[ Page 2361 ]

CONTENTS

Presenting Petitions

Changes in B.C. Tel equipment and operations.

Mr. Skelly –– 2361

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Forests.

On vote 103.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2361

Trade and Convention Centre Act (Bill 23). Second reading.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2362

Mr. Cocke –– 2364

Ministerial Statement

British Columbia bond rating.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2364

Mr. Stupich –– 2365

Routine Proceedings

Special Funds Act, 1980 (Bill 7). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 2366

Mr. King –– 2366

On the amendment.

Mr. Howard –– 2368

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2372

Special Purpose Appropriation Act, 1980 (Bill 5). Second reading.

Mrs. Wallace –– 2374

Hon. Mrs. Jordan –– 2375

Mr. King –– 2377

FRIDAY, MAY 9, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. SMITH: I have the pleasant honour this morning to introduce a guest from the United Kingdom who is seated on the floor behind me, Dr. Rhodes Boyson, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and the Member of Parliament for Brent North. He is here — with his charming wife, who is in the far end of the gallery — for a conference on education which took place in Vancouver. I would ask the House to make Dr. Boyson welcome here today.

MR. HANSON: By coincidence, there are two people from Chester, England, who are here visiting their children, who are my constituents. I'd like the House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Collins.

MR. RITCHIE: I am not going to introduce guests today, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to take this opportunity to extend our sincere appreciation, on behalf of my caucus, to the opposition Whip, the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), and his deputy, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich); and also to our government Whip, the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), and his deputies, the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) and the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), for the excellent job that they have done so far in this session, but in particular for the excellent job they did in organizing the structured debate on unity. I would like at this time to extend our sincere appreciation on behalf of the government caucus.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Tourism.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Speaking of the good humour of the House...!

The guests I wish to mention are not in the House at this time because of their deliberations; they will be here later. I would like the House to know that Canadian history is being made in North Vancouver, and has been for the last three days, when for the first time in the history of tourism in Canada all provinces and the two territories of Canada are represented at a conference discussing education in the tourism and hospitality industry. Our ministries are represented by Mr. Bill Taylor from the Ministry of Tourism, Mr. Bob Griffiths from the Ministry of Education, and a gentleperson from Ministry of Labour. They had a meeting on Wednesday of all the educators, and it would appear that they are going to form an association, which can do nothing but augur well for our province, for Canada, for this great industry and for our unity. I would ask the House to express their appreciation and offer a welcome to those guests when they come, which I will convey for them.

I would also, Mr. Speaker, like to advise you that it is the pleasure of the MLA for North Okanagan to have a very distinguished guest in the gallery today, Mr. Nick Alexis from Vernon. Nick — if I may call him that on the floor of the House — is a long-standing resident of our community. He had the most famous milkshake and hamburger stand in the whole of the world, and I'm testimony to that. He has given of himself to our community, as has his family, and he has been more than generous in the material assets he has achieved through this great free enterprise, democratic society in returning gifts to our community and to this province. Accompanying him is Alderman Jim Yount. I would ask the House to give both of these gentlemen, particularly Mr. Alexis, a very warm welcome.

Presenting Petitions

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed, hon. member.

MR. SKELLY: This petition is addressed to the hon. Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in Legislature assembled.

"The petition of the undersigned humbly showeth that there is urgent concern in many communities of the province, in particular in Cranbrook, that changes in B.C. Telephone's equipment and operations in those centres will eliminate operators' jobs, with significant losses to the local economies. Wherefore your petitioner humbly prays that your hon. House may be pleased to request (1) that B.C. Telephone cease and desist with their proposal to eliminate telephone operators from the city of Cranbrook, and (2) that the CRTC hold a public hearing in the city of Cranbrook to establish what effect B.C. Tel's elimination of operators in Cranbrook would have on this community. Specifically we petition the CRTC to look into the effects B.C. Tel's proposals would have on the quality of service, employment, community income, emergency assistance, before the commission makes a decision on whether to allow B.C. Tel to proceed. As in duty bound your petitioner will ever pray. "

It is dated May 9, 1980, and signed by myself.

Mr. Speaker, I also ask leave to table a petition signed by approximately 2,700 residents of the Cranbrook area.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Vote 103: resolved that a sum not exceeding $123,272 be granted to Her Majesty to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Forests for the minister's office program.

Mr. Chairman, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

[ Page 2362 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I move the House proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 23.

TRADE AND CONVENTION
CENTRE ACT

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm really pleased today to rise to speak on behalf of Bill 23 and to move second reading. It is an exciting day for this Legislature, because this bill covers two trade and convention centres: one for the city of Vancouver and one for the city of Victoria. Both those cities, and in fact British Columbia, have waited for a number of years for a convention and trade centre which could welcome the world to our doors. For both trade and conference facilities have been very much lacking in the size needed to host the world.

It is also very important and significant that it was in this very week that the federal Minister of State for Trade, the Hon. Edward Lumley, Senator Ray Perrault, who is the western representative in the federal administration, and various economic development ministers of the federal administration were here at a historic meeting, the first of its size and kind in this province, where the federal government came to meet with their British Columbia counterparts to assist British Columbia in shaping the economic future of this province and to enhance it even more.

It is important that we signed an agreement this week with the federal administration which sees the culmination of many years of work in terms of getting the federal government contribution for the Vancouver trade and convention centre. But before I address my remarks to that particular convention centre, Mr. Speaker, I would like to just make mention of this great city of Victoria, the capital city, and of their aspirations and dreams over many years to build a trade and convention centre in this city. It was only last night that we were told by the Victoria newscast that in the past month there was 100 percent occupancy in some of the Victoria hotels. In the terms of the newscaster of that evening, this meant that by next year, with a very high occupancy in most Victoria hotels during the month of April, there will even be increases in the travel industry, which I know my colleague the hon. Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) will bring forth in these coming months and years.

The industry will not be able to meet the increase because there will not be sufficient hotel space. That's a good problem to have. That's a great problem to have because, in terms of Victoria, it means a strengthening of one of the largest industries in this particular region and on Vancouver Island. If we can bring more conventions and trade conferences to this city, it means more jobs and more employment. The hospitality industry itself employs more people in Canada than any other given industry across this country. Victoria, Vancouver and all of the communities within British Columbia are no exception. I can't think of two more appealing cities on the world scene to attract world visitors. Each and every one of those visitors that arrives on our shores to spend time in conference, either in this city or a small town, in a tiny convention or a small meeting, leaves behind many dollars which accrue to the benefit of each and every citizen.

I really would like to stress the "each and every citizen" aspect. Just the other morning we were signing the trade and convention agreement with the federal and civic governments. It was interesting that among the 200-odd people who came to watch the signing of the agreement, there were two significant organizations present and probably representatives of other social services as well. I make that point because when one saw the representatives of the United Way and the B.C. division of the Canadian Paraplegic Association in attendance, one knew that those social service representatives understand what the economy of British Columbia is all about. They understand the economic blueprint that has been put forward by this government, by our leader, the Premier, and by the economic development ministers of this province.

They understand very well that one cannot have social services and betterment of the lives of those people who, really, we have come to serve the most in this House — though not in isolation from the rest of the province. There is no question that what has led each and every person, no matter what their political philosophy, to seek public office is the wish to bring a better way of life to those who are underprivileged, those who are needy, those who perhaps are not enjoying the affluence of others.

What better way to improve the lot of those who are underprivileged and who need that kind of assistance? Those of us who serve on the floor of this House as representatives of the people of British Columbia wish to provide more jobs and more opportunities in an economic blueprint that will promise not just this generation but generations to come a proper opportunity. We will ensure that it will be an opportunity for the young people still in school today, still looking forward to opportunities, privileges and positions in British Columbia in their future.

As I look at the plans for both of these centres I realize — and I'm sure that members of this House will realize — that both cities have been denied the business of many, many conferences and conventions over the years simply because there has not been adequate space to house them. For instance, in the city of Vancouver we cannot house more than approximately 1,100 people, and that is stretching it quite a bit. One cannot have more than 1,100 people dine in a single sitting in one area in the downtown area of the city of Vancouver where they are close to entertainment, the international airport and transportation facilities. There isn't an area in the city of Vancouver that can provide that. The city of Victoria, likewise, has been denied opportunities for creating business for the many restaurants and entertainment facilities in this capital region. They also have been denied the opportunity to sell post-convention tours throughout this province.

I have announced this week that in the signing of the agreement we have been successful in this province in attracting or competing for an international social services convention which will take place in 1984. It is estimated by those who are in the business of projecting the revenue for conventions that that international congress in 1984, which will take place in Vancouver's new Pacific Rim Trade/Convention Centre.... Conservatively speaking, $4 million in two weeks will be the revenue from that one convention. It is even projected by those who have told me that figure that it could very easily go beyond $6 million.

But there is an even greater revenue that one conference can give to us. With good planning — the kind of planning that is done by Tourism British Columbia, and the kind of

[ Page 2363 ]

initiatives that are taken in this province since this government gave us the economic initiative to the tourism industry — there is no question that we have the expertise in this province to make sure that other tours will emanate from such things as conferences and conventions that come to British Columbia.

So that international convention of 1984, which we look forward to, will also have another side benefit. Besides the $4 million to $6 million left in revenue, there is a great opportunity for attracting participants to every part of this province, for taking part of that conference to the Okanagan, to the north, to make sure that that conference and some of those delegates have a side-trip — either a pre-convention or a post-convention tour — on Vancouver Island or in some other great place in the province of British Columbia. There is a potential for other business, and there is a potential for a tremendous opportunity for many communities in this province. Therefore it is an important legislative move on which I speak in support of today.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I would like to mention something about the sites. Both sites that this bill addresses are incomparable sites, and they will add so much to redevelopment in the city of Vancouver, particularly of a harbour which, frankly, has been neglected for a very long time. I have to say, as a member for a Vancouver constituency, that this busiest port on the west coast, this port which has seen tour ships increase by 15 percent each and every year, which has had people come from all over the world — 125,000 passengers in 1979 — and disembark on the front door, if you like, of Vancouver, which looks more like something that we should be ashamed of. Thank goodness, because of the moves that we've made on trade and convention centre planning in the city of Vancouver, the harbour will be assisted very much in this redevelopment. It has initiated a $10 million investment in a cruise-ship facility alone, which will in itself ensure that those who visit our shores from distant parts will at last have a real front door, a real greeting from the people of British Columbia, a greeting of which we can all be very, very proud.

I would like to just make some other comment regarding our largest port on North America's coast. That port is served by seven railway companies and supports 20,000 jobs. I told you about the tour ships. There are about 165 tour ships expected in the harbour of Vancouver this year. In spite of and taking notice of the energy crisis, it is expected that that number will increase by the same 15 percent annually in the years to come.

As I say, our Canadian gateway in Vancouver can be described at best as an eyesore. I would like to say how pleased I, as one of the Vancouver MLAs, and the city of Vancouver are that the port of Vancouver, the most consistently profitable of all Canadian sea ports — it makes a tremendous contribution to our economy — will at last start on a proper rehabilitation. There will be harbour enhancement because of the impact which this investment will have in the city of Vancouver. It is going to attract, in addition to the federal-provincial-civic funds, private-sector development adjacent to the centre of Vancouver worth upwards of $225 million.

I suggest that that kind of redevelopment, the same kind of initiative, the same kind of impetus for new business, will also happen in the Victoria area. May I say that that's the very best kind of thing we can get out of investment of provincial funds, Mr. Speaker. Those kinds of funds will have not only an economic payoff during the building and the creation of jobs, but will also give an ongoing impetus to the private sector, an encouragement to the private sector for further investment.

In the city of Vancouver alone we have the opportunity to work with the consulates and trade representatives of 46 countries. This province, which sits looking to half the world's population on the Pacific Rim, has an opportunity to host trade shows which will not only bring business at the time of the shows but will encourage Pacific Rim trade. The very trade which we in this government have developed in a very, very vigorous way through our Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development will continue developing. As you have seen this week, we have a good association with our friends on the Pacific Rim. They want to trade with British Columbia and are comfortable trading with British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, it's the west's turn now; it's our turn for the Pacific Rim.

There's no question in my mind that we are going to be having tremendous impetus in the years to come, and all Canada will be looking at British Columbia to understand and appreciate that here we sit on what is probably the very location in world trade today. We are very fortunate people indeed, but we must have the tools to do the job. Conferences have wanted to come to British Columbia over many, many years, and we've turned them away; we've turned business down and thrown money away to other jurisdictions in the world, in Canada and in the United States, because we just didn't have the place to house them.

Let me tell you now that in the next few years, through the good work of Tourism British Columbia and the Greater Vancouver Convention and Visitors Bureau, with the organization here in Victoria, who work hard in conventions, and all the people in the tourism business.... We are able to announce today that, for example, in 1984 we will have 1,500 delegates coming from the International Newspaper Association and 1,600 delegates from the International Association of Bridge and Structural Engineers; in 1983 we will have 5,000 delegates from the International Association of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, and the Canadian Dental Association will bring 2,500 delegates; in 1984 the Canadian Labour Congress will bring 3,000 delegates; and I told you about the congress of the International Council on Social Welfare, with 4,000 to 5,000 delegates leaving $4 million to $6 million. Acquaint that figure with all of these figures I'm giving you and you will have a fairly good idea how much money is being spent. In 1983 the Rental Association of Canada and Koffler Stores, which is a Canadian group, will bring 2,000 delegates and will want to have the convention centre in the city of Vancouver each and every year after that 1983 convention. The B.C. Association of Colleges will be coming with 3,000 delegates in 1989.

Each international convention delegate stays an average of four days, and a non-international convention delegate stays three and a half days. Each delegate spends $100 per day. The cost of each international delegate, as I mentioned before, can also be multiplied by the fact that they can go to other areas of the province and spend money, and very many of them stay longer on a private vacation. The figures I've just given you are those which are really accountable only to the time they spend on the business part of their convention. Others bring their families and spend a much longer time.

[ Page 2364 ]

I've told you about the redevelopment of the harbour. I'm very excited about the fact that we have an opportunity in this province to host the world in one of the most exciting areas that the world has seen. One of the things that we have going for us in this province is that almost every person in a national, international or any type of organization which you would like to talk of wants to see British Columbia. British Columbia is well known to them. It is no secret to any of us in this assembly or to those in the gallery that this is probably the most beautiful place in the world. There is no question in my mind that the world wants to come to us. Now we are going to make a place available to them, where they can meet and greet each other.

I am pleased to tell you that there has been tremendous support for the trade and convention centres in both cities from members of unions and the hospitality industry, and from people who understand — even those who are retired and no longer wish to take part in the active and productive part of our society, but who are excited to relax and enjoy retirement. We have had support from all kinds of people like that, and young people who understand. We were pleased to have support from the bartenders' and culinary workers' union of the British Columbia Federation of Labour, and from many people in the private sector who, of course, are excited that here is yet another effective tool which we can use to create more business and more jobs.

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that in the city of Vancouver alone we will have between 600 and 1,000 construction jobs each and every year for the next five years because of the kind of impetus which this will create? Directly on the pier itself in the next two years there will be between 600 and 1,000 construction jobs. Here in the city of Victoria, although there will be a smaller number of construction jobs, there will be a very dramatic impetus to construction in this city. The complex which will be built will create jobs numbering 650, which will mean employment for 650 people beyond the construction date.

It is going to be a very exciting time for the province of British Columbia. There is no question in my mind that all members of the House will want to support this bill. There's no question in my mind that the time is very long overdue to give to the people of British Columbia that kind of centre, that meeting-place. But more importantly, Mr. Speaker, we should give the people of the world the chance to visit with us, to meet with us, to exchange with us, to invest with us their friendship, and to invest with us their dollars, if you like. More importantly, we will have a place in which we can welcome the rest of our Canadian friends, particularly in this week when we have had a unity debate, where we have talked about the differences as well as the sameness of those of us who inhabit this great land of Canada.

What a remarkable and wonderful opportunity it's going to be to be able to get 10,000 people into an effective meeting place one at a time, with the kind of simultaneous translation facilities which are not only going to give us e capability of understanding those who are not bilingual; we will be able to understand both the official languages of this country but also will be able to understand those who visit from other parts of the world.

This bill will be authorization to pay the moneys for the two centres. It is a challenge to the private sector as well as to those who work in the hospitality industry. Up till now we have had people come to us from all over who have been able to look at our facilities. Because of the beautiful place in which we live they have sometimes even been content to crowd themselves into facilities which were inadequate; that won't have to be the case in the future.

I am really pleased that we are going to hopefully get on this day with the job of passing this bill. I move second reading of Bill 23, with the greatest of pleasure, Mr. Speaker. I hope that all members of this House will support this bill.

MR. COCKE: As we all know, the bill was introduced on May 6. Of course, there's a certain implementation that has to occur by May 17; we realize that. There's a good deal of study that has to go into a bill of this sort, where government is moving in a different direction. Certainly there are very many positive aspects to trade and convention centres. There is some worry. The minister rather argued with herself a little bit in suggesting that at present in Victoria the hotels are so loaded they can't take any more, and that we're then going to attract more by a convention centre. I think we'd better tell private enterprise to get their act together and build some more hotels.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: They are getting it together. Don't you know that?

MR. COCKE: The minister says that they are. Sometimes their promises are like yours.

The most amazing aspect of this particular presentation is the fact that the Minister of Human Resources made it. I recognize that she is Deputy Premier, but I guess the minister with a quarter of a portfolio wasn't prepared or entitled to do the job of introducing a bill which has far more to do with tourism, far more to do with visitors, certainly, than human resources. The minister was very kind, and I thought, possibly, we would just make a couple of comments like that.

I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

BRITISH COLUMBIA BOND RATING

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement.

This has been a week of good news for British Columbia in a number of ways. The reason for rising now is to report first to the Legislature of British Columbia that British Columbia's bond rating has been increased from AA to AAA, the highest rating in North America. The new rating brings British Columbia up to the level of only the federal government, Alberta and Ontario in all of Canada, with the exception of associated Crown corporations federally and in the two other provinces. The decision was announced this morning by Moody's Investors Services of New York, one of the two principal rating agencies which review credits in all parts of the world. The decision by Moody's and the announcement today to assign an AAA rating to British Columbia is, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, the ultimate non-political acknowledgement that the economy of British Columbia is stronger than it has ever been in our history. The AAA is the highest possible rating. British Columbia's move to this category from its previous AA rating reflects the long-term strength of the British Columbia economy. Further, it is, I think, even

[ Page 2365 ]

more importantly an expression of confidence by New York financial experts in the management abilities of this provincial government. I'm sure that all British Columbians, even the few members opposite, will welcome this news today. We don't see it demonstrated immediately by members of the opposition, but I'm sure it will come.

On my February visit to New York to meet with members of the financial community — and it was a very hectic few days in New York — as a new Minister of Finance I stressed British Columbia's abundant natural resources and our rapidly diversifying economy. I also discussed with them the province's substantial energy reserves and the increasing amounts of processing and secondary manufacturing activities. As Moody's Investors analysts very carefully look at all aspects of the provincial government's operations I also touched on the financial status of a number of Crown corporations in those New York discussions. You will know, and members of this House will know, that the provincial government guarantees the borrowing of all Crown corporations. Therefore this new higher rating, the highest possible, will bring with it the highest possible benefits for B.C. Crown corporations in their future borrowings. The previous requirement of B.C. Hydro, which has been in existence for some time, to meet transit operation deficits has been removed by the creation of the Urban Transit Authority, and that, obviously, was another factor taken into consideration by Moody's Investors Services.

British Columbia last floated a bond issue on the New York market in 1977. Since that issue, which was some $200 million by B.C. Hydro, the province and its Crown corporations have borrowed the very large portion of their requirements annually internally from such sources as provincial trusteed and sinking funds and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Fund.

I thank the House for its patience while I make this announcement. Clearly it is one which is of tremendous excitement to the government and to me. I would certainly not want, in any way, to appear to take full credit for this development. The credit rests with all members of the government and with my predecessor, the present Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), who had a much more difficult job to do as the first Minister of Finance following December 1975.

It is a great day for British Columbia, a day which we've been waiting for. It's a day which reflects in so many ways what we have been saying, and what British Columbians indeed have been feeling. The exact statement which was issued today over the name of George Leung, assistant vice president of Moody's Investors Services in New York City, is as follows:

"A favourable long-term trend and prospects in economic growth and diversification, a strong record of sound financial operations of the province and its principal Crown corporations, and easily manageable debt levels are factors reflected in the revision to AAA of provincially guaranteed U.S. pay debts of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority."

Mr. Speaker, surely this is a day for all British Columbians, regardless of political persuasion, to be satisfied. Perhaps most importantly, the achievement which has been recorded today by the people of British Columbia and this government is even more outstanding when I conclude with the observation that since January 1 of this year, Moody's have downgraded 83 government bond issues and have upgraded, until today, only one. Of the corporate bond issues, 18 ratings have gone down, and only one has gone up. For British Columbia to achieve a AAA rating by Moody's today, I'm sure everyone will agree, is a very clear reflection of how fortunate we are in British Columbia, and how strong our economy is and will remain for many years to come.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, may I, on behalf of the opposition, ask leave to respond to the ministerial statement?

Leave granted.

MR. STUPICH: On behalf of the opposition, I would like to join in congratulations. This is a good day for the government. It's a good day for the people of British Columbia, and for that we are all happy.

On a personal note may I express my satisfaction and pleasure that the Minister of Finance made the announcement in this chamber first. That's almost a first, as well. But I'm certainly pleased that he took advantage of the opportunity to make this news public while the House was sitting. I do appreciate that announcement. I think, perhaps, it's unfortunate that it could not have come one or two months sooner. There is one....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the provocation, if you like — the invitation almost — from the Minister of Finance, I'm going to avoid partisan politics in my statement completely....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Nanaimo has the floor.

MR. STUPICH: There was one public servant who laboured for some 20 years who tried to achieve this on behalf of the people of British Columbia. It's a pity he could not still have been working as a public servant when this goal was achieved. I know from conversations with him that he came very close to achieving it in 1972. There was a change of government in 1972 and, of course, that meant everybody had to take another look at the situation. That's quite understandable. I know that he was confident that he was getting close to it again in mid-1975. He worked on it for some 15 years and came close to it on a couple of occasions. There was another change of government in late 1975 and the work had to start all over again.

I am pleased, on behalf of British Columbia, that the efforts of Gerry Bryson as Deputy Minister of Finance have finally resulted in this goal being achieved. The people of British Columbia all have a lot to be thankful for and should, I think, express their thanks — certainly I do — for the work that Gerry Bryson did on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

I suppose if there's anything that can be said about the length of tenure of this government, we can be pleased that they lasted at least long enough to achieve this goal — hopefully, they will not last long enough to spoil it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 7.

[ Page 2366 ]

SPECIAL FUNDS ACT, 1980
(continued)

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could find out how many minutes I have left, because it seems to me I've spoken on this debate on two separate occasions and on both occasions had a chance to adjourn the debate. In any event, the number of minutes isn't too important because I only have a few other things to say. This will be a companion to the legislation introduced by my colleague the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) this morning, which dealt with the trade and convention centre.

We have had some interesting developments on B.C. Place in the last three weeks, one of which I wish the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) would stay to hear. I know he's leaving the chamber, but he really would like to hear this one. We have an inquiry from the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra and the Tokyo Symphony Orchestra. They want to know if this building is going to be big enough to have a play-off inside. I think that is much better than having a football playoff. Can you imagine the "1812 Overture" with cannons? I can assure you that we will have the facilities for 60,000 people....

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: We're going to have the cannons, and we're going to have the symphonies as well.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that the interest in British Columbia Place is growing on a daily basis. By the time my estimates roll around — and there will be more questions to be asked about it — I will be able to fill members in more on what progress we have been able to make. I'm really delighted that we're able to find the money within the budget to be able to proceed with this thing. I know there are many other members on this side of the House — and, I am sure, on the other side of the House — who will want to participate in the debate. So I just want to wind it up.

I hope I can hear from the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) on the remarks made by his colleague about people that come up from the United States to play football and why they don't want to have any kind of a stadium for that kind of people, who are here today and gone tomorrow. He is not here today, of course, but he will be back tomorrow. With that, I will conclude my remarks.

MR. KING: I have some brief remarks to make concerning Bill 7, and I know the government will welcome the fact that I've indicated that I'll be brief.

HON. MR. CHABOT: A departure from the usual norm.

MR. KING: Oh, I'm not that long-winded. Scotty Wallace used to outdo me by far.

Mr. Speaker, the thing that I rather resent about this particular bill, particularly as a member from the interior of the province of British Columbia, is the fact that this bill provides $213 million which has been developed out of revenue surplus. That speaks to me of overtaxation. That speaks to me of the government having imposed, too, a heavy tax burden on the people of British Columbia and having earned over their projected budget the surplus which they now propose to dispense, without full legislative accountability, to various ministries.

I believe that some of the projects contained within this bill are certainly worthwhile; but I believe that they should be provided through the normal budgets of the various ministries rather than in a bill such as this where there is just a brief description of the amounts of surplus funds designated and appropriated for a stated purpose, without any of the design of the program under which each project will be delivered. I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that that is in keeping with the traditional method of parliamentary accountability by the various ministries. It is a way for the government to highlight the overtaxation which they have garnered and direct it toward areas which they think will bring the best political returns to the governing party. The provisions should have been contained in the ministry estimates, and we could have questioned the specific ministers.

I have a fairly good memory. I can certainly remember the Liberals when they sat in opposition, the little rump group that finally joined Social Credit so they could grasp power regardless of betraying the principles they had claimed they stood for over the years. I particularly remember the leader of the Liberal Party of that day, the now Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), decrying surplus funds. In fact he wrote a book called Politics in Paradise, describing the financial manipulations of Social Credit and how they consistently underestimated revenue so that they would be able to come up with surplus funds and use those surplus funds in a political way.

Interjection.

MR. KING: The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) says I wasn't in the House then. That may well be true, but I would hope that the Attorney-General does not feel that one has to be an elected member of this House to understand economics, to understand finance and, most of all, to understand political manipulation when it's witnessed. The public is very capable of seeing through the ruses which this government sets up.

I worry about putting the highlights on what the government identifies as most politically expedient for them. This $213 million is a lot of money. There is no opportunity for debate and holding the various ministers accountable when discussing their budget. I contrast the garnering of this kind of surplus fund against other priorities that I think the government should be looking at in the community. There are very difficult economic circumstances in the province today despite the good news which the government received this morning in respect to their AAA rating.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that people in the forest industry who are having to close their plants, the workers who are being denied employment.... I just had word, Mr. Speaker, that yet another 1,000 forest industry workers are being laid off by MacMillan Bloedel today. While the government — and indeed the Legislature — may be very impressed by the AAA rating, those 1,000 workers that were added to the unemployment rolls this morning take pretty cold comfort from the increased and improved borrowing record of the government. That's not going to bring them much economic security or much satisfaction during the course of their unemployment. To see funds directed under this bill to the high-profile kinds of programs, in my view, is perhaps not the best direction and not the best expenditure of this surplus revenue. I would rather have seen something

[ Page 2367 ]

done to try and shore up the forest industry. I would rather have have seen something done to try and alleviate the very alarming rate of small business failures in the province.

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity on Wednesday to travel up to my area to try to gain assistance for yet another small business that was folding up because of the difficult economic times, the high interest rates, and so on. I received word that yet another small business in my community has failed. It seems to me that the government might have looked at making some loans of better interest rates available to existing small enterprises to assist them over the hurdle of this difficult economic time. Now there are grants available for new enterprises, but very little available for those who are struggling and trying to ride out the economic storm and the high interest rate period that we're in.

It's similar with unemployment. I read in the paper that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), when contacted about the very high layoffs in the forest industry, made the comment that they will simply have to rely on unemployment insurance. Well, Mr. Speaker, this government is the first one to criticize the federal government in Ottawa for their deficits and the high cost of government in Ottawa and yet, when there is a lag in our industrial base in the province of British Columbia, they blithely say to the British Columbia workers disrupted by that slump: "Draw on unemployment insurance from Ottawa." The government must be aware that over the years the federal government has had to supplement the unemployment insurance fund when it's been overdrawn.

It seems to me unfair and rather irresponsible for the provincial government on the one hand to berate Ottawa for their budgetary deficit, while at the same time refusing to shoulder their own responsibility in trying to shore up a sagging economy here, referring the workers of British Columbia to the unemployment insurance fund in Ottawa, which is calculated to guarantee yet further deficits by the government of Canada. That seems to me like a bit of a dog-in-the-manger approach. I think the provincial government could have been looking at some assistance to smooth the sag in the economy in British Columbia now, not only in the forest industry but in many other areas as well.

I note that there appears to be an actual cut in the funds available for student summer employment during the coming year. I note that there have been cutbacks in many of the applications from communities throughout the length and breadth of British Columbia for student assistance, and in municipal programs under the small enterprise program, which allowed the government to subsidize student workers' salaries up to 50 percent. There have been significant cutbacks in those areas. I think it's pretty crass politics when we have this bill designating certain programs to which these surplus funds are going to be applied, all with an eye to what will bring the best political reward to the government, rather than based on the greatest need in the province in terms of the people, in terms of the high unemployment and certainly in terms of the high rate of business bankruptcies.

B.C. Place Fund; Energy Development Fund; the bridge to shore up the political future of one of the members of the Social Credit Party, the acting Speaker of the House today, when secondary roads throughout the interior of the province have suffered for years and continue to suffer....

Interjection.

MR. KING: One of the ironies of the retort from the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is that I had the dubious pleasure of riding with him and the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) in the back seat of an automobile from Prince Rupert to Terrace, and they were fighting over who was going to get the front seat, because every time we hit one of those potholes we just about went through the floorboards. We were all agreed on the terrible condition of the road. It's just too bad, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Omineca wouldn't stand up in this Legislature and fight for better roads for his area.

I think there's an almost desperate attempt by this government to solve their internal political problems by throwing money at them. They're looking at Vancouver and saying: "We have major political problems, so we are going to spend vast sums of money generated from overtaxation of the people of the province of British Columbia to woo back those voters. We're going to build B.C. Place and Pier B-C. We're going to build a tunnel over from the Island to the mainland. Perhaps we'll even go it alone on northeast coal." They have all these grandiose programs while at the same time we have 2,500 people, I am told, in the city of Vancouver waiting for elective surgery because there's a deficiency of hospital beds. We have roads which are restricted to the extent that foodstuffs cannot be trucked in except in half-loads for farmers in the interior. We have a shortage of homemaker service in the province of British Columbia....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Where?

MR. KING: Certainly in my riding, if not in theirs. Perhaps they're not in close enough touch with their constituents; perhaps that's why they don't know.

I think that this is a pretty bare-faced attempt to buy their way out of political trouble off the backs of the taxpayers, without accountability to the Legislature and without the proper ministerial responsibility that there should be to get up in the Legislature and defend the program on which they're going to spend the money. All this bill does is name the dollar amount. It doesn't say anything about the kind of program that is going to be developed. It doesn't say anything about cost-effectiveness. It doesn't say anything about the justification, indeed, for the program and the expenditure. That should be done through the normal estimates of the various ministries affected.

Interjection.

MR. KING: It sounds like the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) has his voice back again. He and the member for Omineca have made it pretty clear that they do not intend to participate in legislative debate anymore, but would rather sit in their places and make a nuisance of themselves.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All hon. members, come to order, please. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke has the floor on Bill 7,

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It didn't bother me too much. I have been heckled by intelligent people, so I'm not too disturbed by the members' prattling.

[ Page 2368 ]

I think that this bill is totally irresponsible. I think it's founded on overtaxation, unfairness and a lack of legislative accountability, and, accordingly, I wish to move an amendment to the motion accompanying the bill. The motion is moved by myself and seconded by my colleague the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), and it reads as follows: that the motion be amended by leaving out the word "that" at the end of the question, in order to add the words, "Unethical practices have been used to an extraordinary extent in procuring the return of members to this present Legislative Assembly, and for this cause the Legislative Assembly cannot be considered a fair representation of the people. It is therefore unfit that any system of public expenditure should be imposed by this Legislative Assembly until all cause of complaint with regard to the method of electing members of this Legislative Assembly shall first be redressed,"  instead thereof.

I submit the motion, and along with it I wish to submit the authority for the motion for the edification of the Chair and the Clerks of the House and point out that this motion follows very closely a motion in 1842 from the British House providing a similar basis for amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The amendment is a reasoned amendment and is in order.

On the amendment.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the amendment, being a reasoned amendment — as you have indicated — finds favour within our rules. What it does — if I could put this on the record — pursuant to the time-honoured custom for such reasoned amendments is set out a declaration of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principle, policy or the provision of the bill. That declaration is, in its simple form, that it is not considered appropriate for this Legislature to pass upon the expenditure of public funds when the techniques and procedures followed during the course of the election campaign — that resulted in members being here in this parliament — have been raised and questioned. We need then, I think, to say, as the amendment does, that until those causes of complaints are redressed, the Legislature should not proceed to spend the public funds, as is being sought by this particular bill. We don't do this in any way to denigrate the position of anybody here, but we need to examine the revelations made in the fall, following the election of last May, about procedures that were advocated to design to unfairly influence the decisions of the electorate, to inappropriately and unethically influence the voters.

MR. KEMPF: That doesn't agree with the election outcome.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) made a vow of silence in his hometown newspapers a while ago. I wonder if you could hold him to it. He also made a vow of silence yesterday with his absolute refusal to answer legitimate questions. He is now really intent solely upon heckling and interrupting.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair will maintain order and the member will speak to the amendment, please. All members will be reminded that when an hon. member is speaking, no other member shall speak. The member for Skeena is on the amendment to Bill 7.

MR. HOWARD: I'm not trying to inflame anybody's emotions, Mr. Speaker, but it is revealed, initially in a speech made by one Jack Kelly at a meeting close to Victoria in a community called Colwood, that Mr. Kelly and others — but he particularly — at that time being paid by the general public out of public funds as a researcher with the Social Credit caucus research bureau, engaged in dirty tricks and enjoyed doing it. According to the reports from that meeting, he outlined the activities of writing letters to the editor and attaching false names to those letters, to make it look to the editor and to the readers of those papers who may have printed those letters that someone other than the author of the letters in fact wrote them.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: I have no knowledge whether anybody inappropriately signed nomination forms filed by the member for Omineca or anybody else. If the member for Omineca has information of people falsely signing nomination papers, he or they know what action they could have taken or still can take with respect to that matter.

Mr. Kelly, a Social Credit caucus research bureau employee, participated in advocating what has come to be identified as dirty tricks. Included therein, as I said earlier, was the writing of letters to the editor and affixing to those letters phony names or names of real persons, designed to leave the impression that someone other than the author of the letter, someone other than Mr. Kelly and the people working with him, in fact signed those letters.

The purpose of that unethical practice in that unethical way was to manipulate and influence voters to vote a certain way. The advocacy of engaging in that practice of a phony letter-writing campaign.... Involving Social Credit Party activists in a concerted, coordinated and organized way to phone in to hotline shows was also an attempt to use the media improperly to influence the course of the election. A great deal of this activity was not isolated to that point in time when Mr. Kelly was paid by the general public of this province to work in the Social Credit caucus research bureau.

Mr. Dan Campbell, late of the Premier's office, was at one time a distinguished member of this House and held the portfolio of Minister of Municipal Affairs. In 1969 Mr. Campbell spoke at a gathering or seminar — whatever label it was given — of people associated with the Social Credit Party here in Victoria, prior to the election of that year.

Mr. Campbell advocated at that particular meeting or seminar an organized approach to writing letters to the editor. I think that in itself is probably nothing improper. I suppose people do want to sit down in an organized way and collect their thoughts, put them in a letter and send them to the editor in order to get across a certain point of view — either positively supporting something that they advocate, or negatively decrying some other position. Nonetheless, it was advocated in 1969 — and I read nothing sinister into that — that there be an organized and developed and structured participation on the part of Social Credit activists in the province to engage themselves in a campaign of writing letters to the editor and to participate in hotline shows to get their point of view across.

In 1975, when the present Premier was the Leader of the Opposition, he, using the legislative stationery available to his office at that time and from his office here in Victoria,

[ Page 2369 ]

sent letters — or so it has been reported in the newspapers about which he has so far refused to answer in Committee of Supply, when those questions have been put to him. In the absence of a definitive response from the Premier about the letters and given the fact that they have been published in the press, one assumes that they are valid. If the Premier at some time will say they're not.... He didn't do that — okay, we'll stand by that; but at this time nothing of that nature has come along. We need to follow then the course that the Premier.... When he was Leader of the Opposition in 1975, he distributed from his office here in the legislative buildings communications to Social Credit constituency associations....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, at this point I would like to remind you that the principle of relevancy, in a reasoned amendment, governs every motion. The amendment must strictly relate to the bill, which the House has resolved. Now the amendment does read that "unethical practices have been used to an extraordinary extent in procuring the return of members to this present Legislative Assembly...." That would preclude discussion at this point of events of 1969 or 1975.

MR. HOWARD: I can appreciate that, if all I was doing was discussing in isolation those points of time. But as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, I started off with events leading to the election of members to this assembly to this parliament, and in order to give some background to it, said that there was some preliminary buildup to it.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

One of the preliminary buildups was letters from the Leader of the Opposition — the current Premier — in 1975 from his office, sending ideas and draft letters to the editor to Social Credit constituency associations, for use by committees actively engaged in those matters — suggestions for involvement in hotline shows and the like.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: Well, Mr. Speaker, now that the interchange of members opposite and the bellowing that they've been engaged in has died down, perhaps I could proceed in a dispassionate way and try to lay the case out here — in a calm way, not trying to get the House to reduce itself to a shouting match, but just putting forward what I think are factual situations.

I say that the preliminary, conscious decisions made by Dan Cambell, a person who was at that time a distinguished member of this House in the capacity of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.... There were things which occurred between them in 1975 and then the letters from the then Leader of the Opposition, the current Premier, dealing in exactly the same area, namely, an organized approach and a developed approach to writing letters to the editor — in fact sending draft copies of letters that only needed to be signed and sent to the editors. The follow-up by Mr. Kelly of that preliminary method of operation within the Social Credit Party over those years by Mr. Kelly — if indeed he was the only person who had knowledge of and participated in the development of the phony letters and the advocacy of dirty tactics.... The development of it to that point seems almost natural and automatic. If a program of structuring an organized approach within a political party of writing letters to the editor to put forward certain points of view continues unabated — as it obviously did at least from 1969 through to 1979 with the Social Credit Party, which is the point we're talking about now — and it is given support and sustenance from time to time, as it was by the Premier when he was Leader of the Opposition advocating that the program be carried on, then it's no wonder that somebody with an imagination fertilized in a not very nice way could come to the conclusion that it's an easy step to write legitimate letters to the editor. And it's an easy step from that to write illegitimate letters to the editor. If it's possible, as it was, to draft letters and have the then Leader of the Opposition, the current Premier, send those draft letters out for people to affix their signatures to them, isn't it possible for someone with an uncouth mind to take the next step and say...?

HON. MR. MAIR: You're an expert on that.

MR. HOWARD: If I'm an expert on that subject matter it's because I've been listening to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) too long. That kind of foul interruption from the Minister of Health should not be tolerated by the Speaker. Far too often that bully boy from Kamloops has been chattering, yattering, reading his paper, interrupting and bellowing across the House.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: That's consistent with his manner ever since this House started. The only person he doesn't bully is the Premier. He sucks up to him by applauding.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: Away we go. Listen to the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs Jordan) using the word "vulgar." Oh, dear heavens!

Mr. Chairman, I'm no bully boy from anywhere, but the Minister of Health is running on unchecked and unabated. Maybe he was involved in the phony letters to the editor and that's why he is so sensitive about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's asking to meet you outside again.

MR. HOWARD: I don't think he was.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Skeena has the floor, and I would ask members to allow him to continue his address.

MR. HOWARD: I've been trying very calmly and very rationally, as you know, Mr. Speaker, to be inoffensive and gentle about a very, very serious subject matter.

MR. BARRETT: You know what the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) called it. He wasn't very gentle. He said it was a reprehensible kind of thing to do. Slanderous and cowardly.

MR. HOWARD: The Attorney-General read those words from a statement which was also referred to in this

[ Page 2370 ]

House, but that's the Attorney-General's position. The Attorney-General may classify that activity as cowardly and reprehensible, but I don't. Those are the Attorney-General's words. I am trying to approach this amendment. It's a reasoned amendment and I'm trying to approach it reasonably. You'll notice that the Attorney-General, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) are quiet and careful. They're listening to what is a very important subject. It's only the group down at the end led by that cheerleader from Kamloops that is causing all the disturbance in the House.

Mr. Speaker, before the rude and bellicose interruptions started from the member for Kamloops I was saying that — as appears to be the case and I think is the case — if, over a ten-year period, there was an organized, continuous flow of activity within the Social Credit Party to advocate involvement in letters to the editor on the part of members of the party, which is one phase which no one finds question about.... If there was during that period of time — and there certainly was insofar as the Premier was concerned when he was Leader of the Opposition — a sending out of draft letters which people may sign and send to the editors of various papers in their area.... In fact, in one case the Leader of the Opposition, now the Premier, listed addresses of certain papers and said: "Just in case you don't know the addresses, here are some of them that you can send these things to."

But it isn't too difficult a step to move from accepting a suggestion from the leader of a political party — the leader of the Social Credit political party at that time — to sign one's name to a letter already written for him, or written for anybody's signature, to move to another phase and forge somebody's name. That was what someone paid by the taxpayers of this province — Mr. Kelly — admitted doing and it appears that there were others involved. I don't want to go through a recitation of all their names. There were some working in the Social Credit caucus research bureau itself and some who worked in ministers' offices involved in the dirty tricks in the letter-writing campaign.

HON. MR. MAIR: Now that's just sanctimonious crap.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, listen to the minister. He's losing his cool again.

MR. HOWARD: I just heard the Minister of Health say across the floor — I don't know if Hansard caught it — that what I'm saying is a bunch of "sanctimonious crap." Now those were the words that he used and I'm only sort of suggesting that maybe those words shouldn't have been said.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the Chair cannot always hear every remark, particularly when there are so many remarks across the floor of the House, but if the remark was made by the member alleged, I would ask that he stand in his place and withdraw that remark. It is an unparliamentary term.

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes, I withdraw the remark.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: I think it should be noted that I was not the one who asked that it be withdrawn. It doesn't matter to me how intemperate the Minister of Health might be in his remarks. That is his business and he takes responsibility for it. I just thought the record should show that he used those words. That is all.

AN HON. MEMBER: All he is is a wild man anyway.

HON. MR. BENNETT: This is a hold-up gang. Hold up the Legislature!

MR. HOWARD: Now we get the Premier into the crossfire. This is no hold-up gang, Mr. Premier. This is a question being posed to your government, Mr. Premier, about highly unethical activities and practices, questions relating to your activities.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's this committee on ethics?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Hold-up gang!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, if we address the Chair we have much more of an opportunity to keep order and decorum in the House.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I gladly speak always through the Chair but sometimes, I'm sure even you will agree, it's not possible to resist the attraction of this crowd opposite who don't want to have this subject matter examined.

Apropos of that, you will notice that on opening day there was a unanimous decision of this House to set up a Select Standing Committee on Fair Election Practices. A motion was put forward by me, accepted by the Premier and passed unanimously. It has members named to it, and one of those is identified as the convenor of that committee. I believe — without checking the record to make sure — it is the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen); if I'm mistaken, it's somebody else on the government side. Whoever is the convener of that particular committee on fair election practices hasn't even bestirred himself to call a meeting of that committee to have it organized to find a chairman and a secretary for it. They don't believe in fair election practices; they accepted the idea of the committee because there was no other way out, but they had no intention of dealing with it. That committee is a standing committee of this House, Mr. Speaker, set up by the unanimous vote of this House. If government would just bestir itself to get that committee into an operative position, it could very easily examine some of these matters, so that we wouldn't have to spend time in this chamber trying to get answers to very legitimate and fundamental questions about our democratic processes and our democratic system.

We also had a commission on redistribution. It's been a practice in various jurisdictions, the province of B.C. included, to use the boundaries of electoral districts and of constituencies to effect the election of a certain person representing a certain party. I believe the word "gerrymandering" — from memory — comes from the development of this practice to a fine art in the state of Florida, where some years

[ Page 2371 ]

ago, so I'm told, the map of the particular electoral district which had been gerrymandered....

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: Never mind the facts of the case, then, as to whether or not that's right. Whether it started in Florida or anywhere else, it has been a practice.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Well, I'd sooner fall heir to that accusation, Mr. Phillips, than be a crud-slinger like you are.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: I withdraw that immediately.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Again I must caution members that certain terminology is not permitted in the House. I respect the fact as well that the hon. member who was on his feet has withdrawn the remark in question. But again I must caution members to address the Chair when they are speaking; this way the debate tends to be a little more orderly, even in this House.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: That's right. The record shows that I used that word. Let the record also show that if the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is going to bellow insults across the floor to me, then he had better be prepared to accept them in reply. As in the old saying, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I've been trying all through the course of my remarks — as I said from the beginning — not to inflame anybody's emotions about all this, but to be cautious, careful and calm in my comments about a very, very serious matter. The only time I have departed from that is when insults are tossed across the way from the other side.

Gerrymandering, as it's called, has been used in many, many jurisdictions in order to bring about the election of one person over another, in order to interfere with the normal democratic process, in order to ensure that a constituency had more of one party's supporters in it than another. If it was necessary to move the boundaries of that constituency — to take in a group of electors who might likely vote, or who by examination of voting records have voted a certain way — to ensure that in the new constituency a certain person will be elected, okay, that's happened. It has happened in this jurisdiction as well at some time or another in the past.

We did have a commission on electoral matters which examined a whole range of things. Included therein was the redistribution of boundaries. One of the results of that was wiping out a constituency that was represented then by the current member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King); in other words, it eliminated his riding.

Another decision made was to eliminate the constituency that at that time was represented by the now member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) and the now member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown). They represented a constituency in the city of Vancouver that was wiped out as a result of the Eckardt commission. It subsequently came to light that perhaps the operation of that commission in redistributing the boundaries of the ridings in this province was not done on a fair and equitable basis, that perhaps politics crept into it. We went through this discussion once before in an aside kind of way, but that needs to be examined.

Accusations are made that, yes, in fact, the alterations made to the boundaries of the constituency of Vancouver–Little Mountain did in effect result in bringing into that constituency a group of voters who geographically didn't fit within it, but who politically, by their past voting pattern, would vote a certain way. It was an attempt, therefore, to ensure the re-election of the current Minister of Human Resources.

A very unfair set of circumstances have developed, and that's what this motion before us is all about.

These doubts and these questions and these concerns in the general public's mind that, incidentally, would not have come to light had it not been for the initial revelations made by Jack Kelly in that speech in Colwood just outside of Victoria here last year.... If it had not been for him revealing in the initial sense what had taken place up to that time, all of this would still be under cover and would still be an intense covert operation within the Social Credit Party structure. But once having been revealed, once having been disclosed, it then became incumbent upon the first minister of this province, as the person in whose office resides the protection of our liberties, the protection of our democratic system and the enhancement of it to serve the interests of the general public, to take immediate corrective measures. He apparently didn't....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I wonder if I might just take this opportunity — the member can take his seat at this time — to refresh the memory of hon. members with the rules governing the subject matter of debate which is presently before us.

There are certain subjects that cannot be covered in this particular amendment. I cite from the sixteenth edition of May, page 400:

"Rules governing subject matter of motions.

"Matters to be dealt with by a substantive motion: certain matters cannot be debated save upon a substantive motion which admits of a distinct vote of the House. Among these may be mentioned the conduct of the Sovereign, the Heir to the Throne, the Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means" — and this one, hon. members, in particular — "members of either House of Parliament and judges of the superior courts........ These matters cannot, therefore, be questioned by way of amendment.... For the same reason no charge of a personal character can be raised, save upon a direct and substantive motion to that effect."

Therefore, hon. members, while the amendment to the motion before us is in order, it is not in order for any member

[ Page 2372 ]

in this debate to refer to any hon. member in the chamber. I give that advice to members so that their discussions will continue to be in order.

The member for Skeena continues.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, that is a very proper admonition and ruling from you; I seek to follow it.

But this matter, when it was raised by Mr. Kelly....When in pursuit of the initial disclosure by him, the investigative activities of the media disclosed all of these other activities. Somebody in authority should have moved to do something about it; somebody with the power and with the authority to be able to deal with it should have dealt with it. Whoever that somebody might have been — and I only speculate that the Premier would fall heir to having that authority to deal with it — whoever that somebody was or is did not deal with it, which, of course, as you know, Mr. Speaker, occasioned comment from the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) that the matter was very badly dealt with — or words to that effect.

Those words were not uttered in this chamber, but outside in the corridor or someplace. They did find their way into the printed press and they probably reflected very, very accurately the deeply felt concern on the part of, I would say, all members in this chamber that something was awry, something had been wrong and that, at least by their own admission and activities, a number of people in ministers' offices or associated with the Social Credit Caucus Research Bureau had been involved in some of those wrongdoings and unethical practices. It should have been dealt with and cleared up. It wasn't. There was that cloud of suspicion that something improper, unethical, wrong, and destructive and injurious to the democratic process had taken place.

This was the reason the House — at least it was the reason for my having moved the amendment on opening day, and I'm sure it was the reason for the Premier accepting that amendment on behalf of the government — established within its committee structure a Select Standing Committee on Fair Election Practices. It was my hope at that time, and still is, that the House will move to give that committee on fair election practices terms of reference and authority to examine what did take place and come back with some recommendations that can find their way into statute and, hopefully, into our hearts, as people concerned with preserving our democracy and not manipulating it; and that it could, in examining these things, come up with some protective devices to prevent them from occurring again. In the absence of anything of that nature, all it will take is one bad apple in the barrel — if it's not there already — to start the whole process of unethical practices and immoral conduct in election campaigns, attempting to unduly manipulate the media and unduly influence the electorate to do something that, in the irrational course of examining electoral matters at election time, they might not otherwise do. That's why that fair election practices committee....

I'm getting a bit beyond the terms of the motion here, but I need to do that in order to put forward, in a final word or two, the purpose and intent of the motion. It's to say that until we can move to clear up this subject matter, protect society and democracy in the future, ensure as best as we possibly can that good faith and honourable and honest dealings will prevail in our electoral machineries and processes, and take steps to redress the grievances, clear up the doubts and wonderments of the general public about what improper things went on, then we should not, as this reasoned amendment puts forward, take it upon ourselves to spend public funds and await the moment that some corrective action is taken to deal with this subject matter. The institution and the reference to the fair election practices committee which we have already set up would be one way of starting in the direction of preserving democracy in the future.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I would really just as soon my colleagues didn't applaud me on this occasion, because I rise with some reluctance to even speak on a motion such as this one. When the motion was first presented, I was really feeling angry and upset. Then, as the conversation and the mover of the motion continued, I began to realize that there isn't very much point in getting upset when you consider where the motion came from. The regular Friday morning tactic is that the NDP members of the Legislature leave the Legislature and go wherever it is they go on Friday afternoons to do their business outside of this Legislature, and the muck-rakers are left behind to stir up the House so that we won't miss those folks who are not prepared to stay here and do the business of this Legislature.

So I have gone from sort of anger and upset to dismay and then to understanding that it's just the same old game from the same old holdup gang. The leader of the holdup gang has made a motion that has no meaning, is frivolous and is — I would think — out of order, but I'm told by the experts in this House that it is in order. Certainly morally it's out of order. Another reason it's here is that the people on the opposite side of the House are not happy with the election results, and so, for one reason or another, they want to bring that up again before this Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you happy?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, I'm happy with the election results; extremely happy.

Then, too, earlier today the members opposite got angry about a statement that was made by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) saying that British Columbia's credit rating on the international markets is at its highest level ever, the highest in North America; that the international market experts are telling British Columbia that the economy is good; that the prospects for the economy are even better; and that things have never been better in British Columbia. That got the members opposite extremely angry, so they put in this motion to show their anger and to show their negativism and obstructionism in the face of a province which is booming with enthusiasm and optimism and opportunity. So now, because they are angry, they move this motion which we would have more expected from a class of unruly children.

Here we have Her Majesty's "Loyal" Opposition putting in this kind of motion in the face of a buoyant time, instead of this group on the opposite side helping British Columbia to maintain that enthusiasm, to take advantage of that opportunity. We have obstructionism from the socialists, mudslinging from the socialists, negativism from the socialists, but no programs, no alternatives, no opportunity, no policies. When I look at that....

MR. MACDONALD: Speak to the motion.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I am speaking to the motion, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 2373 ]

MR. MACDONALD: The motion is about corruption in government — speak to the motion!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I was speaking to this motion, but now the third member for Vancouver East, in an aside across the chamber which I heard most distinctly, tells me that I am speaking to the wrong motion; that the motion he wanted to put on the floor was about corruption in government. Mr. Speaker, I'd ask that member to withdraw that. I don't know how it makes you feel, but it offends me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has asked the second member for Vancouver East if he would withdraw the aside that was made across the floor.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I was in error and I withdraw. The motion is about unethical election practices, and I wish the minister would speak to that, because that should be cleared up in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. As was pointed out yesterday during debate, when a member or the Chair asks an hon. member for a withdrawal, it greatly assists not only the Chair but the decorum of the House if the member simply takes his place and makes the appropriate withdrawal without additional debate, which is really not in order at the time.

Nevertheless, the member does make the withdrawal and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources continues on the amendment.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Because of what I've said, and because of the way I feel about the people who put this motion in, I won't say very much more, but I do want to say that I'm really extremely upset that that member particularly would refer to unethically influencing the voters. He is a member who went into old-age homes in the Skeena riding and said: "Folks, if you elect the Social Credit government, they'll throw you out of your home. They'll throw you out of your hospitals."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, again, I must advise all hon. members that on the motion....

Interjections.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I would ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to take his seat.

Hon. members, as was pointed out just a very few moments ago, there are certain references that are just not permitted in the amendment that is presently before the House. One of those is specific reference to any member of this chamber. Regardless of which side of the House members are on, they must adhere to those restrictions in this debate. I would ask again that that be taken into account.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate your advice.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Skeena on a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: I have a correction, and that is....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You'll have to wait.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I will do my best to stay within the bounds of the motion, frivolous though it may be. At this time I would like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. HOWARD: I rise on a point of order with respect to the comments by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. He said that I went into old folks' homes in Skeena and told them a certain thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: That is an untruth.

Interjections.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. A member may rise in his place to make a correction of a statement that was attributed to him. Otherwise, we engage in debate. The member will have a further opportunity during discussions.... If we were to entertain this type of debate we would just be extending the debate ad infinitum. Each member of this House must take responsibility for the statements they make.

I cite standing order 42: "No member may speak twice to a question except in explanation of a material part of his speech which may have been misquoted or misunderstood, but then he is not to introduce any new matter and no debate shall be allowed upon such explanation." While members may feel that statements made on one side or the other of the House are different than their own interpretation, unless the member is quoting from a statement made by a member there is no opportunity to stand and correct. The member, of course, always has the opportunity to make such a correction during further debate in the House when he has the floor. But to rise on standing order 42 to correct a statement a member has attributed to him is simply not in order.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD: On the point of order, even though the statement was false and the minister knew it?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, if at any time a member feels a statement is unparliamentary, he

[ Page 2374 ]

may rise to request a correction. But simply to rise on a statement that one member feels is contrary to his feeling is not in order under standing order 42. We have covered this thoroughly, and I thought that all hon. members fully understood it.

I call on the House Leader.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We'll get to the people's business yet today. I suppose the hon. House Leader on the other side (Mr. Howard) would like to rise on a point of order on that.

Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 5.

SPECIAL PURPOSE
APPROPRIATION ACT, 1980
(continued)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Cowichan-Malahat.

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You adjourned debate.

MRS. WALLACE: I have spoken on two occasions on this bill. I adjourned the debate at one point and then I spoke a second time when the bill was called again. I am quite happy to speak again if you so desire, but I wouldn't want to breach the rules of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: For the information of the member, the member has six minutes remaining in the allotted time.

MRS. WALLACE: When I spoke in the first instance, Mr. Speaker, I dealt with some of the points in the bill, and you will remember that at that time I was very concerned about some of the priorities that had been placed on that bill. I had indicated that I was concerned that there was apparently no concern on the part of the government to involve itself in some of the problems that were facing the agricultural industry. I felt that the items listed in that bill could well have been used to aid some of those problems in the Fraser Valley.

When I spoke the second time I reiterated those points very briefly, and I indicated that I wanted to deal with some of the amounts of money that were involved in the bill, which had included very small amounts of money that were very small percentages of the total estimates of the given members who were receiving those amounts of dollars. At that time I had the figures, and if you peruse Hansard you will see that I included in my remarks then the amount of money that was being voted to each particular minister under this bill.

Certainly I indicated that the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) was getting an amount that was a very small portion of his total estimates. Not only that, but nearly a like sum of overexpenditure in the preceding years for science, technology and education similarly combined had been made to that minister under special warrant. It seemed that this year we were departing from the normal procedure of covering the costs of any ministry under his or her estimates. We were having a special bill for a very small amount of money presented in all probability for a political advantage. It was either for a political advantage, Mr. Speaker, or for the reason of very poor budgeting of the amount of money a minister was going to require. It would seem that the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), for example, Mr. Speaker, this year requires a special appropriation over and above his total budget, which is very extensive. When you add the two together it is in excess of $103 million. Yet last year that same minister over-expended his budget by an amount of nearly $200 million.

There is no consistency here in the way this is being handled. Last year we had special warrants in an amount of $285 million and yet this year we are being presented with a bill of $168 million for some extra expenditures that should have been included in the original estimates. There is no rhyme or reason to the way in which this is being handled.

It would seem that the government is giving to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) the rights that really should be discussed under the estimates of the various ministers, because these particular items in this bill are related to the responsibility of several ministers in that cabinet rather than to the Minister of Finance. It's not in the best interest of democracy or the procedures in this House to include in a finance bill items that are more properly discussed with the Minister of Transportation and Highways, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, and the various other ministers involved here.

It's sloppy budgeting to say the least. It is in effect, as I said earlier, a third supplement to the budget. It has given the Minister of Finance an opportunity to get up and present three budgets in this House. I've no objection to the first budget, because under those items that are included in that first budget we then go into estimates, and under estimates we deal with the ministers who are responsible for any given appropriation. But in these cases we have no opportunity to question the specific ministers or to deal with those particular items in detail. Instead, we're dealing with a sort of dog's breakfast of unrelated items and very small quantities of money in relation to the total amounts of money that are allocated to those ministers.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, this is an unnecessary bill. It shouldn't be a bill at all. You don't need bills to do this kind of thing. It's simply delaying. If you want to talk about delaying the processes of this House, these kinds of bills are the things that delay those processes.

If that government were on its toes and knew what it was doing as far as its finances were concerned, it would have had this money included in the first budget that was presented to this House. If perchance there was some small item that was forgotten, it would be covered by a special warrant. There was certainly no concern last year about covering an all-time record overexpenditure with special warrants. I would suggest that this bill, and its companion bill, Bill 7, and the total estimates in budget are not going to preclude that same thing happening this time round. We're still going to have special warrants from this government, because they don't know how much money they're getting in and they don't know how much they're expending.

They're either doing it purposely, in order to have these political bills presented on the floor of the House in hopes of gaining Brownie points for themselves, or else they are so inept that they can't figure it out ahead of time and include it all in the original budget. It's a political bill, a political gimmick. It's either that, or else it's ineptitude. Perhaps it's

[ Page 2375 ]

both. I'm inclined to think it's both, Mr. Speaker, and I'm certainly opposed to this bill.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Could I just have leave of the House to make a couple of special introductions?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We're honoured today to have sitting in the gallery opposite you the Hon. Jai Ram Reddy, who is a Member of Parliament and leader of the National Federation Party of Fiji. Mr. Reddy is presently a guest of the United States government, participating in the International Visitor Program. He comes to us with another friend who is accompanying him today. I'm told that Mr. Reddy has some very special interests in his own country with regard to race relations and the promotion of minority rights. I would like this House to make him very welcome today.

With Mr. Reddy is a person who is familiar and friendly to all of us, as he is friendly to the people of the Fijian islands. I don't know whether to introduce him as one person, or three, or several persons. Some of us know him as Rob Ironside; the older ones of you know him as Perry Mason. He is a New Westminster native who has made his mark on the international entertainment scene, and we're all very proud of Raymond Burr. I have one further comment, Mr. Speaker.  That's not Della Street sitting up there with him; that's my secretary, Dorothy Ross-Jones.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: As Minister of Tourism, I would also like to welcome our distinguished guests and suggest to Mr. Burr that, as he knows, British Columbia does have many famous tourists. But you're our most famous today, and we're delighted to have you here.

I would also add, being somewhat familiar with your interest in the business community in British Columbia, that this debate must distress Mr. Burr greatly. He's a man of accountability and integrity, a man who understands business and the need for responsible management. Quite obviously the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) can't grasp this, nor the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) and the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) — in fact, none of the members over there. We have witnessed in this House....

Interjections.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: And then there's that little tourist from.... Where are you from? It's the little tourist from Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), who visits periodically, I understand.

Mr. Speaker, we've been treated, if I might very kindly use that word during the debate on Bill 5, along with one or two other special bills in this House, to the most unbelievable display of lack of knowledge — to be charitable — from the members of the opposition. It's quite obvious they have simply no understanding (a) of their own functions when they were government, or (b) of fiscal management within a province.

We've heard the description of the setting aside of special revenues for the citizens of this province, for special projects which not only help people enjoy better highways, help us move into scientific advancement, help us aid senior citizens with recreational facility programs, in any number of ways enriching people's lives, but also create jobs for our own citizens and to create a secondary cash-flow. The attitude of this government in being able to set aside funds for Bill 5, as well as others, is an attitude which simply cannot be understood by them, and certainly has not been emulated by any other province in Canada, with the exception of Alberta.

We should be shouting for joy. That opposition, instead of being gloomy and doomy, negative, typical socialists and wallowing in what could only be charitably described as their own ill-gotten thoughts, should be commending this government and should be very proud that this government is the only government in Canada, except Alberta, which is able to make special appropriations of funds. Every other government in Canada, including the federal government, is running deficit budgets this year, to the detriment of our country and to the detriment of their own province.

This has been acknowledged across Canada by financial editors, people of public affairs and the financial community. It is acknowledged in British Columbia by our own citizens. The only people who don't seem to understand are the members of the opposition, who would rather stonewall the business of the people, who don't want to get down to debating serious issues and who would rather try to revel in mistruths and things that they suggest are facts, which don't exist, than to speak with direction on the content of this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the word " mistruth," while not familiar to the Chair....

HON. MRS. JORDAN: It's probably not familiar to the dictionary, either, Mr. Speaker. I'll withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask that possibly the member withdraw the word, as it certainly has an unparliamentary connotation. The member would assist if she would so withdraw.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate your comments, Mr. Speaker. If I coined a new phrase, it's perhaps because the debate from the opposition, as we have seen it in this House, has certainly been a new introduction to this House and is not a credit to the honour or traditions of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member make the withdrawal for the record?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw.

The hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat and the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke have repeatedly stressed that this bill represents mismanagement of funds — I believe they call it piddling amounts of money. "It shows an inability to budget. It's a political bill. It's taking political advantage. It's against the best interests of the people."

In fact the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke suggested that it was overtaxation. After he accused the government of overtaxation he then proceeded to advise the House that it wasn't really overtaxation, but that he just didn't like the way we were spending the money. He suggested that we should in fact be assisting small business — and he's quite right — but I let him know that it's another bill and other parts of the budget of this House which address improvement and assistance to small business. He suggested that he would have used some of these piddling amounts for assistance to the forest industry; I believe he mentioned silviculture. Let the record

[ Page 2376 ]

show that the special appropriations in this bill are broader in scope, but in other bills and in other parts of the budget before this House special funds are being given to the forest industry. And there are special funds for the advancement of a silviculture program such as Canada has not seen before.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke also suggested that he would have no part of this type of budgeting. But I would remind all those members, Mr. Speaker, that the record shows differently. While today and in previous days of debate on this bill and on other bills of similar appropriations, developed through management, developed through the accountability of this government and through the hard work of the people of this province, they have suggested that they would take no part in such actions.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that not only are their statements in this House irrelevant in terms of constructive use of these funds and contradictory in terms of the fact that they can't make up their minds whether they are piddling amounts, overtaxation or misuse, but that those members, when they were in government, also saw fit to use a special appropriation of funds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MRS. JORDAN: In fact, I would like to remind the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, who was then the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, that before he became a minister of the Crown and sat in opposition he voted at that time, albeit most of his members didn't, for a special appropriation of funds for special products in this project. This is the member, I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, who accused this government of overtaxation and piddling amounts and then couldn't make up his mind whether to use it for something else. When this member was a minister of the cabinet the NDP government in 1975, I believe — chapter 72: Special Funds Appropriation....

AN HON. MEMBER: What was that again?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: The Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1975. The record will show, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke not only was part of the cabinet that introduced that act and believed in that system which was initially started by the previous Social Credit government, but he voted for it. But that is not the only time....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Is it like this bill?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Very much like this bill, Mr. Finance Minister — in fact I would suggest it was the same. The only difference between these two bills is that at that time that cabinet and that government were not spending funds which in fact had been brought about and husbanded through sound management and responsible taxation. They were spending funds that had been achieved through another government's administration and administrative ability.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Well, I'll tell you what's in them. Would you like to know what was in the one that's called the Special Funds Appropriation Act? This one is not 1975; this one is 1974.

AN HON. MEMBER: Another one!

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Yes, another one, when they had more money. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, the bill in 1974 is considerably longer than the one in 1975, because the surplus funds built up by the people of British Columbia and the Social Credit government and sound management were still there. In fact, the former Minister of Forests, Mr. Bob Williams, was heard by two councilmen from the Okanagan Valley to have said on a plane that he was astonished when he got into government that there was so much extra money, and that as a cabinet they just didn't know what to do with it all. He said: "We have nothing to do but spend, spend, spend."

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us what's in it.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Well, I'll tell you what's in the bill. It seems that in 1974 they allowed special funds for recreational facilities — very interesting; special funds for the British Columbia Cultural Fund; special funds for the British Columbia Medical Centre Fund. One might have supposed that that might have been under the Minister of Health's appropriations, wouldn't you, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, let the record show that in fact what we are hearing today is not only an inability to understand responsible financial management but an inability to deal with the facts as they exist in the records of this Legislature.

I would like to bring two other facts before this House. A number of members that I have addressed have also implied that this was — what were their words? — underhanded management of money. I think somebody said "sneaky"; there are any number of words that they used: political advantage, poor budgeting....

May I remind this House that in 1974, when the NDP government was bringing in a Special Funds Appropriation Act in which they allotted special funds, they all but set a precedent in this House when in the same year, under the Statute Law Amendment Act, 1974, section 6 (c), they said by striking out the words "1,750 million dollars" and substituting the words "2,250 million dollars" they were in fact extending the borrowing powers of B.C. Hydro. Up until that time, for many years under the Social Credit administration, B.C. Hydro borrowing had been brought before this House openly and frankly and with its own bill where there could be open and frank discussion. What was even more interesting, in light of the words spoken in this particular parliament about our special appropriation funds act for 1980 is that this particular section of the Statute Law Amendment Act, 1974, which tried to push through borrowings for B.C. Hydro without knowledge of this legislature, was at the same time the first time that Hydro had gone offshore for its borrowings. That too, Mr. Speaker, was revealed to be an action of that government of trying to hide their actions in relation to Hydro.

I would suggest that the Special Funds Appropriation Acts of 1974 and 1975 and the Statute Law Amendment Act, 1974, section 6 (c), make a complete mockery of any statements that have been made by members of the opposition in any of these debates relating to our funds. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this also lends to the concerns of the people of this province, who are growing more and more wary about the irresponsible, unsupported statements that have been made by the NDP during this session, the obvious

[ Page 2377 ]

attempts to assassinate people's character and to be negative and to try to destroy this parliament.

But back to the bill, I would also remind those members and ask them how they are going to vote, because the records of the House show that on March 15, 1974, under the then-NDP Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1974, in a division of this House the members of the Social Credit Party voted, in fact, for the good things that were in that bill. They voted for assistance to the Cultural Fund. They voted for assistance to recreational facilities. The Social Credit members voted for the Provincial Home Acquisition Act. The records of this House prove that Social Credit members in opposition acted in a very positive and constructive way for the best interests of the people of this province.

I would ask the members across the way, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) and the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), the former Minister of Education: just where are you going to stand when the vote is taken on Bill 5? With all the words we have heard, with all the division of ideas, trying to be negative rather than constructive, with the words that have lent great hollowness to their platitudes to the people of British Columbia and to their false claims that they are in fact interested in the welfare of this province, are those members going to vote against the hundred million dollars to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) for accelerated highway construction? Are you, Mr. Member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, going to vote against $5 million to the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development to pay to the British Columbia Development Corporation for the purpose of low-interest loan assistance to small businesses in the metropolitan areas of Vancouver?

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, you're right. Perhaps we should do that. Perhaps we should tell the public what they've been doing.

Are you going to vote against $3.5 million to the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications for the purpose of providing grants to the Science Council of British Columbia to support applied research at our universities in British Columbia? I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if those members are going to vote against $5 million to the Provincial Secretary, the Minister of Government Services, for an accelerated recreational facilities program.

Tell us, members. How are you going to vote and how are you going to rationalize your position in this House with the position that you took in 1971 and 1972, and then the opposite position that you took in 1973, 1974 and 1975, and now the split position that you're taking in 1980? Are you going to vote against $6.5 million to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing for accelerated park development?

HON. MR. HEWITT: They don't understand.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Well, if they don't understand, then more is the pity, but if there is another reason, of course, we will just have to tell the people.

Is the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke going to vote against $4.5 million for the Minister of Labour for a youth employment and training program to assist young people in their permanent entry into the labour market, just after he's told this House that this government is doing nothing for youth employment, or another $1 million for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing for the purpose of an accelerated construction program of senior citizens' housing?

The legal and documented record of this House speaks louder than any words that we can hear from the opposition. It is those actions and those records that the public of British Columbia will use to adjudicate the integrity, the dedication and the sincerity of the members of the opposition in this parliament.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. KING: First of all, I wanted to add the welcome of the opposition to the distinguished guests who are visiting British Columbia: Mr. Reddy from Fiji, and Mr. Raymond Burr, who is a very talented and well-known native British Columbian. At the same time, perhaps I can be forgiven if I congratulate the minister who introduced Mr. Burr and say that it's good to see that there are no hard feelings between Perry Mason and Hamilton Berger, and that despite all their conflicts they are still willing to greet each other when Mr. Burr visits the province of British Columbia.

The Minister of Tourism — I think — with her usual great sophistication, tried to use the distinguished visitor to take a shot or two at the opposition. I'm not sure that that's the way she's going to promote tourism in the province of British Columbia, but perhaps if she starts getting paid for her job as a minister she will start to improve her appeal to the tourists of the province and the world.

Mr. Speaker, I kind of got a kick out of the Minister of Tourism berating me particularly. I started to feel really aggrieved and singled out in this Legislature for the terrible things I had said about the bill now before the House. The irony of it all is that I have never said a word on this bill up to this point. This is the first opportunity I've had to make any comments on this bill, and the minister spent half of her time attacking me for the terrible things I'd said about the bill — that negative opposition. Now we know, Mr. Speaker, why the Premier won't pay her a ministerial salary.

But I'm a very compassionate man; I'm full of good will. Since the minister from North Okanagan is geographically a neighbour of mine, I'm thinking about an amendment to this wonderful bill that she talks about, a special funds appropriation act retroactively applied to pay the Minister of Tourism and recognize her as a minister of the government. Maybe that's what we should do; maybe it would improve her humour if we were to amend the bill to provide for some salary for the minister.

We are asked to blindly embrace all the provisions of this bill — just the allocation of funds, no identification of programs, nothing about how they're going to be delivered. We're asked to do all that, and we're called destructive and irresponsible if we do not. But, Mr. Speaker, how can we really trust a government which can't even count the number of ministers in its own cabinet? How can we be expected to endorse blank cheques amounting to millions of dollars when we can’t even trust this gang over there to read the Constitution Act and find that they're restricted to 19 ministers in the executive council rather than 20? Some managers, some financial wizards! I want to bet....

Interjection.

MR. KING: Aren't they beautiful, Mr. Speaker? Aren't

[ Page 2378 ]

they lovely? I want to tell you that there is only one reason Moody's gave them an AAA rating. They heard about the money they were saving on the Minister of Tourism's salary. That's what it was. What a bunch! Great managers!

The minister without salary happens to be a neighbour of mine — a kindly person, I thought. Here she attacks me in a vicious fashion for words I have yet to utter. She is great at anticipation, Mr. Speaker, but I want to tell you I am getting a little bit afraid. I hope that minister doesn't decide to attack me like the minister from Kamloops does. That man loses control completely and I fear for my physical security with him around.

HON. MR. MAIR: Come outside and say that!

MR. KING: Listen to him. There he goes intimidating me again, just because I am a small member, Mr. Speaker. That man has lost control of himself. He might be a good leadership candidate, if he could only keep control of himself. But he's got a very vicious temper, and I don't trust him. I give him a wide berth. The Minister of Tourism might be bit more dangerous if she could ever get her sights fixed on a target that was an appropriate one.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Ah, they're a lovely lot, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. KING: I think I'll be voting against it.

Interjection.

MR. KING: That's a better speech than she made last time, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say that yes, indeed, we appropriated some special funds too. We appropriated some special funds on a continuing basis for the first time to provide the municipalities of the province of British Columbia with a continuing share in the resources of this province. We provided them with a secure income, not one that could be manipulated, changed and down-graded at the political whim of the government each year. We made an ongoing commitment that the resource revenue of this province would be shared with the municipalities. This current government, to their credit, have carried it on. It is an excellent program and it provides a secure source of budgeting to the municipal agencies throughout the length and breadth of the province.

Interjection.

MR. KING: No. I would be happy to adjourn, because I expect that most of us on the opposition side have suffered enough cat-calls, threats and intimidation from....

Interjection.

MR. KING: No, we're in a great mood.

I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MRS. WALLACE: I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave not granted.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:52 p.m.