[ Page 1249 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

High interest rates on AHOP mortgages. Mr. Gabelmann –– 1249

BCDC loans and U.S. prime rate. Mr. Leggatt –– 1249

Bank of Canada interest rates. Mr. Stupich –– 1249

Allegations against Ritchie. Mr. Macdonald –– 1250

Environmental reports on Okanagan Lake system. Mr. Skelly –– 1250

Facilities at Como Lake private hospital. Mr. Cocke –– 1250

Administration of James Bay Lodge. Mr. Cocke –– 1250

Surgery cancellations in Victoria. Mr. Hanson –– 1251

Speech from the Throne.

On the amendment.

Mr. Passarell –– 1251

Mr. Ritchie –– 1252

Mr. Cocke –– 1255

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 1259

Mr. Lockstead –– 1263

Mr. Brummet –– 1264

Mr. Levi –– 1266

Hon. Mrs. Jordan –– 1271

Presenting reports

Public Service Benefit Plans Act, third annual report as at March 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1275

Pacific National Exhibition financial statements as at November 30, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1275

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia live in hope; we have a great deal of hope for the future of this province. Today I would like to introduce the mayor of Hope, Bud Gardner, and Alderman Alex Kirilows.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to introduce to the House a very close friend of mine, Vanessa Geary, who is here with a friend of hers, Annette Burkhart.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce three close friends of mine, Mr. and Mrs. Sparks and Mr. George Zimmich. Mr. Zimmich is a miner who lives very close to me up in Atlin when he is allowed to mine.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce Brian Klaver, seated in your gallery, who is now a student at the University of Victoria. Brian was the mayor of Port Hardy in the old days when it was part of Comox constituency. He gave up politics to become a student. I hope we will make him welcome this afternoon.

Oral Questions

HIGH INTEREST
RATES ON AHOP MORTGAGES

MR. GABELMANN: My question is to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). In view of the ever-increasing mortgage interest rates — 20 percent in the U.S. as of Tuesday — and in view of the fact that the renewals are now coming up on mortgages on assisted home ownership plans, and interest rates presently mean that those average- and low-wage earners are about to lose their AHOP homes as a result of dramatic increases in monthly payments — in some cases a doubling and tripling of monthly payments — what has the minister done to protect these people?

HON. MR. CHABOT: No one residing in an AHOP home has approached me expressing the concern which the member for North Island has expressed. Based on that statement, I have to believe that it is a concern that is prevalent only in the mind of that member.

BCDC LOANS
AND U.S. PRIME RATE

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development. It also concerns this real crisis we are going to have in interest rates. As you know, the American prime rate is now projected at up to 20 percent. It's presently at 17½ percent, Mr. Speaker, so we know it's going up. The minister has responsibility for the British Columbia Development Corporation, and at the present time the loans from that organization are running, I believe, at 1 to 2 percent above prime, although I understand that the LILA rate is also a subsidized rate that is dependent on the prime rate. Now my question is this: what action is the minister taking now to tie the prime rate of BCDC down so that it doesn't leap ahead with the rates that are obviously going to go up if the present federal government continues its policy of just following U.S. prime rates?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the hon. member's question, as you know, we have, through negotiation with the federal government, brought in the Low Interest Loans Assistance program, which has helped many hundreds of businesses in this area. We've also brought in our Assistance to Small Enterprise Program, which has helped more than 500 small manufacturing firms in this province that need assistance to expand their manufacturing base. The member should also know that negotiations with Ottawa…. We've signed our TIDS agreement to help the tourist industry develop and expand. We will continue to monitor the situation, Mr. Speaker. We realize that high interest rates are indeed an inflationary problem in British Columbia, and that's why this government was able to put out $200 million to help every homeowner, to help people to build homes.

I would suggest that maybe the member should question the federal government, which is in charge of interest rates, and wait until the budget comes out.

MR. LEGGATT: I have a supplementary question. The minister, of course, knows that he has jurisdiction over BCDC, and he doesn't have to slavishly follow the federal government on prime rates. This government has the power to set the rate at BCDC, and it knows it. Presently, under these loan programs, the minister restricts the loan to certain target areas; there are areas in British Columbia, for example, that are excluded from the program — Victoria and Vancouver. It also is limited to manufacturing and processing, which means that there are many, many small businesses in British Columbia that don't qualify for this kind of money that should be available to everyone. Is the minister now going to change the target area, and is he also going to expand the limitations on the loan so that every small business man in British Columbia gets a crack at this money?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm very disappointed that the member for Coquitlam-Moody hasn't done his homework. They seem to be very ill-prepared to come into this House and debate the issues. Last year in the Legislature in the budget speech during my estimates we brought out and expanded the LILA program, which is a B.C. program, to all the lower mainland, to Victoria and to the lower part of the Island. So I would suggest the member do his homework before he stands up. If he's going to be the critic on economic affairs, I see that I'm going to have to take him for three or four days and educate him so that he can at least be credible in opposition.

BANK OF CANADA INTEREST RATES

MR. STUPICH: If I could just for a moment join in the filibuster attempt by the Minister of Economic Development, from what I've heard of that $200 million program something less than everybody is being helped by it. My question is to the Minister of Finance. Will the government join with the official opposition in urging the governor of the Bank of Canada not to follow the example of the U.S. banks and in urging the federal government to roll back interest rates to prevent this institutional usery from economically crippling the citizens of B.C.?

[ Page 1250 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: I would find it a little strange for the government to join with the official opposition in enunciating a policy which has been very clearly, frankly and forcefully enunciated by the Premier of this province repeatedly in negotiations with Ottawa.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm still not clear as to whether or not the government has taken any action with respect to the recent increases in interest rates, whether the government has made any representations to the governor of the Bank of Canada recently with respect to the most recent increase and whether or not — I hope the minister is able to listen to me and to the Premier, Mr. Speaker — the government is currently encouraging the federal government to do anything about the rapidly increasing interest rates.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think it is a matter of record over a good long time, and again very recently, that the government of British Columbia, through constitutional papers, through direct contact, through....

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: The point has been made repeatedly and very forcefully by this government, and directly to the governor of the Bank of Canada, with respect to our position concerning high interest rates. I think the member, in asking the question, knows the answer, sir.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST RITCHIE

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney-General. On Monday last I asked a number of questions relating to the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley. The Attorney-General has had two days to consider the matter. My question to him is this: has the minister now decided whether or not he will answer those questions that he took on notice?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The procedure in our House is that if a minister takes a question on notice, it is at his discretion that he bring back the answers.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Attorney-General may wish to answer.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I've asked him whether he has decided whether or not he will answer the questions.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'll answer. Mr. Speaker, while it is a question which under your rules is not obliged to be answered, I would like to allay any fears of the hon. member. I decided at the same time the questions were asked that they would be answered. Very specific questions were asked with respect to dates. The official of my ministry who has those dates available to him has been out of Victoria until noon today, and I expect to have the answers back, hopefully for tomorrow.

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS ON
OKANAGAN LAKE SYSTEM

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Environment confirm that 1978 and 1979 reports of the 2,4-D program in the Okanagan lake system are now complete, including reports on stem counts, areas treated, costs, drift studies and aquatic ecosystem impacts?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. I'm informed by officials of my ministry that these reports are not yet complete, but will be shortly. I'm also informed that the results of the reports are disappointing, in that they feel that they are not really startling.

MR. SKELLY: I don't think anybody is looking for startling reports, Mr. Speaker. But I have a further question to the Minister of Environment: has he decided to make these reports public, so that they will be in the hands of people prior to the Pesticide Control Appeal Board hearings for the 1980 permits for Wood Lake and Kalamalka Lake?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Subject to those reports being available, Mr. Speaker. However, I would not want to delay or give the false impression that we were prepared to delay our implementation of the hearings before the pesticide control branch based on these reports not being available — as it affects Kalamalka Lake and Wood Lake.

FACILITIES AT COMO
LAKE PRIVATE HOSPITAL

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. At Como Lake Private Hospital, we are informed, there are no personal toilet articles and only four commode chairs for 70 bedridden patients. Has this private hospital passed inspection under the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act?

HON. MR. MAIR: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

ADMINISTRATION OF
JAMES BAY LODGE

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I noted that some time ago, just before Christmas as a matter of fact, when the minister was full of the spirit, he announced that he was apprehensive about the profits accruing to the operators of private hospitals from long-term care patients who are funded by the government. Does the minister realize that Beacon Hill Lodges of Canada Ltd., which owns James Bay Lodge, made a net profit after taxes last year of 16.85 percent?

Does the minister also realize that, while there was an inquest going on over the case of the person, Mr. Pascoe, that I brought up the other day, there was an Ada Lock who also fell to her death from this same private hospital funded partly by government money? And the minister is concerned over their making large sums of money. I'm concerned, Mr. Speaker, about them squeezing the government in terms of their service. What is the minister's reply?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I had a very difficult

[ Page 1251 ]

time discerning the question. I heard a number of statements and I'm grateful for the information that the member gave me — which I already knew — but I'm afraid I did not detect a question. I'll be delighted to answer one, if you'll put a question to me.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the member will state the question, remembering the rule that it's not permitted in this House to make a statement under the guise of a question.

MR. COCKE: Oh, Mr. Speaker, how would I ever be accused of such a thing? I would ask the minister whether he has developed policy around the question of profits in the private hospitals catering to public cases.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: Let it be shown, Mr. Speaker, that the question was clearly out of order.

SURGERY CANCELLATIONS
IN VICTORIA

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the Minister of Health. Would the Minister of Health please confirm that surgery cancellations at the Royal Jubilee and Victoria General Hospitals have risen to a figure of 253 for the first two months of this year? In view of the fact that the elective surgery list in the two hospitals combined now totals 2,300, and that these two hospitals are operating at 99 percent capacity, what action has the minister taken to overcome the serious situation for the period intervening, prior to the Helmcken hospital coming on line?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I am going to take that question on notice, but I am going to undertake to the member and to the House to bring a full statement on this situation to the House, I would hope, within the week.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. PASSARELL: Right at the onset I'd like to congratulate the hon. member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) on his selection as the Deputy Speaker, and secondly I'd like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on the handling of what we did yesterday.

Speaking on this motion, I was sitting back yesterday and listening to the name-calling — and I certainly hope it doesn't happen today as much as it did yesterday.... On this non-confidence in the present leader, in the Times newspaper yesterday there was talk about beating the bushes for votes, and I was wondering why the Premier of this province was having such a difficult time controlling his group. It was given to me right on the front page of the newspaper, Mr. Speaker, and by the hon. member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem). I'd just like to read this to you, sir. In fact, says the hon. member, he wouldn't be surprised to see a Sasquatch elected to the Legislature. "I think you would find one taking a prominent place in our party." Well, there it is. There's the leadership right there — the Sasquatch for that party.

Why does this government lose the confidence of the people? First, the Premier himself not voting.... There he goes. He leaves. He knows — it's not important for one vote. Well, just ask my opponent, Mr. Speaker, how important one vote was. Secondly, we get hired employees of this government told to do a job, to carry out the orders like good soldiers, and what happens? They're dumped upon, fired or asked to resign, because these good people, the little people, were forced to sacrifice themselves, pressured to take the full blame for the disrespectful conduct of this government. The wealthy, up to their elbows in sugar, are calling the little people who did their dirty work "jerks" and "stupid." What shameless respect for these people who just did their jobs.

Let's review some of the facts and put them into the public record. Earlier yesterday afternoon the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) spoke about moral conduct. What type of moral conduct is demonstrated by a government that allows Social Credit campaign tapes to tell workers to forge names, and then many months later, when it appears in the press, uses the line: "We don't know anything about these tapes."? The word was out to cover up, to put the blame on the poor little people of that party.

One of the disadvantages of this madness, Mr. Speaker, is the embarrassment to the government of B.C., not only to the leader but also to the backbenchers, who must face their constituents. Not every one wins a cabinet seat. No matter if they're sugar stilettos, no bouncing through the flower bed will save face for this government. Truth, like secret reports that are covered up because of political motives....

I'd like to tell a little story about these dirty tricks, Mr. Speaker, and what I am going to use is a literary guide. So often in debates we talk about famous books and novels to give a philosophy. Well, my literary guide today to talk about this government, its leader and the dirty tricks is TV Week, a famous literary guide, to demonstrate an issue. This story will be interspersed with TV shows to make the point — the wheel of fortune, spinning around, not letting anyone off. Why the issues of dirty tricks became a problem was because of two shows, Mr. Speaker: "The Young and the Restless," and "The Chain Reaction of a Government."

Referring back to the motion, Mr. Speaker, "The Guiding Light" of that party was caught into "The Good Life," and was afraid of losing power at any cost. The government believed in "One Life to Live," and National Geographic's "The Invisible World." Power could not be lost at any cost. "As the World Turns," the little people involved were dumped upon. "The Hour of Power" and "Faith for Today" came into the crest. The mad dash began by members seeking cabinet positions. The first member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Rogers) said it's a complete tempest in a teapot. Soon the sugar stiletto was stuck in again; the sugar-coating aspect of Miss McKay's and Mr. Kelly's dismissal was nothing more than a family feud by members wanting a cabinet position.

Next the "Comedy Shop" pops up, hon. members, knowing that by getting out and cutting the little guy the government would be saved. The reward — a cabinet position by a government who knew their "Love Boat" was sinking. The "Search for Tomorrow" was followed by Mr. Kelly resigning. Miss McKay stuck to her guns. "The $20,000 Pyramid" all became active ingredients in the government's "Hour of Power."

Mr. Speaker, the government, knowing by this time that the "Funorama" was becoming serious in the eyes of the

[ Page 1252 ]

public, next became the "Boomerang" in "The Price Is Right" by the government, who saw its leadership falling apart. That government was left leaderless, Mr. Speaker, like the "Banana Splits," heading off into the deserts of California to "Take Thirty," with no forwarding address, as the "Bewitched" aspects of public life caused another holiday.

Referring back to the motion, Mr. Speaker, the "Nature of Things," demonstrated the "Quirks and Quarks" of that leader. For a time it looked like the government was "Over Easy" and "Eight Is Enough," but the foolishness continued. Soon the government's life became "One Day at a Time." As soon as one cabinet minister, or aspiring cabinet minister, bailed out the "Love Boat," another "Tempest" filtered down upon this government, showing distrust at the abilities of the "Jokers are Wild."

Referring back to the motion, Mr. Speaker, why this debate is happening is because "The Guiding Light" became the "Comedy Shop," all because "The Price Is Right" and "The Good Life" was too good. "As the World Turns" became "Fantasy Island," with the "One Life to Live" of this government falling apart because "Masterpiece Theatre" became "The Saint," since dirty tricks had progressed from the "Dukes of Hazard" to "Definitions" to the news, until finally, not even the "Incredible Hulk" could save the face of this government, who found "Another World" in the "Monty Python" "Midnight Special" of government.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the niceties of public life when a scandal appears is not an issue to take lightly, or allow to drag on for months. The scandals are thrust upon this government, and the government alone, with its leader, must take full blame and responsibility.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will stop and go watch some afternoon TV, and I also support this motion.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I know that you were very concerned about my adjustment from life down on a turkey farm to political life when I was elected last year. Well, Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that as I observed the opposition yesterday I felt very much at home.

I don't intend to begin my remarks with a recitation of economic statistics with which members opposite are perfectly familiar. The steady hand of our Premier has steered this province on a course of fiscal responsibility and growth. He has once again made British Columbia a province where investors are prepared to risk their money and to create jobs. I will not recite the facts to the opposition for the umpteenth time, because I don't think it would get through.

What I will tell them, however, is that the Premier of the province of British Columbia, the hon. member for South Okanagan, has brought this province into the twentieth century as far as the governing process is concerned. He and he alone must get the credit for introducing sound management principles to B.C. in the seventies. Was this provided by NDP government? Did that government introduce reforms to the planning and the budgeting system? The answer is a resounding no. They didn't know how.

The members opposite cherish their reputation as reformers, but there is no record of reform during their time as government. Rational and sound government is what taxpayers want today and that is what they are getting from the present government. The performance of this government and this Premier has built confidence in the efficiency and the economy of provincial affairs.

The people of this province will always be indebted to the present Premier for his efforts at reforming and strengthening the administration of the public purse — not the public trough but the public purse. It is well known that such reforms were sadly lacking during the NDP term of office. If any of the members opposite are in doubt on this score, I refer them to the article written by Professor Paul Tennant on the NDP administration between 1972 and 1975.

The article I refer to is appropriately titled: "The NDP Government of British Columbia: Unaided Politicians in an Unaided Cabinet." The second sentence of this political scientist's analysis of the NDP government reads as follows: "Under the NDP government the cabinet, lacking staff agencies and firm leadership, proved unable to effect interdepartmental coordination." Professor Tennant goes on: "Thus, contrary to what might have been expected, the NDP government was characterized by lack of overall planning and coordination." That comes as a real surprise to you. It is not a surprise to the people out there. Under the present Premier this province has been given all the things that were lacking under the NDP government. They talk about leadership. Our Premier gave this province the sound management it needed.

Mr. Tennant's conclusion, written less than two years after the swearing in of the present Premier, is: "With the defeat of the NDP, the Social Credit government introduced planning and coordination at all levels of cabinet. That was the beginning of a series of reforms designed to make B.C. the best-governed province in Canada." Mr. Speaker, that was the beginning of the application of modern management thinking.

Does the opposition really think British Columbians will fall for their arguments about a lack of confidence in this government? Were the people of this province confident in the NDP government, which Dr. Tennant called "little more than a bargaining centre, lacking a collective view of overall government problems"? The people of this province showed just how confident they were in the NDP government when they threw it and its leader out only three years and three months after it was elected. That is non-confidence.

How could any reasonable person support an amendment put forward by such a negative group — a group that blew a golden opportunity, an opportunity to govern in a debt-free province with a substantial surplus? In about four years our government, under our Premier's leadership, has brought stability to a province which was on the brink of financial disaster.

The second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) went on at great length to justify this amendment. Does he expect this House to take his remarks seriously? I don't think so. Or maybe he is naive. Does he expect to be treated as a moral paragon, joining the self-righteous condemnation which is typical of the opposition's contribution to this debate? I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) is the former minister who tried to use his office for political, partisan purposes. We talk about dirty tricks. This is the member, you may recall, who told the employees of Panco Poultry that they had better vote NDP in the 1975 election or face the loss of their jobs. Dirty tricks? A letter on government stationery said: "If you don't vote for us, you are going to lose your jobs." You talk about ethics! I'm sorry he's not in his chair today. Talk about abuse of office! Disgusting!

Then we also heard from the first member for Vancouver

[ Page 1253 ]

Centre (Mr. Lauk). Oh, yes. There is another opposition stalwart.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are all these people?

MR. RITCHIE: Oh, they're disappearing; they can't take the heat. He's a stalwart who would abandon his principles in his search for votes. I refer to the support for independent schools, made possible by this government. Only three years after his party had done everything in its power to prevent such support from being given, he wrote this letter and he said: "We will support your private school system if you return us to government." Dirty tricks?

Then, of course, we heard a little bit from the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). She did speak at great length but really said nothing.

The member who really surprised me was that member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King). A disgusting performance! I want to tell the opposition that, believe it or not, I must confess today that I had a high respect for that man. In spite of his socialist philosophy, I used to think that he was a very sound person. In fact, I often thought that here was a man who really knew where he was going, but yesterday he blew it. Any man who would come in, as he did, with such a dirty, filthy attack on a member has to hang his head in shame.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Since the member who is being vilified now by this member across the way is not here....

MR. RITCHIE: Get him in here!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Would the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) please take his seat until we hear the point of order? Only one member can stand at a time.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, his English was a little less than parliamentary, in my view. I think that he should....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Yes, I heard it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. MAIR: Were you here last night? You ought to hang your head in shame the same as he.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that Minister of Health, such as he is, has been using this kind of tactic ever since we came in here.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we had recognized the member for New Westminster on a point of order. I have not yet been able to determine what the point of order is. Would the hon. members please allow me time to determine that.

The member for New Westminster, on a point of order.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. COCKE: The member indicated that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) did something irregular last evening. I understand that everything went through under the Speaker's purview and that everything was fine.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the point that is being made is that the member who is presently being referred to in debate is not in the House. I'm sorry that the Chair is powerless to make a ruling in this matter, because all members are invited to attend all sittings of the House, and if they choose not to do so it is at their own discretion.

The hon. member for Central Fraser Valley continues.

MR. RITCHIE: I too am disappointed that he is not in the House. He can't stand the heat in the House, that's his problem. I'm surprised at your questioning my English, because this is Scotch.

MR. SPEAKER: Please address the Chair, hon. member.

MR. RITCHIE: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I just started to say that as I became interested in politics in British Columbia, and I followed the various members' careers, including your own, there was one man in the opposition party about whom I used to think, man, there's a great fellow. Here's a guy that I really don't think is a socialist at all. I think he would make a very good Liberal, possibly. But what I liked about him was his upstanding, courageous, really fine way of handling himself, no matter where he went — something to be admired. I know my colleagues are going to take me apart for this, for having this ideal who got lost somewhere in his political activities.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: Well, I want to be nice, because I thought that member was a fine politician — very constructive, a man of honour. Mind you, he didn't do a very good job as minister when he was in there, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he had credibility. He had respect from many people. Now I'm glad to see he's in here.

But, Mr. Speaker, the performance that that member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) put on yesterday was absolutely disgusting. Now I'm going to have to change my sights and, hopefully, select one or two others over there that I think may qualify as Liberals. But I don't know whether there is anyone over there that would come anywhere close to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke as far as my admiration for him was concerned, before he put on that terrible, disgusting, filthy show yesterday — the dirty, low attack. Mr. Speaker, I hope that it never happens in this House again. You should hold your head in shame.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Before I take the point of order I would like to remind hon. members that "Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language." I read that on page 418 of May's eighteenth edition. "Parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of his opponents in debate."

[ Page 1254 ]

We have under the rules of the House all kinds of room to debate performance, but we do not have any provision anywhere that I can find where we can have personal allegations, personal charges or personal abuse except on a substantive motion. I remind all hon. members of these provisions.

Now, on a point of order, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I think the member should withdraw the terms "dirty" and "filthy," unless....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, if his conclusion is that my recitation of the facts relating to dirty tricks by that government is dirty and filthy — if that's his version of the appropriate terms in describing the government's conduct — so be it. But, Mr. Speaker, let that be on his head. I did nothing more than recite facts, and I challenge anyone on that side of the House to challenge those facts. I challenge anyone on that side of the House.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before the hon. member who has the floor proceeds.... Order, please. Would the Minister of Health please come to order. Order, please, hon. members. Would the House please come to order. Order, please. Unless the House comes to order I will have to take the measures that are provided under the standing orders and dismiss those members who have contempt for the Chair.

If it is a desire of any member to have words withdrawn, it is sufficient to simply stand and say: "The words having just been spoken and being identified, I request that they be withdrawn." It is not competent for a member who stands seeking a withdrawal of certain words to be entering into the debate a second time, particularly after he has already had his occasion under the existing amendment.

Hon. members, unless it is the will of the House to be orderly, it is simply not possible to conduct business in this House; and I would urge all hon. members that they change their will and make it their business to conduct themselves in this House in such fashion as is provided for under our standing orders. All who wish to do otherwise will be dismissed from the chamber under the standing orders.

Can we now return to debate in an orderly fashion? I would ask the hon. gentleman who has the floor to use restrained and parliamentary language, such as would not be inflammatory so that we would have to have a recurrence of that which we have just seen.

On a point of order, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. KING: I did request that the member withdraw the term "dirty." I recited the other term, which escapes my mind at the moment — filthy.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please withdraw the offensive language?

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be fair to say that I should withdraw....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member just withdraw the offensive language.

MR. RITCHIE: I withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered. Let's proceed.

MR. RITCHIE: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the word "dirty" won't come up again. It seems like a question of don't do as we do, do as we say. I have to admit I'm a rookie in the House, and I guess I got carried away a little bit. It's not my normal form. But it's only natural that I should be stirred up by what went on in this House yesterday. It is only natural and fair that I should be allowed to express my feelings, as the feelings have been expressed on the other side.

Mr. Speaker, just a week or two ago I, as Social Credit caucus chairman, was interviewed, as was the caucus chairman of the opposition. I heard him say very distinctly that to say that we would be throwing mud would be prejudging. Yet that is all we have experienced from that side all through the session so far.

But truly, Mr. Speaker, what I want to try to do today, as briefly as I can, is tell the people out there exactly what is going on. I felt that the most honest and the fairest way to do that was to say that I have lost a hero in the political circles, in spite of his political philosophy. Because sincerely, I have admired this man in the past. Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a great disappointment.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) — and I wish he were here; I hope he is listening; I'd like him to come in — spoke in a very compassionate way about suffering during the last war. We all remember his remarks. I'm not so sure that he knows exactly or is just quoting something he has read or was told. Mr. Speaker, I lived through the last war. I believe I know more than that member what suffering resulted from it. As he went on I couldn't help but think of the hypocritical way the matter of the last war was being used. Because I can remember very, very clearly and vividly the sounds of the bombs dropping, the machine guns as they fired close by where we were, houses being blown up, aircraft….

MR. MACDONALD: And you knew who the national socialists were.

MR. RITCHIE: I'm going to tell you. I know exactly what suffering in the last war was. I get very disgusted when I hear people like the member for Skeena use it to try to degrade a fine leader. Real gutter politics. Don't tell me anything about suffering in the last war. I know what it was. I lived through it.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that that sort of discussion doesn't come up in this House again. I can recall how people were herded into camps. I can recall going to see what help we could offer to people who had been bombed. I can recall coming out of our own shelter to find our house gone. I can also recall, in spite of my underage serving with the Royal Navy and going through all the dangers of war, all of that.

[ Page 1255 ]

But when I hear it used the way it was used here in the House yesterday, it makes me sick.

Mr. Speaker, I stayed and helped with the last war. I didn't leave Britain because of the war; I left Britain because of socialism. That's why I left Britain. I'm really sorry that the member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) wasn't here, because I'm sure he may remember some of it too.

But anyway, listening to this member reminded me of how much the opposition follows its leader. The Leader of the Opposition, as all members know, Mr. Speaker, signed the famous — or the infamous — manifesto of the Waffle movement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he today?

MR. RITCHIE: Here he comes!

Yet, Mr. Speaker, this same movement was rejected publicly and forcefully by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). Now we've got ourselves a real problem over that. But I would venture to say that possibly he would be more acceptable to the public out there than the leader they have at the moment because of the fact he has condemned the signing of the Waffle Manifesto.

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to quote a few words from an article that was written some time ago. It goes as follows: "A candidate for the leadership of the New Democratic Party has scathingly rejected proposals of the party's so-called 'waffle group' for public ownership of Canada's resource industries."

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, I note, Mr. Speaker, that there is a motion on the order paper dealing with this question. If that member wants to debate that, that's the time to debate it. He is cut off from debate according to our standing orders, I presume.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member give us the number of the motion?

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall. I think it's number 2, presented by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman).

MR. SPEAKER: Any matter which is contained within the ambit of a motion which is on the order paper is out of order for normal debate. Would the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley please take notice.

MR. RITCHIE: Okay. You've got your beard cleaned up, I see, since lunchtime.

Mr. Speaker, it was just a passing comment, and if I may continue, surely one of the fundamentals of intelligent people is that we should learn from history and be guided accordingly. Even the most elastic imagination should recognize that nationalization is no universal remedy for economic sickness.

Mr. Speaker, this member called on all clear-thinking people in this party to reject "the academic and professional theories of the Waffle group which feed upon themselves for support and substantiation, such as the cohesion created by the leadership of the New Democratic Party."

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite had their chance to gain the confidence of the people of British Columbia, but once bitten, twice shy.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I, along with all members of the House have been bored to tears, more tears over the poor member not achieving his ambition, which was to be in the cabinet. Probably one of the few things that the Premier has done since assuming office that he hasn't bungled was that: he kept that member out of the cabinet, and for good reason. We've all seen it, up to and including defying the Chair after the Chair admonished him about a motion on the order paper.

AN HON. MEMBER: Stop lecturing.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I plan to lecture as much as I like. I will not be intimidated by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), who is the most nervous man I've seen since this session started. He is twitchy to the extent that I just don't understand it. That minister came in here, Mr. Speaker, a confident, relatively competent man of letters and law, and look at him now: he's quaking, turning red, going almost apoplectic when someone offends his honour. You know, he is so embarrassed to be with that group over there, I don't blame him. He's trying to make up his mind whether he should stay or whether he is ruining his future career by just being associated with that group.

MR. LEA: That's what Nelson Riis was saying.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I was also interested in the attitude of another Liberal over there that turned, for a time, who knows how long. And that was the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). I don't think I'm going to talk about you today, Bill, so just get back to your papers. But the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications was very interesting yesterday. He did his kind of twist and turn. He wrote a book about paradise — Politics in Paradise, as I recall. It was a critique of the Social Credit government over a number of years, while he was sitting over here as a Liberal. Then, when they took that dive.... Now he was suggesting that the House was poor by virtue of the fact that there were no Liberals and no Conservatives on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that he is the person at fault, along with two or three of his colleagues who did the Julius Caesar trip. The only problem was Brutus got all mixed up. His knife wasn't long enough and Cassius couldn't collect the reward. So we got Bill Bennett, and that's really what this is all about — the new Premier, the Premier of British Columbia. And I'll withdraw that name.

I think that I would like to deal with a number of the people over there, but I would like to deal with the first minister to begin with, and I'd like to deal with him in some context. I would like to quote from Edmund Burke. He said: "Our times demand statesmen." That's what he said, and it hasn't changed. He said: "The great difference between a real statesman and the pretender is that one sees into the future, while the other regards only the present. The one lives by the day and acts on expediency; the other acts on enduring principles and for immortality." He was a rather thoughtful gentleman, and he certainly expressed himself well under those circumstances.

I think that our problem here, in this province, is around that whole question of leadership, around the question of living for today and forgetting about tomorrow. And that kind of situation developed into a bevy of headlines, that

[ Page 1256 ]

carried on longer than any series of headlines that I have ever seen in my life in this province — all on the same subject. "Socreds Haunted by Shadow of Scandal." This is the kind of thing that occurred as a result of the lack of leadership when the Premier got back from his trip to the Orient — and incidentally he was tipped off before he left that there were problems brewing, and he made no comment. But when he got back his first comment was the one, I think, that we should all recall. That's where he wore the kamikaze hat, and I'll get back to that shortly. He suggested that that kamikaze hat that he put on — remember the picture in the paper — was what people use in Japan during election campaigns.

I hope the Premier wears that kamikaze hat in the next election in this province. It would probably be most fitting. One of the best friends, it would appear, of the Premier, is the former Minister of Health and now Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland). The rumours, of course, around here, were that in the next go-round he was going to be Brutus. But I think that he went home one night, read Julius Caesar, and found out what happened to Brutus, decided maybe there was a Cassius in the wings and therefore changed. He went to the convention, and not only did he address the women's group on behalf of the Premier, but he came back and did a job of introducing the Premier to that very large convention...

HON. MR. WOLFE: Gathering.

MR. COCKE: ...gathering — very large — described as a pillow fight, I understand. They didn't even have any resolutions this year that suggested one should handle rapists in a very odd fashion — by circumcision, as I recall. But in any event, what they did have at this convention was a love-in. They had to have a love-in. They didn't even have the right-to-work resolutions. They had to have a love-in to save that caucus, that cabinet and that Premier.

You saw the whole tone being set. The cabinet and the caucus went down to Tsawwassen in Walter's riding, met, embraced one another and said: "Live together, die together." Then they came back and spread the word around the convention. But just to get the thing started on the right foot, up jumps the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and introduces his illustrious leader, our Premier — I won't use any adjectives. It was described as very, very carefully worded: "Gee, gosh, I love this guy. Isn't he good-looking? Isn't he a charming leader?" Famous Allen Gaff said about it that instead of the traditional president's introduction of the party leader they were given Bob McClelland at his gee-whiz best.

The day before, he spoke in Bennett's stead at the WA luncheon. He told the ladies that you could cure cancer if you changed your lifestyle. Now he was doing the Premier another favour and softening up the crowd, telling them what a great guy plain old Bill really was. That was the first time he ever dared call him that. They decided they had better change his image. I understand they had been calling him "Mr. Premier."

He also said if the issue today is the challenge of leadership, then that challenge has been met and won. Can anybody here in his right mind agree that that challenge has been met and won? Day after day in this province we are being admonished by this kind of headline.

Mr. Speaker, when that group, one after another, person after person, gets up and says, "Goodness me, we didn't think that the opposition was going to handle this, because the press did," what do you expect us to do? We are here to ask you to answer some questions, not only to us but to the press and to the people of this province. I will tell you why: because we are all offended. You don't understand, but we are all offended.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: If you did understand, Mr. Member, you'd know that you don't speak outside of your seat.

Mr. Speaker, this minister, who went to the convention and introduced the Premier, and who recently got shifted....

AN HON. MEMBER: Shafted.

MR. COCKE: Did he get shafted? Well, that's okay too. I understand that the guy who was shafted was the present Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), but that is just a rumour going around the building.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) calls on Ottawa to control heroin. He was one of the guys who got this poor Premier into trouble. I want to deal with that for a moment or two. I know it is very difficult to live in a situation where, having been admonished for two years — really three if one thinks in terms of when the White Paper was first introduced.... We warned and we warned that minister.

MR. BRUMMET: Who takes your advice?

MR. COCKE: The member is quite right; who takes my advice? They did take my advice when I was Minister of Health, and I didn't get this province into a lousy mess like that minister got it into, spending millions and millions of dollars. When your estimates come up, you and I are going to have a beautiful debate.

That minister got us into a great deal of trouble over this whole heroin question. He didn't take advice from anyone who would give the kind of advice that he needed. He went out and sought advice that would cater to his bias. We saw his bias developing when he was a member of the opposition. We saw the advice that he was obviously taking from some of his now bureaucrats. We understood what he was talking about.

We suggested to him when he brought out the White Paper: "Go easy." Then he brings in the act. We told him that he was dead wrong, and so have the courts. He has participated in this whole question of leadership because of the fact that he was close enough to the Premier to persuade him to continue on in a course which, had they even sought the advice of anybody outside their group, they would have found to be the wrong course.

That minister was told: "Be sure to mind the bayonets, Bob, when you go down to meet those unenthusiastic ministers in Ottawa." Well, he went down; they haven't bailed him out, nor will the Liberals. The Conservative cabinet ministers sought advice, of course. They said they didn't agree with the compulsory system; it wouldn't work. The Liberals had already said that, and now they're back in again. So you're up a tree with a very large expenditure of money that went nowhere.

This is the government that told us and told the people of

[ Page 1257 ]

B.C. that they were going to do everything in a businesslike way. That retired businessman — not as tired as he is retired — said: "Good business." He also said....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to be insulted by two lamebrains at the same time.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Phone up Dominion Life sometime. If you want to put your private practice prior to your political career up against my private time in the insurance business....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Well, forget about ICBC, because they're wrong on that. People know all about ICBC and how they got hooked after you people took over, but that's neither here nor there.

That member is the same man who told us yesterday that we have a businesslike government. He said: "What's wrong with thousand-dollar bills?" That's what he said yesterday; I read the Blues this morning. I couldn't stand to listen to his speech, but I did read the Blues. What's wrong with Dan Campbell handing out thousand-dollar bills? I'll tell you what's wrong with it. If you've read the Elections Act, you know that you're supposed to account. Dan Campbell admitted....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Where is Dan?

MR. COCKE: Where is Dan? I guess he's down the tube — one of the fall guys.

Will that member get back to his own chair, if he wishes to…?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A member can only be heard when he's standing in his own place.

MR. COCKE: Or sitting in his own chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Not even then, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: If the member had read the act.... The thousand-dollar bills were not accounted for. I understand they were floating around like confetti. There was $250,000 or thereabouts not accounted for. It was just a little oversight. What it almost suggests to me is: how much was there that we don't know about? We'll probably find out. You don't know, I can tell you that. I'll tell you right now that none of the rest of them know, except possibly one or two.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: What friend?

MR. SPEAKER: Please address the Chair, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), when he was a Liberal, didn't....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I'm going to ask you a question right now, since you've brought it up. When he was a Liberal....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The debate should flow through the Chair, not across the floor.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm speaking to you. When he was a Liberal — remember, I said "he," not "you" — he was unfortunately in a party that decided not to provide their provincial party with receipting rights. Our provincial party has that. That's all. He wanted a tax receipt, he got his tax receipt, and that's it. And that money went into Lapa's campaign, you can be darn sure of that. You think Lapa is going to give money away, for heaven's sake? Come on!

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Well, of course he gave the election away. People in Kamloops hadn't caught on to you yet, but eventually they will.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Give your man his money back; he's got a tax receipt.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask that the hon. Minister of Health please restrain himself in his constant — and I say "constant" — interruption of members across the floor.

Please proceed.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I think, since the government are particularly apprehensive about discussing health matters now, I'm going to get back to other matters. I was going to give a little discussion about this whole Heroin Treatment Program, what they should have done, and what they could do even yet. But what's the point? The minister sits there and decides that he makes a lot more sense in his talking off the cuff than he does when he stands up and speaks to the issue. I don't think that's quite right. But in any event, let him do what he likes. Therefore I am going back to the first minister.

First, on October 17, we notice in the Province where the minister says that he takes responsibility for the dirty tricks. At that point, people in this province....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: "Bennett Takes Responsibility for Dirty Tricks."

AN HON. MEMBER: There you go, letting the newspaper do your work again.

MR. COCKE: You know, Mr. Speaker, I've been in this House for 11 years, and I've watched every member in this House, during throne, during budget, during estimates, using and referring to newspaper articles. That member gets, at the present time, at least four free newspapers delivered to his desk every day, so that he can do that very thing and keep track of what's going on around him. Now I know it is going

[ Page 1258 ]

to be difficult for him; it is a tough job for some. But if he takes the course he might just be able to use those papers himself, because I suggest to you that it's a very important thing to put things into context, and I'm using a number of newspaper articles to go over a little bit of history here.

On October 17 he says: "I take responsibility for the dirty tricks." Mr. Speaker, do you know why he did that? Because on October 13 he did this. This is your leader. On October 13, the day he got back from the Orient, he put a big smile on his face, put on a kamikaze hat, and made a joke of it. He had then been back four days. He got back here and he said: "Oh, my heavenly days, what have I walked into?" And at that point he said: "I take responsibility for the dirty tricks."

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

But I just want to remind you that after October 17.... And I'm not going to refer to the articles, because there were so many. It was almost daily, where there was a statement from the party, a statement from the Premier, a statement from the party, a statement from the Premier, each trying to sort of duck and get away from the issue. Mr. Speaker, the one thing that the first minister in this province cannot do is duck either his government responsibility or his party responsibility, because he happens to be one of the top officials in both, if not the top official in both. If it's the party's fault, he's the leader of the party. If it's the government's fault, he's the leader of the government. If it's the caucus' fault, he's the leader of the caucus — not caucus chairman. They're dispensable, aren't they?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No, a tuppenny's worth. I thought that was the case.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, that's the kind of situation that we've had going in this province, and I suggest to you that that is not leadership.

I also want to talk to you about another aspect that is not leadership. How many of you recall in the last election campaign a person by the name of Ralph Loffmark? Incidentally, I happened to speak to Ralph Loffmark prior to that campaign. He is a person who was extremely concerned about the direction this province was going. He used to sit right over there where the new Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) now sits — the woman who wears the golden crown of tourism.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I read it in her letter to me, but I'm taking a long time to write back, because I want to write an appropriate reply, and the price of gold goes up and up.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to one of the most vindictive things I've ever seen. This isn't part of leadership; this isn't what Edmund Burke describes. This is Ralph Loffmark, who was once a Socred, who became very concerned about the direction in which that Premier and his cohorts were taking this province and came out and made statements. Incidentally, he did not join our party. However, he made statements backing the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) because he felt that Leader of the Opposition has more imagination and more thoughts about the direction our province is going, and he is right.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Make that charge anywhere you like, because I was one of the first people who discussed this question with Mr. Loffmark. You step outside and tell me that, and you'll be sued in every court in this province, I'll tell you, if you have any sense. Nonsense! He came on his own.

Anyway, Loffmark, because he had the audacity to challenge that first minister politically, lost his pension. They put the bite on him.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this relevant?

MR. COCKE: I think it's relevant, and if you don't see the relevancy, then now I understand why you're a Socred. He has no sense of fairness, no sense of concern for even-handedness, and there is nothing more important than those qualities in a leader — fairness, even-handedness, thoughtfulness and looking to the future.

What did he do in taking Loffmark's pension away? Oh, he hurt him for the moment. Fortunately for the province, I guess, Loffmark wasn't a patsy, and he took him to court and won his case, and he got his pension back. So, obviously, they were wrong in doing what they did.

MR. HALL: Two pieces of advice, two court cases and two losses.

MR. COCKE: And guess who paid for those court cases? We did; the people did in their taxes.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) says when they take legal advice from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) you really get yourself into a lot of trouble, and he is quite right.

In my little town there is a paper called the Columbian. Now the Columbian is not necessarily NDP. The Columbian, as a matter of fact, I recall, in 1969 when I ran, ran a headline saying: "Tenants to Receive Homeowner Grant." And then that paper was delivered free to every apartment in New Westminster, one of the greatest jobs of hustling I've ever seen in my life.

But anyway, having said that, they also said on October 29, "It's hard not to pity poor Bill Bennett," and they recited all the problems he'd got into since he got back from Japan. I want to hold those two together. It was hard not to pity poor Bill Bennett, but he showed no sympathy for poor Ralph Loffmark.

One other aspect of leadership — and I want to go back to that trip.... Remember he was away when the first blush of the letters and the research people's admonitions came forward? What was he doing when he was away? I'll tell you what he was doing. He was suggesting to Japan and other Pacific Rim countries that they do business with British Columbia. The business section of the Vancouver Sun described that trip aptly: "Weak Position Hindered Bennett on Trade Mission." He went there, just like the Minister of Small Business and Economic Development or whatever it is now — it changes monthly — travelling all over the world at our expense, taking mission after mission, living it up and coming back with his hands empty.

[ Page 1259 ]

They've had some good fortune, and most of the good fortune that this government has enjoyed has been a result of things that were done before they took government. In that short period that we were government we set you up. Everybody boasts about BCRIC. Where did it come from? It's one of the best assets in this province. Where did it come from? Col-Cel were prepared to dump the whole thing down the tube. You didn't understand anything then; you were still out prospecting.

What happened? The first year Can-Cel was under the new administration they made so much money they didn't know what to do with it all, and that's the way it continues. The same thing happened when we took the natural gas….

AN HON. MEMBER: One dollar.

MR. COCKE: That's right — one buck.

The same thing happened when we took the natural gas and sought....

AN HON. MEMBER: You took Plateau Mills too.

MR. COCKE: Took it. You hear that? Took it! Took it! Took it! Why don't you get on your feet after I'm through? That member is a stranger to the truth. He knows it and I know it. They negotiated the price on Plateau Mills and were delighted with it, and if you don't believe it then you're sniffing something.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to go on for one second and say: what about the Petroleum Corporation? Because of the previous mistake of the previous government where we were giving natural gas away at 30 cents U.S., we decided that there would be a different way of doing it, and the people in this province finally got something out of their natural gas. It's been hundreds and hundreds of millions since, and these people have been going about boasting about all the money they're making.

MR. HALL: Giving cheques out.

MR. COCKE: Yes, giving cheques out in every municipality. Every week or so I get a copy of a letter: "Dear Mayor Evers: Here is your glorious share of our abundance." And then they go around giving their own back-benchers opportunities to pass these cheques around.

Mr. Speaker, this government's behaviour is such that no person with any kind of thoughtfulness, with any kind of morality, could possibly support it. Their behaviour is beyond doubt the worst behaviour this province has ever seen. I hope they get their just desserts; I hope they get their reward. I hope they get their reward, because if this province ever has to go through a time again, virtually a year, with all the people losing faith in government, losing faith in politicians every day because of their behaviour, well, it will be the beginning of the death of our political structure.

Mr. Speaker tells me that I have three minutes. I would just like to say that I feel that the Premier still has a chance to pull himself out a little bit, and that would be by getting up in this House and saying: "I'm sorry." Remember, he's the chief of staff of the whole works. He's the leader of the party, so he can't say: "Lay it off on the party." He's the president of the executive council, so he can't lay it off on them. He's the leader there and he's the leader of the caucus. He should get up in this House and say "I'm sorry" to the people of this province and: "I'll see to it that it never happens again as long as I have any kind of control." But I doubt if he'll do that, and the reason I say that is because I charge that he, along with one or two of his close confidants, was the author of the whole thing, the whole mess. All we have to do is to go back to 1975 to see him admonishing all his party people — plug the hotlines, write letters to the editor, have a letters-to-the-editor campaign. Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of thing that started it all. I think, under those circumstances, he has absolutely no right to hold his position. He should resign and he should resign today as the leader of that party, as the president of the executive council, and give this province the biggest break that it ever had.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, may I first congratulate you on your appointment to the chair of Deputy Speaker. I'm sure that you will carry on in the same good style that your predecessor used.

I am always reluctant to follow the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). He has such a tremendous command of the English language. I was a little surprised and amused, however, when he was talking about the Social Credit convention. He meant to say that there was a circumvention of certain procedures we usually carry out in our conventions. However, the member used the wrong word and I'm sure he, and the rest of us, will have great delight when we see that word in the Blues, and I'm sure he'll have it corrected.

Mr. Speaker, we are here debating a motion to amend the throne speech — a motion brought forward by a party which lusts after power and authority and control over the people of British Columbia. I would remind those members that that party did have a chance to be the government in British Columbia not too many years ago, and the people, after seeing the performance of this party which once again seeks to be the government of British Columbia, had a choice in '75 and they made that choice. This motion before us now is, in effect, saying to the people: "If you made a wrong choice again in 1979...." That party believes that the people should have another election so they can be back in to destroy the economy of this province once again. The people of British Columbia don't have such short memories as that. There's been a great deal said about election tactics, the means used by various political parties to accomplish their ends, and yesterday, as was pointed out by the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), we saw the most disgusting display of tactics that I ever saw in my life. Like that member, at one time I thought the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) was a fairly reasonable person, that at times he spoke sense — not all the time, but at times. Then I heard him yesterday, through innuendo, make a personal attack on the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), and imply, with the protection of this House, where he knows he is immune to any legal action, that that minister had done something irregular. I challenge that member, who once again is absent from the House, to make the statements he made here outside of these chambers so that he can be held accountable for what he said in the courts.

MR. LEA: He did.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Did he? That is fine. I hope he has because I'm sure it'll be interesting to the minister to

[ Page 1260 ]

contact his counsel. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, when he was speaking yesterday, said that we, as members of the government of the Social Credit Party of British Columbia, must remember that when we vote on this amendment we have to some day go back to face our constituents. Well, indeed we do. We in this party face our constituents regularly; we are always with our constituents in our constituencies. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have, as you know, a mobile constituency office in which I travel around my rather far-flung constituency, to regularly meet with my constituents to help them in the problems they have in daily dealings with different ministries of the government. The last time was about two weeks ago. I was in Cache Creek. A lady dropped in to see me. The first thing we always do, of course, is get their name, their address and their phone number so that we can know where to contact them. I asked this lady "What's your address?" and she said "Box such-and-such, Salmon Arm." I said: "Well, really you should be seeing your own MLA about your problem." She said: "I would love to see my MLA but he's never there; I don't know where to find him. I've read your local papers and I find that you're here. My only access to a member of the Legislature is to come and see you, Mr. Waterland" — which she did. So I would suggest that the member for Revelstoke-Shuswap pay the occasional visit to the beautiful part of British Columbia which he represents.

As I mentioned, in 1975 the people of British Columbia made a choice. They saw the performance of that party, which once again claims that it should be the government. In 1975 the people had seen their performance over three years and booted them out. Again in 1979 the people made the same choice, in spite of the tactics used by that party during that 1979 election.

They wish to talk about campaign tactics, in spite of the scare tactics which they used relative to the hospital situation in British Columbia. Do you remember those ads on television, which would put the fear of death into anyone who happened to be sick or contemplating entering the hospital or in the hospital? Do you think that was comforting to the people using our hospital facilities? At the same time, we had the best hospital-building program anywhere in Canada. When other provinces in Canada were closing hospitals we were building them.

Do you remember the letters, mentioned by the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), to employees of Panco Poultry, written on government letterhead during the 1975 election, threatening the people there: "Unless you return us to office you're going to be out of work"? Remember them telling the senior citizens of British Columbia that their Mincome would be cut off — putting the fear of poverty into the minds of these elderly people and literally scaring them to death, in order to gain power in this province? Well, they had their opportunity.

Remember them telling the people of British Columbia about the resource giveaways in this province, and that we were selling off our natural resources and not getting any return for the people of British Columbia? Remember the resource revenue achieved by that government when they were in office?

Mr. Speaker, this last couple of years we have had all-time high revenues for our resources in this province. We have those revenues because we're using those resources. We're not leaving the ore in the ground, as that former Premier would have our mining industry do. Who would benefit from that?

These were the election tactics used by that party. Let me tell you about one particular election tactic used in the largest town in my constituency, Merritt, during the 1979 election. It was in the fall of 1978 at the Nicola stockbreeders' meeting in Lower Nicola, attended by me and the Minister of Agriculture. After coming out of that meeting, we were approached by an East Indian gentleman who said: "Tom, you guys are going to be having an election pretty soon. Many of my countrymen here don't speak English very well and don't know how to vote. So if you want, I'll get them as they come to the poll, and I'll show them how to mark their ballot in your favour. You can gain a lot of votes that way." Well, I told him: "Get lost, fella! I don't need to use that kind of tactic to win an election. I win an election in my constituency by providing good service to the people in Yale-Lillooet." I told him that I would win the election on the record of this government and on my record as an MLA.

But, lo and behold, on election day in Merritt, it happened that the NDP campaign headquarters were two doors from the main polling station. Oh, there were no signs up; don't worry — they weren't displaying signs. But as many of these East Indian people, in their innocence and inability to understand the polling system, came down the street, they would be ushered into the NDP campaign headquarters. We found out later that they would have thrust into their hands a facsimile of a ballot, marked with an X beside the NDP candidate's name, and then they'd be told to go to the polling station and mark their ballots thus.

We reported the goings-on to the returning officer. But I didn't care to make too much of the issue, because I felt that the people in Yale-Lillooet understood good government and good representation, and that I would be elected again. I wasn't surprised at that going on. For years I had heard stories of that type of tactic being carried out by the NDP in Yale-Lillooet. So I just took it for what it was and where it came from. I don't have to resort to that type of tactic to win an election; nor does anyone in this party.

Speaking of the performance of that former government, when they were in office, brings me to the reason that I got involved in politics. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) just said that I didn't understand what was going on then because I was out prospecting. Well, I guess he's trying to indicate in some way that prospectors are some lower form of humanity. Yes, I was involved in the mining industry; I was for many, many years, as was my father before me. When I saw the things that were happening to that industry, as a result of the actions of that government, I felt that I must do something, as an individual British Columbian, to destroy that government, and I ran for office.

I am sure we all remember that article in the Vancouver Sun, April 29, 1975. It was written by one Malcolm Lorimer, the brother of one of the members of this Legislature, I believe. It describes what was happening to the mining industry in British Columbia. Let me read just a few paragraphs from it to remind those members of what they have forgotten. And they think the people of British Columbia have forgotten what took place in those days. The letter says:

"Dear Mr. Editor:

"From the pinnacle of my career as a mining engineer, now unemployed, I unfortunately have the time to reflect on the present state of the mining industry in British Columbia. What I see is a sick industry, at a time when most metal prices are at an

[ Page 1261 ]

all-time high. Numerous deposits are awaiting development, labour and technology are available, and other jurisdictions, subject to the same federal and international influences, are booming."

This letter goes on, Mr. Speaker, to outline some of the things that were happening and why they were happening, and he says:

"There are several reasons for this decline, but one stands out above all others — the Mineral Royalties Act, also known as Bill 31. Your government often ascribes the situation to declining metal prices, and that is what they usually cite. But the real reason is Bill 31."

In the closing remarks in this letter, Mr. Lorimer, the brother of one of our members here, quotes from a statement made by the then Minister of Mines, and I think we all remember that saying. Remember, he said: "I think the industry, once it is on the statutes, will relax and enjoy what we've done."

We all remember that statement, Mr. Speaker. We all remember what happened to the mining industry. And the justification for it from those members was that there was a ripoff taking place by these terrible multinational mining companies, not even realizing that mining companies are corporations owned by shareholders, people who invest their money in hope of a return. Someone here today asked a question about some 89-year-old farmer losing his land because of taxation. Those people took the income away from many elderly people in British Columbia when they stopped the mining industry and made it impossible for that industry to deliver dividends to people who had invested in a thriving industry in this province.

Here's another letter from my little clipping book of 1975:

"The sad state of the mining industry in British Columbia was dramatically brought to the attention of the elderly at the annual meeting of Western Mines Ltd., Wednesday. The board of directors has decided, the company president, Hugh Snyder, told the gathering of some one hundred people, to pass up the 20-cent semi-annual dividend normally paid in June. The government was taking all of the company's profits this year, he explained, and there would be no money for dividends for elderly investors in British Columbia's number two industry."

They thought they were destroying the multinational corporations, when, in fact, they were attacking the many, many thousands of people in British Columbia who invest their hard-earned money in the resources of this great province.

MR. LEA: You're almost ready to go in the cabinet.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Speaking of cabinet, Mr. Speaker, that member was a cabinet minister in 1975; and he's always very happy to read letters in the paper. I remember 1973-74-75, when that member was the Minister of Highways. I remember that in my constituency — what is now my constituency — during that member's term of office, one new piece of road was built. That was the road, about three miles long, from Ashcroft out to the proposed Du Pont explosives plant. They built the road and then they killed the mining industry, which was supposed to buy the explosives. So Du Pont decided not to build that explosives plant in British Columbia after all. That was that Minister of Highways' great record.

Let me read this article from the Kamloops Daily Sentinel, Wednesday, February 12, 1975. It states: "Highways Minister Graham Lea's last comments about the purpose of his department is another example of the NDP government working at cross purposes. He said: 'Building roads to accommodate the private automobile is a self-defeating exercise. The growing pressures of the automobile have forced the government to realize that the Department of Highways can be turned into a tool to protect the land on behalf of man's sensitivity.'"

MR. LEA: Can I see this?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, you will see this. This article goes on to say: "One would gather from these remarks that the Department of Highways is moving into the conservation and ecology field. One would gather from all the work on highways evidenced since 1972 that his department must have moved somewhere."

The people of British Columbia, especially those who live in the vast interior areas of our province, knew the Department of Highways was certainly not doing anything about highways. And they call us the "blacktop government," Mr. Speaker, because we believe that the people in British Columbia who work and enjoy this province, the people who are well and healthy, shouldn't have any of the government funds spent on things which they can use such as highways and recreational facilities.

Mr. Speaker, the member for New Westminster a few moments ago was talking about somebody delivering cheques to New Westminster. Just after I was elected in 1975 I can remember the editor of one of the weekly newspapers coming up to me and saying: "Thank God, Tom, now I don't have to buy a new camera. I wore three of them out taking pictures of Hartley delivering letters to the municipality."

Mr. Speaker, let me read you another little clipping from my 1975 file. The caption is: "Payments System Needs Checking." It said:

"The B.C. government wrote cheques to the regional district on May 30 and June 12 that then took, says Jim Gorst, NDP MLA for Esquimalt, until July 22 for them to reach his office for him to pass on to the district. Then he went away for a couple of weeks and what with constituency business and Labour Day and one thing and another, it took until September 16, eight weeks later, for him to deliver the cheques with the ceremony required for public relations purposes."

And that member is complaining about the delivery of cheques to municipalities and letters accompanying them. Eight weeks to deliver a cheque, and it cost that regional district almost $2,000 in lost interest because that member was running around with the cheques in his briefcase.

Mr. Speaker, I guess from time to time we in government always think the press is being unkind to us. From time to time we certainly think they're being a little political or anti-government in their attacks. I guess every government that was ever in office thought the same thing. But I'm glad the press is there and they're taking the part of the opposition, because, God knows, we have no opposition in British Columbia. We have no opposition, and we have a party that wishes to be government sitting over there, unable to fulfil the role of an opposition and yet wanting to be government.

[ Page 1262 ]

This is not unique to us. I realized when I was going through my old press clippings that the press was not very kind to the NDP in their term of office.

I remember this little article. Mr. Barrett said, when speaking to about 400 party members at a dinner in Burnaby, "the number of people on welfare has reduced," and so on. He accused the press, who he described as politically mixed up, as unwilling to publish these facts as presented. I guess it's nothing unusual that politicians don't like the press at times. Quite frankly, I think the press does — by and large and with a few exceptions — a pretty good job.

They talk about responsibility in government and tactics in elections and tactics in accomplishing the things they wish to accomplish. I have another little article here from June 1975. I don't know the exact date.

"Political Extortion. Chatter at Vancouver City Hall says the B.C. government is trying to hold up housing construction beside False Creek as a pressure tactic in Resource minister Bob Williams' war with the city over the Pacific National Exhibition.

"Word is that Williams won't transfer required land to the city without resolution of an unrelated issue that's taken to be the city's bid opposed by Mr. Williams, who's charged the PNE $1 million a year instead of the old token $1."

Political extortion as a government tactic. Shocking indeed, Mr. Speaker. An NDP government tactic.

Mr. Speaker, I became involved, as the Minister of Forests in 1975, in the forest industry which had almost been scared out of British Columbia. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) mentioned the assets of BCRIC and how they were acquired and they were a great asset. Any resource investment in British Columbia can be made into a good asset if it's properly managed and properly administered.

He was proud about the Plateau Mills purchase, saying it was purchased in a free and open market. Well, I happen to know something about what took place in those days when Plateau was being purchased. It was for sale. The government, of course, controls the timber allocations and is in a pretty strong bargaining position if it wishes to purchase companies in the private sector. That is why we don't feel there is any place for government to be directly involved in these industries which they control through ownership of the resource.

Remember the companies that were taken over, the threats that were made, the squeeze that was put on existing companies? I found out when I became minister that many expansion plans which had been on the books and ready for construction — prior to that terrible day in August 1972 — were immediately shelved. So the industry went through a several-year period in which much of this modernization should have been taking place, in which they were afraid to invest in British Columbia because they didn't know when the axe was going to fall and they were going to be nationalized. That is the same threat that will hang over British Columbia if ever there is a chance of those socialists once again forming the government in this province. Thank the Lord the people of British Columbia don't soon forget the lesson they were taught during 1972-1975.

Mr. Speaker, it took a couple of years to restore that confidence. We provided new forestry legislation which provides a good balance of all the aspects of forestry in British Columbia. Right now, through that encouragement and proper climate for investment, there is more capital construction and investment under way in the forest industry in British Columbia than there has ever been at any point in the past. It takes work and effort to create that environment. Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I am speaking specifically of the forest industry right now, Mr. Speaker, but the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is quite right. The problem we are going to have in the next few years is providing the skilled construction workers to take on the massive heavy industrial construction taking place in this province right now. The people of British Columbia know it is going on; they see it happening. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development likes to talk about things happening in British Columbia because he comes from a constituency where many things are happening — things which are happening as a result of incentives and climates created by this government.

Remember the Grizzly Valley non-gas field that that party talked about? I have another little newspaper article, dated September 2, 1975, captioned "An End of Innocence." "The provincial cabinet was clearly jolted by the B.C. Energy Commission natural gas report. The commission said government policies have brought the gas industry to a standstill, that shortages loomed as early as 1978, that a vigorous private industry was needed, whatever the government's feelings."

Thank God, Mr. Speaker, that in 1975 that government was turfed out, because otherwise we wouldn't have natural gas flowing today. They didn't believe it was there. They did everything they could to discourage the industry from exploring for, finding and delivering natural gas, both to our customers here in British Columbia and also to our friends in the United States, with a very handsome return for the province of British Columbia.

Never in the history of British Columbia has the revenue from our natural resources been as high as it is now and has been for the last couple of years, and will be, I'm sure, as long as we have a free enterprise government in this province that encourages people to get out and do things and make use of the tremendous resources which we have to work with in this province.

They are questioning the performance of this government in spite of the tremendous things that are taking place in this province: the massive capital investments, the thousands and thousands of new jobs that are created every month in this province, for the people of British Columbia and for the people of Canada who come here because they know where the action is.

We have to make no apologies to British Columbia or to that government. We don't have to be afraid to resoundingly defeat this idiotic motion. The people of British Columbia have good government. The people of British Columbia have a good Premier, one who has brought forth policies which have assured we can take advantage of the many, many opportunities presented to us.

Your entry timing was perfect, Mr. Premier.

Never before in the history of British Columbia have there been more opportunities for the people who live and work here, and never before has there been more optimism for the future, because we have good leadership, we have good financial control in our province, and we have the resources — physical, natural and human. Through the

[ Page 1263 ]

leadership of this party by our Premier, this government will lead the province of British Columbia into the eighties, into the nineties and into the next century in handsome style.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: May I, as well, take this opportunity to place in Hansard my congratulations on your elevation to the position of Deputy Speaker.

Before I proceed with my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quietly remind the member who has just spoken, the member for Yale-Lillooet, that that member was a civil servant before he was elected, and that under the regime of the former Social Credit government of W.A.C. Bennett, public servants were not allowed to campaign. It was under our leader, the former Premier of this province, the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett), that public servants like that member were given the right to campaign and get elected to office.

Mr. Speaker, that member's defence of the Premier, to me, appeared pretty weak. This is a motion of non-confidence in the Premier — that's what we're debating here — and in the government. It's a motion which I will be supporting, you will not be surprised to learn, and with very good reason.

I think that the people of this province have lost confidence in the Premier and this government. There's no question about it. It's not only because of this government's — and perhaps this Premier's — involvement in the dirty tricks affair, but because of the way they have administered the affairs of this province. I think the people now see that they have lost complete confidence in this Premier and this government.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This Premier's overall conduct in office is marked by indecisiveness and/or bad decisions, many of which are made right off the top of his head, without real thinking. In my view, the people of this province have been without an effective leader of government for some time now.

For example, where's the dental plan that was promised? Every year in the throne speech we get a promise of a dental plan, and where is it? We had another promise this year. We hear about $300 million surpluses and, of course, $200 million overruns, I guess, being spent on things like bridges and complexes and things like that, but where is denticare for our people who really need it, for our senior citizens and all of the other people?

In spite of raging inflation in this province, under this government and Premier there have not been corresponding increases for our retired people, our handicapped people and our unemployed people.

I see no move on the part of this government to meet and discuss in depth with our native Indian people the many, many concerns that they have, and how they wish to fit into our society.

I see no initiative by this government whatsoever to start a merchant marine for this province to carry our goods to other nations, hopefully in a manufactured form. This initiative as well, by the way, Mr. Speaker, would create a viable shipbuilding industry in the province.

I'm glad to see that the Premier has returned to the House, because I do have a matter that should be of deep concern to everybody in this province, but basically to me and certainly to him. I want to take this opportunity to once again bring to the attention of this House the Premier and the government's failure to deal with the very serious situation we now have in Ocean Falls. Rumours are rampant — and we have very good reason to believe — that that community and that corporation will have to probably shut down very late this spring or early summer if the government does not take action now. This is a perfect and proper time for that Premier, Mr. Speaker, to make a very clear statement as to the future of that community. Morale in that community is at an all-time low. Qualified tradesmen are leaving all the time. New people won't come in because everybody up there thinks that community is closing down. This government has had four years, has spent over $1 million in studies on the future of that community, and nothing of significance has been done in that community by this government.

The corporation has budgeted for a $15 million loss for the year of 1980, and we are, as I said before, going into a disorderly shutdown of that community because this government is not taking any action. I suspect once again in this instance, Mr. Speaker, that we have a clear case of government interference in a Crown corporation. Mr. Williston, the chairman of the board of that corporation, has said publicly — and has told me privately — that the whole situation is completely out of his hands. It is now in the hands of the Premier of this province and the government, and yet we hear not a word. I am very concerned, as I hope the Premier is.

I hope when the Premier gets up to reply to many of the statements that have been made in this address and on this motion he will address himself to that question.

By the way, Mr. Premier, while you are in the House — through you, Mr. Speaker — I am just going to ask, are you intending to keep your promise to representatives of the Canadian Paperworkers union to meet them in Ocean Falls on April I – an appropriate date, in my opinion? Because if you are, how are you going to get there? Do you know what you are doing? Do you know what your government is doing? You are taking off the ferry service to that community, completely abandoning that community for almost a two-month period. How are you going to get in there? A jet won't land there; there's no airstrip.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No. He's going to Ocean Falls. He promised April l. I hope he'll keep that promise; I'd like to see him there. But I don't know how he's going to get there. They're taking off the ferry service. There's no airstrip. Rowboat? Canoe? I have no idea. I hope you keep your promise to the Canadian Paperworkers union on that particular event.

While we're talking about ferry service, Mr. Speaker.... I'm not going to dwell a long time on any of these items, because we'll have ample opportunity, I'm sure, to discuss these matters in detail during the course of this session. But I want to take this opportunity to tell you why I am going to be supporting this motion. There are a lot of reasons. One is that the ferry transportation service on this coast is in complete and utter chaos. There is no question about it. Just visualize this, Mr. Speaker, if you will: they are taking the Queen of Surrey, which is going to be renamed Queen of the North, and they are going to refit it and spend — what, $7 million? I don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Seven point four.

[ Page 1264 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Seven point four million dollars to refit that vessel and put it on a route from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert and stops between — eventually, when they get around to refitting it. They're adding staterooms and all these things. Then they are going to take the Queen of Prince Rupert, a vessel that was constructed for that route, refit it, tear out the staterooms and put it on a run between Seattle and Victoria, for which it is totally unsuited, spending another — what, $3 or $4 million? I don't know; I don't have the figures. I hope to get those in question period; take notice.

In the meantime, the Marguerite, we are told, with an expenditure of possibly $1.4 million is fully capable of sailing for two or three years between Victoria and Seattle. It really doesn't make any sense financially for the best interests of the people living on the coast of this province, or any other way. It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

In any event, as I have said before, the problem is that the government has no water transportation policy — no transportation policy, period. We have a pretty good Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). I hope that minister will bring in a policy before this session adjourns.

AN HON. MEMBER: Minister of Education?

AN HON. MEMBER: Or the Minister of Finance?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Minister of Transportation. Another area, Mr. Speaker, in which this government has no policy is energy. I am not going to dwell a long time on that particular item at this time. But because this government has no policy, the Premier was moved not too long ago to make statements that a proposed natural gas line to Vancouver Island would not be required at this time, in spite of his campaign promises some nine or ten months ago. The point I wish to make here is that the government has promised that it is going to set up an energy utilities commission to look at the pros and cons and merits of these particular situations. Yet the Premier, in spite of campaign promises, continues to make statements which are, in my view, totally uncalled for.

What we're talking about here is a British Columbia resource that should be and could be utilized by British Columbians. It may not be the best form of energy in the world, but it is certainly cheaper to the user and a cleaner form of energy than many other forms — as opposed, perhaps, to the Cheekye-Dunsmuir transmission line, which may or may not work when it's completed after an expenditure of a billion dollars by this government and B.C. Hydro.

However, all may not be lost. I have here a news article about the member for Omineca, entitled "Kempf After Answers." This article, by the way, is dated February 27, 1980. Here's what the member says:

"Mr. Kempf intends to use his chairmanship of the Crown corporations reporting committee to oversee Hydro. This committee has made several and many recommendations on the public utility company but, says Kempf, none of them have ever been acted upon. One of the more important recommendations is to expand Hydro's board of directors.... "

Mr. Kempf says here as well that he is going to oppose Hydro rate increases. So I would expect that when it comes time to vote the member from Omineca will vote with the opposition on this particular motion, Mr. Speaker.

While I'm on this topic, there's one other item. The fact is we have been promised time and time again by this government and by this Premier that there would be no political interference on the boards of directors of Crown corporations. Yet we find time after time after time that there is direct political interference in the B.C. Ferry Corporation, B.C. Hydro, B.C. Steamships, Ocean Falls Corporation, B.C. Cellulose...and the list goes on and on. Perhaps that's the way it should be. Crown corporations are the creations of government, set up on behalf of and for the best interests of the people. Perhaps there should be politicians of the governing party on those boards of directors. But what I'm talking about here is that we had a distinct and direct promise from that government that there would be no political interference; but there has been direct political interference, usually with bad decisions, just about any day of the week that you'd care to name.

I've listened to the speeches and to minister after minister getting up — very few of them actually defending the Premier. I've heard them say nothing to persuade me not to support this motion. So I will be supporting this motion. Hopefully, after the vote, we'll be going into an election campaign and forming a new government in this province within two months.

MR. BRUMMET: I think the House might well suspect that I will be speaking against the amendment. The previous member, who just sat down, inferred lack of confidence in the Premier, and that we are not saying it often enough. We have confidence in the Premier; we have confidence in this government. We really don't need to say it every second sentence.

Yesterday we were very quickly introduced to what the socialists see as their contribution to responsible government in this province. I was disturbed by the socialist tactics of personal attack and character assassination which we witnessed yesterday. I notice the tone somehow or other has changed today. Perhaps they're trying to give the impression that they are also reasonable people. I'm sorry, but yesterday, I think, was a truer characterization of their philosophy than today.

It wouldn't be so difficult to accept some of this criticism if it were based on facts, but instead it is a constant barrage of innuendo, inferences, implications and spurious analogies. I'd like to point out that they were very careful to cover themselves by saying that they do not have any direct evidence of wrongdoing. That was stated by both the mover and seconder of this amendment. I don't think that the people or the members of this House should forget that they did make that statement several times. "We do not have any direct evidence of wrongdoing by either the Premier or by members of this government." Nevertheless, that did not deter them from going on with their personal attacks and character assassinations. Then, through a calculated use of histrionics, nebulous associations and baseless innuendo, they tried to put together a case purportedly of non-confidence, but really intended as personal attack and character assassination.

The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), the mover of the amendment, certainly used his cheap shots through histrionics to set the tone for the debate that followed during the rest of the day. Then the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), the seconder of the amendment.... And what a pretence we had of reason and rational preparation and presentation of a case. I think that it was based on something of this nature: the Premier once wrote a letter, therefore the

[ Page 1265 ]

Premier is responsible for all types of letters that ever go out in this province. What a ridiculous assessment! Surely nowhere else would we expect that to be accepted as a reasonable development of a case.

Then we had a carefully orchestrated continuation of what the socialists see as the real issues — a few letters, not authorized; a few people who said: "Sign somebody else's name." And they tried to make a case out of it. This is the real issue in this province? The people in this province were sick of this long ago. Yet I think, as one report in the paper indicated yesterday, they reviewed what the press had already done so much better, and came up with absolutely nothing new. So as part of this some people who were in a position where they should have used judgment misused that judgment and were let go. Other people who were in positions of service, of dedicated service, resigned simply because of the vindictive personal attacks on them. They could no longer serve as they chose to serve, so they resigned. The fact that some people lost their jobs, the fact that some people resigned their jobs, is not enough for the bloodthirsty socialists on that side of the House. They've had to try and drag it through the mud hour after hour after hour in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about President Nixon?

MR. BRUMMET: I think I mentioned the term "spurious analogies" earlier, and that fits, Mr. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: The House will come to order, please.

MR. BRUMMET: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the members opposite are yet satisfied. They want more blood; they want to hurt people as much as they possibly can. People have already been hurt; they'll never be satisfied. Even an investigation which exonerated members of this government is not satisfactory for them. It's not good enough. They did say, over and over again: "Despite the fact that we do not have any evidence...." Nevertheless, away they go, carrying on.

Then we get to the research work we have seen evidence of in this House. They use carefully selected phrases taken completely out of context from press reports from the past, and around that they build character assassinations. From these carefully selected phrases they then draw inferences, try to create an illusion of an internal rift or leadership problems. What nonsense! It's an old elementary stunt that if you say "rift, rift, rift, rift" often enough, sooner or later someone will say: "What rift?" Then you explain and describe a rift that does not exist. What a tactic! Something does not exist, but say it often enough and perhaps it may come to be. What wishful thinking!

And then they brought on the socialist big guns, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) — histrionics, with little content. However, that has never deterred that member from repeating his one set of disparaging comments. I guess with that I will leave that refugee from reality to his own means.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) — what a fine performance we had there. I believe in his presentation there were terms used such as "ethics," "morals," "respect for parliament," "the end justifies the means." Yes, we did see his exemplary behaviour. Some example!

Unethical? That member certainly provided an example of "unethical" in his references to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) and other members of this government, and the records will show that. Talk about unethical! "The end justifies the means," I believe was the expression he used. That group of socialists wants power by any means, despite the will of the people, who have spoken twice in consecutive elections. I think as one member in the federal campaign said: "Every time there's a full moon they want another election."

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke said: "We must preserve the parliamentary process." What an example he set.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Please proceed, hon. member.

MR. BRUMMET: I am not usually a patient man, Mr. Speaker, but I have learned that in this House you have to wait it out with those members.

What a master of evasion that member for Shuswap-Revelstoke is when it comes to withdrawal of offensive remarks. Perhaps it's just as well, because those irresponsible remarks shall stand as a tribute to his style. He mentioned style, which is being followed by the other members. Talking about style, they've tried to attribute responsibility for style to the leader of the party. Do they stand by that in their own case? Can they be proud of that? Is it the leader, who spends most of his time out of here, who set that style? I recall that they cheered and supported that member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, who so aptly exemplified their style, as he said — the style which they have adopted, the style which relies on personal attack and character assassination.

We can certainly be proud, and we are proud, and we can continue to be proud of our leader. Can you say the same for yours? Can they say the same for their leader, Mr. Speaker, since the style is attributed to him, by virtue of their own arguments?

Since they have made such a case of picking isolated comments from newspaper clippings, allow me to use one which was reported in the Vancouver Sun, a document they quoted so often in the debate yesterday, on March 18, 1975: "I'm not here to pass moral judgments on the world. A buck is a buck."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. BRUMMET: The hon. Leader of the Opposition said that when he was Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BRUMMET: I think I should repeat that, because I think it bears repeating: "I'm not here to pass moral judgments on the world. A buck is a buck. " And they talk about moral judgments.

I, too, would like to quote that member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, when he said: "Each and every member of this House will have to account for his behaviour in this House." You bet, Mr. Speaker, they'll have to account for it. I would love to be there when he accounts to his constituency for his behaviour. Certainly I have no hesitation in accounting to my constituents for my behaviour. But let's leave that member; he's probably better left alone.

[ Page 1266 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: He is alone.

MR. BRUMMET: He's very alone today, I suspect. The member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) then gave every appearance of returning to rational debate. At least he digressed from personal attacks until the very end of his presentation. I was certainly impressed by his concern that this government was delaying Hydro projects. However, he was very careful to say on each occasion that he did not necessarily support those Hydro projects, and I don't doubt that he doesn't dare to, because, I believe, they are against all Hydro projects. However, to give him his due, he finally got back into style near the end of his speech, the style having been set.

Throughout this debate, Mr. Speaker, we have heard, with mechanical regularity, them repeating the phrases "a lack of leadership," "a lack of ethical behaviour," "a lack of public confidence." What else can you expect when seven months of research has come up with this theory that if you say it often enough, maybe some truth will come of it? It's the old adage: say it often enough and something may happen. Again, using isolated phrases from newspapers, completely out of context, they've tried to show a rift in this party; there is no such rift. You can't create one by simply talking about it.

However, they did cover themselves early in the debate by saying: "Although we have no direct evidence of any wrongdoing by the Premier or any member of that government...." And then they went on and on with personal attacks. The lack of any direct evidence doesn't bother them one iota. I think the people of British Columbia will be aware of that despite the insinuations that this opposition makes.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. There is an opportunity for each to enter the debate in due season. The member for North Peace River has the floor.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I could cite a number of instances of good economic development in this province, of continuing prosperity and so on. I think that might be better left to the debate on the throne speech. However, on this amendment, I think it should be said loudly and clearly that confidence in British Columbia has never been greater. I think that this confidence has come about because of good government and good leadership, and I will conclude with this statement: there is confidence in this government and in this Premier, and for good reason.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we've had from the government benches a series of interesting analyses of the speeches that took place yesterday and today. I would have thought they might have used it a little bit more beneficially on behalf of the government to tell us about all of the things which, they say, contribute toward a good situation in British Columbia. Now the previous speaker, who has a kind of problem with dyslexic ramblings that he gets into — you know, mechanical irregularity — I would have thought would have taken the trouble to do some research, not as far back as 1975, but about '77-78-79, and do that kind of analysis about all of the programs that have taken place and the good standard of government that has come from that side. He might have started some time last August with that fantastic gaffe of the government where they put an insurance company out of business, but you don't want to talk about that, because immediately we had a new tactic from the Premier. He jumped into the House and said: "I am responsible. I am responsible for everything that the government does." We didn't get such a statement from him in the fall, that he was responsible for the problems that took place that have been enumerated here over the last two days. Was it expected by those people over there, Mr. Speaker, that we would come into the House and we would allow that the whole business of the dirty tricks and all of the problems that took place that filled the newspapers right up until the time of the federal election...that somehow nobody would discuss it? We purposely stayed away from the dirty tricks; we made no comments about it. We left it to the press; we left it to the members of your party to make their comments.

The man out in the Fraser Valley, Mr. Gilchrist, had enough to say on the hotline shows and on TV and in the newspapers. We didn't talk about a code of ethics; your Premier talked about the need for a code of ethics in this party. The previous speaker said that we said there is no direct evidence. I don't recall that we said that, but for four months this province was faced with a series of front-page articles on the goings-on both in the party and the government, during which we kept silent. We didn't add to that. It was up to you to make your own explanations to the public, which you did not do. You made the fatal mistake of not being able to learn from history. You saw the mess that Nixon got himself into in Watergate because he simply wouldn't be candid and tell the truth. Nobody wanted to tell the truth about the dirty tricks and it got deeper and deeper and deeper.

Yesterday we had the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) telling us that what happened wasn't really that important — the Minister of Health, an officer of the courts when he is not in politics, saying that it's not so terribly important. If it's not so terribly important I'd like to know how much taxpayers' money has been wasted on police investigations into this business — if it's not that important. It obviously was important. There obviously was a feeling out there in the public that something was wrong and had to be explained. And the Attorney-General decided to investigate it and we were to get a report in November, then in December, then in January, and finally in February we've got one, which is no report at all. But don't expect that you can come into this House after not having the House meet for eight months and somehow not be bloodied, because you are. Part of the intent of this amendment is to point out to you that there is something badly wrong with the way the government is running its affairs, both in the party and in the government. If you can't see that, then you are following blindly a leader who is also blind. If ever there was a case of the blind leading the blind we have it with that government. We have a first minister who only knows the way to the bunker; he knows exactly where to go when the heat's on. He disappears and goes on holiday and then comes back and needs another holiday from the holiday that he had.

Certainly there is something wrong over there. You people were not fortunate enough, because, as you point out, you do not have a national party; but we do. During the last federal election we went and canvassed and knocked on doors for our candidates. That's the nature of our party: people who work for us work both provincially and federally; that's how we operate. When we left the doorstep one of the

[ Page 1267 ]

things that always came up was that they would say to us: "Well, when are we going to have an election here?" This is eight months after the last election.

At the beginning, when you took office in 1976, we took the position at that time: "It's a new government. Let's see what they can do." Inside of 7 months there were 13 separate investigations going on, either by the police or in municipal affairs or by a royal commission — right out of that government, within the first 7 months. We didn't have to make any contribution to that. I'm sure that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) remembers that one; I know that he didn't remember anything else at the time. But I'm sure he remembers all of what went on in those days. We sat back and we waited.

We didn't even get a chance to sit back and wait after the last election. When we came back in we saw the kind of thing that was going on. Then they adjourned the House, and then they had to bring us back because they had the problem with putting Seaboard overboard. Yes, we'll remind you about putting Seaboard overboard. That's really the talisman that will stick to you. That's how efficient you are; that's how understanding you are of the process of government.

For the new members who are upset by some of the rhetoric that goes across this floor, that's the nature of debate in the British parliamentary system. Sometimes it gets hotter than it should, but it happens because feelings are very strong. I would remind the new members that I can remember when the blood used to run when the other government was in, when the government that I was part of was there. We would have the now Minister of Industry and Small Business Development doing a high-flyer for 15 hours, making accusations which were completely baseless. There's the man who made a statement in this House that members of the cabinet of the NDP traded in shares in respect of the purchase of Can-Cel because there was inside information — no basis, no facts, nothing to prove it. It was just like the statement the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) made. One day he got up in this House, and it was a slow day for the press for him, so he asked the Minister of Human Resources: "Is it true that you're putting juveniles in the Empress Hotel because you have nowhere else to put them?" You know, that's the same kind of statement that came out of the mouth of the now Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. That was the calibre of debate, my friends.

What you have to do, if you are unhappy with the calibre of debate over here in terms of facts, is show us the facts. We showed you the facts. We certainly explained the facts. You give us other facts to deny those facts; that's what we have to have, not your sitting back there and mumbling to yourselves about how rough it is in here. Well, it is a very rough place, and if you don't like it go sit in your office and listen to everything on the squawk box. But when you're in here you're on the line. If you've got facts that refute the facts we have, then you have an obligation to get up and state those facts; that's the basis of debate.

When we had the temerity, as was suggested from over there, to raise the dirty tricks, we were breaking all the codes of ethics in the world. My gosh! A code of ethics! The first statement of a code of ethics came out of the mouth of the Premier: "We need a code of ethics in the Social Credit Party." After 25 years of operation they finally got the message: "There's something wrong that we've got to get squared away." So you put up a code of ethics. A code of ethics is not going to help you. You don't legislate that kind of behaviour. The reason you don't legislate it is because if you are part of a government and you're going to blindly follow the leader, who doesn't know quite where he's going, then you're going to get into a, lot of trouble — all of the trouble that you've got into since.

Do you think it's pleasant to be able to stand here and to deal with this? Certainly we deal with it. We'll deal with it for four months because nothing else was dealt with in this province for four months. We waited for four months to get an energy policy. We had a statement from the Premier that it was coming down in August; then it was coming down in October; then November.

But how could you bring anything down? He was running and hiding in the bunker; the ministers couldn't reach him; and you had the dirty tricks all over the front pages. Who put them there? There are ministers who'd say: "Oh, it's the terrible way it was handled." Or another minister would say: "It's terrible what you're doing. There's really nothing to it." Yet it kept being ground out. It was your story and it was the press' story; it wasn't our story, because we were quiet about it.

You got yourself into the soup; the idea was to get yourself out of it. And the first rule if you want to get yourself out of it is to be candid, admit the mistake and go on from there. But nobody over there was prepared to do that, except, perhaps, two of the leadership aspirants: the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). Both of them said, in a very open fashion — while the Premier was God knows where — that it wasn't handled properly. He's right; it wasn't handled properly. It was handled like somebody with two left hands, with no sense of understanding about history. If you are in the glue, fine. But what happened? Exactly the same process happened in what is going on now in terms of victimization as happened in Watergate.

It's not a question of head-hunting for some cabinet minister or some Prime Minister. The question is, Mr. Speaker, who takes the responsibility? Who takes the responsibility? After seven months we still don't know, for instance, who paid for the tapes, who ordered the making of the tapes, who directed the staff. Because if they are going to have us believe, after seven months, that those four or five staff members were flying by themselves, then, my God, are they in charge of the government? These people had staff and they were doing this all by themselves with not one cabinet minister or executive assistant knowing what was going on? I can't believe that.

Now if we're dealing here with the matter of the business of the chairman of the caucus, well, that's an entirely different matter. You know, the chairman of the caucus, that was different. I mean, he became the patsy. The poor member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), having been squeezed out of the cabinet stakes, was stuck with making the decision about what to do with these people. And do you know what? He made exactly the same kind of decision with the staff, in terms of firing them, as his leader made the other day in respect to the whole business of the inquiry on uranium. A great big flap, not thinking, knows he's got to do something — so he cans everybody, fires them, right out of hand. Not important, just out you go. As I recall, it was just before Christmas.

The same with the Premier. The other day — suddenly he's come into the twenty-first century — he recognizes

[ Page 1268 ]

some problems with uranium, but no, he doesn't think about it; he doesn't say to the commission: "How long are you going to be before you wind up?" After all, what the commission is doing is valuable in terms of money, Mr. Speaker — over two million dollars. In one fell swoop, finished. Why? Was he afraid of the delegation that was coming down from his riding and parading on the front lawn and saying to him: "What are you going to do about uranium?" So what does he do? He takes the same kind of action as the chairman of the caucus did in firing the staff. Completely out of his head he just says: "That's it, it's finished." That's it. That's how to make a decision. That's what he did with one of his cabinet ministers — you saw it in the House — panic, absolute, livid panic. He makes a decision. That's what happened. That's the kind of leadership.

We don't know after all this time, because other things are happening.... Not one person up there has said anything about those staff people who were dismissed. You know: "They did wrong; that's where they should go." Just like that, you know. "We're pretty cold-blooded, we Socreds. You do wrong, out you go." But that's not the way to do it. Surely the public have some right to know, because everybody goes around thinking that there has got to be something badly wrong with that government if that's the way they deal with their staff. Yes, people are saying that, and yet you don't have the understanding or the sense to realize that if you come clean with people, we can move on to something else. Yes, we can move on to something else.

But we haven't forgotten that for seven months we didn't move on to anything. That's the great tragedy. That's the great problem of the lack of confidence in this government. For seven months you were completely immobilized, except for the extravagant expenditure of money in terms of looking for the truth by the use of the police, and God knows how many lawyers have been paid to look at whether we should charge, whether we can't charge.

So it is not — I say to the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker — something that is not very important. It is important, because somebody has got to account for the expenditure of that money. It has to be worth something.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Can we forget it? Sooner or later somebody is going to write a book and we're going to be really on the map in this province. When you think about Watergate, you'll think about Lettergate.

I have some personal feelings about the whole business of Lettergate because the first letter mentioned me. I remember reading it on March 13 last year, and I thought to myself: "No, that can't be. I can't be reading the right thing." So I made an inquiry and, sure enough, that's what it was. It wasn't sent by the individual. It was not sent by the individual whose name allegedly was used.

That was the beginning. That was the small beginning. But who would have thought that out of that one letter the whole of this province would have been immobilized the way it was?

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that what the Premier started in 1975?

[ Page 1269 ]

MR. LEVI: He was in the opposition then. He wasn't hungry for power — he just wanted to be the Prime Minister, that's all.

The thing is, what did it lead to? It led eventually to discussions, it led eventually to the peremptory dismissal of staff, and it eventually led us into something else — a chance remark by one of the dismissed members that she had seen Dan Campbell handing out thousand-dollar bills. Our member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) may be used to seeing thousand-dollar bills, but I'm not. I don't recall seeing anybody handing out thousand-dollar bills to pay for drinking parties or to pay for hotel expenses.

Out of that small remark we then find that he had a pocketful of money. And then we try to find out where it was. The Premier immediately — again, with his peremptory decision-making — appoints the former Attorney-General. I am not talking about the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald); I am talking about the former Attorney-General who used to come from Vancouver Centre, and then he came from Little Mountain. Now there is a man learned in the law. He was asked to inquire into the problem, and in less than four hours he had it all solved, which was 706 days and 18 hours less than it took to solve the Bonner case...the Sommers case; there's a good Freudian slip on my part. Out of that came the discussion about election expenses. And we have a very cavalier approach by those people over there. After all, it was a $250,000 mistake. "My, my, it was an oversight," said Mr. Peterson. That's nice. That oversight, to my knowledge, has never been accounted for, has never been adequately explained. We have no adequate explanation of the money that was given to Mr. Campbell.

There are a lot of loose ends. If that cabinet is not bright enough to understand that those backbenchers.... At your next caucus meeting you had better sit down and say to one another: "Look, we can't have these guys bringing this stuff over for the next three or four years; it's terrible. Is there something we can do to tie it all up and get it out of the way?" Well, there may be.

One of the first things is, tell us the truth. Tell the truth. After all, that's what we say to our kids. That's what we talk about when we talk about the kind of education we want for our kids — some understanding of the ethics and morality in what we live. It's no good for members over there to tell us that they have great moral standards, and somehow, because we attack them, we have a lesser moral standing than they have. You have yet to tell the truth to the public. That is what's missing. The quicker, the better the understanding, and it's gone. Then you can address yourselves to what you are always happy to talk about — the business of the people.

I got the distinct impression yesterday, Mr. Speaker, listening to the plaudits from some of the members and some of the cabinet, that nobody on that side does any work at all, except the Premier, who spends 18 hours a day working for this province, that in fact he is the only man in this province who works 18 hours a day. It's incredible! We have now discovered that that is a one-man government, that none of those people over there really do anything except follow him around trying to grab his arm so that he can sign something — but he is the man.

Well, we know that that is not true. We know that all of those cabinet ministers have arduous responsibilities that take time and that take them away from their families. They work hard. Don't be modest about it; say so. But don't build your leader into some kind of superhuman personality when in fact he's not, and when in fact he's a leader who is badly wanting in terms of his ability to lead. They all know that, over there, Mr. Speaker.

They tell us there is no rift. We didn't raise the business of rift; they raised the business of rift. Everything is fine in that coalition over there. It is holding together. Yes, it is really holding together. The glue has turned to water and any time now it may just fly apart, and then we'll see.

AN HON. MEMBER: Krazy Glue.

MR. LEVI: Exactly. The only advantage we have is that if it is Krazy Glue and it flies apart, they all get stuck to the wall and they will be immobilized. Then we will be okay.

They talk about this great leader. Well, sometime during the debate he will presumably get up and he will tell us why it is that he is a good leader. I, personally, have had some involvement over the last few months, in a very frustrating way, in trying to participate in a committee that was the Premier's baby — the Crown corporations reporting committee. I remember when he brought it in. It sounded like a very interesting idea. He said it would be unhampered by the House or by the government, and to tell you that was the way it was going to work they put no cabinet ministers on it. And it started to work. You, Mr. Speaker, at one time, were a member of that committee. The remarkable thing is that for the past year.... March 14, 1979, if I remember rightly, was the last time that committee met.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. LEVI: I agree, Mr. Member, it is a shame. We have staff in support of that committee who are able to do excellent work. The first report that came out of that committee, Mr. Speaker, was a unanimous, extremely worthwhile report on an analysis of what should happen to Hydro. But since then we haven't met, and I'm saying here and now that the reason we haven't met is because there's been direct interference by the Premier.

We were sent documents in August in order to look at the whole question of policy-making in respect to the export of power. We received two documents — one in August, one at the beginning of October. We were to meet, but in terms of their political understanding and their parliamentary understanding, it apparently occurred to somebody over there about a month ago, when they finally were able to count up to nine, that because three of the members of the committee had gone into the cabinet they were three short. If the chairman, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), had called a meeting, which he had already scheduled, there would have been 12 people there — 6 NDP, 6 from the Social Credit. The chairman would have had to have taken the chair, and, for the first time in history, the opposition would have been in control of a committee. I don't know when it quite came to him that that was the case, but he cancelled the meeting.

He had another option which he wasn't even prepared to consider. We're not going to bring down the government on the issue of the Crown corporations committee. We would have been quite prepared to meet, regardless of whether you had five or six or nine. We could even have worked out some arrangement where he could have appointed three more people, simply so that we could do the work.

I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, that part of the indication of the way that leader of that party operates.... There has been

[ Page 1270 ]

direct interference in that committee; that's why it hasn't operated. It's gone completely against all of the statements that were made in this House by the Premier. It's become a lame-duck committee. The great pity is that we are wasting the exceptionally talented staff they put together in the first two years of that operation, staff who are able to provide the kind of support that every committee, when it's operating, needs. But it's not being used and that's very unfortunate. That is, in my opinion, another reason why this motion and its direction towards the leader of the government.... We have to support it, because there again is a sign of incompetence and bungling. After all, how often do members of this House get an opportunity to examine in some detail the operations of Hydro and ICBC?

The mandate called for us to look at each of the five Crown corporations at least once in three years. We're already a year behind schedule. What's happened to the committee? We need an explanation of that, and we need the explanation from the Premier. Because, in the development of policy in respect to energy, that committee and that support staff would have been invaluable. But to suggest even for this moment, Mr. Speaker, that somehow we have an energy policy.... Because we don't have an energy policy. The Premier makes a policy standing on one leg, and he suddenly made a grab for the centre. He has suddenly realized, now that some of the problems of the dirty tricks have moved along a little bit, that the essence of political life in this province is that it's polarized and-that the centre you can move to to capture votes which either keep in power or get the other party into power is very small.

Suddenly he's become a great environmentalist, at the cost of $2 million to the public. He has simply thrown it to the wind, and he thinks that in some way that is going to create for him some kind of political support that wasn't there before. That's the kind of opportunistic policy-making he does standing on one leg. That's the nature of the thinking of the leader of that government. That's why they've gone from one crisis to another.

We have the new project in Vancouver, a remarkable project, the great announcement. We found out it took him four hours to put it together, and when they produced the maps we found that Cambie Street had been moved two blocks over to the left. It's that kind of attitude and that kind of peremptory decision-making that characterizes what that government does.

Two hundred million dollars for a subsidy in terms of mortgages is basically a good idea, but who is going to benefit? Who is it supposed to be for? Is it for people who don't have enough money to get into the housing market? Well, that's not the way it has worked out; it hasn't worked out that way at all. We find that a great number of people who are taking advantage of this scheme are people who already own one house and want to build a second one. Yet we have thousands and thousands of young people who can't even afford to get a first house, never mind a second house. It was put together and done very quickly. The basic idea that you can get leverage with $8 million or $10 million of money — that kind of availability of mortgage money, in itself, is sound, but not the way it was presented, not the way it was put together, not the way the target group was explained. That didn't happen, and here we are. It was all very quick. It looked like it might be politically expedient, but what has it worked out to?

Then we've got the other thing — the more recent one which is really going to develop into a problem. For two years in this House we've talked about nothing but what do we do about an urban transit system and what do we do in terms of light rapid transit. Right in the middle, he comes again with a peremptory decision: "We're going to build a bridge — a third crossing." Nice idea. But what does it have to do with what we've been talking about the past two years? Why? Because the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) said in the last election that if he doesn't get a bridge in six months he's going to resign? Is that why he did it? We spend millions of dollars planning a rapid transit system, trying to find some mechanism of moving people instead of cars, and what we have is a gift from the Premier of another overnight idea, which is: "Let's build a third one. Dump more cars into the Vancouver area." And that's a solution. A solution to what? To ending the blockage of traffic in Delta and Surrey? That's very nice. But the end product of that winds up in Vancouver. So what happens to all of the planning in terms of rapid transit, in terms of the lower mainland and the view the people have had and have tried to settle on for the last number of years. No consultation — just do it. And every time he comes up with a scheme, within 24 hours it turns to blotting paper, has no substance, because no thought is given to it. It's the act of a desperate leader of a very desperate government. But somehow we have to do these things because we have to keep our political credibility.

Well, people have long memories out there. You know, at one time the suggestion was that the large number of the leaders of the municipalities supported the government. That seemed evident but it's more evident now that they are not going to do that because they have seen the kind of inroads this government has had in terms of their local autonomy. We don't know, but down the road it looks like some big, heavy stuff is coming down in the next few months in terms of how much local autonomy these groups are going to have. And the best example, Mr. Speaker, is the way they have dealt with it in terms of this bridge.

So we took all of that money and all of that time, all of that public discussion — and there was lots of public discussion, something that they're not very happy to have in making decisions about how we have a light rapid transit system. But just like his uranium mining and the commission — $2 million, that's nothing. Just wipe it out. Take the books and put them on the shelf and forget about them.

Light rapid transit — that's not terribly important. The main thing is: "I've got to win Delta." They tell me $130 million. Well, I'll say to the Premier that even in the future, when you're unemployed and living it up in Kelowna, if they build that bridge for $130 million or $200 million, I'll come up to Kelowna and I'll take you to one of the restaurants and buy you some dinner — if they ever do that. Otherwise, you come down here and take me because if that comes in at less than $400 million, I'll be very, very surprised — if it ever gets built.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Against it? Yes. Right, on the record now, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is the whole party against it?

MR. LEVI: I don't speak for my party. Everyone speaks for themselves.

[ Page 1271 ]

We get that kind of interference from this heavy-handed government. Who did you consult? Nobody. Just the member for Delta and his PR person. That's all, I assume.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Who? Gosh, I'm sorry. No, he didn't consult with the member for Delta; he consulted with Pali. Pali is the god on Maui. Do you know about Pali? I'll get George Kerster to explain it all to you.

So that's where he was when they announced it? Amazing. He looked into a few cockle shells, sucked them up, and that was the announcement he made. I thought we got rid of that whole Hawaii syndrome when we had a former member who came from Hawaii and who is no longer around here. Now we have a Premier who does most of his thinking in Hawaii.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: No, that was our Premier. He goes to Hawaii to think in exactly the same way that Mackenzie King used to go into his study to commune with whoever he communed with.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: We know it's the Wizard of Oz land. That's where he goes.

But, Mr. Speaker, I'm saying to the Premier, we have moved this motion because it directly states that there is no confidence by the people of this province, and we were able to find this out during the last federal election because we were out there talking to people in such a way. We weren't in Hawaii. We didn't say we didn't have to vote. We didn't make the judgment, the great un-leadership judgment that people don't want another election, but the fact is the election was there. And the thing is, that's the kind of reason, that kind of lack of leadership which is understood out there. It's not because of dirty tricks and the problems that other people have had. It's because of a lack of leadership. That's why we've moved the motion and that's why we will eventually perhaps get the Premier up on his feet and he'll tell us why it is that he prefers to do his thinking in Maui or in the bunker, or what kind of support staff he has to help him in developing his ideas.

We would hope to hear from at least one of those members, if not from the Premier, some kind of vision of this province that you have, other than 30-second solutions every time you think your political life is in danger. Mr. Speaker, that's what the motion is all about.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, that member asked what we expected him to talk about. I would regretfully suggest that we got from him exactly what we would expect him to talk about: nothing. There was not one word of constructive criticism, not one word of reference to the policies of this government, not one word....

Interjections.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: What's trivering your teetums?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, let's not interrupt the member who has the floor.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, all we got was the pious pomposity that we are used to from that member, who was the architect of a $200 million overrun, bank accounts mixed between his wife, himself and his campaign committee.... But I won't go on further.

He might possibly have brought up names like Borthwick, Riddell, Kennedy — respected professional civil servants who suffered under that government. He might wish to have recalled to the attention of this House the fate of Dr. Knight, or Mr. Bremer, or the secretaries.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Yes, a world authority on education was brought to this province at great expense by the then minister's government and unceremoniously fired on television and embarrassed as a professional person. But he didn't mention that, and he certainly didn't mention the secretaries.

This came to my attention because, as you know, I have a responsibility for a new office, and I was looking for secretaries for that office. There are some very fine secretaries with long-standing good records with this government. I was talking to some of them, and they said: "Mrs. Jordan, we would like to come and work in your office, but that's an order-in-council appointment, and when the NDP came into government in 1972 they all but fired me because I was an order-in-council appointment." Mr. Speaker, there are a number of secretaries — nameless, yes, because that party's not concerned about the little people — many good secretaries with long-standing records, good reputations and great capabilities who are afraid to work under order-in-council, because they know if the NDP got in they would be fired. So I don't think that member has too much to be proud of, and he certainly had nothing to say.

Mr. Speaker, we are debating a motion. Frankly, it's rather an interesting motion, the wording of which I won't repeat. If anyone has taken the time to read it, it has quite a different character from the usual motion in this House. I was very curious.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Perhaps the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) would like to get up and redo his speech. Mr. Speaker, this motion, as you will know if you have read it, is of a very formal composition and rather unusual. So I took the trouble to consult you and the history books, and I find that this motion is called the Asquith motion. It was accepted in the Mother House of Parliaments on August 11, 1892. So first of all we have to go back on a bit of history to have any imaginative thought. But what's more significant is that this motion is considered impeccable in terms of its construction and presentation, because it's been through the screening procedure of the Mother of Parliaments and was accepted and found in order.

If the opposition were going to utilize this type of motion, one would have expected that its presentation would have followed that high standard of the history of this motion, yet we have a member moving it whose credentials are probably less than admirable and whose presentations in this House to date have done little to elevate the debate or character in this House. If you peruse Hansard you'll find that he swears in the

[ Page 1272 ]

House, he assassinates character and he has had little to contribute in the way of any constructive suggestions towards this province or its development.

That's a shame, because I took the time to look through the debate of the House in 1892 when this motion was passed. I have no doubt that feelings were very deep at that time, and were running very high; but not once did I see in this record anything that related to the debate that has come from that side of the House in defence of this amendment. More is the shame, Mr. Speaker, that an impeccable record and impeccable example of the Mother of Parliaments should be so debased in the provincial Legislature of British Columbia in this year of 1980, the new decade.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill King wouldn't last for five minutes in this party.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I'm sure he would never have got elected to it, Mr. Member.

I have to add to this concern — and I don't consider myself a parliamentary authority, but I take my position here very seriously, as do most members. I try to do my best to uphold the traditions of this House and to respect the integrity of the members of this House. When I reviewed it, and felt the disappointment in the motion and the mover, and then listened to some of the debate, climaxed by the debate of the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) last night, one can do little but bring to the attention of the public the concern that they should have for the quality of some of the members of that opposition. Other members on this side of the House have pointed out their concern about the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke. I certainly felt shocked last night when I heard that member speak, when I heard the vulgarity of the trick that he was trying to introduce into the debate and into the history of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I haven't had quite the idealistic impression of that member because I've known him for a long time. Indeed, he is very charming on the surface, and, indeed, he likes to lead his constituents to the fact that he works hard on the surface. Last night he was out of the closet for all to see. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that the people of Shuswap-Revelstoke — even those who voted for him — would have hung their heads in shame last evening. And I suggest that the annals of this House are poorer forever in history because of the words of that member last night. I suggest that an amendment such as we're debating now has been debased by the actions of that member.

Mr. Speaker, the whole subject, supposedly, that we are debating is leadership, and if the leadership of that party is what introduced that motion, probably it's not worthy of discussion. I believe the people of British Columbia do expect anything in this House to be discussed with a sense of sincerity.

As I was listening to the debate yesterday, I happened to go downstairs and on the way down I looked at the stained-glass windows — very beautiful and very much a part of our history.

MR. COCKE: And you wondered what you were doing here.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I was thinking about the debate — which is more than the member for New Westminster ever does. One of the windows said: "The virtue of prosperity is temperance." The leader of this party and this government, the current Premier, has selected around him quality and quantity in terms of the public and their confidence to bring prosperity to this province.

The hon. member for New Westminster asked about a legacy that they left us from when they were in government. Mr. Member, let's recall that legacy. You virtually stole people's property, or tried to, until we amended Bill 42. It was the biggest land grab outside the Iron Curtain that this world has ever seen. You hacked away at the forest industry and you scuttled the mining industry. Worst of all, and perhaps most significant of all, was that the leader of that party — who dares to put this amendment which questions the leadership on the floor of the House — robbed us, as citizens, of our independence of thought. They tried to tell us that the world owed us a living. Because of their erosion of the economy, our freedom and our land rights in this province.... they attempted to erode our self-respect.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: You can sit there and say: "Aw, shucks!" You attempted to steal the future from our children, and you didn't get away with it. You left us a legacy of an insurance corporation that was robbing the citizens blind, and you left us a legacy of such things as Panco Poulty. I won't go through them. But more significant is the legacy of your leader compared to the legacy of our leader. International trips by your leader were called a roadshow, with a buffoon football player who couldn't play.

The Premier of this province has won respect internationally, in the Orient and in Europe. He's respected in the United States and he has won acclaim from his colleagues at the national level in Canada.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Well, for somebody who had a record of 10 percent attendance last year, that's an amazing remark.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On a point of order, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to withdraw the remark "buffoon football player."

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Pardon me! Buffoon rugby player — very sorry!

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I don't see anything unparliamentary about "football player," but perhaps "buffoon" could be retracted. Would the hon. member please....

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, the Japanese thought he was a bit of a buffoon, but I'll withdraw. We know he is.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Please proceed.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I am pleased to withdraw, which is more than the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke would do, no matter how wrong he was.

[ Page 1273 ]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk of leadership and legacies I would ask the NDP what legacy they left this province, other than debt, destruction and a lack of self-confidence. What is the legacy that this man has left to this province to date? And he's just getting started. We have regained our self-respect as British Columbians, which is perhaps most significant. We have gained our position in Canada as a responsible government and a responsible people. We have gained our position in the world economy, so that we can not only hold our heads high but we can make an impact at international conferences and, what is more, we can sell our products and we are competitive.

What legacy has this Premier left to us in terms of some of the practical aspects of life? That member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) who just spoke is now on record as opposing the bridge that was just announced in Richmond. The whole party opposes it, and let the record show that party is against roads. I don't know who you think they're for; we happen to think they're for people. You're against bridges. I don't know who you think they're for, but we happen to think they're for people. You're against any form of business and economic development that's for people and that shows a profit. I don't know who you think profit is for, but we happen to think it's for people. These are all part of a new legacy that this Premier has left this province.

Then we heard the attack on British Columbia Place, which has to be incredible in itself, but probably more than anything else points out the antiquity of the thinking on that side of the House and why we're debating such a deplorable and rather stupid amendment at this time. What that side of the House doesn't understand is that the industrial revolution is over and it's been over for quite some time. Certainly there will be refinements in industrial development, and certainly when we get into managed reforestation and this sort of thing there will be job creation. But the real job creation, the real secondary cash flow of the future, is not going to come in what you haven't talked about but supposedly espouse. Mr. Speaker, it's going to come in the future through the actions of people, both in their leisure time and in the type of work that's highly labour-oriented, and that is in the area of culture and recreation. When you put that together it's in the area of people movement that you can call tourism — whether it's someone moving from Chilliwack to Vancouver for a visit, from Toronto to Vancouver for a visit, from Hanover to Pouce Coupe for a visit, or from the Okanagan to Prince Rupert for a visit. It is tourism, and that is where the future lies.

B.C. Place, the trade and convention centres both in Victoria and Vancouver, the new cultural developments that will go with them and, above all, the spirit that goes with them are what will keep British Columbia out in the forefront — not only in the eighties and the nineties but in the year 2000, which is when the real competition is going to be. It seems to have eluded the members of that side of the House that this whole matter of planning for the future, whether it is industrial- and market-wise or whether it is in the world of people employment and cash flow, is in the future. It's very complex and it's very highly competitive.

We have only to liken the attitude of that side of the House today with the attitude that they took when it came to the terms of building the dams in British Columbia and building the road. They told us we didn't need the power until the year 2000. Mr. Speaker, today we're referring more and more to energy, and British Columbia sits as one of the richest provinces in the world because of our power. The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) is nodding his head, because he knows that's right. You know, Mr. Member, that the party you're sitting with is as antiquated today, is out of contact as much today, as it was then. You know after this debate that it has no more on its mind than character assassination and the persecution of some people who may have made a mistake but who are having their noses rubbed into it, not by this side of the House but by those members who feel that the end is justified by the means, and if little people suffer for their mistakes — more than some people have been made to suffer — then that's just all right, isn't it, Mr. Member?

British Columbia Place, the trade and convention centre, will be equalled by no other development in the world in the next 20 years; we're right on stream. There is a time and a place for development, and there is a time and a place for a man. In British Columbia today we have the opportunity to take advantage of that time and that place, with the development of these concepts. We certainly have the right man for the time and that place, a man who has....

AN HON. MEMBER: The vision!

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Member, you're so right, but they don't even know what that word means over there. They are so myopic they think vision is a new type of screen for movie-making.

Tourism is the fastest-growing industry in the world today. I would like to give you a few figures to substantiate that statement. Worldwide travel spending, including domestic and international travel, is estimated at $488 billion for 1978; worldwide travel spending is about 6 percent of the world's gross product; and it will be the leading industry by the year 2000. Canada at this time is eighth, behind the United States, France, Germany, Austria, Spain, the United Kingdom and Italy in international tourism receipts. That in itself should outline why the vision this leader and this government are showing will put us in the forefront of that industry of the future.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did they say? "Yankee go home!"

HON. MRS. JORDAN: The hon. member who spoke as a former minister of tourism left us a legacy of nothing more and nothing less than: "Yankee go home!" Mr. Speaker, I think it's significant that over one million Canadians hold tourism-related jobs, which accounts for 9 percent of the workforce. One job in every 11 in Canada is related to this industry. The revenue for Canada in 1978 totalled $11 billion. This is 5 percent of our gross national product. It's the nation's sixth largest earner of foreign exchange and worth $2 billion. I see the opposition are getting restless. I can understand that; I don't feel offended, because....

Interjections.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: The thing is, Mr. Member, they don't understand what the world is all about. You don't understand where the future lies, or you would be debating this Speech from the Throne. You show it over and over again when you don't understand the future that we have

[ Page 1274 ]

through the concepts of British Columbia Place, Transpo '86 and the developments here in Victoria.

What is even more distressing, Mr. Speaker, is that they not only don't understand it here but they don't have any idea of how this can benefit the rest of the province. If they have, they're certainly not making any effort to have the rest of the province understand both the short-term and the long-term benefits. Because member after member on that side of the House has been heard to speak in Victoria about the trade and convention centre and say what a great thing it is, then to leap into the north and say what a tragedy it is and how the lower mainland is becoming a monster and feeding off the north. So we have not only lack of understanding but certainly a lack of intelligence as well — and a great disservice, which goes along with this motion as part of their characteristic to the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker, the legacy that this government is building for the future is one of confidence in the economy. I just advise you that the number of new businesses incorporated in British Columbia in 1978 was a record 15,215, up 48 percent since 1975. Our tourism has increased because of the confidence in our province and the abilities of this government. But what's even more distressing about their lack of understanding and the lack of substance in their debate is that this amendment, which questions leadership, or tries to compare leadership that we have with the non-leadership that they had, precludes a great deal of the discussion of the content of the Speech from the Throne.

And that's where the real tragedy is, Mr. Speaker, and that's where the confusion from the members opposite comes. In this Speech from the Throne there are more imaginative suggestions, there is more evidence of planning for the future, than this province has seen in many years and certainly than this province saw under the NDP. I would ask the hon. members what legacy their leader left. What have you left in British Columbia today that we can stand up and be proud of? Tell me.

MR. LEA: BCRIC.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: BCRIC. Glad you brought it up. Did you leave a brick? My friends, BCRIC, in itself, is one of the most imaginative programs that has hit the free world, and it certainly would never have an opportunity to hit the communist world or the socialist world.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I hope the record will show that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has just said that BCRIC is stupid. What that member is saying is that the right of people to own their own resources, the right of people to have some money in their own pockets to spend, the right of people to feel tangible evidence of possession, is stupid. That's, of course, where we divide philosophically. Those members think that everything is stupid but the government they form. And, of course, that's the fallacy of it all, because they were stupid before they went into government — most of them.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: As the member said, he's here because he wants to be here, not because he has to have a job.

The fallacy of their argument is in this debate today. Not once have these members got up and offered anything constructive about BCRIC. Not once have they made a suggestion on the floor of this House — which they could have done in this Speech from the Throne that we're amending — and said: "We suggest that BCRIC should acquire such and such a company." Is it beyond reason to expect the members of the opposition to do this?

BCRIC has given every man, woman and child the feeling of independence, a stimulation to understand a system that will give them greater independence, and an opportunity to feel that they — not big government, not the member for Prince Rupert — own part of British Columbia. When this amendment is over, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you'll hear many suggestions from this side of the House as to how BCRIC can be expanded and made to benefit even more the people of this province.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: An independent corporation. Well, let me have an example of the independent setups that the NDP created. Did you ever hear of the British Columbia Medical Centre, that fiasco in Vancouver where the only thing that was done for the people was that one architect made something like $7 million? The concept, which the medical world today has agreed, was like socialist theory....

Interjections.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Well, correct me. Was it $6 million or $3 million?

Mr. Speaker, had that been allowed to go ahead, as it was going under the former Minister of Health of the NDP, it would have virtually dried up every health dollar in this province, and we would have had a monument to brick and mortar, bureaucracy and egos. There would have been no opportunity for the development of regional medicine....

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: The member is certainly getting touchy. I guess it is a pretty sensitive subject with him and hitting some nerves. The sad thing is that the member knows the medical and nursing professions today sigh with relief that this government had the courage to make the decision that medical care was to be for all people in the province, not just an elite few. That is another legacy that this leader and this government have left — the first comprehensive medical care program.

Mr. Speaker, there are other exciting concepts and proposals in the Speech from the Throne that we are amending which would attest to the leadership of our Premier. I would speak to the fact that this government has recognized — when that government could have recognized — the need for every community in this province to have a vital and attractive looking downtown core. This is not only important to us as citizens, and to tourism, but it enhances those values in British Columbia that we love best. I would add on that point that that program which will help communities revitalize their downtown cores will add a great deal to tourism.

I would suggest to the members of this House that this government is planning for the future — as that government couldn't and as that leadership was not capable of doing. So

[ Page 1275 ]

tourism isn't going to be an ad hoc, mumbo-jumbo overrunning of this province — as it was under them until they got frightened and told them all to go home. Tourism is going to be guided carefully, with the cooperation of the industry, so that it, in itself, brings quality guests to our province, and, in turn, we will become quality hosts. That will help us preserve the very qualities that are most dear to us.

Hon. Mrs. Jordan moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe tabled the third annual report of business done in pursuance of the Public Service Benefit Plans Act for the year ended March 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe tabled the Pacific National Exhibition financial statements for the year ended November 30, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.