[ Page 1291 ]

CONTENTS

Matter of privilege

Telephone tapping in minister's offices.

Mr. Speaker rules –– 1291

Routine proceedings

Nutrition Awareness Act (Bill M 201). Mr. Mussallem.

Introduction and first reading –– 1292

Oral questions.

Ferries. Mr. Barber –– 1292

Speech from the Throne.

On the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1296

Mr. Mitchell –– 1301

Mr. Davis –– 1302

Mrs. Wallace –– 1305

Mr. Kempf –– 1307

Mr. Macdonald –– 1310

Division on the amendment –– 1313

On the main motion.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 1313

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: In the gallery today is a longtime member of this House and a colleague of ours. He started making a significant contribution in the year 1952. He served until 1972, and again from 1975 to 1979, first as the MLA for Omineca and, latterly, as the MLA for Skeena. The deep affection which not only the people of the north but the people on all sides of the House felt was expressed to this member at a "roast" held in Terrace last Saturday night. As a further extension of that "roast," I ask all members to bid welcome to Cyril Shelford.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I've known Mr. Shelford for many, many years. We were companions in a friendly way in the northern area. I want to express my appreciation to the Premier and join with him in this opportunity to welcome a dear friend of mine, Cyril, and pay respect to the contribution that he's made to the political process over the years.

HON. MR. MAIR: I would like to advise the House that the apples on the hon. members' desks today are courtesy of my ministry's nutrition division. They are a reminder that we are in the middle of British Columbia Nutrition Week, Mr. Speaker.

Now, in view of some recent events, it's with some trepidation that I provide the House these missiles. However, I'm sure that all hon. members will accept these apples as symbols of good nutrition and as a way to lower health costs by keeping the doctor away.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure hon. members will realize that every winter a number of people visit the coast of British Columbia in particular, and Vancouver Island as well, to enjoy our balmy spring weather. That is the case today with two Saskatchewan residents who are here from Tisdale, Saskatchewan, and I think that........

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You were asked to leave, Mr. Member, I understand.

I refer to Kelly and Fern Nontell, grain farmers, who manage to spend four or five weeks here every spring.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to acknowledge some comments made by the Minister of Health and suggest that perhaps these apples were to be placed on our heads. If the Speaker would be good enough to supply us with some arrows, we can proceed to expedite the process of democratic operations.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, seated in your gallery are two new but very good friends of the people and the tourism industry of British Columbia. I would ask the House to welcome Mr. Harold Murray and Mr. Fred Hamilton from Via Rail in Winnipeg and Vancouver. I advise you that they are very anxious to get to know all British Columbians and have British Columbians get to know other Canadians via rail.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is Cyril Shelford, my predecessor in Omineca, a fellow who did it very, very well for 20 years and whose footsteps are very long to follow. I would add my welcome to that of all those in the House.

As well, sir, in your galleries this afternoon are two individuals, Mr. John Veenstra from the district of Houston, representing the Provincial Emergency Program for that district, and Mr. Howard Aikins, the deputy fire chief from Smithers. These gentlemen are down taking a course under the Provincial Emergency Program, and I would ask the House to make them both welcome.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I just spotted Mayor "Bronco" Moncrief from Cumberland in your gallery, and I would like the House to welcome him.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, we have in the galleries today four ladies from that lovely city of Portland, Oregon. They are, shall I say, chaperoning some young students who are visiting the North Shore of Vancouver. These students are from grades 5, 6 and 7 of Ainsworth School in Portland. I'd like this House to welcome Kate Drew, Brenda Rush, Arlene Foss and Quinland Porter. I'm very pleased to have Kate Drew here. At one time she was very kind to my mother and father and showed a great deal of hospitality in Portland, and I hope they receive the same from this House in British Columbia, and I welcome them here today.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, if introductions are finished, I wish to make a short ministerial statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

FUTURE OF OCEAN FALLS

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I wish to inform the House that later this afternoon Mr. Ray Williston, chairman of the board of Ocean Falls Corporation, will be making a statement regarding the future of Ocean Falls, after which time I would be most pleased and happy to report to the House, if it is its desire at that time.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as I came into the chamber last night during the debate of the hon. first member for Victoria I heard a remark, and I had to check with the Blues to ensure that I was accurate. The Blues of the evening sitting for Wednesday, March 5, 1980, page 165-1, disclose that the hon. first member for Victoria, in remarks associated with me, said: "Unfortunately this muckraking Attorney-General didn't go all the way." I find the remark offensive and I would ask the member to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: The remark was made by the first member for Victoria. Would the hon. member please withdraw.

MR. BARBER: It was meant ironically, and I certainly do withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, sir.

Hon. members, before we proceed, and before indicating

[ Page 1292 ]

to you the conclusions I have reached on the question of privilege raised recently by the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), it is necessary for me to briefly review certain aspects of the law of privilege upon which these conclusions are founded.

The Speaker's duty, upon a matter of privilege being raised, is to decide two issues. First, has the matter been raised at the earliest opportunity? And second, does the matter, on the face of it, appear to be a matter for immediate consideration by the House? In other words, has a prima facie case been established? On the first issue, I find that under the special circumstances of this case, there has been no undue delay.

On the second issue of whether there is a matter raised for consideration by the House, it is not the Speaker's duty to touch upon the merits of the matter, as that is for the determination of the House itself. The Speaker, nevertheless, must be satisfied that the matter in question involves, or may be identified with, some specific privilege which has been conferred upon this House or its members.

In the present instance, to be so satisfied presents more difficulty than would first appear. This is the reason why some elaboration of the matter becomes necessary. Based upon a purely visceral response to the discovery of an electronic interference with a member's telephone, within the precincts of parliament, the conclusion of most would be positive and emphatic. It does not necessarily follow, however, that such an activity falls clearly within the ambit of breach of privilege, as opposed to the possible offence of contempt of parliament, which is not a synonymous term although often used as such.

A contempt is defined by May in the sixteenth edition at page 109:

"It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence."

Herein lies the difficulty. Assuming for the moment that it is one or the other, is the matter raised one of breach of privilege upon which the Chair must make a finding, or is it truly one of contempt which may give rise to another method of proceeding?

The Legislative Assembly Privileges Act defines the privileges, immunities and powers held and exercised by the House. Section 1 of that act provides that those privileges, immunities and powers are the same as those in effect on February 14, 1871, in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. Without limiting the generality of that section., section 6 goes on to enumerate those actions which are breaches of privilege and contempts of the House. Section 74 of the Constitution Act provides:

"It is lawful for the Legislature from time to time to define the privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Legislative Assembly, and by the members thereof respectively; but no such privileges, immunities, or powers shall exceed those held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and by the members thereof, on the fourteenth day of February, 1871."

It follows, then, that the circumstance brought to the attention of the, to define House, must have the potential of being interpreted as one which may affect one of the privileges set out in the act or one in existence in the United Kingdom as of February 14, 187 1. Looking first at the act, section 6(b), which prohibits "obstructing, threatening, or attempting to force or intimidate members," is the only provision which might be construed to be applicable. Telephone-tapping, as an obstruction of a physical nature, may be a logical and permissible extension of the prohibition against a bodily, physical obstruction, without in effect creating a new privilege not contained in the existing law. The law of parliament existing in the United Kingdom in 1871 obviously predates the age of electronics and is of little assistance, except to note that molestation of a member was and is an offence. It may be open to the House to make the same interpretation as I have suggested, in connection with the offence of obstructing.

In summary, taking a broad view, electronic surveillance may fall within the ambit of privilege as an extension of the prohibition against obstruction; or, on a narrower view, such activity may be looked at as a question of contempt. In any event, hon. members, I do find that a question has been raised which merits consideration by the House, and I would allow the motion.

Before the hon. minister moves his motion, there is one additional observation which I trust the House will permit me. When we speak of the privilege of members of the House, what is really at issue is not a special dispensation to members but rather the right of a member's constituents and of the electorate at large to have at their disposal the unimpeded services of those they have elected.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I move the following motion: that a special committee of privilege be appointed to consider the matter of the interception of a member's communications, brought to the attention of the House on March 3, 1980, and that the said committee report its findings to the House, the said committee to comprise eight members to be named by the special committee of selection, and that the committee so appointed have the following powers — namely, to have all the powers and privileges of the Legislative Assembly under the Legislative Assembly Privileges Act.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

NUTRITION AWARENESS ACT

On a motion by Mr. Mussallem, Bill M201, Nutrition Awareness Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

FERRIES

MR. BARBER: My first question is to the Minister of Finance. As he is aware, under Social Credit there have been five ministers in four years responsible for the fate of the Princess Marguerite. These are the current hon. member for

[ Page 1293 ]

North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), the current Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), one Elwood Veitch, the current Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser).

My first question to the Minister of Finance is: as the sixth minister responsible for the Princess Marguerite in four years — which is to say that on November 19, 1979, you were appointed by the Premier to mediate the dispute between two corporations and among several ministers as to the future of the vessel Marguerite — when were you first advised the Marguerite was allegedly unseaworthy or allegedly unsafe, or, as one of your officials apparently put it, "a floating coffin?"

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, there will be an opportunity, in the course of the next few days — indeed, the next many days — to very clearly...

MR. BARRETT: Answer the question.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I am answering the question, Mr. Leader of the Opposition.

...identify the various matters which came to the government's attention. But as I indicated in a helpful way to the member earlier this week, while I undertook a particular activity within the executive council, I was not then, and am not now, the minister responsible for the British Columbia Steamship Company. The member's question, therefore, is based on an incorrect assumption.

MR. BARBER: You are, however, responsible for the statement you made on January 31 of this year, and it is on that basis that I question you. It is entirely consistent with the rules of this House and the rules of question period.

Therefore, if I may continue to the same minister, who announced at that time with some pleasure — although today I'm sure he wishes he had no announcement at all… What documentary evidence had you received, and by approximately what date, that persuaded you to make the announcement that only you made on the January 31 that the Marguerite was unfit for service on the Victoria-Seattle run?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I believe that the answer which I gave earlier, and the answer which I gave a few days ago, is the appropriate one. I seek direction from you, sir. In fact, I am not the minister responsible for the British Columbia Steamship Company.

Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to this dispute between a member on that side of the House and a member on this side of the House. I have, however, made statements — not in this chamber — with respect to a matter of Crown responsibility which is of interest to my constituents. I believe that there are two entirely separate aspects to the responsibility in this House: the responsibility in estimates, and responsibility with respect to questions and statements which are made by interested members on either side of this House.

MR. BARBER: I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that you find that my questions are in order. Were they not, you would have ruled them out of order.

It's our obligation, for some of our constituents as well, to question and examine the public statements of ministers who speak on behalf of their government. I presume that when the Minister of Finance announced the scrapping of the Marguerite he did so on the basis of some information. That being the case, I want to know what that information was, and I will continue to that same minister.

Is that minister aware that the Edwardson report, which his own government to this day has denied public access to — although it was leaked, we were pleased to note — said on page 4: "The vessel remains fully operational." And, further, on the same page: "It should be in no way construed that the vessel" — referring to the Marguerite, of course — "is unfit for her present service." When the Minister of Finance made the statement on January 31 that the vessel would no longer serve, was he aware of the contents himself of the Edwardson report?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I would again draw your attention to the orders. I will attempt to assist the hon. member, but I would draw your attention to the rules regarding question period in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't lecture the Chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, you and I have had our disagreements. I do not lecture the Chair. I seek your assistance with respect to the rules of question period.

But I suggest to the hon. member that I am not the minister responsible for the British Columbia Steamship Company. However, if the hon. member feels that I am uncomfortable about the position taken by the government, then that member is very much mistaken, as events will prove.

MR. SPEAKER: May I just interject long enough to remind the hon. members that if speeches are being referred to, which speeches were made outside the House, they are not fair material for question period — as long as the hon. member remembers that.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, the minister informed us on January 31........ Perhaps today he wishes to correct the record; but he was speaking on behalf of his government.

I will certainly be corrected by you, but it's always been my understanding that statements made by ministers on behalf of their government are admissible material for question period. If that's not the case....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, as long as the speeches are made inside the House, this is true. According to Beauchesne, fourth edition, section 171(z), page 148: "Speeches outside the House are not to be referred to in question period."

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, for the help of the members in the House, I'd ask if you could rule. I'm confused about what's going on here. It's my understanding that the rules clearly say that questions may not be asked or answered dealing with the action of a minister for which he is not responsible to parliament. The minister has clearly said, on six or seven occasions now, that he's not responsible for this matter, and I ask for your ruling on that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, perhaps we could rule on it immediately. If a speech was made inside the House, even though it was made by a minister who is not responsible

[ Page 1294 ]

for the ministry under whose perspective the ordinary business of that particular subject would fall, I think that it would be fair game for question. However, the rules specifically say that speeches made outside the House are not to be referred to in question period. I think we shall have to stick with the rules that have been given to us, and I recommend the same.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll return to the Minister of Finance in a moment. I think the point has been made, nonetheless, about who is really responsible for this decision about the Marguerite.

I have another question, please, for the Minister of Transportation, minister number five responsible for the Marguerite. The Princess Patricia is a vessel identical to the Marguerite, is one year older, and is, as far as engine time and miles logged are concerned, a vessel, in fact, much older than the Marguerite. It has also had a problem with holding tanks. That problem was resolved — at least temporarily — when the U.S. Coast Guard awarded an exemption. The U.S. Coast Guard has indicated as well that such a waiver would be granted for the Princess Marguerite. Can the minister inform the House whether or not he bothered to apply for such a waiver concerning the problem with the holding tanks on the Marguerite?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of any application made to have or not have holding tanks on the Princess Marguerite, because the government has made the decision it's not going to operate.

MR. BARBER: What we are trying to find today, Mr. Speaker, is the rationale, whatever it may be, for that decision. Let me ask the same minister again: what recommendations have you now received from the chairman of the board and the chief executive officer of B.C. Steamships regarding the future of the vessel Marguerite?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I think I can answer that in two ways: we've had recommendations from the gentlemen to run the Marguerite and also not to run the Marguerite.

MR. BARBER: We're well aware of the chaos, we're well aware of the confusion and we're well aware of the conflicts in your government.

Let me ask another question about the chaos: according to the chairman of the board of the B.C. Steamship Company it's going to cost approximately $2.5 million to convert the Queen of Prince Rupert from a night ferry to a day ferry. According to B.C. Ferries it will cost $7.5 million to convert the Queen of Surrey from a day ferry to a night ferry. Now the Edwardson report, on the other hand, says that it will cost $2 million to refit the Princess Marguerite, to meet every statutory regulation and class requirement in the future, and goes on to argue that the vessel thereby would be good for, as they put it, another three or four years.

MR. SPEAKER: The question, please.

MR. BARBER: My question is: what advice then have you accepted? You're spending millions to convert one ferry from a night ferry to a day ferry; to convert another from a day to a night, and you won't spend a nickel on the Marguerite. What advice have you acted on therefore?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'll try and answer your questions. I believe it was B.C. Steamships you quoted as saying what it will cost to convert the Queen of Prince Rupert. You know, they really don't know what they're talking about, but B.C. Ferry Corporation say it will cost $1.2 million to convert the Rupert to replace the Princess Marguerite.

You're correct in that the ex-Queen of Surrey, now the Queen of the North, is in the shipyards. The contract was called — the low bidder was $7.4 million — to get it ready to go on the north run from Port Hardy, Ocean Falls, Bella Bella and Prince Rupert to serve the people of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The number of supplementaries has been extended. However, I see no other members questioning. The first member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER: That's correct, Mr. Speaker.

A question to the same minister. Is the minister aware that the B.C. Ferry Corporation has now passed a motion at its board of directors meeting, which requires that when the vessel Queen of Prince Rupert, is returned to that corporation from the lease, which presumably will be arranged this summer, that vessel must be in precisely the same physical condition as when it left — which is to say that the side loaders, the interior changes, the new ramps, the new air conditioning and the new wiring, according to the motion of the board of B.C. Ferries, must all be returned to the original condition before they'll take it back? Is the minister aware that corporation has passed such a motion?

HON. MR. FRASER: I am aware of that, and it's not anticipated that that's any additional cost.

MR. BARBER: Can the minister inform the House, because no doubt they've looked at these things, what the anticipated passenger losses will be aboard the Rupert, which holds a thousand people fewer than the Marguerite does? What, therefore, will be the loss in revenue to the B.C. Steamship Company because of the reduced capacity on that vessel?

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, these have been looked at, and they don't anticipate any loss of revenue using the Queen of Prince Rupert in place of the Princess Marguerite.

MR. BARBER: Either they are going to be increasing the fares or stretching the ferry. I presume the minister could only have made that statement because he has figures which indicate the likely revenue this year on the Queen of Prince Rupert. Could you tell us what those figures are?

HON. MR. FRASER: It's a question of policy. I'll take it as notice.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I think that both sides of the House would agree that the number of supplementaries that have been permitted are far in excess of those ordinarily permitted. I recognize the hon. member for Kootenay, and should time permit, and the hon. members don't object too long, I will come back to the hon. member. On a point of order, the first member for Victoria.

[ Page 1295 ]

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, you talked about the number of supplementaries, etc. I'm not aware that I've asked one supplementary. They've all been independent questions, all new questions, none of them supplemental to the others. That I asked them all of the same two ministers is one point; that they were supplementaries is no point at all. I don't think that is fair.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. The question period is terminated by the bell.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm rising on a point of order. I would advise you, Mr. Speaker, that it's not proposed that there be a night sitting tonight, as all members are aware. Under standing orders it is incumbent that you call the question on the amendment if the amendment is under debate 30 minutes before the time for adjournment. I would like now to ask leave of the House that if the debate on the amendment is not completed by 5:30, the question on the amendment not be called by you, Mr. Speaker, at that time, in order to permit debate until the debate on this amendment has been concluded or until the time allotted for debate on the throne speech is concluded, whichever shall be sooner.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I read the section? Then perhaps I'll take another opinion. It says: "On the fourth of the said days, if an amendment or a subamendment be under consideration at 30 minutes before the ordinary time of daily adjournment, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings.... " Unless we have unanimous consent of the House I am duty-bound. Did the hon. minister ask for leave?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, I did.

MR. HOWARD: I understood the minister to do two things. He rose on a point of order, pursuant to the difficulty in interpreting the rules about what is the ordinary daily time of adjournment, to indicate that there being no night sitting tonight — as far as the government is concerned — the ordinary time of daily adjournment would be 6 p.m. Therefore the interruption to put the question on the amendment would take place at 5:30. That being the case, that's fine. He then asked leave as to whether we could dispense with putting the vote at 5:30 and continue the debate. I suggest what we might do, more appropriately, is to look at that a bit later in the afternoon. Leave can't be granted at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: Anything can be done by unanimous consent. However, leave has been requested.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm just asking for that leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If it's to be discussed later in the afternoon, I simply will ask if leave shall be granted now; and if leave is not granted the question can arise again.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I think it's extremely important that this question be considered now, because all kinds of things could happen in this House this afternoon that we're not aware of. Since this motion calls into question not only the leadership of the Premier of the province but also the leadership of the government and the actions of the government over a period of time, it's important that all members have an opportunity to stand in this debate and speak on that motion. For those reasons....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, under the scope of asking for leave it is not permitted to enter into debate. I think I have sufficient opinion. I think I'll ask the question. If leave is not granted, that ends the matter.

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

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, leave can be asked for certain things that are allowed under the rules. Leave cannot be asked for something that is not due to be asked in the House until that appropriate time is granted. If the request was to amend the rules of the House, to proceed in that way for some future purpose.... But if the occasion arises this afternoon for leave to be requested by the government, the opposition will be in a position to consider it at that stage.

How can Mr. Speaker put that? If Mr. Speaker will put that now, I ask leave of the House that if the federal government imposes a tax on widgets in 1986, I have unanimous leave of the House to debate it now.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A comment on the point before it escapes us. The point of order which suggests that leave can only be requested on matters that are already anticipated in the rules could not stand, because otherwise how could the House express itself? Therefore I have to reject the hon. member's suggestion. I will resolve the matter simply....

On a separate point of order, the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: Apropos of the interjection on a point of order by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), if there was a desire on the part of the government and the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), acting in his capacity as government House Leader, to expedite the flow of business, he might have had the courtesy to approach us about it beforehand.

I had indicated earlier that leave was not permitted; that it wouldn't be granted.

MR. SPEAKER: We will formally put the question. The debate is entirely sufficient.

Leave not granted.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, not wanting to interrupt question period, but wanting to bring some points of view with respect to the orderly process of that area of the business of the House, I suggest two points be taken into consideration. One is that it is appropriate indeed, under the rules, that all members of the House — regardless of the side on which they sit — be allowed an opportunity to ask questions in question period. That is the name of the game. We feel that it is a very solemn responsibility on the part of the backbenchers of the

[ Page 1296 ]

government to do just that. The hon. gentleman who rose during question period was the first, in some two or three sessions, who has taken that opportunity.

In any event, I should point out that, throughout the first 14 minutes of the 15-minute question period, the hon. gentleman did not rise in his place. He rose at the very last moment. It seems fair to me to recognize the continuity of the questions asked by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), rather than submit to what was obviously a last-minute thought on the part of the hon. member.... I see that you shake your head, sir, but I feel that to be fair and just, even in this House. If the hon. gentleman rose when other members were rising for question period he would obviously be ready to be recognized. It was obviously a last-minute thought; it was designed for some other purpose than the legitimate one for which it should have been.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I would like to remind the first member for Vancouver Centre that, under the rules of the House, the responsibility is vested in the Chair to make decisions as to who shall be called upon. Those decisions cannot be made on the basis of how many times a member has stood, because in some instances members have stood six and eight times and not been able to be recognized at all. Therefore, hon. members, I would think that perhaps the only misunderstanding would have perhaps been on the issue of whether or not all of the questions were supplementary questions, or whether they were individual questions, and I'd be happy to review that situation.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I need your guidance on a point of order. I am a bit disturbed about the opposition bringing forward a motion that is obviously frivolous, since they don't want to have the opportunity to continue the debate on that motion. We have asked for leave, under the rules of this House, and that leave has been denied. At least that is the way you read it. I am not so sure that I heard the noes. I am asking your guidance on whether or not there is a way in which this lack of leave can be recorded in the Journals of the House, because I think the people of the province should know about that.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, when leave is requested leave is asked of the entire House. If there is one dissenting voice it means that unanimous consent is not present and, therefore, leave cannot be granted. My hands are tied beyond that point.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Perhaps, with leave, we could have it recorded in the Journals of the House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It will be recorded; it is ordinarily recorded.

HON. MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition says we have had three days — meaning that they wish to limit the government members' opportunity to speak in a debate in which they challenged every member of the government to speak, and now they are denying them that opportunity. It is the first time in the history of this House that we have had closure by the opposition.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, based on the generally accepted premise that all members of this House are honourable members, I therefore expect that, when a member stands to his feet on a point of order, what he has to bring to the House shall be a point of order. I would have to observe that in the last few days we have had instances on both sides of the House where that is not the case. Unless it can be changed, I will have to have each member state at the outset under which standing order he is standing. Perhaps that might be an acceptable procedure.

Are there any further points of order?

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
(continued debate)

On the amendment.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I rise to take my part in this debate on the amendment to the main motion. Needless to say, I will be voting against such an amendment, for a number of reasons. The wording of the amendment suggests that it is the duty of the members opposite to question the confidence of this House in those who are responsible as advisers to His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor, those who sit on the government side of the House.

It should be obvious to all members in this House, by statements recently made by members on this side, that such consideration is ill-founded, that the strength of the government and the government side of this House is consistent, and that there is no consideration that there is lack of confidence. It is obvious by the words of members that specific references have been made to the leader of the government, the Premier, and other advisers to the Lieutenant-Governor, as to the confidence offered them by the members in this House who represent the majority of this parliament.

It has been a wide-ranging debate so far on this motion — a great deal of it acrimonious, some of it nonsensical, and some of it mildly interesting. Many members have stood in their places and brought forward their memories, recollections, samples of mythology, rumours, innuendo, relating to everything from the very earliest days of parliamentary debate in this House to the last election campaign, and one or two other events which have occurred since then. Mr. Speaker, it is an opportunity for a visitor to these galleries who has been away for a couple of years to get back in line with contemporary thinking from the opposition, because the questions haven't changed in four or five years. We were advised by outside sources, by members of the media, that the opposition would be prepared for grilling of the government this session with well-researched material. How well we remember in this House the fight we had, from the opposition, about their budget for research staff and the need for research staff. A very large amount of money was provided to the opposition for research staff so they could come to this House better prepared to bring forth questions and issues and demand answers from government members. I suppose they say as an evening ritual: "Thank God for Marjorie Nichols' column." It seems to be their source of research, because the issues which they've brought forward so far in this session have not suggested anything new has

[ Page 1297 ]

happened since 1975, and, in many instances, well before that. The lack of research is evident not only in this debate, but in question period, which, out of three days, has almost collapsed twice. Except for the knee-jerk reaction of one member it would certainly have gone down the tube at least once.

I was particularly pleased to hear a member ask a question and offer the minister to whom he was asking the question the answer before he asked the question, because he really didn't want to know what the answer was. It is a clever technique — well, clever by their standards.

Mr. Speaker, a great deal of discussion has taken place about election techniques. I understand that it is unparliamentary to refer to such words as "dirty" and "filthy" in this House. I gather, though, that if "dirty" is used as an adjective it is permitted, such as in "dirty tricks," since that hasn't been ruled out of order. I know of what the members opposite speak when they speak of election techniques and dirty tricks. What they're referring to is the use of gasoline on plywood election signs for purposes of ignition.

AN HON. MEMBER: They wouldn't do that.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm not suggesting, Mr. Member, that they did that. I'm suggesting that that is what they refer to when they refer to dirty tricks. Some members in this House may be familiar with my constituency of Richmond, which, in many sections, is still very much a rural community. We have drainage canals in our municipality which require bridging, usually with a wooden material, and many people take the opportunity of attaching plywood signs during election campaigns to their wooden bridges. Unfortunately, during the last election, many of these were set ablaze, and I can assure all members of this House that they were not set ablaze by anyone connected with my campaign; they were our signs, but nonetheless they were burned. That, to me, is a dirty trick.

I suppose it could run into the general category of dirty trick as well when people who are canvassing for a political party in certain areas of a constituency are physically threatened because they've been identified as campaigning for the Social Credit Party — physically threatened and ordered off the street. I'm not suggesting that those who made such threats belonged to a specific political party, even though they identified themselves as such. That, I suppose, would be considered a dirty trick.

I very much like the newfound knowledge of some members of the House who sit opposite about manipulation of the media. What a strange coincidence it is to read in publications throughout this province, over the past few years, a column by a member of this assembly, in precisely the same words as a column written by another member of this assembly in a different publication. I suppose that is perhaps the ultimate example of unanimity of thought — precisely the same words, different author. Even the typing errors were the same and the grammatical errors were the same.

Letters to the editor. I commend some of the people who have written letters to the editor in support of the New Democratic Party for their incredible command of the English language, their incredible capability of research — not that the name appended to that letter is necessarily the name of the person who created the letter, but who nonetheless agreed to have the signature used for such purposes. That possibly, while not being a dirty trick, certainly makes you wonder what "manipulation" means.

Our Premier has been accused of encouraging people to manipulate open-line shows. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you from memories past that any manipulation on open-line shows falls into the category of what's new. I have spoken to a large number of people, under certain circumstances, relating to political opinions on radio, and I've spoken to many who take full advantage of these instant polls, phoning back a dozen times if they can. The little boiler rooms get started during an election campaign and as soon as someone on the air suggests; "Why don't we see how it's going?", the calls begin to come in. Those people who are already waiting say they'll vote Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Social Credit, whatever, but then suddenly you hear the machine-gun — NDP, NDP, NDP. They say: "What reason?" "I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. I wasn't told to give a reason; I was told to say NDP." There's some confusion, of course. They're slow getting in because they get confused by the multiple choice on the dial.

So you talk about manipulation and boiler rooms — you know, the sanctimonious attitude of some members who sit opposite, forgetting that there are records, that newspapers are kept, records are kept. They come out and suggest that suddenly there's been a great revelation to the world and someone may be attempting to manipulate the media; it has never occurred before. I think probably the people who are truly angry about all of that are representatives of the media themselves. They perhaps feel offended by anyone attempting to manipulate them, as they should. But I'll tell you, the Vancouver Province quickly got rid of a feature about phone-in letters to the editor. Some guy phoned in every morning and had a letter published every morning, and they said: "This just doesn't seem to work."

Perhaps some member opposite could correct me if he or she chooses later, because they're much closer to the situation than any member on this side would be. I was told by what I guess the press refer to as "a usually reliable source," that the NDP strategy was not to get involved in the so-called dirty tricks affair. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) brought this up yesterday and said that they stayed out of it. I was told they stayed out of it because they said: "What happens if they start looking into our campaign?" Now that could be wrong. I know we had a big investigation in Richmond into letters to the editor.

MR. MACDONALD: It's a nice little innuendo anyway.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Thank you very much. They will be speaking about innuendos later, Mr. Member, and I'd appreciate hearing from you about it.

We did quite a thorough investigation into letters to the editor in Richmond; we thought we had something going. During the 1979 campaign we found that there were a total of eight letters written to the editor, period. So there wasn't much manipulation going on.

Dirty tricks. Someone mentioned yesterday the television and radio ads during the 1979 campaign. At one time it was prohibited in Canada to dramatize political ads. You couldn't get some clown off the street who would say: "I'm a hospital worker and I just threw an old lady out because the government's not going to pay for her room." That was prohibited. You couldn't dramatize; you couldn't pretend you were someone you weren't. That was prohibited for election purposes; that was changed.

[ Page 1298 ]

So in 1979 we heard a little soap opera being acted out in 30 seconds or 60 seconds. A telephone would ring and someone would say: "This is your friendly hospital. We're closed because the government's so mean and rotten, and we're not going to.... Too bad, you wait three years for emergency." The NDP withdrew those ads. I understand one of the main reasons is because the nurses, the doctors and the hospital staff were pretty upset. The ones I spoke to said: "There's no way we turn away people who need help." That was the inference. That to me was a bit of a dirty trick, particularly when an elderly person is ill — possibly terminally ill — and they hear that garbage on the air and think: "What hope is there for me?" But trading in human misery is not unknown for that party.

Well, there are so many issues, Mr. Speaker, that can be covered by this motion of non-confidence in our leader and in those who are responsible for advising His Honour.

One comment came up — and perhaps later on the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) could advise me what it means, because he seems to have a particular communication capability with the opposition — as to what was referred to as "a motorcycle gang." I'm not sure which one of those referred to the government members as this. I really wonder what that means — "a motorcycle gang." I suppose there are good things and there are bad things about a motorcycle gang.

Someone suggested to me in the hall that the reason they want that distinction is that while they will refer to us as a motorcycle gang, they consider themselves, in a private way, to be a bit of a powderpuff moped brigade. They want that distinction. But I don't know what the motorcycle gang refers to. I understand the head of one of the large motorcycle organizations in the province would also like an explanation. He doesn't know whether he wants to be identified with the government or whether the reference was good or bad.

So many things have been discussed, Mr. Speaker. There was talk about stealing land; there was talk about expropriating land through taxation. I was listening, and I knew what they were speaking about when they talked about stealing people's property. I knew they were speaking of the Nu-West Development called Riverside Industrial Park in Richmond, which is an industrial park that never went into the agricultural land reserve — even though it had been considered for going in. But it didn't go in. I guess the reason it didn't go in before was because it was an active farm. But the government of the day told the people who were developing the land: "I'll tell you what. We won't put it in the ALR, but you give us 42 acres for allotment gardens."

Now the company said: "Well, if you want 42 acres, sure. We paid $15,000 an acre."

"Oh," they said, "we don't intend to pay $15,000 an acre. How about $7,500 an acre, and then we'll let the rest go into an industrial park?"

Well, I guess the company felt: "Well, what choice do we have?" So they went in with their industrial park, which was quite successful. The 42 acres, meanwhile, remained vacant until we became government in 1975. The company director has phoned and said: "Do we deliver it by shovel, or wheelbarrowful, or how do you want the land?" I said: "What land?"

"Well, we were told we'd have to turn over 42 acres at half price.

I said: "Forget it. It's called blackmail; we don't deal in blackmail."

So they said: "Well, can we continue on and complete our project?"

I said: "That makes sense. That's what you were given permission to do anyway. What is this nonsense?" I understand that land has been actively pursued since.

Mr. Speaker, the language in this House in the past few days has been regrettable, perhaps, in the eyes of some. It is, perhaps, understandable that remarks are made from that side of the House that members on this side find somewhat irresponsible. I could give you an example. One of the members over there said: "Most members on the government side say in private what the NDP say in public." They have no confidence in the Premier. What absolute nonsense! You can't say it is a lie, because it's unparliamentary. In any other forum in this world that is what you would say, but not here. It's fabrication, certainly, it's untrue, and it is any other word that would be similar to that.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that from the safety of defeat the socialists growl for power. They seem to have that capacity, that once the decision has been made, then they say: "Okay, now it's our chance. Give us the power. There are a few people in this province who insist that the greatest relief since Alka Seltzer occurred when they lost in 1975. Self-relief for themselves. They felt relieved. Thank God, now somebody else can do the work, and we can continue....

AN HON. MEMBER: Plop, plop, fizz, fizz.

HON. MR. NEILSEN: They were the flop, flop, fizz, fizz people.

It seems so strange, the situation that goes on in this province and, again.... I suppose, maybe, in question period I could ask the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) a question, but I could maybe give him advance notice by way of this today. Again I'd like clarification, and maybe someone over here-or there-knows the answer. I am told — and I find it very hard to believe — that the Leader of the Opposition is in contact with some prominent businessmen in our province, asking him if they would consider taking a government position.

I'm not privy to that information. I didn't have an opportunity to listen in on the call so I don't know whether it was conditional upon them becoming government again or whether the Leader of the Opposition was asked by our leader maybe to make such arrangements. And I would not suggest, even though it may be tempting to some of my colleagues, that perhaps the condition, if indeed that occurred.... I'm not suggesting it did; I'm saying I've been told that. Maybe it was.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, it depends on who you support in the next election. You never know.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The Minister of Health says no. I accept his....

"Tell the truth." One member said the other day: "Tell the truth and you will never have a problem." I remember a former member of this House appearing on a radio program a few days after the 1972 election and explaining ICBC, explaining why it was a monopoly. The moderator said: "You

[ Page 1299 ]

never said it was going to be a monopoly and drive the other companies...."

"Oh, didn't we? Oh, we meant that. We meant to say that."

He said: "You didn't say it was to be the only game in town. And the private companies...."

"Oh," he says, "how do you know?" Why didn't he know? He was the minister responsible. "Didn't we say that? We did say you could get it for $25. No, we didn't say that either. All we said is that the government insures its vehicles for $25. Why shouldn't you be able to?"

And then, Mr. Speaker, for those who may not be aware of some of that history, they had the guts to go out to the private companies and say: "Could we have your records?"

They said: "Yeah, it depends on your capacity to carry them, my friend."

There was so much discussion in this chamber last evening about the commission on redistribution by Judge Norris and others. We were told, and I have no reason at all to expect otherwise, that it was an honest commission, that it was a proper commission, that it was a thorough commission and every other thing that should be attributed to such a commission. It was done without regard to politics. It was done for the benefit of the people of British Columbia in choosing their representatives. So it leaves one question. If this commission had all of the ingredients of a proper commission on redistribution, it was honest beyond doubt, and it was put together by competent people after proper public hearings, why was it ignored? It was never used. The panicking former Premier called an election instead. Now that is absolutely contradictory to that which we heard yesterday about this fine report, and I suppose it was a fine report. But it was never used. It was shelved. They called an election instead.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Not for that reason. You would have been pretty worried, too, if you had to come down with a budget that had to come down. But it's hard to put the two together and find out where this "tell the truth" nonsense comes from.

My understanding is that no political party has, prior to an election, set forth a list of the companies they intend to take over. That may fall into the category of telling the truth.

Remember the emergency measures act that was introduced to this House? Bill 66, I believe it was called at that time. It was probably the most damaging thing that ever came before a political party. "Tell the truth." I'm not sure what member made reference to that but I'm sure that member was talking about the overruns...

AN HON. MEMBER: Counting errors.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: ...and other reasons. The member even admitted in a book: "Apparently I should have been fired over it." And that's telling the truth. "I should have been fired over it."

But, Mr. Speaker, I think it's been clearly indicated by the majority of members in this House that there was certainly confidence in the present advisers to His Honour, certainly confidence in our leader, the Premier.

The Premier has been criticized for everything from having been born of certain parentage.... You know, that's something over which you have very limited control.

It's really unfortunate because we are blessed in this province to have generations of very hard-working families, and it's unfortunate that someone should suggest you apologize for being who you are or who your parents were. In most instances it's insulting to suggest you apologize on behalf of your predecessors.

The Premier was criticized yesterday for wearing a Japanese band around his head upon his return from Japan. I suppose the members opposite appreciate that to the Japanese that's an important gesture. It's part of a political campaign. They are not, as some suggested, a kamikaze headband. I know it isn't because I asked the representatives of the 6,000 Japanese-Canadians in Steveston in my riding what it meant, and they assured me it was not a kamikaze headband. And it's not silly. It's a serious election identification symbol they wear in Japan, but I guess that went over the heads of a few of them.

But, Mr. Speaker, the members opposite advised us that the strength of their party comes from the fact that they work together, they share common goals. I can only presume therefore that they are responsible for the actions of each member on that side of the House, particularly when they giggle, when they applaud by slapping their desk, or in other ways, or when they stand up and support....

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) offended me greatly the other night in the House. He not only offended me; he offended everyone in the House, I'm sure, and the people of our province. According to the Blues, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke said that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) "had problems with the law to the extent where they found it necessary to bug his office." We objected to that remark and he came back and he said: "Oh, I said problems with the RCMP, not the law." But indeed it was "problems with the law," which was pointed out by our minister and House Leader as ill-advised and improper and wrong. When I returned to the House I said that I heard the remark and I said I thought, to be charitable, it may have been an error on his part; but he chose not to accept that. No, indeed not — not an error. Then he went into his little lawyer routine and tried to clarify it. He was absolutely wrong. It was despicable, Mr. Speaker; it was contemptuous of this House. He further compounded the slander by saying: "I did want to comment on the fact that the minister's offices were bugged by the RCMP.... I want to observe that it's my understanding under the Criminal Code...." and so on, "...with the provision of some evidence..." And he says: "I suggest to you, sir, that when that kind of presentation was made to a judge and he found, apparently, satisfactory evidence to issue that permission against a minister of the Crown, it does little to confirm the confidence of the people of British Columbia...."

He says that "it has been the history in the British parliamentary system that where a minister and his conduct in office is called to question in any way without presuming guilt, without presuming to view the evidence" — isn't that beautiful? — "without presuming guilt, he should step aside, step aside and resign." Can you imagine how many there would have been left in that group? Can you imagine?

HON. MR. BENNETT: And then there were none.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: And then there were none.

Mr. Speaker, I asked that member to withdraw his re-

[ Page 1300 ]

marks and he chose not to. When we returned after our bench-clearing misconduct last night, the member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) said to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair): "Would you like to withdraw your remarks?" And it was referred to by another member. Given the opportunity to do it, he chose not to do it, I guess, because the minister is learning from the other side — they choose not to. I thought it was particularly overly generous when I said that it may have been an error on his part, because he's not that bright, and he may have made an honest mistake — that can happen. The people of B.C. made an honest mistake once. But he chose not to, and that perhaps draws an end to that nonsense, despicable conduct, contemptuous display of, I suppose, ignorance as much as anything else, attempting by way of innuendo to smear a member of this House, even though the facts would have been known to that member, as they are known to most people.

I'm not going to go into great detail about the difficulty of explaining to children, particularly my own, the subtleties of law, the difference between being a witness and being accused, the difference of being served a subpoena or a summons and so on. But when a grown man — a member of this House — can't understand that, that's inexcusable. But when you believe he does understand it and still chooses to slander, that's despicable, and that's below the dignity of this House.

I suppose, Mr. Speaker, it really is not up to me to make that decision, but up to the members of this House, to the members of the media, to the members of the public. It is for them to judge if such conduct is that which we expect. The old tradition of two sword lengths, I suppose, made some sense when things got really rough in the old Houses of Parliament, but I'm not sure if we shouldn't consider reverting back to the good days just once in a while. One member there, our friend from Vancouver Centre, today suggested that we get the arrows out and continue on the process of democracy.

The only thing, I suppose, that we can feel comforted about is that this will contribute to the decline of that member I spoke of. I understand he's perhaps not running next time or maybe he's been asked not to, or whatever it is. But he set the tone, Mr. Speaker, for this session. TheVictoria Colonist today on the back page outlined it in precise detail, the first such story that really set out and said very clearly: "It all started with that member." It all started with that member, so if there is any concern among the people in our province about the conduct of this chamber, this session particularly, you know where it all began, you know where the disease began.

You know, for any member to stand up and defile another member in such a way just to satisfy personal ego, macho image — "Boy, I hammered at them tonight!" — to be snide, to be clever, to get some people giggling.... It's so much fun, I guess. I saw a couple of the other members squirming badly in their chairs, particularly those who have had some legal training. I could see them squirming, but by not doing anything they condoned it, of course. They didn't condemn it, they condoned it.

Last night the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) said: "You know, maybe the time has come for us to be a bit nicer to each other in this chamber." I agree, maybe the time has come. It is like the Philadelphia Flyers asking for mercy.

He also pointed out last night: "Those statements made by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) are really meaningless, compared to what that member across there said." Oh, sure! "Let's divert it to something else; let's not talk about that. Just because one of our guys blew it, let's not keep it before the people." I guess the old, traditional methods of resolving such arguments are no longer valid in our society, but they are missed by some.

I am asking the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke to repeat outside these chambers the precise statements he made — not an interpretation of what he meant to say, but precisely what he said as recorded in the Blues. I am advised by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) that, indeed, such a statement has been made. Well, I haven't heard it, I haven't seen it, I haven't read it. But I did read an interpretation of what was said, which is very, very different than what was said.

I'm not going to invite the member outside, as I understand one of our members did the other night. But I think the statement that was made should be made outside so that it is no longer within the sanctuary of this House. Keep in mind that when I responded to that scurrilous statement I said: "It may have been an error on his part." I was quite prepared to accept that.

We all say things that we are held accountable for but that we may be in error in saying. It doesn't take a very big man to apologize: "Yes, I made a mistake and I'm sorry; it's technical and I didn't mean to say it." That's easy. That's not a problem, but it's not going to happen, because there is hatred in this House that just permeates the entire chamber. I suppose it is one that many people in our province find despicable in politics. But we are at the whim of the members opposite in this House. We introduce a budget, we introduce legislation — it is up to them how they decide that will be debated.

MR. RITCHIE: They say it's no good.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Of course they say it's no good, but they can say it's no good in a reasonable and intelligent way. They don't have to become slanderous; they don't have to act in despicable ways. There is no point. We don't have to make a snide remark like the member made last night — I presume about the health of one of our members. They invent these people they meet on the street: "I was walking down the street and ran into a Social Credit supporter who said something nasty about the government." And this member invented someone who said: "You are only two charges and a heart attack away from government." There is only one member in this House on this side whom I know suffers from heart problems. That type of cheap attack is just ridiculous.

These pure-minded purists on the other side of the House call us names and I suppose that is part of the territory, as everyone seems to be saying nowadays. Someone was called a pro-fascist; that was withdrawn. Others called people communists; that was withdrawn. But for the second year in a row the same member has called a member on this side of the House subhuman.

It seems to me that we were given a history lesson the other day about the Nazi Party of Germany. And it seems to me that the Nazi Party leader, Adolf Hitler, and Goebbels, Himmler and a few of the other creatures over there, frequently used the term "subhuman" to describe people of other-than-Aryan origin, to condition people to accept their extermination by conditioning people to believe that these other human beings were subhuman.

[ Page 1301 ]

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that word being used by anyone else except that member, who has used it two years running in this House. I hope the people of the province pay attention to that.

In conclusion, I would simply like to assure the people of the province that this House, this province and its people indeed have confidence in the advisers to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, and in particular to the leader of our province, our Premier.

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct a statement which the minister made in his speech, indicating that I had not withdrawn. Reference to the Blues will indicate that, at the instruction of the Chair, I did withdraw a statement that I made, and specified that I in no way inferred any criminal guilt by the minister; that should be a matter of record.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member makes a statement of correction.

MR. MITCHELL: I rise today because I think it's really important that the voice from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew be added to Hansard and to the records of this parliament. The main debate on the amendment — which I intend to support — has revolved around the riding of Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. It was because of the actions of people within that riding, people who stood up when they saw something wrong taking place and called a spade a spade.... I think it should be read into the record of B.C. political life that one girl, one reporter of one small weekly, had the intestinal fortitude to stand up and say to the government of this province: "What you are doing is wrong." I say this in all sincerity: a lot of people will run with a mob and a lot of people will shout and jeer; but it takes a brave person, a strong person, an honest person, to bring the truth out into the open and not hide behind the group that they are running with.

I would like to read into the record the name of Brenda Dalglish, who will go down in the political history of this province as one of those who had the strength to stand up. When all the rest of us have left this parliament and when the historians are reading what took place in British Columbia in 1979, the words "dirty tricks" and "Lettergate" and the name of Brenda Dalglish will be recorded for all time. There will be a lot of you who shouted and screamed and ridiculed someone who stood up and said it was wrong.

I find it amazing that it wasn't only because it came to light in the Esquimalt–Port Renfrew riding, and it was not only because it was printed in the Goldstream Gazette, a community paper, that the fact that the Social Credit Party was following instructions, as laid down by the leader of that party, to start a game of manipulating the press by writing false letters.... That report was made and printed in the paper on Wednesday, September 26. That same report was made by members of the publicly funded caucus research team in Comox the week before — the same team, paid with funds of the province of British Columbia. I find that disreputable.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: I say to the hon. member: let us stay to facts and let us stay to honesty and let us stay to integrity. People say that we make up names, that we make up Social Credit supporters who come out of the woodwork and say things that are not true. Mr. Speaker, when the first member from the government side stood up and moved that we accept the throne speech — in September 1978, when he as a private member was a member on the part of the group at the Bayshore Inn, and heard the same dirty tricks procedure as laid out by the caucus committee — did he have the integrity to stand up in this House and disown, or apologize, or even to say: "I'm sorry that I didn't have the same guts as Brenda Dalglish did when she stood and called a spade a spade and brought it to the attention of the public."?

When I go through our various research records, the records of the press, and the records of other people who have spoken in this House; when I have listened to the cowardly attacks made on people who are not in this House, who cannot stand up and defend themselves — I find that far more dangerous than any attack made by a person against another hon. member. That hon. member can stand up and defend himself, and he can defend himself well.

When you talk about dirty tricks, dirty tricks didn't start at one time. I would like to read a letter which appeared in one of our local papers — if I can find it among my papers here, Mr. Speaker. That was one of the original dirty tricks, because there it is among my own....

AN HON. MEMBER: I hope it was nothing nasty.

MR. MITCHELL: No, it wasn't. It was one of the nicer things said by a Social Crediter. This was written by one of the original Social Crediters in my riding. I will explain her credentials before I read the letter.

She joined Social Credit in 1952 when we had the coalition government going out of operation. She was still a member of the Social Credit Party as of November 7, 1979. Her name is Mrs. Anna A. Ranns, and she lives at 642 Taylor Road. I'm not inventing her. She is a Social Crediter, and I will read what she says:

"Dirty tricks in the Esquimalt constituency exploded in full force, as far as I am concerned, on May 12, 1975. Of course, there was a leading up to it before that, when quantity took priority over quality of membership. To get rid of the old image was impressed upon us most urgently. This riled me, being rather proud of the old image, since I signed up to be a Social Crediter when there was still no Social Credit Party in British Columbia. The coalition government was still in power.

"However, on May 12, 1975, we had a constituency meeting in Colwood. It was the most frightening meeting I have ever attended. Had it been held in a communist country I can easily believe all of the old images would have been liquidated. As it was, when our duly nominated president stood up to open the meeting, a new image stood up and yelled: 'Shut up and sit down.' Each time our president tried to bring order, the hall was packed with new images, and they supported him by encouraging shouts and feet stamping. Eventually our chairman and the old images, being outnumbered, accepted the duties of another chairman, who, being outside our constituen-

[ Page 1302 ]

cy and not eligible, made it an illegal meeting, along with other false charges against our president."

May I bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that this is a Social Crediter talking about this organization which started in 1975, with a policy laid down by the leader, to bring in a false, phony letter-writing program. And that was stopped, hon. members, because one person from my riding stood up and said it was wrong.

MR. REE: What's the date of that letter?

MR. SEGARTY: Who signed it? Is there a signature on the letter?

MR. MITCHELL: I read this letter out to you, if you were listening. Anna A. Ranns, and the date was Wednesday, November 7.

"Since then the meetings have been noticeably stacked, and the only reason I have not turned in my membership is I still believe in the true Social Credit."

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: Yes, I'm reading from a newspaper letter.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: If you want to speak, you can speak later on; you have your turn, and I still have my time as laid down. You can defend your leader; you can defend him anywhere you wish.

But I say, in closing, that I think it's important, when something is wrong, when something is against the general rights of parliament, when it is against what we know as democracy, is out of place, that each one of us within our own seat, within our own home and within our own constituency stand up and bring it to the attention of parliament, to our neighbours, to everyone. And I say that one of the main reasons I am opposed to this leadership and this government is that we have had many, many reports over a number of years. We have had a report made on the integrity of this whole Lettergate, dirty tricks scandal, and I call on this government, and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), to either release that report to the House, or at least release it to a select group of members of the opposition, to peruse it, to assure that what is being said to the public is in fact true.

I ask that they also release another important report, and that was the report on the Marguerite — the full report, not the leaked report — so that this House, and each one of us, can accept our responsibility and make our decisions with all the facts, and not play a lot of political games where we shout and badger and ridicule while the government is sitting on reports and denying the duly elected people of this House all of the information it has available.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to congratulate you on your unanimous election to your important post. Keeping order in this House, I know, is a challenge. But I know that you are up to it and that we are going to respect your rulings and that our deliberations will profit from them.

Mr. Speaker, I'm opposed to the amendment currently before the House. Essentially it's a no-confidence motion; in other words, it expresses a lack of confidence in the present government. No doubt the New Democratic Party would like to see more government in this province — indeed, more government in this country. Under the present administration we have less government, less government in British Columbia at least — less intervention also, and this is very important in the private sector. I'm all for that. I agree, therefore, that His Honour's present advisers are on the right track, and I wish them well in their determination to make the state the servant of our people, not the other way around. That's why I'm voting against the amendment. Big government in my view is bad government. Big government which is so complex that the voting public cannot possibly understand it is worse. It's not responsible government; it's government by default. It's government which feeds on itself, because the normal checks and balances of our parliamentary system are no longer there to discipline those who would make important decisions on our behalf.

Our present government in British Columbia is to be congratulated on several counts. It puts the private sector ahead of the public sector. It believes that government should serve the people, not the other way around. It believes that government should face up to its financial commitments. It doesn't run deficits, thereby taxing future generations in order that we can live beyond our means today.

In British Columbia provincial government income equals provincial government outgo. We don't have continuing deficits on current operating account. Among Canadian provinces only Alberta can match this record of financial and fiscal responsibility. British Columbia's performance is in marked contrast to that of Ottawa in recent years, where federal spending now exceeds revenue by more than 20 percent.

I would also like to compliment our present British Columbia government for keeping the size of the provincial public service under control. Employment in the public service, including that of provincial Crown corporations, has levelled off. It jumped by more than one-third in the period between 1972 and 1975, when the NDP was in power; now its growth is in the 1 to 2 percent a year category, less than the overall rate of growth of employment in the province. Given the steady improvement in provincial public services, the emphasis is clearly on quality rather than quantity. Better delivery systems are what the public wants; in British Columbia that's what people are getting under the present Social Credit administration.

Nationally the picture is quite different. Canada-wide, our public sector is growing rapidly. By contrast, the private sector is declining in value terms and in employment terms. Take jobs in industry, for example. As a percent of Canada's gross domestic product, it reached a high of 40 percent in 1953; since then, industry's share has fallen steadily. Last year it hit an all-time low of 30 percent.

Including teachers, armed services personnel and employees of Crown corporations, today our total Canadian public service payroll is approaching two million men and women. If the trend of the 1970s continues it won't be long until 20 percent, one in five, of all gainfully employed in Canada will be working for government: government departments, government agencies and government-run firms of one kind or another. Consciously or not, we are creating a large new class of citizens in our country. Most of them have a degree of job security which is unknown in the private

[ Page 1303 ]

sector; they are paid as well as, and sometimes better than, employees of private corporations; their pensions are usually indexed, and their fringe benefits are often the best in the country. It's little wonder that young Canadians entering our labour force for the first time are looking at the public sector with great interest.

Not only do we have a balanced budget in British Columbia, but we have a level of provincial expenditure which is declining relative to our total provincial output of goods and services. In 1975, when the NDP was still in power, provincial government expenditures amounted to 18 percent of the gross provincial product. Now, five years later, it is 15 percent. The government's target, I understand, is 12 percent. Admittedly, that is a long-term objective; it may take some years to achieve. But it expresses a determination to contain the cost of government, an attitude which could well be emulated by our federal government in Ottawa. It proves that the private sector has priority over the public sector, at least in British Columbia.

True, our public services can be improved. Some, like denticare, can be added to the existing mix. But improvements don't always have to cost money; they don't always call for more staff, equipment, buildings or taxation. There are new and better ways of doing things. Some of our existing services can be supplied in the home, in the store and in the factory; they can be supplied by paraprofessionals and neighbourhood workers, some of them performing their services on a part-time basis.

In other words, with the right kind of help we can be more self-reliant. We can be just as healthy and twice as happy if our government keeps us in the right way, like a friend and not a guardian — like a provider of essential services and not a benefactor whose self-willed mission is to lead us by the hand from the cradle to the grave.

I'm particularly critical of the federal government in this regard. Financially it has been irresponsible. In recent years it has borrowed heavily from the Canadian public in order to fund programs, many of which, constitutionally speaking, are under provincial jurisdiction. Ottawa has become increasingly people-program oriented. But many of these programs, like health, education and welfare, are essentially provincial in character. Undaunted, the federal government has moved in anyway. It has taken initiatives which our less fortunate provinces would not have taken on their own.

But time and rising costs have taken their toll. Now Ottawa is backing out. It's leaving Canada's provinces, rich and poor alike, with a finite number of tax points and specified per capita grants with which to fund these ambitious programs.

It all started with unemployment insurance in the early 1940s. Then came old-age pensions, grants for hospital construction, then medicare, then our Canada Assistance Plan for people on welfare. Post-secondary education was a big federal item for a while, and there was even talk of a guaranteed annual income for all Canadians from Newfoundland to British Columbia.

With its unlimited powers of taxation the nation could do financially what the provinces were legally equipped to do. In other words, Ottawa had the bucks, or so it thought. It plunged in where many of the provinces feared to tread. It set national guidelines and insisted on universal coverage in most cases. The result was a spending spree which even the richer provinces like British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario have had difficulty in maintaining in recent years.

Two things have happened as a result of this federal flirtation with welfare statism. Payments to people and to provinces have gone up by leaps and bounds. More of the federal budget is fixed and less is discretionary. Now, as a result of these various commitments, Ottawa is forced to hand over most of its income on a regular monthly or quarterly basis to others. Ninety percent of its financial intake is committed before it's received; less than 10 percent is for goods and services, other federal obligations of the traditional kind; only a few percent, like new construction and other public works, can be turned on and off at will. This is an incredible position for a national government responsible for full employment to find itself in. In other words, Ottawa has little room for manoeuvre: it can't prime the pump with fresh funds in a period of recession; it can't offset cyclical swings in spending in the private sector with any degree of authority. All it can do is print more money, thereby adding to the fires of inflation. Unfortunately, that is what it's been doing all too frequently in recent years.

Let us look at the numbers again. As recently as 1968 federal spending for all purposes was the equivalent of 16 percent of our gross national product. Now in 1980, it's 21 percent, and of that 21 percent at least 19 percent is fixed — it has to be paid out regardless of any change in policy. It's fixed in the way that interest payments on the national debt, payments to old-age pensioners across the nation, payments to the unemployed, and equalization payments to the provinces are fixed. Transfers to the provinces, whether they be in the form of tax points or unconditional grants covering earlier commitments with respect to health, education and welfare, are fixed. These obligations annually run into many billions of dollars, currently approaching $10 billion a year. They would not have existed on anything like their present scale if Ottawa had not invaded these important areas of provincial jurisdiction in the first place.

So what do we have at the federal level today? In terms of monetary management we have an impotent nation. Constitutionally speaking we also have a mixed-up nation. The do-gooders at the federal level have tried to please everyone at once. Ottawa has tried to be all things to all people, and as a result it hasn't done its national job properly. It hasn't done a good job on national defence, transportation, and industrial research and development, to name a few. It's been preoccupied instead with programs which in earlier years — and indeed under the British North America Act as it was originally written — were always regarded as of local and provincial character.

I for one expect our federal government to be the government of all Canada. I want it to be national in its sweep. I don't want it to concern itself unduly with local, provincial or even regional problems. I'm very much opposed to the federal government's stepping into areas of provincial jurisdiction and then, because costs are getting out of hand, or for other reasons, stepping out again. This is upsetting to the provinces, to say the least. It's very upsetting to the poorer ones. It results in a lot of unnecessary bickering at the federal-provincial level. It's centralization for a time and decentralization when the going gets tough. You don't promote national unity in this way; instead you promote the cause of those who prefer separatism.

Constitutionally we should get back to first principles. We should adopt a division of powers between our national government and the provinces which sees Ottawa dealing with national issues and the provinces dealing with property-

[ Page 1304 ]

and people-oriented issues. The more firmly the line is drawn between our two levels of government the better; the more our people will understand what's really going on. There will be less talk of exploitation of one part of the country by another, and there will be more Canadians thinking optimistically about our future rather than about our divided present or past.

A nation, to be a nation, must have one flag, a common currency, and the freedom of its people to move wherever they want to, from one part of the country to the other. A nation, not its constituent provinces, should also be responsible for external affairs, foreign trade and defence. It should constitute a common market for goods and services and capital of all kinds, and it must have the ability to frame financial policies which maximize employment and keep inflation under control.

Nation-building, given these several dimensions, doesn't cost a great deal — at least compared to the present federal expenditures. It amounts to less than 10 percent of our gross national product. The rest, from 10 percent up to our present federal outlay of 21 percent, is due mainly to federal incursions into provincial affairs — fields like health, housing, pensions, welfare and education. It springs, in part, from a desire on the part of many of our federal politicians to spread the wealth across the country. With surprisingly little opposition from the provinces, it has caused Ottawa to act more and more like a unitary state, not a federation, when it comes to raising money and spending money. Willy-nilly, Ottawa has become the tax collector for both federal purposes — those which are national in character — and for programs which our Fathers of Confederation sincerely believed the provinces should administer by themselves.

What am I saying? I'm saying that if Ottawa stopped playing its Robin Hood role with the provinces, it would only need half, or, indeed, less than half, of the revenue which it now takes from Canadian taxpayers. Include equalization grants, sufficient to allow the poorer provinces to provide provincial services which are comparable to those in the rest of the country, and you still have a federal tax take which is less than two-thirds of what it is today. Obviously Ottawa, if it holds back, if it gets right out of such provincial fields as health, education and social security, will make a smaller dent in our collective pocket-books. It will take 12 to 14 percent of our gross national product, as compared to the 21 percent it takes now.

I, for one, am for greater clarity in governmental affairs. I want to see two separate lists of powers-federal powers and provincial powers, powers which are exclusively powers of our senior level of government in Ottawa, and powers, which everyone agrees, are powers which can only be wielded by provincial administrations like the good government we now have here in British Columbia. I am not opposed to some sharing of the wealth between provinces. Equalization grants can be developed for this purpose; but they must be paid out by Ottawa with no strings attached. Their scale will be settled in a series of first ministers' conferences. But let's not go overboard when it comes to unconditional grants of this kind. Using present-day formulas, we are in danger of making even populous Ontario a have-not province. Obviously our complicated arithmetic, aimed at bringing provincial revenues in all provinces up to decent national standards, is getting us into trouble. Not only is it thrusting the federal revenuer's hand deeper and deeper into our pockets, but it's also giving most of our provinces a false sense of security, insofar as provincial spending is concerned.

In principle it's wrong for one level of government to levy taxes and another to spend the proceeds. It's poor management to say the least, and it's not responsible government. Those who spend should have to raise their own funds; otherwise spending quickly gets out of hand. Ottawa, raising taxes, gets a black eye, especially in the richer provinces like Alberta and British Columbia. So it's divisive. This is one of the real reasons why we have western alienation, why the federal Liberal Party is so popular in the east and can only get one vote out of four in the west.

British Columbia has to accept some blame in this regard. It welcomed Ottawa's initiatives in respect to unemployment insurance, old-age pensions, and the Canada Pension Plan. It endorsed medicare on a national scale, it liked the Canada Assistance Plan. It groaned audibly when Ottawa started to cut back on its grants for post-secondary education. We still hear suggestions that the federal government should get itself involved in a guaranteed annual income plan for all Canadians. When will we learn? Whenever Ottawa initiates a plan which more properly falls under provincial jurisdiction, it takes more out of British Columbia than it puts back into British Columbia. It interferes with our own administration of each plan, and eventually it may pull out anyway.

My advice, therefore, to our western provinces, and especially to British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, is to stay away from Ottawa insofar as new federal initiatives in areas like social security are concerned. Don't ask the federal government for a dime. You know, and I know, that federal aid for light rapid transit — in Vancouver, for example — means federal aid for public transportation in cities, towns and villages right across Canada. It means federal dollars for metro in Toronto, metro in Montreal, a few more buses a day for Come-by-Chance in Newfoundland, and even skidoos, on a cut-rate basis, in Inuvik in the Northwest Territories. Given Ottawa's current financial difficulties, I doubt very much if we are going to get any funds from the federal government for light rapid transit anyway. But why ask them in the first place? Surely British Columbia of all provinces has more to gain and less to lose by funding its own urban transpiration.

So let us back off. Let us, as a province, do our own things in our own way. Those 50-cent federal dollars are a snare and a delusion. We pay the other 50 cents in federal taxes to Ottawa anyway, and if other provinces get the same or similar services, you can bet that in the end we'll be subsidizing them to a greater or lesser degree.

Mr. Speaker, in last Friday's Speech from the Throne I read that our new Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations "will coordinate and develop policies, strategies and activities for our province's relationships with other governments, and be responsible for constitutional matters." That is good, but I hope those policies, strategies and activities result in this province doing everything that it can properly do under our present constitution. Ottawa has enough on its platter already, and we're not helping Canadian unity by involving it to an even greater extent in provincial and local affairs.

I agree with the Speech from the Throne "that we British Columbians have little more representation in many of the central institutions that govern activities in Canada than our forbears did in 1871 when the United Colony of British Columbia entered Confederation." Our population has grown relative to that of the nation as a whole, so we, for example, should have more senators in the Senate. More

[ Page 1305 ]

British Columbians should also be appointed to the federal courts, federal regulatory agencies and federal Crown corporations, but this doesn't mean that they should be appointed entirely by the province. We've got enough regionalism in this country already. They should be selected for their competence and their breadth of view. Where they come from or who they might answer to regionally should have little or nothing to do with their selection in these nation-building roles.

It's been fashionable of late to talk about replacing the Canadian Senate with a body of men and women appointed in whole or in part by the provinces. With a veto over much of the legislation passed by the House of Commons, it could slow things down there dramatically. It could block federal initiatives in other areas of provincial jurisdiction, for example, and that, no doubt, is good. It could also upset treaties with other countries, cancel international trading agreements and make the quick handling of emergency situations such as the FLQ crisis in Quebec in the early 1970s a virtual impossibility. A sort of year-round First Ministers' Conference, rarely agreeing to anything and generally critical of federal actions, whether they are exclusively in the federal area or not, would rapidly become a national bore.

Why, I ask you, should delegates from our provincial capitals have so much power in Ottawa when we elect Members of Parliament to run our national affairs for us anyway? Frankly, I would prefer to do away with the Senate altogether, or, if that isn't possible, to make changes which are more in line with the workings of parliamentary democracy here and elsewhere. For example, I would limit the Senate to 100 members, limit each senator's term of appointment to 10 years, give each province a senatorial representation which reflects the population of that province. B.C., for example, would have 11 senators in a 100-member Senate, not six out of 104 as it has now. Every second senatorial appointment would be made by the Premier of the province concerned. In other words, 50 percent of the Senate would be appointed by our 10 provincial Premiers; the other 50 percent would be appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada, as it is now.

The suspensory veto which the Senate has over legislation passed by the House of Commons would be limited to a period of six months; otherwise the Senate's powers and functions would remain unchanged. It is principally an advisory and consultative body now; occasionally it initiates legislation, but the Commons has the last word. Right, it must have the last word because it is an elected body. It has to answer to the people. This is what our parliamentary democracy is all about. You see, Mr. Speaker, I am against the Senate becoming a sort of house of obstruction. I'm all for action, but action at the federal level should relate to national issues and be confined to areas of federal responsibility.

I cannot, for example, agree with Mr. Claude Ryan, who may well be the next Premier of Quebec, when he says that an altered Senate should give his province a 50 percent voice in such matters as cultural affairs and communications. This sounds suspiciously like special status to me. True, the more populous provinces will always tend to be the heavies in Ottawa, but Quebec mustn't be given a position in a new federal council, as he calls it, in which it is officially recognized as being the heaviest heavy of all.

Mr. Speaker, we have enough government in Canada already. We're all so confused as to which level of government really does what. We have too much duplication, too much red tape, and by confusing our voters we are inviting a kind of paternalism, which few Canadians really want. Surely there are simpler ways of doing things.

Each level of government must have its own job to do and, in doing it, must relate more effectively to its true masters, the people, the voters in the particular constituency each serves. Interprovincial rivalries will diminish. Regionalism, in the sense of east versus west or Quebec against the rest, will be less of a problem than it is today. We would focus instead on other things. With our newfound energies we will make more of our national heritage; Canadians everywhere would feel freer to concentrate on the great task of nation building, which still confronts us today. Decentralization, then, is my theme. It's decentralization with a purpose. It's decentralization within the existing framework of Confederation. It's decentralization with a view to involving the grass roots, the people, as much as possible.

I'm all for strong leadership in government. I'm for decisiveness and I'm for action, but that doesn't mean big government and it doesn't mean governments frequently getting in each other's way. Our present Canadian constitution, the British North America Act, isn't all that bad, but we're twisting it out of shape. We're ignoring its division of powers and we are allowing our various levels of government to duplicate each other in their pursuit of popular causes.

Let's get Canada back on the rails again. Let us put government in its place. Let's give each level of government its own job to do, and then Canadians, as voters, will be in a better position to judge each party and to judge which one — especially which leaders — they want to lead the country and our provinces. British Columbia will perform a great service for our nation if it bears these basic principles of responsible government in mind.

I am confident that the present advisers to His Honour, Mr. Speaker, will bear these principles in mind. That's why I am going to vote against this non-confidence motion presently before the House.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to take the opportunity of congratulating you on your permanent appointment as Deputy Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Permanent?

MRS. WALLACE: Well, permanent tenure. You're not just third in line; you are now second in line. It certainly has been a rather arduous task that the Speaker and yourself have been subjected to in the last few days. I think that the Speaker has certainly used a very even hand in dispensing justice in this chamber and you, Mr. Speaker, are doing very well to bridge the gap as well.

I want to deal just very briefly with the remarks of the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom), who is not present, and comment on the rather strange motion that he attempted to put through the Legislature earlier today, an attempt to circumvent the rules of the Legislature, the rules of this House. I'm particularly concerned with the timing of that motion, but I think the thing that really disturbed me most was the Premier's comments.

I just don't understand why the Premier left the inference in this House that somehow the government benches had not had an opportunity to participate in this debate. I would just like to quote from Hansard, March 4, night sitting, where there was a little bit of confusion as to who was on their feet

[ Page 1306 ]

first. There were two members, apparently, on their feet at the same time, as it were: one from the government benches and one from the opposition. The speaker asked the government member, in this instance, to give way because.... He said: "The only reason I ask is that you will recall that at one point I promised to recognize the hon. minister at the conclusion of the speech if he had something to say. Would the hon. minister defer to the opposite side of the House, who would in turn, logically, be ready to speak?"

The Speaker has maintained — and you, Mr. Speaker, have maintained — a complete back and forth debate in this House. Why the Premier would see fit to indicate that he had to have more time because his side of the House hadn't had an opportunity to participate is somewhat beyond me.

I want to deal, just briefly, with a couple of things relative to this debate, and I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that this has not been an easy amendment for the opposition to bring forth. But we have a responsibility to the voters of this province. We have a responsibility as opposition to ensure that the public interest is protected. It has not been an easy decision to bring this debate to the floor of the Legislature, but it was a decision which we had to take. The disappointment in this Legislature has been the lack of any meaningful response from the government benches — simply a rehash of speeches that I heard from that side of the House in 1976, '77, '78 and '79, over and over again, calling us all kinds of names, but no defence of their government. And defence they must raise, Mr. Speaker, because they are very subject to question. That is why this amendment is on the order paper.

I was interested in the last speaker, who brought a very interesting discussion to the floor of the Legislature. But the only question that kept occurring to me was whether he somehow thought he had crossed the House in Ottawa rather than crossing the country from Ottawa to B.C. It was a very interesting paper with a lot of interesting thoughts, but there was no defence of the government. He just said he supported them, with no reasons, no explanations, nothing.

When the Eckardt report was introduced to this House in the way of an amendment to the constitution, you may or may not recall, Mr. Speaker, that I stood and spoke about the way in which this report had been introduced: introduced within half an hour, after it was filed; introduced and followed by a bill which simply took that report word for word and put it into legislation. During that discussion I raised the point that while we had seen the report for about half an hour, it was quite obvious from the remarks coming from the government benches that the report had been seen by them prior to that time. It was obvious that they had prior knowledge of what was in that report.

I spoke at the time about what had happened to the constituency of Cowichan-Malahat in the report, and in retrospect it's interesting to see how well my arguments were borne out. I said at the time that they had taken a small constituency and subtracted from it to add to a larger constituency. In 1975 Cowichan-Malahat had 28,347 registered voters. In the 1979 election, on the basis of the Eckardt report, there were 25,032, down approximately 3,000. At the same time the Nanaimo electoral district increased from 32,000 to 40,000, an increase of 8,000 votes. There was no justification for that change except a political one. The report itself made no justification; it simply said that's what it did. In every other instance it gave some explanation, or attempted to give some explanation, of why the change was made.

In the case of Cowichan-Malahat it made no explanation whatsoever.

I suggest that the fact we now have before us, that a political report was prepared by the researchers in the Social Credit caucus which made the recommendation to drop Ladysmith and Cassidy from Cowichan-Malahat, is quite evidently the reason that that was done. It was done for political purposes only. I said that at the time the report came in, and I say it again now. That is just one of the reasons why this government is under the cloud it is under.

We've had the so-called Lettergate scandal. You know, that has been called Lettergate; it has been called dirty tricks. What that really should have been called, Mr. Speaker, was forgery, because that's what it was. A letter appeared in one of the local papers in Cowichan taking all kinds of swipes at me as MLA for some of my stands, signed by my good friend — theoretically — Gordon Townsend. That was nothing short of forgery.

When the now Attorney-General presented his statement to the public on the findings of the investigation, he used some pretty strong words about what he thought about people who would do that kind of thing. He talked about forgery in the report. He said that the investigation was over but that investigations would go on. As far as you were concerned it was over. The investigation may go on; it may never be ended.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: I've got it right here, Mr. Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's never closed.

MRS. WALLACE: It's never closed, that's right. But you were giving the impression that as far as the government was concerned this was the final report, and that as far as any access to any of the findings or any information as to who has been investigated or what had been found, that was a closed book. It was interesting that the day after you made your statement there were news releases about the RCMP still investigating, still around the parliament buildings and right in the offices of the Premier, in fact. Still there has been nothing coming forth from the government in any way that would move to make this information public and clear the cloud that hangs over your head. There is a cloud over your head. There's a cloud over all the members who sit on the government bench.

I think that cloud probably comes from the fact that they have been so busy trying to put out all the political fires around them — attempting to do this with very little success. I think they have probably been trying to smother those fires with very soggy blankets, and the result of the escaping smoke is making a very heavy cloud over that government bench. As long as that government is under that cloud of suspicion, they are not able to do a job for this province.

That has been demonstrated over and over during the past six or eight months with bungling, orders-in-council that have to be rescinded and rewritten, the whole thing with the Gloucester property — taking it out and putting it in; not knowing what the legislation even says as to how they can get it out or in or what they can do. Bungling, bungling, bungling! Lack of attention to the needs of a responsible government.

[ Page 1307 ]

People are out in areas waiting for cabinet decisions and waiting to know whether they are going to be eligible for this, that or the other thing. I'm thinking particularly of the lack of cabinet decision relative to youth groups applying for lottery funds. They wanted to get an overall policy so they would all be treated the same way. No cabinet decision. It's the same for voluntary firefighters, no cabinet decision. Those groups are waiting out there. Those are just minor things, but they're examples of the kinds of things that are facing the province of British Columbia because that government is not able to make decisions, is not able to function in their true job of doing a leadership job in this province and providing the kind of leadership and the kind of government they should be concentrating on.

Their philosophies are different from ours, that's true. But they have a job to do: to provide government based on the things in which they believe. We have a job as opposition to present our alternate suggestions, but we can't do that as long as they're not governing and as long as they have that cloud of suspicion hanging over them. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I am opposing the whole attitude of that government, and the only way I can do it is by supporting the amendment that is now on the floor.

MR. KEMPF: I rise today on a very positive note, as positive notes have been a little deficient of late from the opposite side of the floor. Of course, I speak against this ridiculous time-consuming amendment.

Before doing so, I would like to take this opportunity to extend my best wishes to the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) on his election to the office of Deputy Speaker. I also wish to congratulate the four members of cabinet elevated to their new positions since the last time we sat in this chamber: the member for Oak Bay (Hon. Mr. Smith), as Minister of Education; the member for Prince George North (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), as Minister of Labour; the first member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Rogers), as Minister of Environment; and last, but not least, the member for North Okanagan (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), as our very own, one and only Minister of Tourism. I wish them all well and the very best. I'm confident they will do an admirable job to the service of all British Columbians.

I rise once again in my place to speak in this House. I am reminded of the reason for which I'm here and of the privilege it is to be in this Legislature, the honour of having been given the confidence of my constituents, the people of Omineca — those genuine, enthusiastic, north-central British Columbians, ever mindful of the need to retain a system which will allow them the freedom of individual initiative and ever cognizant of the fact of the importance of the individual enterprise system. It is for them that I rise to speak in opposing this amendment brought in by those who do not wish to understand, those who have failed in their doom-and-gloom attitudes to think in terms of all British Columbians rather than merely their own selfish self-interests.

We in the north know we have good leadership in this Premier. We are not so naive or selfish as to believe that everything must be handed to us on a silver platter. We wish only to be given the chance, the opportunity, the initiative by government to make it on our own.

We saw these initiatives put forward in the first session of the thirty-second parliament by this government under the Premier's leadership: the 50 percent reduction in the assessment on farm and agricultural reserve land; the free distribution of shares to all British Columbians through the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation; the $100 increase in the homeowner grant and the $50 increase in the renter tax credit; the reduction in the provincial sales tax from 5 to 4 percent; the reduction in the provincial income tax from 46 percent to 44 percent, making it the lowest in Canada.

The exemption level for the corporate capital tax was raised to free 16,000 small businesses from its burden. That was a good move, gave some initiative to small business, although in my mind this totally unfair and absolutely regressive way of taxation, brought in by the socialists and perpetuated by our administration, must go completely, and I am sure it will. The FAIR program ending automobile-insurance discrimination among our citizens, be they young or old, male or female, in the north or south, was a good move — good leadership.

As we have seen in previous throne speeches and budgets of this administration under this leadership, the greatest initiative of all, the greatest incentive that government can give its people, is accountability, accountability which sets the limit on government spending, accountability which results in surpluses, not deficits — as we saw very prevalently during the former administration, the only NDP administration that ever was or ever will be in this province. Do you know why they will never again be government in this province, Mr. Speaker? I will tell you why that bunch of socialists over there will never again form a government in this province. Yesterday the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) talked in glowing terms of the socialist acquisition, as he called it, of Can-Cel, and how great it was that this administration had something to put into BCRIC, something that they had acquired.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Remember Plateau?

MR. KEMPF: Ah, yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

The member for New Westminster spoke in glowing terms of how much this operation earned as a Crown corporation. Nonsense and garbage! If that member truly believes what he said, he not only doesn't know how to read a profit and loss statement, but he also doesn't know what they did as government — and he was a cabinet minister at that time.

When they acquired Can-Cel — I could go into that. There is the little matter of the back stumpage having been written off. Fifty-two million dollars' worth of back stumpage was written off — a very lucrative business.

But, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to talk about that, I want to talk about that which the member did not talk about. I want to talk about that for a while, in relation to leadership in this province, and how, under their great leadership and under that dictatorial Bob Williams, they stole Plateau Mills.

It's all here in this story, and I'll read it. It's all documented. The members opposite like to use newspapers; in fact, all they use in their speeches are newspapers. But I have a few clippings here that go back, clippings that I've had for quite some time, and a clipping from June 26, 1973 — it's written by Allan Fotheringham, someone whom we've all heard of — which reads as follows:

"The tree industry, which is extremely nervous of Lands and Forests Minister Bob Williams, is with some good reason further nervous of Mr. Williams with the news that Victoria is about to buy Plateau

[ Page 1308 ]

Mills of Vanderhoof. It is not just that the B.C. government is going to intrude further in the forest marketplace. There is an added factor.

"Last fall a bid was made for Plateau Mills by International Telephone and Telegraph — those wonderful people who brought you an abortive overthrow of Allende's Chile through its subsidiary, Rayonier. If there is anything that is an evil ogre to a good socialist government, it is ITT. The NDP squelched the ITT bid, because Victoria controlled the timber rights."

Intimidation, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: Shame!

MR. KEMPF: They stole Plateau Mills, Mr. Member for New Westminster, and you remember that; you were in cabinet at that time.

And I could go on and on. It's all documented here. You know the quote by the then mayor of Vanderhoof: "They stole it."

MS. SANFORD: Who stole it?

MR. KEMPF: The government of the time stole Plateau Mills.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, ask Alfie, wherever he is.

And they said the reason they were buying Plateau Mills was to save the Mennonite population, to save the Mennonites in Vanderhoof. And I'll read what Mayor Everett Stevens of Vanderhoof had to say at that time. Mayor Everett Stevens of Vanderhoof said Williams' justification for buying the mill was "totally invalid" and that the minister was speaking out of both sides of his mouth. "I'm concerned that the government feels it can justify this thing by saying it wants to save the Mennonites. There is no validity to that at all. The Mennonites are the most stable people in our town and they would have starved regardless of who purchased Plateau Mills."

AN HON. MEMBER: Starved?

MR. KEMPF: Stayed. Pardon me, Mr. Speaker. These are a little hard to read; they're very old clippings. But they're the truth, Mr. Member. They're documented proof of what happened at that time.

But I think the thing that puts the whole cap on it is when they did in fact steal Plateau Mills for $7.4 million. And the story is here — this is a clipping of June 29, 1973, from the Vancouver Sun. The headline is: "Barrett Asked to Re-study Decision to Purchase Mill." It reads:

"Synco Holdings Ltd. president Gerald Phillips asked Premier Dave Barrett today to review the government's decision to acquire Plateau Mills because of alleged unjust treatment of Synco by Resources minister Bob Williams."

They had great leadership in those days.

"In a telegram to the Premier, Phillips accused Williams of using the intimidation of government power to acquire the sawmill firm. It asked Barrett for a 60-day pause to allow Synco to purchase Plateau. Phillips' partner, David Beach, said he hopes public pressure will force the government to re-sell Plateau. Beach charged earlier that the government had used 'terror tactics' to force Plateau shareholders to accept its offer of $7.4 million rather than a $10 million offer from Synco."

And they say they didn't steal it. They intimidated Plateau into selling it to them for $2.4 million less than they were offered for it. And if that isn't stealing, Mr. Speaker, what is?

AN HON. MEMBER: Dirty tricks. Shame!

MR. KEMPF: Plateau Mills. Yes, we've got the whole story. Leadership, Mr. Speaker. And they have the audacity to stand over there and challenge the leadership on this side of the floor.

Then there is the "Yankee go home" story, Mr. Member for New Westminster, and I'll tell you about that too. That former Minister of Highways, under the leadership of the day, who knew only to say: "Yankee go home.... " They didn't want those dirty Yankee dollars, dollars from what is soon to be British Columbia's primary industry-tourism under proper leadership.

I could read you all the clippings, but I won't do that; it's all documented. When our Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), under the leadership of our Premier, has a congestion problem, he doesn't tell the tourists to stay home; he builds more highways. When he sees that roadside parks are congested, he builds more parks. That's what I call good leadership, and we have the dollars to do that. We have the dollars, hon. member, through you, Mr. Speaker, to build those highways and build those parks and bridges, and, yes, B.C. Place and the rest. Under good leadership, we have the dollars to do that.

We never will, Mr. Member for New Westminster, have to call an election in this province because we're broke, because we bankrupted the province like you did, and had to do in 1975. Yes, that was some leadership. The only reason you called an election was because you were bankrupt, because you broke the province. Mr. Speaker, they broke the province. They were broke and they had to call an election.

We saw again that kind of leadership from that side of the floor in this very House, when that entire bunch, not wishing to face the independent school issue, walked out of this House.

MR. RITCHIE: But then they decided to change their minds if they were allowed back in.

MR. KEMPF: Oh, well, that's the kind of flip-flop leadership they have over there, Mr. Member. They ran from this chamber on what was an important issue to many hundreds, possibly thousands, of people in this province, and they challenge our leadership.

Hon. members, through you, Mr. Speaker, we've all heard many times, and know very well, of the fiscal mismanagement of that bunch of socialists under their- what did the ads say in the 1975 campaign? — "good leadership; let's keep it that way." Well, I guess the people of British Columbia showed them what they thought of that kind of leadership.

Let me tell you another story. This may not seem like a big thing, and it may not involve a large number of dollars, as we talk in very large sums in this Legislature, but let me tell

[ Page 1309 ]

you, it's a big thing where I come from, Mr. Speaker. It's a very large amount of money to the people of Omineca. I'd just like to tell you this story, and the story came to light just yesterday when it was announced by the British Columbia Buildings Corporation that they were going to build not only one courthouse, but three courthouses in my constituency of Omineca. We have the money for that, too, through good leadership and proper management.

I just want to tell the House this story. Apparently the British Columbia Buildings Corporation, when finally making the decision to build that courthouse in Burns Lake, thought to themselves: "Ah, yes, we remember." Back in 1972, just before the W.A.C. Bennett administration left office, they'd let a contract in Burns Lake to pour the foundations for a new courthouse, which they were going to build in 1972. Thinking that, they thought: "Well, why don't we design a new courthouse to fit on that foundation? It only makes sense. The money has already been expended, the taxpayers' dollars are already there. Why shouldn't we build that courthouse on that foundation?" It's really strange, because when they looked for the foundation that had been poured in the summer of 1972, what did they find in its place but a parking lot? In phoning around, they found out that the foundation for which they looked was under the parking lot. In 1973, after taking office, that then administration over there covered that foundation with a parking lot.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's the only paving they did, Jack.

MR. KEMPF: No, Mr. Member, you're wrong. It's not a paved parking lot; it's just a gravel parking lot. They didn't pave it; they didn't pave anything in those days.

MR. RITCHIE: How many dollars did they bury?

MR. KEMPF: Again, Mr. Member, it's not a big amount of money in terms of what we speak of here in this chamber, but the contract that was let for that foundation, plus the extras that went into it, was for $100,000; $100,000 buried in 1973 under a parking lot. And who was the administration in that day, and who was the leader in that day? They even had an NDP representative — God forbid! — from Omineca in that day. There was $100,000 under a parking lot.

This story will be in the newspapers in Burns Lake this week. How am I going to tell my constituents, such as curling clubs, rod-and-gun clubs, fair associations and community clubs, about their applications to government for such things as lottery fund moneys? How am I going to tell them that possibly they're going to have to wait in line to be able to receive those applications, when the government of that day buried $100,000 under a parking lot? Unbelievable! It was great leadership that they had in those days.

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: It was in 1973, Mr. Member, and you sat here at that time; you should know when it was.

That's not the burial of that story; there's more, and I intend to get to the bottom of it. Apparently that same thing was done all over the province; I'll find out and I'll report that to this chamber. We'll get to the bottom of the whole story. And they have the unmitigated gall to doubt our leadership.

MR. COCKE: We don't doubt it; we know it's bad.

MR. KEMPF: The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) reminds me of a seagull: he's either yapping or doing something else, but is never very constructive.

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: They laugh, and the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) laughs. Well, he'll laugh, as Bob Williams did, out of the other side of his mouth.

His Honour's speech of last Friday was an indication of things to come in British Columbia. It's an indication of what can happen in this province under good leadership and what can happen in British Columbia under sound management. The opportunity for personal initiative is there under good leadership.

This province will continue and even increase its encouragement of the province's number one industry, forestry. Still further emphasis will be placed on reforestation in order to ensure a resource for future British Columbians.

This is a government of good leadership, committed to integrated resource management, and guaranteeing future generations tremendous security, economy and personal initiative — that which all British Columbians enjoy today under this administration.

This government, under good leadership, will move to rationalize the financing of our northern lifeline, the British Columbia Railway.

There's sound policy to further encourage initiative in the development of yet unknown but unbelievably large energy potential in our coal deposits.

There's positive policy to develop the use of biomass in the production of energy. This is very encouraging to me, as the member for Omineca, where daily many thousands of kilowatt hours are either left in the woods or wasted in our mills. It's sound policy, Mr. Speaker, under good leadership.

There's sound policy in the government's stand on nuclear energy: a seven-year moratorium on such exploration and development. My colleague for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan), quoted a member of the NDP cabinet, from Hansard, January 26, 1973, when he said: "I feel that nuclear power should be given serious consideration." That member, a then cabinet minister, is still in this House. He isn't in this House right now but he usually sits right over there. The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) was the member of this assembly who said in 1973: "Nuclear power should be given serious consideration." I wonder if he tells his constituents that now, Mr. Speaker.

We see in the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, under good leadership, an indication of still further encouragement for our agricultural industry, a continuation of the very positive approach of this government toward the farm producer. I, too, have a very aggressive agricultural community in my constituency, particularly the cattle industry in the Nechako and Bulkley Valleys and Lakes district. I look forward to still further initiatives that will entice our young people particularly to stay on the farm.

His Honour spoke of a continuing program to further expand the government's already expanded program of highway construction and paving. I talked about that earlier. This, of course, Mr. Speaker, is of particular interest to me as the member for Omineca. It is very important to those whom I represent, and although vigorous attention has been paid to highways in the past four years, a lot more can be done to

[ Page 1310 ]

alleviate the very high cost of vehicle maintenance experienced by our citizens. Good leadership, Mr. Speaker, good leadership.

While I'm on the subject of highways, I had a little research done this morning just to make a comparison in my constituency of highway work that was done, or not done, in the past few years. I would just like to make a comparison this afternoon between the highway work that was done from 1972 to 1975 in my constituency and that which was done in just the last nine months, the first nine months of the last fiscal year. Mr. Speaker, the figures are very interesting and the members opposite laugh when we yell across the floor "Pot-hole Lea" to the former Minister of Highways. I think these figures speak for themselves.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Member, you know better than to make that remark, because you know what's being done there and you know how much that costs the taxpayer of this province. You should know better. But you didn't know better in your remarks the other day so why should you know better about that?

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a comparison of these figures. From 1972 to 1975 in maintenance spent on the roads and highways in my constituency of Omineca, a total of $5 million, give or take a few hundred. In maintenance of roads and highways in the past nine months, just the past nine months in my constituency of Omineca, $5,336,000 — the same as in the previous four years. In capital expenditures the figure is equal. The same amount was spent in those years as was spent in the last nine months. Those figures speak for themselves.

Sound policy, good leadership, and there's much, much more that can be found in His Honour's speech of last Friday. His Honour's speech that the critics called "empty." Many positive programs can be found there by northerners, who look only to government for incentive, not hand-outs; for opportunity, not intervention into their business or their daily lives and affairs. Assistance to those less fortunate, yes, Mr. Speaker, but programs only to bring out individual initiative for those willing and able.

Let us look again at His Honour's speech and what can be done under good leadership, the leadership given by our now Premier. Increased employment opportunities; increased emphasis on the tourist industry; increased emphasis on the lower mainland transportation problems to include both highway and bridge construction; and attention to light rapid transit; additional assistance to municipalities to further reduce the burden on the local taxpayer; a holiday shopping act; extension of coverage under the Workers' Compensation Act; modification of the National Fire Code to better suit British Columbians; a simplified appeal system for citizens adversely affected by land-use decisions; a family and child services act that will encourage and support the role of the family in matters pertaining to child welfare; improved compensation for criminal injury awards to protect the public; to protect the public, again, a private securities act; amendments to the Credit Unions Act to expand the financial stability and management accountability of credit unions and an increase — I think this is most important — Mr. Speaker, in the chiropractic, naturopathic, physiotherapeutic and pediatric benefits under the Medical Services Plan.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: You don't agree with that, Madam Member? You don't like that? Well, I'm sure the people of British Columbia will. A commitment to denticare....

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Well, Mr. Member, I wasn't speaking about you at that point. A commitment to denticare, a commitment to British Columbia Place, Mr. Speaker. I could go on and on and I'm sure that the members opposite wish I would. It's all here and the members over there, the socialists over there, say it's an empty throne speech. Well, under this kind of leadership and with these kinds of statistics, I say it's not an empty speech.

Mr. Speaker, the socialists over there called the throne speech of His Honour last Friday empty and moved a motion of non-confidence in our Premier because of it. You know, nonsense. Well, Mr. Speaker, they must have been reading a different throne speech; that's all I can say. They must have recycled and read one of their own from the past, for it's not true about that which I have here and which was read by His Honour last Friday.

In closing, I believe that I would be remiss if I didn't comment, however briefly, on the conduct of that opposition — in particular the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) — in this debate on the amendment. When that member uttered in this House just two days ago slanderous words, if uttered outside of this chamber, and out-and-out mistruths, Mr. Speaker, it was totally contemptuous, totally erroneous and, as well, unparliamentary — casting a complete shadow on all hon. members in this House. I was appalled and, frankly, very sorry for that member and his party. They had no ethics, respect or leadership when they were government and they still haven't nearly five years later when they are in opposition. If they had ethics, respect and leadership, I am positive the ex-Premier, that two-time loser that heads that bunch of socialists over there, when he gets to his feet in this House, will apologize to this entire House for the conduct of his colleagues. If he doesn't, well, let's let the people of British Columbia reach their own conclusions.

Mr. Speaker, I see you're pointing to the light, which tells me I have very little time, but I'm sure, hon. members, through you, Mr. Speaker, that you know where I stand as far as this amendment is concerned. And it is without hesitation on behalf of those whom I represent — and that's what we're in here for, Mr. Member: to speak on behalf of those we represent — I will not vote in favour of this amendment. I vote rather on their behalf for good leadership.

MR. MACDONALD: In the remaining minutes of this debate, I want to speak quite quietly and reflect, just as we must all be doing as members, upon the state of our province at the present time. I don't think these are good days for the province of British Columbia. I've listened with care and attention to the speeches of the members opposite, and I'm not going into points which can equally well be gone into, as many of the speeches could, in the reply to the address from the throne itself.

I've listened to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), and he said.... Well, apart from his flyer about the figures under the NDP government and the capital growth and so forth, which I will

[ Page 1311 ]

not comment on, because an apostate has to defend his position, and we'll debate that another time, as we have in the past.... But he said we all do things that are not quite up to scratch, you know, in political life. That's true, but I don't think ever, Mr. Speaker, in this province of British Columbia have we had such an aura of seaminess surrounding any government or any Premier, and that's what this amendment is about. It's about public morality and it's about leadership.

We've never had a time in this province when so many government employees — mostly the little people, but not all; it ranged from Dan Campbell down to Ron Grieg to George Lenko to the research staff — either resigned or were terminated with no real explanation as to why suddenly all these people should disappear from the public service of the province of British Columbia.

We've had the Attorney-General of the province using the words, and I won't misquote them.... He was only referring to part of what I am talking about, and we all know that, but as to that part, the letters, he said that they exhibited a cowardly, reprehensible and irresponsible attitude. Yet in this debate there has been no response from the Premier of the province of British Columbia to the things that have been said and no disclosure and no explanation from that Premier as to why trusted people in his office had to resign. Why? And there's been no explanation or even a word or statement to this Legislature that he did not know what was going on. How could he not have known?

You take the research assistants, who were the little people in the scheme of things, and they resigned, saying, "We've been court-martialled," or words to this effect, "but we were only the privates; we were just following orders." So what we are talking about, this issue of public morality, has not suddenly stopped; it obviously extends into the upper reaches of government. Oh, they didn't have a chance to give that kind of a story in court, because the whole division was abolished. That's an unfair labour practice, Mr. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), but let that be. They cannot sue now for unlawful termination and give their explanation that they were only following the orders of those up above and should not be blamed.

How could they not know, with all of the officers of the party and the ministers of the province of British Columbia moving in and out, and at the seminar Kelly using the words: "We specialize in doing dirty things and we don't mind it."? How did the Premier not know that that statement was being made? How did he not know of that kind of an attitude?

There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that there is something rotten in the state of British Columbia, and it extends to the very top. I might as well say what I think as one member. I don't know what the rest of you think, but I think that two members of the ministry should go, and I think they are the Premier and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). In the case of the Minister of Human Resources, her trusted confidant and assistant, George Lenko, resigned, and I agree with the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) that we shouldn't make any personal remarks with respect to that. But he resigned because he was participating in improper political acts that were contrary to the public morality that we've come to accept and believe in. How could the minister not know? How could she not know? Does anybody within the range of my voice really believe that this minister, so strong, so partisan, so involved in party affairs, did not know what Lenko was doing? It is not something we can accept.

I want to say something too — I should say it if I had longer time — about the public money that's spent on party business by the government, the membership applications that were got out, the literature and things of that kind. Maybe they were from the secret funds, Mr. Former Attorney-General. We don't know; we've had no explanation from the Premier. We don't know who paid for these so-called dirty tapes. Are the people of British Columbia never to know these things? They said about Richard Nixon.... And he said it himself, which is even worse; he was on his way to the Watergate, to be unborn again at the time. He said this: "What really hurts in matters of this sort is not the fact that they occur. Because overzealous people in campaigns do things that are wrong. What really hurts is if you try to cover it up." The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) won't say whether she knew and was apprised fully of what Lenko was up to. She will not give an explanation that begins to make sense, in terms of the gerrymandering — and I use that word — of the Vancouver–Little Mountain and Point Grey ridings.

I haven't got too much time to go into that. But I want to say this about it: it is a very serious matter that goes to the root of the question of the last election, whether it was a fair election, whether this is a legitimate government. The only explanation we have had as to whether you are legitimately the government of British Columbia.... We had no explanation from Judge Eckardt — or former Judge Eckardt, I should say, because he's a practising lawyer — except the one that appears here, which I'll summarize.

He talks about how there was nothing funny, mysterious, crooked or dirty whatsoever about his report — no monkey business or hanky-panky whatsoever, he said in this press release. Then he goes on to say: "It was logically part of Little Mountain. In urban centres one has to look at neighbourhoods and matters of historical interest." Arbutus Village didn't exist for more than three or four years, Mr. Speaker. Historical interest! He said the boundaries were to match local streets, and you don't break up neighbourhoods. That explanation self-destructs, because anybody who knows the geography of Vancouver knows that as you go down Arbutus you have this new Arbutus Village on that side, with what is now known as "Gracie's finger," condominiums from $55,000 to about $135,000 each, as they were first sold, and then you have Arbutus, then the interurban tracks, then power plant, and further down you've got a temple. You don't have any houses at all there.

I tell you that that redistribution was a corruption of the democratic process. We have not gotten and we will not get from that minister the explanation of the various visits — not just on this question — partisan visits that Mr. Eckardt was making to her office through the years. In the case of the Premier....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the minister please state her point of order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I believe that when the member who is just taking his place was referring to the words, "the corruption of the democratic process," he was in the same inference referring to this member. I take that as offensive to my personal integrity, and I would ask him to withdraw those remarks.

[ Page 1312 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please withdraw the offensive remark.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to argue that point, because there is very limited time in this debate. I said "corruption of the democratic process." I'm allowed to say that, and I do not have to withdraw. I didn't mention any person at all.

MR. SPEAKER: I must ask, though, whether any improper motive was imputed to the member, because it cannot be allowed.

MR. MACDONALD: Let it go. I was not referring to any member with those words.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

MR. MACDONALD: Nor will I be intimidated by that group over there.

This amendment is about public morality. If Tony Tozer in the Premier's office had not, in order to defend the fact that research staff on the public payroll were going over to Vancouver on purely partisan visits, volunteered, "Oh, but their expenses are paid by the party," this Legislature would never have known that there were large secret trust funds controlled from the Premier's office. Now if that had happened under any other Premier of this province, there would have been an outcry. But it's never happened, that kind of aura — whether it's Tolmie or Johnson or any of the people from then on. But it has happened.

All we know about those trust funds, Mr. Speaker, is that they were raised, in part, by one Austin Taylor Jr., who was married to a socialite in New York who was related to the Buckleys in New York, who has done business with this government through McLeod Young Weir, in terms of the purchase of the ferries and the financing of those companies, and who has contributed funds that the party, the public, knew nothing about. No one would ever have known anything about those funds but for Mr. Tozer's statement.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that when large campaign funds of that kind are given, not to the party, but to the Premier, the office of the Premier of British Columbia has lost its credibility.

They had to make a disclosure. That wouldn't have happened with "Boss" Johnson; it wouldn't have happened with Duff Pattullo; it certainly didn't happen with Barrett.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MACDONALD: It did not happen with Barrett; it did not happen with any of the other Premiers; it did not happen with W.A.C. Bennett — secret funds around the Premier's office, with no explanation from that man. They did not happen under the government of Premier Barrett.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. members not interrupt. And would the member speaking please choose moderate language. Please continue.

MR. MACDONALD: I am talking about a corruption of the political process, when these kinds of campaign funds are directly controlled by the Premier's office, and when people like Austin Taylor Jr. not only have the right to make representations to the government, but the right of fiscal control by controlling and almost buying the Premier's office of this province. And I say that is a question of public morality. We have had no kind of an explanation from the Premier as to those funds.

I think of all the various things that have come out in this last short while, the existence of those trust funds — who were the signers and who were the co-signers? — is by far the most serious thing that has happened in terms of democracy in the province of British Columbia.

I've only got a minute or two left. I would like to go further. Some of the members over there have said that they did not have a chance to participate in this debate. They've had a chance in a long debate that has gone on now for many hours, in which many of the speeches of the Social Credit members were simply throne speech debates that could have been given tomorrow or the next day as well as today.

When you make a motion like this, directly challenging the Premiership of the province, and when that Premier sits silently through the debate, with no kind of a disclosure, then you in your party and we in our party and the whole of British Columbia have a very serious problem.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, smile when you say that! It's a cute bit of political manipulation that you've been working on today.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: You've had all the chance in the world, Mr. Premier, to stand up here and explain your conduct, and you've failed to do so. I see the clock. I notice the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) thinks this is a very humorous matter.

I've only got a few seconds to finish, and therefore, in respect of the two ministers I've named, I finish in the words of Cromwell, delivered on January 22, 1654; and while I say them lightly, I mean them fully: "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing lately. It is not fit that you sit here any longer." With respect to those two ministers, the government of British Columbia has lost its credibility. Those two should go. What would happen in our political process after that, I know not. But I do believe that we cannot restore an effective leadership in this province and we cannot restore the credibility of government until the two ministers whom I have mentioned have resigned their portfolios.

MR. SPEAKER: According to standing order 45A(ii): "On the fourth of the said days, if an amendment or a subamendment be under consideration at 30 minutes before the ordinary time of daily adjournment, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put the question on any amendment and/or subamendment then before the House."

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, it's totally appropriate for you to put the question, unless the opposition has decided they are going to grant leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

[ Page 1313 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I am duty bound; I must put the question.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Closure! The motion was frivolous. They challenge us to speak, and then won't let us speak to the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is: "That we feel it however to be our humble duty to submit to Your Honour that it is essential that Your Honour's government should possess the confidence of this House and of this province, and respectfully to represent to Your Honour that such confidence is not reposed in the present advisers of Your Honour."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 30

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

On the main motion.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to convey my congratulations to the new Deputy Speaker. I wish him well in the conduct of his office.

You know, I had a few comments prepared, but the first thing which bothered me somewhat was the challenge which the members opposite put to us earlier to speak on an amendment. You know, for somebody from the rural part of the province, I thought that I'd be given an opportunity to express a view, particularly on the contents of that particular amendment. I don't quite understand why it was denied, but I understand now that this is what we call "closure." I always thought closure was something we could do in government. I'm quite prepared to respond to your challenge, but I didn't really get an opportunity. Now I know what closure means; I know what "hit and run" means.

AN HON. MEMBER: Miss and run!

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I think it's hit and run. Well, in any event, I look to the first member for Vancouver East.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, the second.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I apologize — the second member. You tell me about democracy, and you're serious about it. I think I'm entitled to an opportunity. I know you believe in fair play. Where was it...?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I will interrupt the proceedings long enough to acquaint the House with where we really are in the proceedings. We have just finished an amendment. The amendment, by its wording, described a certain scope, and that scope, although it was difficult for the Chair to deal with, dealt with individuals in this House. Although the rules do not provide for any personal attack, there was a very fine line between that which had to be permitted and that which was clearly out of order. We are no longer on the amendment, hon. members; we are now on the main motion. Personal attack is definitely out of order, and I would remind all hon. members to guide their thinking accordingly. Please proceed.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I certainly don't recall making any personal attack. If I did, I would expect the members opposite to say so.

MR. SPEAKER: This was a general statement, hon. member, and I just needed to interrupt what you were saying in order to make sure that all hon. members had this in mind. Please proceed.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With respect to the main motion, I would like to mention the following: all of us want the best for the province and its people. I don't think there is any dispute on that. But there is a dispute on the manner in which we achieve those goals. We are not going to dispute what we believe in, but a vibrant and healthy economy is necessary as a basis for our social programs, and we have made that abundantly clear.

All our citizens are entitled to protection from the ravages of chance and stunted opportunity. There is no quarrel that our society should serve the interests of us all. No one argues about these goals. In fact the province has made great progress towards the achievement of these goals, probably greater progress than most other provinces. But what cannot be forgotten is the means whereby those goals are achieved. A hard-working and thrifty population is the means whereby those goals are achieved. An enlightened government that respects traditional values is essential to the achievement of those goals.

I remember the members opposite when they were government. They quit looking for work as soon as they got a job. They had an opportunity, and they had a good opportunity, but it didn't last very long. I think the reason why was that the opposition has frequently forgotten the means whereby the good things in life are made possible. They succeeded not only in spending the accumulated wealth of a great province,

[ Page 1314 ]

but in insulting, alienating and affronting those segments of our society that made major contributions to that wealth. It is interesting to go and find the odd quote. Probably the best one I have found so far is one that came from the Labour government in Great Britain. It says: "For the immediate future, the new strategy will mean giving priority to industrial development over consumption, even at the expense of social reform. There's no other way of developing the industrial base on which the government's whole program of economic and social reform depends." And we've got to remember that state socialism has no plan for production; it does not produce, it only consumes.

When I'm talking about alienating many areas of the private sector, I'm not talking about the large corporations. We all encounter difficulties but I'm not talking about them. They've received their share of abuse. Maybe some of it was deserved but most of it was not. I'm talking about the great mass of people — the small businessman, the working man and the farmer — all of the productive elements of our society who generate the wealth that governments spend.

What about resources? We are part of a major confrontation in British Columbia which is referred to again and again by the Premier, and it is over control of those natural resources. That control was given to the provinces more than a hundred years ago when the country was first united. I think the Fathers of Confederation knew exactly what they were doing. I think it's very evident when we see what is happening now — when we're worried about what's happening in the east, in fact, worried about those who wish to covet the resources of the west now that the financial base and the industrial base are really moving west, as those who envisioned it long ago with the CPR thought. It's accurate now to say that the provinces refuse to give up their resources. That made good sense then and it makes good sense now.

Ottawa wants those resources and they want to manage them in the national interests. Our Premier has shown outstanding leadership in this regard. He has led the way and we all know what he has done. What Ottawa means by national interest is the eastern interests. The political reality of Canada is that governments are elected or defeated east of the Manitoba border. The western provinces seem to be in the political wilderness.

The response of our province is clear: we must fight to defend our resources. And that response should be clear to any political party — not flashing wealth and payments if you're going to operate in the alleged national interest, as happened in the representations made by the members opposite when they were in government.

There is no division now. It bothered me a great deal, when I received the challenges from the opposition with respect to our leader. One of the items that bothered me most of all was that you alleged that he never stood up and allowed himself to be counted when there were some difficulties raised. In November he made it abundantly clear. He stood up, like a leader should stand up, and he said: "When I returned" — he'd been away — "certain matters and allegations came before me, and as a leader of this great party I accepted" — this is a public statement — "without hesitation, responsibility for those acts." Now that's an indication of leadership. He wasn't running from anything; he stood up. And he went even further: "I must accept these responsibilities and be judged by a standard of moral conduct based upon honesty, decency and fair play." Now that's not the language of somebody who is trying to hide.

There are certain members in the opposition who are not present now, and I wish they were. We talk about leadership — let's assess the leadership of the members opposite. When I was first introduced to this game.... I well remember what happened in 1975, about daylight saving. You remember — on again and off again. Remember that? And do you remember what happened with respect to the mineral resources policy in 1975? You know what happened. As soon as the election was coming close, do you remember what happened? He dumped the Minister of Mines. Remember that?

Then what really bothered me was this. The government, after bringing that industry.... There's not much question about what happened. It brought it to its knees, and the government has now made a complete turnaround and is reacting in desperation to the crises of its legislation. Do you know what the member opposite said? He's not here, but he said: "A quick review of taxes and royalties has been promised." That was made in desperation, and we all know it. The NDP had no development policy.

You remember ICBC? He no sooner had that in — and I remember well, it was three months — and it closed. I remember something: he dumped the minister there too. He even sent him out of the country. That was in 1975.

What about finance? I thought finance was the best one of all. Do you know why? Do you remember who the Minister of Finance was?

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, no, before that. That's right, it's the Leader of the Opposition. And do you know what happened just before the election?

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's right. He canned himself. He knew that finance wasn't his bag. I thought that was kind of nice.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:51 p.m.