trust that the government will make sincere attempts to work with the members of this House and with all British Columbians who are concerned about the level of dismay and the lack of esteem and of confidence in which the Premier of this province and the government are held by so many people here, in our neighbouring provinces and in other countries. Because we are all a loser, Mr. Speaker.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the amendment.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: May we proceed, hon. members.

MR. STRACHAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. To paraphrase the famous bard, "Methinks they protesteth too much." However, it occurs to me that the opposition are raising the amendment because they really have nothing much else to say. They have nothing at all to say about our government, our legislation or our record. So with this absence of anything to criticize, the opposition party takes the only thing they can find and trots out all of their 1976 speeches, picks out some items from the newspaper and proposes non-confidence in the Premier.

I want to tell all members that if there's anyone who should be worried about leadership in this House it is the Leader of the Opposition. If this is the only opposition he can muster, he's got a far bigger problem than anyone on this side of the House. If that Leader of the Opposition can condone what has gone on this afternoon and then again this evening, then I would submit that there is no official opposition, rather a leaderless ragtag bunch of muckrakers. Come on now, folks, where is your great socialist philosophy? Where is your great defence of all that you hold holy? Where is your manifesto? Where is the opposition?

The members opposite have asked one question since we began sitting, one question only. Question period has been dismal; but they have asked one question: do we support the Premier? Of course we support the Premier. Our party supports the Premier, and the electorate of British Columbia support the Premier. That, my friends, is why we're government and you're not. It's democracy.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has called us negative. Well, Mr. Speaker, on some things we are negative, I must admit. We don't want to see this great province go down the tube again, we don't want to see people in industry leave, we don't want to see the tourists being told to go home, we don't want to see pothole highways, we don't want to see labour unrest decimate our province, and we don't want to see our province in the red. We are negative about those things.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No more reds.

MR. STRACHAN: Being in the red, that's right. That colour might be politically attractive to the members opposite, but it certainly doesn't look well on a ledger sheet.

As a member, I'm starting to feel pretty negative about those members opposite. They're wasting the taxpayers' money with this drivel about the Premier. When I spoke to

[ Page 1247 ]

the throne speech yesterday, Hansard will record my statement that the only thing missing from His Honour's address was something to criticize. Now someone in the NDP got that statement sorted out pretty quickly and I'm sure said: "You know, the member for Prince George South is right. This speech is too solid." Well, not knowing what to do then, they probably asked themselves: "What do we do now?" "I don't know," said one. "Beats me," said the other. Finally someone in the NDP caucus said: "Well, if we can't think of anything to say, then let's dig out some of those newspaper articles that speak against the government. Let's see what we can dig up from someone else's research." Well, they did, Mr. Speaker, and here we are listening to these people regurgitate the news — big, lumpy chunks of news. And this is opposition.

This is silly. The amendment's a crock, Mr. Speaker; and you know that, members opposite. Mr. Speaker, those members opposite have had seven months to do research, form an opposition party, plan strategy, and get their act together. These seven months were not very effective.

Those members make a lot of noise about some of the members of our caucus that used to sit in opposition.

Interjections.

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

MR. STRACHAN: Those members opposite have made an awful lot of noise about the make-up of our caucus and about some of the current members of our caucus who used to sit on the opposition benches. I think the real reason they're so miffed at the present make-up of our caucus is that when those members left the opposition benches, the NDP lost their only source of inspiration. I think that is most evident.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) has asked us to go back to our constituencies and look our constituents in the eye. Well, Mr. Member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, wherever you are, I am going to do that and I am going to tell them about this opposition.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour — the member for Prince George North (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) — and myself had some pretty good opposition during the campaign. We were opposed by some well-qualified — in my estimation — NDP opponents. They mounted an effective campaign; they tried to bury the NDP advertising that was hurting them so much and, in general, they were quality opponents.

Their advertising...this is interesting. Mr. Kinnaird is telling everybody, on behalf of the NDP, what our government is doing to hospitals. Right on 15th Avenue in Prince George we have a $3.5 million expansion going on. Needless to say, that type of advertising by Mr. Kinnaird wasn't very effective on behalf of the party — and they had a doctor running!

If those candidates who opposed the Minister of Labour and myself were in the House right now, they would be ashamed of the opposition's debate. They would be red-faced and embarrassed beyond belief with their party.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King): I have no trouble at all looking my constituents in the eye. I am going to show them Hansard from today and from this evening and I am going to point out most abundantly the deficiencies of the opposition. The opposition argument is all over the place. We have a specifically stated amendment. The members opposite are trotting out every argument they have ever written, everything from Hydro to the Marguerite, from soup to nuts. Flexibility is wonderful, hon. members opposite. It helps you wriggle through life; it also helps you when you are on the run. And that is where the opposition is — on the run.

Mr. Speaker, I speak against the amendment. Let's defeat it and let's get on with the business of the people.

Mr. Passarell moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:53 p.m.