[ Page 1277 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Speech from the Throne.

On the amendment.

Hon. Mrs. Jordan –– 1277

Mr. Barber –– 1277

Mr. Hyndman –– 1283

Mr. Leggatt –– 1286

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 1980

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, before dinner I was discussing the legacies that will be left to the people of this province by the two leaders in the province today, and by the challenge to the leadership that's being issued through the NDP in this historic amendment, when he's just getting started and has already left the people the legacy of practicality for today and a golden ticket to the future. I was referring specifically at this time to British Columbia Place and the imaginative and very productive future that it offers us — and the challenge, Mr. Speaker, because the government isn't giving anything away. They have laid the groundwork, they have put their cards on the table and they have challenged the private sector, both in Victoria and in Vancouver, to do their part so that we work as a team — the people of British Columbia, the business community of these areas and this government — to build for the future.

When we talk of legacies I would ask: what has that side of the House said in this debate, challenging our Premier's leadership, that has in any way been constructive to tourism in British Columbia? I feel sad to say that I hear nothing but carping, nothing but negative comments, nothing but a determined effort to try to circulate distrust, fear and misinformation to the business community and to the public.

They're not even consistent. You go to the north and you say one thing, and you come down to the lower mainland and say another thing. And none of it is true — forked tongue. You should hang your heads in shame, because the disservice in this amendment is to the Legislature and the history of this parliament, and to the people of British Columbia.

The Speech from the Throne, which they are attempting to amend, makes it very clear that in aiming to have tourism adopted as one of the five basic resources of this province, to be husbanded and managed with care for the future for our people and our guests, this government makes it very clear that all people will be welcome to British Columbia, and that they will be welcome to share in those benefits that we share and to contribute, as we contribute to developing those benefits and maintaining them in perpetuity, not just for the hosts and the guests of this province today, but for our children and their children in the future.

Lycurgus the legislator stated more than two thousand years ago — which is even before the honourable motion which is being so disgraced today — that a wall made of men is more solid than a wall made of stone. This side of the House is building a wall of men; it is building a wall of leadership, under our Premier; and it is building a future for us.

If you want to challenge that, I would just give you a few more facts on tourism that will interest you. It is British Columbia's third-largest industry. These revenues totalled $1.69 billion in 1979, and are expected to top $2 billion in 1980-81. These revenues are 6 percent of our gross provincial product. We are the fourth-largest earner of foreign exchange in British Columbia, after fabricated materials, crude materials and edible products. The visitors to this province spent $425 million in 1979. B.C. residents — our own people — spent $930 million visiting each other in British Columbia, to get to know each other better, to strengthen our understanding of each other in the province, and to make our life richer in employment. There are 10,000 businesses in British Columbia which receive tourism revenues directly, and 60,000 people are directly or indirectly employed in the tourist industry in British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) says that it's more than that; and I'll be glad to try and prove it to him over the next few months.

We see a tax benefit in 1979 estimated at $106 million, or over $39 for every adult and child in this province — all from learning more about each other, all from expanding our cultural direction and our recreational direction, and all just having fun in this beautiful province.

I can't accept the motion, Mr. Speaker, for all the reasons given. I have to again express my personal disappointment. And I don't feel that I have any corner on being virtuous or in capability in this Legislature, or even in honouring the history of this great parliament. But I do think that, with my frailties and the shock I felt at the use of this historic amendment by the member who used it — and so enhanced the degradation of that amendment by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) — this province is poorer for the conduct of the opposition in this House, and specifically for the conduct of some among its members, and its lack of leadership. They have proved in this debate, when we should be debating the legislation and the future of this province, that their leadership offers them no greater avenue than character assassination, innuendo and — I hate to say it — muck-raking. I don't support this amendment because, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Leader of the Opposition, your party has no plan. You have no confidence. You have no policies, and you have no leadership.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to introduce two good friends of British Columbia. The guests this evening are two linguists who have worked for about the last 10 or 12 years doing what they can to preserve the Indian languages of this province. Unfortunately there are not more people who are able to do this important work. I would like the House to join me in welcoming Randy Bouchard and Dorothy Kennedy.

MR. BARBER: Following the speech of the new Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), the comment of my colleague for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) makes good sense. He cracked quickly: "Now you see why we can't sell Hansard in British Columbia." "Enhanced the degradation." What on earth does "enhanced the degradation" mean? Is it any wonder that the people of British Columbia have remarkable difficulty following the policies, such as they are, of that administration?

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to name a few names. I wonder if you recognize them; I wonder if you can find what these several names have in common. I'd appreciate your advice, Mr. Speaker. You tell me what they have in common: Jack Kelly, Ellen McKay, Bob Husband, Susan Cowan, Penny Lifton, Ron Grieg, George Lenko and Dan Campbell. What

[ Page 1278 ]

do these names have in common? What particular common denominator do you find when you examine the list of them? Interjection.

MR. BARBER: The lowest! No, I'm sure that's not fair. No doubt some of them are nice fellows.

We discover, of course, that they're all Socreds, or at least they were. We discover, of course, that they've all been on the public payroll at one time or another, some of them for much of their lives. We discover as well that they are all supporters of the Premier, or at least they were. And we discover most particularly that every single one of them is the beneficiary of the very special leadership that only this Premier provides politically in British Columbia.

Jack Kelly, Ellen McKay, Bob Husband, Susan Cowan, Penny Lifton, Ron Grieg, George Lenko, Dan Campbell — they have in common some very interesting relationships with the Premier of British Columbia. They are in a special fashion victims of this Premier. They are the victims of his particular standards, of his instructions, of his compliance and of his special sense of political ethics. After all, people who work as intimately as did these with the political leader of this province surely pick up something, intuit something or another of his style, his expectation, his wishes, his political interests. People who operate at this level don't operate in any vacuum at all. Anyone active in political life in British Columbia knows that. The staff intimately involved, as were these, in the life of any political party come to reflect, to illustrate, to intuit and sense, and finally, to state in their own action, in their own behaviour, what the leadership of their political party believes in and cares about.

Colleagues earlier, on this side of the House, have pointed out quite clearly that those people are, at the very least, victims of a code of political ethic in this province which has found it necessary to sacrifice them at their level, in order not to sacrifice others at a higher level. They cannot possibly be in any dispute at all. Why else did Dan Campbell go?

Why was Dan Campbell asked to go? Who did he work for? In whose interest was it to dismiss him so that the interest of the people of British Columbia might be dismissed from looking at the real target, the real centre, the real home of political leadership in this province? What other reason could there be that someone like George Lenko would disappear from political life? As far as one can tell, his whole life is political life. He's devoted it, no doubt, with total loyalty to the Deputy Premier. Whose interest was served by his being given the bounce? Whose interest was served by his absence and his dismissal, preceding the absence and dismissal of maybe someone else, maybe higher?

When you look at those names and you discover what they have in common, over and over again you come to the conclusion that, at the very least, they have in common this: they were all subservient to the political leadership of the Social Credit Party; they all worked in the office of the leader of that party, or his research team; they all had direct access to highly confidential information about the political tactics of Social Credit. And sure enough, one by one, Jack Kelly, Ellen McKay, Bob Husband, Susan Cowan, Penny Lifton, Ron Grieg, George Lenko and Dan Campbell were made to disappear from the political life of this province.

It may well be that some of them are absolutely innocent victims of the defence strategy of Social Credit. It may be that some of these people are genuinely innocent of any political wrongdoing whatever. That may well be. But we will never know that, because of the conduct of that Premier, because of the way he has handled this scandal, because of the refusal of that government to be frank and open and blunt. We will never know.

Penny Lifton — do you remember the name? The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) might; he fired her. Do you remember the name even now, and how you treated her? Is it possible that she herself is utterly innocent in the whole matter, except that, through the guilt by association which has riddled that government and all who have dealt with the highest political leadership of it, she had to be sacrificed to protect someone else? We will never know why she or the others were given the bounce, although in the cases of a few of them we can most certainly suspect.

These eight people, clearly, have been sacrificed to protect someone else. There is no other sense to it. There is no other reason for it. We can find no other explanation. Were there an explanation that was honourable, the government would have made it. Were there an explanation that made sense, the government would have offered it by now. There would be no need for conjecture tonight about why these people were dismissed. Were the government honourable and honest in the whole dealing, they would have told us repeatedly, and there would be no need to pursue the question. But the wilful refusal of this government to be honest with the people of British Columbia means that these eight people, by design, or by some misfortune not of their own doing, are the victims of the political leadership that we are now debating in this amendment.

Let's talk about the principal political leader. Most people would agree, would they not, that, regardless of the party in power at any given time, the person who heads it, at the very least, is expected to be honest and candid about his intentions, about his policies, about his own conduct in office? How then do you reconcile that reasonable expectation with the behaviour of this Premier? On May 28, 1975, he wrote a letter on his own letterhead as leader of the official opposition. The letter was directed to the president and regional directors of the Social Credit Party. This letter and its authenticity have not, to this hour, been challenged by the Premier. We presume it is in fact a valid document. We presume it's his signature we see at the bottom of it. He hasn't challenged it, and we see no reason to. On May 28, 1975, he said, when he thought no one would find out he was saying it:

"We hope that all constituencies will be gearing up a massive letter-writing campaign, both in their own area and outside of it. Some material which can be used in communicating letters to the editor will go on 'Do you know' sheets and some will be going through to you on 'Say it isn't so.' The first of the 'Say it isn't so' has already been sent to you.

"For the convenience of your letter-writing team, the address sheets for the media are enclosed for your distribution and their convenience.

W.R. Bennett,

Office of the Leader of the Opposition."

This letter is now a matter of public record. No one challenges its authenticity — they wouldn't dare — but we do challenge the Premier to tell us how it was that in September this year, the 27th, to be precise, he went on to say he was disturbed by reports that a caucus employee had "raised the spectre of encouraging our party to write letters to the editor that would not be a normal reflection of a person's thinking,

[ Page 1279 ]

but would be manipulative," and he went on to insist, as if anyone might believe him: "I want to say this is not the way in which I want our party members to be encouraged, and I don't condone the suggestion, nor will it become the practice of our party." Now when he said that on September 27 last year, he didn't know that the letters he wrote in May 1975 might ever become public. So he said one thing in September 1979, but we know he said quite a different thing in May 1975.

Now whom are we to believe? Whom are you to believe when the pathetic defence, especially of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) during his lamentable speech, would have us believe that we are dealing with a perfectly honest and endlessly candid Premier, and then we see this stuff? I'm not going to be unparliamentary; I won't say anyone fibbed. I sure will point out, though, that there is an extraordinary conflict which any honest person would acknowledge between what the Premier claimed was his position in September last year and what we know his position was in May 1975. "For the convenience of your letter-writing team, the address sheets for the media are enclosed," he said in 1975 when he hoped no one would look; and in 1979, when he still thought no one was looking, he said: "I want to say this is not the way in which I want our party members to be encouraged, and I don't condone the suggestion, nor will it become the practice of our party." On which occasion, then, was he telling the truth? One doesn't hear a lot of members opposite leaping to his defence right now. They should, of course, be embarrassed by the fact that their Premier has been caught out, he's been found out, he's been exposed for what a lot of people have known him to be for some time.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: A great leader!

MR. BARBER: He may well be great by Social Credit standards, but that's your problem, not ours.

My colleagues have pointed out repeatedly that we can't discuss, we can't debate, we can't examine the leadership of this party separate from the whole political leadership provided by Social Credit since 1952. The party of Robert Sommers, Robert Bonner and Phil Gaglardi has always had some trouble with political ethics. This party has always had advisers to the Premier, it would appear, who engaged in the forgery of letters. Was it just people in the Premier's office this term who were forging the signatures of people like Gordon Townsend? Well, no. Was it just people like Arthur Weeks, another adviser to this Premier, who was busy forging signatures? No, it wasn't just him either. It wasn't just the forger of the Townsend letters, nor was it just Arthur Weeks, the forger of the cheques, the adviser to the Premier, the adviser to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). No, in the political history of this province it goes back even further.

I want to read to you, very briefly, from a remarkable editorial that parallels the precedent; it's really quite extraordinary. Once again, we're dealing with a Premier whose surname was that of this Premier. Once again, a man committed a forgery; once again, the attempt to separate that leadership from that act seems stunningly similar to the pathetic attempt of the government to separate their leadership from the dirty tricks. Look at the parallel; listen as carefully as you care to to part of the history of the political leadership of Social Credit in this province. On the Vancouver Province editorial page, Saturday, June 12, 1965, there was an editorial called "The Pall Guy," dealing with another Socred forger:

"During the past few days British Columbians have had a stark and ugly glimpse of the sordid dog-eat-dog politics behind the lily white window dressing of the Social Credit Party. Al Williamson, one of the party's veteran back-room boys, influence broker and speech writer, has gone to jail for forging the now notorious "Dear Hal" affair. While he was in court fighting to save himself from ruin, members of the party for whom he had laboured so assiduously looked studiously in the other direction."

Get this!

"Premier Bennett, chief beneficiary of Williamson's unremitting diligence in polishing up the Socred image on the government's front door, was away in Japan when he could have made it his business to be at the trial. Whether calculated or not, reports reaching Vancouver of his doings and of the benefits which will accrue to B.C. from new trade with Japan helped draw some attention away from the government's involvement in the 'Dear Hal' affair.'' The editorial goes on to note:

"Justice P. Craig Munroe mentioned the unexplained failure of the Crown to call Mr. Bennett as a witness, which might indicate that his testimony could have been favourable to the accused. But no, the Premier who makes a point of personal purity turned his back on an opportunity to offer an explanation that might have helped a faithful friend."

Forgery is not unknown among the supporters of Social Credit. I wouldn't argue that every member of the Social Credit Party is a forger — not at all. Many of them are very honest and very fine people; they work hard, they work with loyalty, they work with conviction and high principle. They've never changed parties. They've believed consistently and honourably in the things for which they think their party stands. No one here condemns every member of the Social Credit Party — it's unfair. But it is reasonable to wonder why it is that such a disproportionate number of people who engage in this sleazy kind of business have always been politically associated with the leadership of that party in this province. Now is it totally a coincidence? Is it nothing but coincidence after coincidence after coincidence? The similarities between this and the unfortunate events that surrounded Al Williamson and another Premier Bennett are really pretty startling.

Let's talk a bit more about the political leadership of this province. The Premier cannot have it both ways, as he has learned to his considerable embarrassment in the last six months. He can't tell us one thing in September and do another thing in 1975 and hope we never find out about it.

The political leadership of this province has provided the instructions and created the atmosphere for the whole dirty tricks thing; if they hadn't, it could not have occurred. Are they to have us believe that they didn't know anything about what was happening in that caucus office? Are they to have us believe that no one paid attention to the instructions of the then Leader of the Opposition in 1975? Would they have us believe that 170 tapes were never listened to by anyone? Would they have us believe that no one knew about the attempts to coerce and intimidate the candidates of the Conservative and Liberal parties in the last two provincial elections? Would they have us believe that the leadership of this

[ Page 1280 ]

party is so disconnected from the workings of its own party that none of these things...?

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: I did? Nonsense! Say it here or say it anywhere; it's nonsense and you know it.

Would they have us believe that the leadership of this party knew nothing at all, by example, by activity, or by compliance with instructions, about the whole dirty tricks thing since it began?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let's all restrain ourselves while we listen to the speech. The first member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BARBER: What does the government do when it gets caught? The Premier comes back from Japan, wears a silly red bandanna on his head, grins and smirks and hopes to dance his way out of it. That's the kind of responsible leadership that you're going to be supporting if you oppose our amendment? Surely not. After he's grinned and smirked and no one believes it, we then hear the grins, the smirks, the cackling, of other guys from the same backrooms of Social Credit, who try one by one to set up a fall-guy in the hope that that will satisfy the interest of the press and the interest of the public; one by one they discover it won't. So here we are tonight. They dismissed eight of them. We wonder whether or not any more are coming down the pike.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who are the eight?

MR. BARBER: Do I have to read the names again? Maybe I should. Jack Kelly, Ellen McKay, Bob Husband, Susan Cowan, Penny Lifton, Ron Grieg, George Lenko and Dan Campbell — they are all the victims of the political leadership that you tell us you admire, all the victims of the Premier whom you tell us you support and who himself didn't have the wit or the honour to be honest and say: "Okay, I erred in '75 when I told people to write phoney-baloney letters, and I erred again in '79 when I said I didn't know anything about it. I apologize." Some honour would have gone a long way. But the problem you have tonight is that you've denied the honour and the honesty for too long, and you can't get away with it any more.

You have to ask whether or not at any point they thought they could get away with it: the forgeries, the fake letters, the intimidation of political candidates, the tapes, the phoney election expense declarations. All of this is a matter of public record. Not one aspect of it is denied by any member who has spoken yet. They deny their own culpability, but they don't deny that the events occurred.

You might be interested in a story I heard a couple of months ago, Mr. Speaker. At the then height of the scandal, someone told me: "You know, after you guys got bumped again in May of '79, it was so close we thought that the only thing that stood between you and forming the government were two convictions and a heart attack. Well, we've changed our opinion. Now it's just three convictions." Such is the respect with which Social Credit is held in this province.

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) was for once perfectly correct when he pointed a finger at those who were guilty of what he called "cowardly, reprehensible and irresponsible behaviour." Unfortunately this muckraking Attorney-General didn't go all the way and wasn't prepared to define and describe the source of this cowardly, reprehensible and irresponsible behaviour. Mr. Speaker, did the advisers to His Honour really think, all these years, they would never be found out? Did they really think they could keep it secret? Did they really think no one would discover anything about the tapes, the forgeries, the fakes, the phoney election expenses declarations, the thousand dollar bills, the intimidation of candidates from the third and fourth parties in this province? Did they really hope they could get away with it all?

It's not just, however, those matters. Let me restate, as I did, I guess, nine months ago in this House, the personal and very strong offence I took at those disgusting references to national socialism made by the Premier when he called the election. Once again the Premier is caught between that rock and a hard place; he can't have it both ways. Either the man is a hopeless dunce who doesn't know history and didn't know what he was saying, didn't know what national socialism meant, or he knew darned well what he was saying and said it in such a fashion as to insult and degrade and humiliate the thousands of democratic socialists in Canada and around the world who fought Nazism whenever they could. They fought it in Spain, they fought it in Italy, they fought it in Germany, they fought it in the theatres of Japan and Europe; they are socialists and proud of it. To be insulted and slurred by that Premier can only represent that the Premier knows nothing of history and is intellectually unfit to serve, or that he knows nothing of the implications of what he said, in which case he is unfit on different grounds to serve. It was a revolting statement for which he's never, even once, hinted at an apology. What kind of leadership is that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I would just remind the hon. member that although the performance and the policy of all hon. members is fair material for debate, we try to resist personal attack. Please proceed.

MR. BARBER: I think that's fair advice, Mr. Speaker, and I don't get angry a lot in this House. But I and a lot of others weren't even born during the war. Nonetheless, because of the political culture and tradition that I honour, I felt insulted by the lamentable comment of that Premier. Mr. Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, do you endorse what the Premier said, referring to this group or any other as national socialists? Come on now.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Hansard may not have picked it up, but I heard what he said, and he said: "Let me think about that. "

HON. MR. McGEER: You're socialists, and you have a national party.

MR. BARBER: Are you going to do the same thing? Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Please direct your debate through the Chair, and it will assist us.

[ Page 1281 ]

MR. BARBER: There are a number of reasons why this government has lost some of the respect and some of the confidence that was previously offered it by the people of British Columbia. It wasn't simply that loathsome reference to national socialism; it's not just the lies that were told about a secret police force; it's not just the physical and economic intimidation of persons who wish to run for the Conservative and Liberal parties. These things, those statements, that behaviour, is the trademark of certain leaders of the Social Credit Party in this province, and that's a matter of public record; no one disputes it. Once again they deny responsibility, but they don't deny it occurred.

In this House, Mr. Speaker, many members on our side know full well what a number of members opposite have been saying behind the back of the Premier for the last three months. Many of us here know what some of them have been saying as they struggle with the failing fortunes of their government and their party. I'd be surprised if any of them had the courage — and I would understand it; they have a political career to conserve as well — to stand up in this House and say to the Premier directly what they've been saying to others about him. But even some of those guys, who are good politicians, who are shrewd and canny political leaders, who've been, some of them, in several political parties and are familiar with all brands of politics in this province, know what political survival is all about. So I doubt they'll do it.

But I also doubt that they are very far off the mark when they talk about the fact that the political leadership provided by the gentleman who occupies the Premier's seat has in the last six months been defective and inadequate, and — to say the least — has only hurt and further diminished their image and their reputation with the people of British Columbia. Of course they've lost public respect, of course they've lost public confidence, and of course they've lost public trust. Is there a single member opposite who defends the Premier's wilful failure to vote in the last federal campaign? Is there one of them who would tell his own children: "This is how you should behave. Don't vote because you shouldn't be interested. What's one vote, anyway"? Is there one of you who would say that?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say what I have been saying about our Premier — that I think he is a great leader, that I think he has worked hard all his life, and he hasn't lived off the backs of hard taxpayers in this country and got money from Ottawa and never worked a day in his life. I'd like to tell the people of this province how hard a worker he is.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I know that the hon. minister would love to make a second speech. However, his opportunity has been exhausted.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: He asked me. Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: The first member for Victoria has the floor.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARBER: Did I lose any time from my allotted 40? I just want to sum up that particular argument by pointing out again that some members of the coalition have, at least in private, been politically acute and politically able enough to recognize the trouble they are in. And, at least in private, they join with us in acknowledging that the leadership of the current Premier in the last six months has been hopelessly inadequate. It would be a fine thing if they stood up to say so in public, but I guess it won't happen.

I want to talk now about what is, I think, one of the most dangerous and one of the most genuinely subversive dirty tricks that any government could ever pull — it is called gerrymandering. It uses the whole authority of government, in a blunt and crude way, to be able to predict in advance the successful outcome of its own election. Gerrymandering is a notorious tradition in North America. It was named after. I think, a Governor Elbridge Gerry of the New England states in the United States of America, was it not? It has a famous history. But in this province that government seems to have a difficult time recognizing just what they did a couple of years ago, and just why it is that tonight, and many nights after tonight, we will be returning again and again to the theme of one of the most dangerous and difficult of all the dirty tricks — the one they managed to do in public; the one they were somehow so unashamed of that they actually introduced it in the form of law and hoped they could get away with it. They almost didn't, you know. In Saskatchewan Ross Thatcher thought he could — he got dumped completely. They thought they could do it here and they almost got dumped. The percentage vote and the seat results were stunningly and dangerously close for that group.

Mr. Speaker, I would like you to use your imagination for a moment. I would like you to construe something that never happened but, I suppose, just might have — according to the theorists opposite. If I use Christian names, it's to save a lot of time and not have to refer to present and former so-and-so's. Let's imagine what would have happened if, when Dave Barrett was the Premier in July of 1975, he decided to appoint a royal commission on redistribution. He stands up and he solemnly announces that he has appointed a one person commission — one person who will do all of these things. He solemnly announces that he has appointed, shall we say, Yvonne Cocke.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) to withdraw a slanderous comment about a person who not only is not in this House, but is deceased.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I did not hear the remark that was made. Would the member identify the remark, and I will determine whether or not it needs to be withdrawn.

MR. BARBER: The Minister of Health made a comment about the late Justice Thomas Norris. He said, "Certainly he did" — referring to Barrett — "he appointed an enemy of the Bennetts," clearly implying that the man was not capable of being impartial, fair or reasonable. It's a slanderous remark. He should withdraw and apologize.

[ Page 1282 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: You should withdraw and apologize. Interjections.

MR. BARBER: I haven't said anything about Eckardt yet.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. We've had a demonstration on both sides of the House, and the House is not particularly bent toward order. I declare a recess. The House will resume when I ring the bells.

The House took recess at 9:17 p.m.

The House resumed at 9:40 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall we proceed, please, hon. members. The first member for Victoria has the floor, and he has nine minutes remaining in his assigned time.

MR. BARBER: If the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) has any form of withdrawal or apology to make, I would be pleased to yield for the moment he makes it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: Fine. Well, his silence speaks volumes.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MR. BARBER: What I was trying to talk about, Mr. Speaker, was the kind of political leadership we've seen in this province with regard to the extraordinarily delicate and sensitive matter of electoral redistribution. What I was saying before being interrupted by the Minister of Health was: imagine the furor that would have resulted if Premier David Barrett had appointed, say, Yvonne Cocke to head an electoral commission. Yvonne is a marvellous woman, a splendid organizer for our party, hopelessly biased in favour of our party and, of course, David Barrett would never appoint her or anyone like her to such a sensitive position. But rather his style of political leadership saw that he would appoint not one person but three. He would appoint three people of — I think, in the opinion of most; it should be the opinion of all — impeccable integrity, impeccable honesty and commanding the respect, I think, of almost every British Columbian.

Well, in fact, our political leader didn't appoint, shall we say, Yvonne Cocke or our equivalent — he would do no such thing to degrade the political process in this province. He appointed the late Justice Thomas Norris, an enormously respected barrister in this province; he appointed Professor Frederick Bowers of the University of British Columbia; and he appointed the then Deputy Provincial Secretary Lawrie Wallace. Would anyone care to attack Lawrie Wallace's integrity? I thought not.

We are all aware, Mr. Speaker, of who the government appointed to a one-man commission; we are all aware of the outcome of that commission. We are aware that as a result of this government's legislation, three New Democrat MLAs were pushed out of electoral existence. But, of course, they returned because the people have a better sense of fair play than the government does, and they knew something unfair when they saw it. The government created the marvel — I don't have time, I gather, in this speech, but I'll certainly do it in my very next — of what has become colloquially known as "Gracie's finger."

Now we don't know how that got in the report, and I wouldn't blame any one individual nor any one judge. I'm sure that other factors were present, but I do have little maps here that I will be showing next time, to point out as illustratively as I can for the members opposite who might not have seen them the strange, strange result of electoral redistribution under Social Credit, the very peculiar notion they seem to have of how to divide up boundaries in Vancouver city. Now I don't know really how it happened, although we will be talking about it in estimates yet to come.

Nonetheless, I think most fair-minded people would acknowledge that the current Vancouver–Little Mountain boundary is, shall we say, a curiosity that many people have commented upon and that will be commented upon and examined much more closely in the time to come. It should be pointed out as well that this odd little finger, this peculiar appendage attached to the Point Grey end of Little Mountain riding, just happened to vote 77 percent in favour of Social Credit in the previous provincial election, whereas the provincial average for the whole riding of Little Mountain was 53 percent.

It should be noted as well that after this government appointed the one-man commission to examine boundaries in British Columbia, it was only then that we discovered that some time prior one Dan Campbell had commissioned a report of Jack Kelly and Glen Mitchell and others. The report was commissioned of the research staff of the Social Credit caucus and it was — we're informed by Mr. Kelly chiefly — a poll-by-poll study of the 1975 election results and an examination of possible profitable electoral changes. The report was presented to Dan Campbell on January 12, 1978. Peculiarly, that's nearly the date when they appointed their one-man commission to start his work. Now maybe it's just a coincidence. Maybe the fact that within their own research operation they looked at all the poll results in British Columbia, and after they had that information appointed a one-man commission, is a coincidence. If the Minister of Health tells me it's a coincidence, I'll almost believe him.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: I haven't even mentioned his name. Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: Do you think I'm going to blunder into your mistakes by talking about an individual? Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Oh, come on, Rafe.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member who has the floor to address the Chair, and I ask the hon. Minister of Health, for the second time today, not to interrupt the man who has the floor.

[ Page 1283 ]

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, for reasons which I cannot explain, an interruption occurred and I no longer have time to finish the whole of my remarks. So I will speak later about the other peculiarities of redistribution under Social Credit.

I want to conclude by summing up what are for me compelling reasons in favour of support of the amendment. Most hon. members opposite know that their government is in trouble. Most of them have admitted in private what we say in public. The quality of political leadership shown by the Premier has been impaired; has been, to say the least, unsuccessful; and has led them into further and further problems. Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Name one name.

MR. BARBER: We know why the Premier wants the names, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Just prove that you're not lying.

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

MR. BARBER: It is important to ask whether or not the government believed that they would never get caught, that all of the people engaged in the scandals and the tricks would never be found out, that the letters written by the Premier when he was the Leader of the Opposition in 1975 would never be published. One has to ask whether or not they actually felt they could get away with it. The answer, clearly and resoundingly in every corner of this province, is that they have not gotten away with it. In fact, in the last six months the ability of the party to govern has been significantly impaired. Their preoccupation with the scandals is manifest, and the chaos, not just in northern transportation, not just around the B.C. Place decision, not just around the preparation of their legislative program for this year, but around many other issues, is self-evident to anyone who looks at the government's behaviour in the last few months.

So it's not just because of dirty tricks, but it's because, in fact, they have not been governing for this last half-year. There has been no effective leadership in this province, because, like another political leader in another jurisdiction, they've been so caught up in trying to protect themselves from the legitimate inquiries of the press, and the legitimate criticisms of the public, that they have had no time to do anything else but try to wash their skirts and keep clean of it. Well, they've failed — it hasn't worked.

The amendment should pass not simply because the opposition has no confidence and trust in the Premier — that's to be expected — but because the people of British Columbia have also lost confidence and trust in the Premier. That's why it should pass, and I pray it does.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, in opening my comments may I say very strenuously I shall be voting against this amendment. But before proceeding to the reasons for that vote, may I take this first chance to extend and join in congratulations to the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) upon his unanimous election as Deputy Speaker by this assembly.

In view of some of the tone of the last several days it becomes clear that the Chair of this assembly is going to have to become engaged in some forms of bridge-building in this chamber. I speak of some new bridges of civility, and if those bridges are needed I suspect the member for Delta is thoroughly well equipped to begin the task of building them. So I join in congratulations to him.

If I could, Mr. Speaker, before I directly address the amendment, I'd like to say a word or two about that small, exclusive, largely unknown and most certainly misunderstood group known as the Whips of this assembly. I refer to the Whips on both sides: on the government side the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), and I; and on the opposition side the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), whom I congratulate on becoming the new opposition Whip, and the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who I gather is his new deputy.

Because in the months ahead the five of us are going to have some challenges in terms of the work we have to do, in maintaining some form of progress within the assembly, I thought it might be instructive if I reviewed with you, Mr. Speaker, some of the comments about the functions of the Whip in the parliamentary process that have been made from time to time by authorities and writers. These thoughts are well known to those five of us who labour in these vineyards as Whips, but, I suspect, not well known to the other 51 or 52 herein, and perhaps our friends in other places.

The name "Whip," Mr. Speaker, comes from the old name "Whipper-in," which was used in the days of the first fox hunts, being the people who whipped in the dogs. But as people probably don't appreciate, the authorities hold that Whips hold positions, as I'm sure you'll agree, of the utmost responsibility and influence.

As Disraeli said, Mr. Speaker, we Whips are required to have "a consummate knowledge of human nature, the most amiable flexibility and complete self-control." It is important to know that on the occasion of important debates it's the job of us Whips to "choke off any garrulous nonentities who may wish to make their voices heard." These are the writings of Professor Harry Graham, talking about parliament at work.

More important, Mr. Speaker, the writings tell us that tact, good temper and unceasing vigilance are the virtues necessary to all Whips. It is written that we must combine the discretion of the diplomat with the acumen of the sleuthhound. It is our business, we are told, to smooth the ruffled feathers of any members who consider themselves aggrieved, to listen patiently to the bores and to suffer the fools gladly. All Whips, it is written, are expected to ascertain the sense of the House upon all important questions, either by instinct, by worming their way into the confidence of members or by secret detective work in the smoking room.

With those few comments about the duties that befall Whips, Mr. Speaker, and that short plea on behalf of the five Whips in this assembly, I hope all members might help to make our duties somewhat easier in the months ahead.

Now to move to the amendment, which we understand is taken from a form that is 88 years old. In looking at the wording of the amendment, Mr. Speaker, we note that it refers to the word "advisers" in the plural and alleges that such confidence is not reposed in the present advisers of His Honour. The topic of advisers becomes particularly apropos given the regrettable events of last evening on this floor and

[ Page 1284 ]

the comments the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) made in respect to the member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). Because there are advisers to the opposition as well as to the government benches. Any motion of no confidence in the advisers to His Honour, as part of that consideration, must require some thought about the alternative, and in this case the alternative advisers to the opposition.

I don't know from whence the advice came that prompted the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke to make the statements he did in respect of the member for Richmond. As I am about to show, there were clearly two ways for the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke to go. I think any elementary student of this place could have predicted there were two ways to go. One was the high road and one was the low road.

Let's just look at the two essential ingredients of the evidence adduced in the Supreme Court of British Columbia which bear on the member for Richmond, who was a witness in a proceeding. The evidence is simple, clear and uncontroverted. The first is that the member for Richmond at no time ever talked to either of the accused in the court case. That evidence was clear. It was well publicized. There was not a scintilla of evidence to suggest that the member for Richmond ever had talked to either of the accused about the topic in question.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: I hate to interrupt the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver South. The decision in that case has not been rendered. The matter is sub judice.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. member for Vancouver South to take cognizance of the fact that a decision has not yet been rendered.

MR. HYNDMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that point, and I thought I'd made it clear that these were press reports to which I was referring. But in any event, I needn't repeat that point.

The second point is that it is common to that episode that some 250,000 taps or intercepts of that member's home and riding office were made, again with no evidence of wrongdoing.

Now in the face of that background of the member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) as a witness — not as a party charged, but a witness — with those clearly understood aspects of the case, there was a high road to take. I suggest that there were three issues of concern to any member of this assembly who wished to address himself or herself to the episode involving the member for Richmond. Those issues of concern were these: first, the whole question of the bugging of ministers or MLAs, which, Mr. Speaker, you are now considering.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that the hon. member is aware of the fact that the matter has been drawn to the attention of the Speaker, and that the Speaker is wrestling even at this moment with a decision to be brought to the House. I trust that the hon. member would only in passing make reference, but would please not debate the matter at this time.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that rule. I am simply saying that if the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) wished to relevantly address matters involving the member for Richmond, there are three very relevant aspects: one, in passing, would have been permitted comments on the issue of privilege; secondly, on the entire issue, in the age of Abscam and whatever else we've seen, there's the question of the image of politicians, and the member for Richmond, to use an old phrase, came out of the press reports of that episode squeaky clean after a quarter of a million taps. The third principle which might have been discussed was the whole question of our principle of law as to whether parties to a charge are deemed innocent until proven guilty — along the same lines, whether a witness should be afforded the same general recognition and protection of innocence without imputation.

Had the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke approached any of those topics I think it would have been a wonderful new high road for this assembly. Notwithstanding that that member or his colleagues might have had many other things to say about many other events of the past six months, there was an opportunity for the high road. But presumably those who give advice to the opposition benches chose not to advise that road; rather, it appears, they counselled or chose what might be called the low road, which takes the presumption of innocence of a party charged and somehow subverts that to a notion of presumed guilt of the party charged. A new low road takes it a step further: now simply by being a witness in proceedings one is somehow presumed to have been touched or to have done something wrong.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that that was a smear. I use that word advisedly and very regrettably. I think that very unfortunate inference was the low-road route and a very regrettable route. To infer on the basis of what any ordinary citizen could have read about those proceedings that the member for Richmond had been "touched" by them was a smear of the grossest sort. I would suggest it was a McCarthyite-type smear, which has no place in this assembly.

I've sat here and listened to the group on your left talk about political morality and political piety. I want to tell you that in the case of what was said last night about the member for Richmond, I think that there was a new low road reached. The question I asked, since the amendment talks about advice, is: where did the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke get the advice to take that low road? As I've observed him and come to know him, I cannot believe that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, governed by himself, genuinely wanted to do that.

Where did the advice come from? It would not have come, I am sure, from the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), one of Her Majesty's counsel, a former Attorney-General, a man from a distinguished judicial family. Nor, I suggest, could it possibly have come from any of the other three lawyers on the front bench of the opposition. I doubt that it could have come from the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford); I respect the ongoing concern of the member for Comox for the issues of civil rights and human rights. It could not have come from that long tradition of speeches and writings in the CCF-NDP of Woodsworth or Coldwell or Knowles or Douglas. Where then did the suggestion of the low road come from? It would appear it had to come from the advisers to that group to your left, Mr. Speaker. So, since the amendment is couched in terms of confidence or no confidence in advisers, it becomes relevant to weigh the kind of advice that's being given to the group on your left, and if that's the kind of advice — the low road —

[ Page 1285 ]

that's being given, Mr. Speaker, I suggest the people of this province and this House have no confidence in that kind of advice and that kind of an approach.

Because the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) did not choose to say it last night, I want to say something to the member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) tonight that I think every member of this assembly should say to that member, publicly or privately. At a time and during an era when the reputation and profile of elected persons and politicians is not great, I congratulate that member for a record which shows a quarter of a million wiretaps all over the place, and not a hint of improper wrongdoing or conduct, and I congratulate him for the fact that notwithstanding all the allegations in this province about land and land commissions and wrongdoing, there is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest that that member came close to any kind of a discussion that could have been controversial.

Now I think, Mr. Speaker, it's only fair that we spend some time, on balance, looking at the question of the advisers to His Honour, presumably including all members of cabinet and the Premier as chief adviser. The amendment suggests that both this House and the province have no confidence in the Premier's advisers and cabinet. As to whether or not this House has that confidence, Mr. Speaker, that will be determined on this floor in the future, and so the question is: what of the public of the province?

Well, it's a peculiar amendment; most amendments to confidence motions target in on an issue. If you think back historically to various places, amendments to throne speech motions usually target in on an issue. Strangely the opposition has gone back 88 years and finally found an amendment which avoids issues, and is it any wonder, because here's a brief list of recent issues that I don't think the opposition would want to vote against — issues reflecting the advice coming from the Premier and his cabinet to his Honour. The topic of uranium mining and exploration — we've seen the results of that advice to His Honour: a ban for seven years. The opposition would not vote against that. Any member voting in support of this amendment is voting against the advisers who proposed that ban. The question of denticare — those same advisers in whom it's alleged the province has no confidence were those who suggested denticare. Any member who chooses to support the amendment is voting against the advisers who advised denticare and are voting against denticare itself. The handling of the B.C. rail dispute was the product of the advisers to his Honour. Any member who chooses to support this amendment is voting against the advisers who advised on the handling of that dispute. The low-interest mortgage program, this afternoon called "a pretty good idea" by someone to your left, was the product of advisers to His Honour, and anybody who chooses to vote in support of the amendment is voting against the advisers who initiated that concept. British Columbia Place is another product of the advisers in whom it's said there is no confidence. The Annacis Island crossing is another product of the advisers in whom it's said there's no confidence. And BCRIC itself is another product of the advisers in whom it's said there's no confidence, and yet today that group to your left, Mr. Speaker, called "sensible" the latest work by BCRIC.

Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment is not framed in terms of an issue? There's not an issue that that group on your left is prepared to stand and be counted on, so instead we see an amendment dealing with advisers. The amendment suggests the people of the province lack confidence in the advisers to His Honour. Let's look at some evidence of confidence or the lack of it, not in terms of rhetoric but in terms of cold, hard fact. If you want a yardstick for the confidence of the people of British Columbia in the results of the work of the advisers to His Honour, consider, in terms of investment large and small, the record-keeping pace of the Vancouver Stock Exchange. That is the result of British Columbians with confidence in the advisers to His Honour.

In terms of major capital investment, Mr. Speaker, more than $4 billion by the mining and forestry sector is being invested right now in this province, and that's a vote of confidence by people in this province in the advisers to His Honour. Housing starts and house building, always a barometer of confidence in the province…. The facts are that compared to a year ago housing starts in this province are up 57 percent; the mortgage program was sold out in three days. The people of British Columbia have confidence in the advisers to His Honour.

The BCRIC program has gone on, issuing and selling more shares to more British Columbians who have confidence in their province. The employment pages of our newspapers quadrupled in size with employment opportunities in this province, and the employment pages of the eastern newspapers are full of companies and employers in British Columbia saying: "Come on out where the jobs are." The migration into this province of people of all ages is running at a more record pace than any level since 25 years ago, and that's a reflection of confidence in this province. If it is suggested that this province has no confidence in the advisers to His Honour, those facts don't reflect that fallacious argument.

What confidence can the people of this province, by contrast, have in the advisers to the group to your left, whose policy-making seems to be in disarray? They differ with their colleagues in Ontario, for example, on the topic of nuclear power; they differ with their colleagues in Saskatchewan on the question of uranium mining; they differ with their colleagues in Alberta on the question of foreign investment. And within themselves in this province they differ on the question of financial aid to independent schools; they differ within themselves on the question of mineral royalties; they differ within themselves on the question of essential services legislation; they differ within themselves on the question of property rights. That's a coalition for power if ever there was one, Mr. Speaker, desperately groping to put together a patchwork quilt of acceptable ad hockisms that somehow will let them tiptoe in the back door of government. I don't know who the advisers are to that group on the left, but if that's the quality of advice that's coming, there's no question of where the vote should go.

There is another key reason for voting confidence in the advisers to His Honour, because they've been very wise in suggesting to His Honour that the most sensible thing for the government of the province of British Columbia is that it be headed by a political party with no federal ties and no links to any group in parliament in Ottawa. That's a very wise policy, and advisers who suggest that policy are to be supported, Mr. Speaker. The advisers to His Honour have advised that it is in the best interests of British Columbia, as indeed it is, that the government of the day be a party with no obligations, no commitments, and no political ties to parties in Ottawa or in the federal parliament.

[ Page 1286 ]

Again let's contrast that with the alternative. The group on your left is compromised by their federal affiliations. We saw the Leader of the Opposition and Mr. Broadbent waltz around this province together. Valentine's Day came and went, but it is very interesting that it wasn't said in British Columbia; it was said on the campus of the University of Manitoba. After days of warm embrace between the Leader of the Opposition and Mr. Broadbent, Mr. Broadbent got up at the campus of the University of Manitoba and announced the NDP policy on gas export in Canada: there should be none. That, presumably, is also, although we aren't sure, the policy of that group to your left, Mr. Speaker — no further exports of natural gas from Canada.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Well, we look forward to voting on whether we have confidence in that group's advisers, who would so quickly rob from British Columbia $300 million or $400 million a year in revenues, 2 or 3 points in the sales tax, and that's before we get to the jobs, to exploration and processing. There can be no confidence in a policy like that, and no confidence in advisers who link the group on your left to their soulmates in Ottawa.

We see it again in the question of the trade-off to Ottawa of B.C.'s oil and gas rights in the name of nationalization. So that there is no more misunderstanding about that, let me just read a sentence from the former Premier. He said: "British Columbia, under the NDP, is prepared to share all the oil and natural gas rights granted to it by the constitution if the government of Canada will put under public ownership all of the oil and gas in this country."

It's really interesting with this group chained to Ottawa. Poor Mr. Notley, next door, is chained to this group too. And gosh, I don't hear him going around Alberta suggesting the same thing.

The difference between the advisers comes down to this: that group on your left is bound and chained to a group in Ottawa. They are required to put their socialism first and British Columbia second. Keep the gas in the ground or trade off our oil and gas rights to Ottawa all in the name of nationalization and NDP philosophy — socialism first, British Columbia second. Mr. Speaker, the government's advisers — His Honour's advisers — look at the whole question somewhat differently. It is British Columbia first and socialism second. That is a very fundamental difference between the two groups in this assembly.

When we come to talk about the quality of the advice being given, and apart from the reasons we see for supporting the advisers to His Honour — those advisers who have initiated policy decisions in terms of the ban on uranium mining and exploration, policy decisions on denticare, B.C. Place, the Annacis Island crossing, BCRIC, the low-interest mortgage program — all of those programs come from advisers in whom we should have confidence. By contrast, we should be lending no shred of support to the group on your left whose advisers would put socialism first and British Columbia's interests second. On those grounds the amendment should be wholesomely rejected.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, I want to start by commenting a little on the remarks of my colleague whom I cannot see very well — he sits behind me — and particularly his comments with regard to the defence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). Like anyone else who is new to the debating in this House, I am interested in seeing a certain degree of decorum. I am interested in seeing that we keep a reasonable degree of order. But it is the first time I have heard a defence of the minister from a member of this House saying: "Isn't it wonderful? The minister has had 250 taps and he hasn't been charged. Isn't that marvellous?" With that kind of a defence, I hate to think what would happen if there were trouble.

But there is a difference between the particular incident that my colleague behind me has made so much of and what occurred tonight in this House — and I am sorry to see the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) not here. You see, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs can go out into that hall, he can defend himself in front of those cameras and he can do it as a person living in this world. He can defend himself, but Mr. Justice Thomas Norris can't do that tonight. Mr. Tom Norris isn't here to defend himself against the outrageous slur that came across the floor of this House.

Quite fairly, the member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) rose in his place and offered the Minister of Health an opportunity to correct the record — offered him a chance to say: "Look, we all make slips; we all overdo it. Let's calm down a little bit." The minister would not take that opportunity.

Who is this man? I think I am quoting the Minister of Health accurately. He described him as "a lifelong enemy of the Bennett family." He was talking about Mr. Justice Tom Norris who was previously the treasurer of the Law Society of British Columbia. He subsequently became a supreme court judge. Subsequent to that he became one of the finest justices of the court of appeal that this province has ever seen, bar none.

Mr. Speaker, somewhere a halt has got to come to this kind of outrageous and scurrilous slander. But, you see, Tom Norris can't defend himself in this place.

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT: You know the member — and I wish the member would come back — the Minister of Health is also a member of the bar and a practising lawyer.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Did you advise the member for Revelstoke?

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, if the bag of wind wants the floor, give him the floor; but if he won't shut up, throw him out of the House, which is pursuant to the rules.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon. members, if any kind of order is to be maintained in this chamber at all, then only one member is permitted to speak at a time. The member for Coquitlam-Moody has the floor.

MR. LEGGATT: With regard to the Minister of Health, as I say, Mr. Justice Tom Norris cannot be here to defend himself. But I think it's worth putting into the record some of the things that Judge Tom Norris contributed to this province over a lifetime of service. I find it a tragedy that his name would become besmirched in this chamber. You know Tom Norris; you may recall something called "The Norris Inquiry into Great Lake Shipping." In that inquiry, Tom Norris, over a long period of time, in which his health was seriously affected, was effective in cleaning up the criminals on the

[ Page 1287 ]

Great Lakes. He had Hal Banks thrown out of this country. He did more in that one commission than this government has done in all its time in office.

But there is another thing that the Minister of Health should have kept in mind when he brought Tom Norris' name into this chamber: Tom Norris was appointed by the federal Minister of Justice. Tom Norris is a person without any relationship whatsoever to the Attorney-General of the province of British Columbia; he doesn't take orders from the Attorney-General of British Columbia. He doesn't have any relationship to the group that administers the provincial courts. He is completely independent of mind, of thought and always objective in his actions in the court. He always received tremendous credit from anyone who appeared in front of him. But, Mr. Speaker, he can't be here tonight to defend himself. He can't be here tonight to defend himself from the Minister of Health who, in conducting himself in this manner, has brought this chamber to a new low. And, particularly since he is a minister of the Crown, he should be setting some kind of example for the rest of this House.

As I say, he was the treasurer of the Law Society, court of appeal judge, a supreme court judge. To say that this man, who contributed so much to the life of British Columbia, was somehow some kind of lifelong enemy of somebody, casts a pall over all the judgments that he made over the years, casts a pall over the memory of his family, and causes, I would think, a tremendous anguish to his widow who has quite rightly and justifiably taken great pride in his career. It's a sad day, Mr. Speaker, when we find that that kind of cheap shot comes up; but it's out of desperation. This is a desperation government; they're clutching at every kind of straw to hang on.

They started it with this phrase that was thrown out — and I won't dwell on "national socialist," because it's been dealt with a lot. But I can tell the Premier that if he wants to remove the ambiguity around that charge, I ask him to go to the Minister of Veterans' Affairs in Ottawa and demand that the veterans of the Mackenzie-Papineau Brigade who fought in the Spanish Civil War receive the pension that the people of Canada should pay them. Now let him put his money where his mouth is. I haven't heard a word about that from our Premier; I haven't heard a word about the poor veterans of that courageous battle, those veterans who are now passing on and haven't got a dime from the people of Canada in terms of any veterans' benefits. I don't think there is a more courageous group of veterans anywhere in the world than the people who volunteered to fight fascism back in the thirties, and we owe them a great debt. And if the Premier would like to remove that ambiguity, I ask him to publicly state that he supports the benefits that those veterans are due. But he won't do it, because he lacks that kind of leadership quality that's so necessary.

That's why the motion is so appropriate. Look at the motion. It says: " ...should possess the confidence of this House and of this province." Our friends over here on the government side haven't had a chance to canvass the province. There's a reason why our House Leader put in the words "and of this province." It's because people on this side of the House have had an opportunity to go out and engage in a federal election and to talk to our constituents and find out what they feel, and we came to the conclusion that they had genuinely lost confidence in this government. Everything one could look at at the present time — the polls, the general atmosphere, the total disillusionment on this side of the House — clearly confirms that that confidence has been lost. It's been a bit of a cruel debate tonight and yesterday. It's been a bit of a cruel debate because it's zeroing in on one man. I think perhaps when we zero in on one man, like the Premier, we should ease up a little bit. There's a reason for that. You see, when a political figure has made a contribution to the life of the province of British Columbia and is about to retire, it seems to me that we could go easy now, because, after all, it's pretty clear that the game's over. It's pretty clear that this temporary administration....

HON. MR. HEWITT: Your game was over last May; you lost.

MR. LEGGATT: How many members did the Social Credit Party elect to the federal House? Can you tell me? These people had trouble beating the Rhinos. I don't think they did beat the Rhinos. Do you know why they didn't beat the Rhinos? It's because the Rhinos made more sense; that's why they didn't beat the Rhinos.

It's all over. I think it's time perhaps to be a little kinder. In the political life of British Columbia we have to take some time to pay credit to those who have made some contribution, no matter how minor. We should pay tribute to them.

Now it seems to me a $130 million or a $200 million or a $300 million bridge is a bit steep. I think perhaps we could be a little more cautious around that. B.C. Place is pretty heavy money. Let's go for a small statue, okay? It seems reasonable that we cut back the expenditures, and at an appropriate place out the back we'll have a statue for the Premier, because he has made a contribution to this.

The Premier has made, I think, a significant contribution to the political life of this province. What he's done is to demonstrate in the course of four and a half short years what a fine administration he replaced; that's all he's demonstrated in that four and a half years.

It's not merely a case that the Speech from the Throne was threadbare or didn't disclose any kind of future for the province; it's also that the public have had four and a half years to kind of examine the record and compare the two administrations. After four and a half years you have to look at your own record; the Premier's got to look at his own record. They've got to stop being hypnotized with the one they made up about the party that was in power before. Let's have a look at that record. What have they done? What is innovative? What is new? Well, there's one thing: BCRIC. BCRIC is a new concept and a new idea.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You weren't here at that time; you were in Ottawa.

MR. LEGGATT: I was in Ottawa, and I'm delighted that we didn't adopt that kind of concept there. They only guy who did was the former Prime Minister, and he went down to a crashing defeat as soon as he adopted that kind of crackpot idea.

Let's look at BCRIC for a minute. It's innovative. It is in a way, I think, a wonderful little funny-money game that's been played with BCRIC, a little bit like the A plus B theorem — and I know you will all want to come and debate that when the motion comes on the floor. There's a great similarity in the BCRIC concept. But it is the only thing this government will be remembered for, and remember it was

[ Page 1288 ]

the innovation of the New Democratic Party that provided the assets to even get BCRIC off of the ground at all.

Now let's have a look at some of the other items. Auto insurance. We have a FAIR program now.

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT: We've touched a nerve on auto insurance. It is clearly something that they are not going to tinker with very much.

Let's give them a couple of credits for the ombudsman. Give them credit for the auditor-general. They're both very useful, both long-planned by the previous administration.

We have the Forest Act, but the Pearse report was, again, a New Democratic Party....

We have a land reserve, the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, Pharmacare, Mincome, the rentalsman, resource boards, a Human Rights Code, a Labour Code, Hansard, BCDC — it goes on and on and on. And I'm looking at my friend, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). Where's the originality? Where are the new ideas? He's going to get up and bluster about it. Have a look at the NDP record, my friend; it's a good record.

Let's have a look at what new.... BCRIC you cannot call new. Let's have a look at a couple of things that are new: the Heroin Treatment Act, that's new. Oh, a terrific idea. I hear my friend, the hon. member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), tell me that's a great idea. How many people are we treating today in the heroin treatment program? How much is each one of those individuals in the heroin treatment plan costing the province of British Columbia and the taxpayers of British Columbia? That's good management, my friend? That's the kind of efficient government management we have?

The Family Relations Act. Whatever happened to the Family Relations Act? It's not a bad concept, but they can't seem to put anything together that the courts don't shoot down in flames. There should be enough lawyers over there to give some advice.

And then we come to deregulation. Do you remember the concept of deregulation? That was going to make everything slick and efficient, and those wonder workers of business management would put this government on a business footing. Guess what happened? Do you really think they should have the candy store any more? Isn't it about time that we started to look at what efficient management is really all about? I'll tell you where it's all about. Do you want efficient management? Go to the province of Saskatchewan right now. The province of Saskatchewan has the lowest cost of government in Canada. It costs the taxpayers less to deliver government services in the province of Saskatchewan than in any other province in the country and they're delivering more services than any other province in Canada. That's efficiency.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: But you know, that's the real record of this government, this temporary government that we have. I now want to look at the state of the economy in the province for just a minute and I want to tell my friend from Vancouver South, who is also gone — it's too bad — that this is not from the Waffle Manifesto. This is from an organization called the Conference Board of Canada.

HON. MR. FRASER: Did you sign the Waffle Manifesto like the rest of them?

MR. LEGGATT: If I did, I would have used my own name.

Let's just have another quick look at what the conference board, this year, talks about and tells us about the economy of British Columbia. November 1979: the 2.5 percent rates of expansion forecast for 1978 and 1979 represent a growth slowdown. I hope you remember that, my friend, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. Oh, my gosh, he's gone. I was hoping he'd stay and listen to the real state of the economy in British Columbia instead of that wind that he keeps throwing up all the time. Let's have a look at it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Slow growth. Let's look at the forestry industry: forest related industries, logging, wood fabricating, pulp and paper manufacturing are cutting back production gradually. Next, the brightest corporate profits performance during 1978 and 1979; corporate profits are in very good shape. Corporate profits have been rising rapidly since 1976 while wage-rate increases have slackened markedly since that time. My friend the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development made a great deal of the fact that workers in British Columbia are the highest paid in Canada, something that he says is a wonderful thing, and I was very pleased to see my colleague express the opinion that he must be really cheesed off about that. I think that probably reflects pretty accurately what had happened.

Now let's look at another one. The chart also points out the role played by interest rates. The climb in the cost of borrowing has kept outlays from rising quickly despite record revenues to the corporate sector. Such a pattern of high interest rates and high corporate profits could well continue into '80, postponing capital formation plans until later in the decade. That's the real state of the economy in British Columbia, not by some Social Credit puffery but by the Conference Board of Canada, a very conservative economic organization which has carefully examined the economy of this province and every other province in Canada.

The record goes on. The economic record in this province is getting sorrier and sorrier. Why? It's because you don't have a dream for this province. You're still operating on the basis of: "Let's grab any policy while we can and see if it sells." But nothing holds those policies together.

You know, the cancellation of exploration and development of uranium — come on, who are you kidding? Surely you know the people of British Columbia aren't conned by that one act. It no more fulfils the philosophy of this party than the Waffle Manifesto fulfils the philosophy of that party. You want nuclear mining so badly you can taste it, but you've smelled the wind out there and you haven't got the guts to provide the leadership and the conscience that you should have as a leader. That's a lack of leadership when you buy that. But I'll tell you the mining industry isn't conned.

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT: No, oh no. You know where we stand. The only reason you've decided to ban mining in the province of British Columbia is that we proposed it and you're so desperate to get some of those votes back you'll do absolutely

[ Page 1289 ]

anything to get them. That's what has happened, Mr. Speaker. It's nothing whatsoever to do with Social Credit philosophy, principle or anything else. You'd love to see that stuff coming out of the ground, but you can't.

As I said, there just doesn't seem to have been any kind of dream proposed. That's why the people of the province don't have confidence in this temporary administration, this administration that's interfered with the long-term administration of the province, which without any doubt will be a social democratic administration into the rest of the century. It happens to be a reality. I'm sorry to bring that news; I know it sounds upsetting to this strange group that gets together every once in a while and tries to coalesce all those reactionary forces. Now what is the dream that you don't have? The nuclear out of one arm, and who knows what you are going to do next? We know you are predictable.

The dream that you lack is that you don't see the two major problems that we have in British Columbia. The first is that we continue to be owned and dominated by foreign multinational corporations. You won't accept that, will you? You won't accept that when thousands of our young people come out of university every year they go down to be trained in California because the head offices are in California. Do you know that if you look at the amount of research and development in British Columbia, we are one of the lowest in the western world — 0.5 per cent, Mr. Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). Every other province, pretty well, and certainly the Dominion of Canada and the United States are miles ahead of us in spending on research and development. The reason we spend so little is simply because the head offices of so much of what happens up here don't happen to be here.

So the multinational domination of the economy is absolutely key if you've got a dream. What have you done? You had a chance — BCRIC. We could do things with that organization. You could use the public's money in BCRIC to try to repatriate our economy, to try to make some decisions right here in Canada for the benefit of Canadians. What have you done with it? You are worried because Canadian Pacific Investments has a piece of MacMillan Bloedel. Whether you are interfering in the operation of BCRIC, we don't know, but we know the Premier's view about that. He made that very clear. The Premier has also said that he will not interfere in the operation of BCRIC. What a strange coincidence that the first major investment of BCRIC is to do exactly what the Premier wanted in regard to.... I don't believe that for a minute.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: Who cares about CP Investments' position in Mac-Blo? Maybe you should have a look at the position of Japanese ownership in the B.C. fishing industry. Maybe you should have a look at what's happening to the small businesses all around British Columbia, being taken over by McDonald's Hamburgers on every corner, by multinationals, leaving our small businessmen to the tender mercies of New York and Los Angeles. Oh, it's a sad thing. You see, these fellows, Mr. Speaker, love to stand up and claim to be the great protectors of British Columbia. They're not; they're the protectors of the entrepreneurs of California, and they always have been — that's the difference.

That's why I say, Mr. Speaker, they just don't have a dream about the province; they just want to try to hang on to power desperately in any way they can. And why have we had the problem, finally, of dirty tricks? It's because the end justify the means, as my friend from Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) continues to say.

tender mercies n You are desperate because you honestly believe that the people on this side of the House are some kind of terrible, national-socialist, evil force. You believe that. I can't believe it, but they do, they really accept it. Dance, stand up, cheer!

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: But you do. I've heard the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), spend half an hour telling us what a horrible, evil bunch we really are. Imagine, we were supposed to be the people who were putting together a private police force. You know, Mr. Speaker, if there is one philosophy and one party that has fought for individual civil rights in this country, it's the New Democratic Party and the CCF.

I'd like to know, Mr. Speaker, where the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) was in regard to the Japanese question. Where were all of these great defenders of individual liberties and rights at the time when we needed them, at the time when the Japanese were put into concentration camps in this country? They were very silent indeed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Where were you?

MR. LEGGATT: I was there. You're a lot older than you look.

But I must say, Mr. Speaker, I think there's a tremendous resentment right across this country, when I hear accusations against people in this party, that somehow they are insensitive to the rights of Canadians. Who brought in a Human Rights Code in this province? It wasn't you guys. We waited in this province for half a century for a Human Rights Code. It was only the party that protects civil liberties and civil rights that brought it in.

HON. MR. HEWITT: What about the ombudsman? Wake up, will you?

MR. LEGGATT: What about the ombudsman? Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let the member for Coquitlam-Moody continue.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: That's just what I expected, Mr. Speaker. We hear "communism" being shouted across the floor again. Here's a party that's been more diligent in making sure that people who accept the democratic process are within it than any other party in this country. Do you know that? They sure are.

I listened with some sympathy to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) who was concerned about the question of bugging. I think we should all be concerned about the question of bugging. That's why this party has allowed that matter to go forward, and we will be listening patiently to the decision of Your Honour in terms

[ Page 1290 ]

of that matter. But I don't remember very much contribution from anyone in this government when the wiretap bills were going through in Ottawa. I don't remember getting any calls worrying about the concept of expansion of wiretaps, and whether that created any danger to the liberties in Canada. They were strangely silent. Only when somebody gets burned do we hear from them.

I want you to protect the people who need protection against bugging. Now let's have a good debate about bugging. I want to hear the defence in terms of preventing the George Orwell 1984 from coming upon us. I don't expect I'll hear that in this chamber. You know, it's a pretty sorry record, in terms of civil liberties.

The motion really doesn't do any more than reflect reality in the political structure and political atmosphere in the province. The motion just says: let's vote it the way it is, because people really don't have any confidence in this administration. I don't have any doubt about that; it's a very objective appraisal. We have been to meetings of chambers of commerce, of trade unions. Every part of the community has lost confidence in this government.

The only people who seem to have any confidence left in the Premier are a few of his front bench. But the rest of the province made a decision in the last federal election. They had a chance to assess the record of this government. And when you blame the former Premier for the federal losses of the New Democratic Party in 1974, you better give him credit this time for the gains that we got in 1979 and 1980. You can't have it both ways. Keep whistling in the dark.

I'll conclude on that note. I think we in this chamber should vote in terms of the reality of what's out there in the province. This province has no confidence in this Premier or this government.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the debate. Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 10:55 p.m.