1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 1980

Night Sitting

[ Page

1277 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Speech from the Throne.

On the amendment.

Hon. Mrs. Jordan –– 1277

Mr. Barber –– 1277

Mr. Hyndman –– 1283

Mr. Leggatt –– 1286

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 1980

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, before dinner I was discussing the legacies

that will be left to the people of this province by the two leaders in the province

today, and by the challenge to the leadership that's being issued through the

NDP in this historic amendment, when he's just getting started and has already

left the people the legacy of practicality for today and a golden ticket to

the future. I was referring specifically at this time to British Columbia Place

and the imaginative and very productive future that it offers us — and

the challenge, Mr. Speaker, because the government isn't giving anything away.

They have laid the groundwork, they have put their cards on the table and they

have challenged the private sector, both in Victoria and in Vancouver, to do

their part so that we work as a team — the people of British Columbia,

the business community of these areas and this government — to build for

the future.

When we talk of legacies I would ask: what has that side of the

House said in this debate, challenging our Premier's leadership, that

has in any way been constructive to tourism in British Columbia? I feel

sad to say that I hear nothing but carping, nothing but negative

comments, nothing but a determined effort to try to circulate distrust,

fear and misinformation to the business community and to the public.

They're not even consistent. You go to the north and you say one

thing, and you come down to the lower mainland and say another thing.

And none of it is true — forked tongue. You should hang your heads in

shame, because the disservice in this amendment is to the Legislature

and the history of this parliament, and to the people of British

Columbia.

The Speech from the Throne, which they are attempting to amend,

makes it very clear that in aiming to have tourism adopted as one of

the five basic resources of this province, to be husbanded and managed

with care for the future for our people and our guests, this government

makes it very clear that all people will be welcome to British

Columbia, and that they will be welcome to share in those benefits that

we share and to contribute, as we contribute to developing those

benefits and maintaining them in perpetuity, not just for the hosts and

the guests of this province today, but for our children and their

children in the future.

Lycurgus the legislator stated more than two thousand years ago —

which is even before the honourable motion which is being so disgraced

today — that a wall made of men is more solid than a wall made of

stone. This side of the House is building a wall of men; it is building

a wall of leadership, under our Premier; and it is building a future

for us.

If you want to challenge that, I would just give you a few more

facts on tourism that will interest you. It is British Columbia's

third-largest industry. These revenues totalled $1.69 billion in 1979,

and are expected to top $2 billion in 1980-81. These revenues are 6

percent of our gross provincial product. We are the fourth-largest

earner of foreign exchange in British Columbia, after fabricated

materials, crude materials and edible products. The visitors to this

province spent $425 million in 1979. B.C. residents — our own people —

spent $930 million visiting each other in British Columbia, to get to

know each other better, to strengthen our understanding of each other

in the province, and to make our life richer in employment. There are

10,000 businesses in British Columbia which receive tourism revenues

directly, and 60,000 people are directly or indirectly employed in the

tourist industry in British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon.

Mr. Gardom) says that it's more than that; and I'll be glad to try and prove

it to him over the next few months.

We see a tax benefit in 1979 estimated at $106 million, or over $39

for every adult and child in this province — all from learning more

about each other, all from expanding our cultural direction and our

recreational direction, and all just having fun in this beautiful

province.

I can't accept the motion, Mr. Speaker, for all the reasons given. I

have to again express my personal disappointment. And I don't feel that

I have any corner on being virtuous or in capability in this

Legislature, or even in honouring the history of this great parliament.

But I do think that, with my frailties and the shock I felt at the use

of this historic amendment by the member who used it — and so enhanced

the degradation of that amendment by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke

(Mr. King) — this province is poorer for the conduct of the opposition

in this House, and specifically for the conduct of some among its

members, and its lack of leadership. They have proved in this debate,

when we should be debating the legislation and the future of this

province, that their leadership offers them no greater avenue than

character assassination, innuendo and — I hate to say it — muck-raking.

I don't support this amendment because, Mr. Speaker, through you to the

Leader of the Opposition, your party has no plan. You have no

confidence. You have no policies, and you have no leadership.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to introduce two good

friends of British Columbia. The guests this evening are two linguists

who have worked for about the last 10 or 12 years doing what they can

to preserve the Indian languages of this province. Unfortunately there

are not more people who are able to do this important work. I would

like the House to join me in welcoming Randy Bouchard and Dorothy

Kennedy.

MR. BARBER: Following the speech of the new Minister of

Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), the comment of my colleague for

Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) makes good sense. He cracked quickly:

"Now you see why we can't sell Hansard

in British Columbia." "Enhanced the degradation." What on earth does

"enhanced the degradation" mean? Is it any wonder that the people of

British Columbia have remarkable difficulty following the policies,

such as they are, of that administration?

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to name a few names. I wonder if you recognize them;

I wonder if you can find what these several names have in common. I'd appreciate

your advice, Mr. Speaker. You tell me what they have in common: Jack Kelly,

Ellen McKay, Bob Husband, Susan Cowan, Penny Lifton, Ron Grieg, George Lenko

and Dan Campbell. What

[ Page 1278 ]

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

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

We discover, of course, that they're all Socreds, or at least they

were. We discover, of course, that they've all been on the public

payroll at one time or another, some of them for much of their lives.

We discover as well that they are all supporters of the Premier, or at

least they were. And we discover most particularly that every single

one of them is the beneficiary of the very special leadership that only

this Premier provides politically in British Columbia.

Jack Kelly, Ellen McKay, Bob Husband, Susan Cowan, Penny Lifton, Ron

Grieg, George Lenko, Dan Campbell — they have in common some very

interesting relationships with the Premier of British Columbia. They

are in a special fashion victims of this Premier. They are the victims

of his particular standards, of his instructions, of his compliance and

of his special sense of political ethics. After all, people who work as

intimately as did these with the political leader of this province

surely pick up something, intuit something or another of his style, his

expectation, his wishes, his political interests. People who operate at

this level don't operate in any vacuum at all. Anyone active in

political life in British Columbia knows that. The staff intimately

involved, as were these, in the life of any political party come to

reflect, to illustrate, to intuit and sense, and finally, to state in

their own action, in their own behaviour, what the leadership of their

political party believes in and cares about.

Colleagues earlier, on this side of the House, have pointed out

quite clearly that those people are, at the very least, victims of a

code of political ethic in this province which has found it necessary

to sacrifice them at their level, in order not to sacrifice others at a

higher level. They cannot possibly be in any dispute at all. Why else

did Dan Campbell go?

Why was Dan Campbell asked to go? Who did he work for? In whose

interest was it to dismiss him so that the interest of the people of

British Columbia might be dismissed from looking at the real target,

the real centre, the real home of political leadership in this

province? What other reason could there be that someone like George

Lenko would disappear from political life? As far as one can tell, his

whole life is political life. He's devoted it, no doubt, with total

loyalty to the Deputy Premier. Whose interest was served by his being

given the bounce? Whose interest was served by his absence and his

dismissal, preceding the absence and dismissal of maybe someone else,

maybe higher?

When you look at those names and you discover what they have in

common, over and over again you come to the conclusion that, at the

very least, they have in common this: they were all subservient to the

political leadership of the Social Credit Party; they all worked in the

office of the leader of that party, or his research team; they all had

direct access to highly confidential information about the political

tactics of Social Credit. And sure enough, one by one, Jack Kelly,

Ellen McKay, Bob Husband, Susan Cowan, Penny Lifton, Ron Grieg, George

Lenko and Dan Campbell were made to disappear from the political life

of this province.

It may well be that some of them are absolutely innocent victims of

the defence strategy of Social Credit. It may be that some of these

people are genuinely innocent of any political wrongdoing whatever.

That may well be. But we will never know that, because of the conduct

of that Premier, because of the way he has handled this scandal,

because of the refusal of that government to be frank and open and

blunt. We will never know.

Penny Lifton — do you remember the name? The member for Omineca (Mr.

Kempf) might; he fired her. Do you remember the name even now, and how

you treated her? Is it possible that she herself is utterly innocent in

the whole matter, except that, through the guilt by association which

has riddled that government and all who have dealt with the highest

political leadership of it, she had to be sacrificed to protect someone

else? We will never know why she or the others were given the bounce,

although in the cases of a few of them we can most certainly suspect.

These eight people, clearly, have been sacrificed to protect someone

else. There is no other sense to it. There is no other reason for it.

We can find no other explanation. Were there an explanation that was

honourable, the government would have made it. Were there an

explanation that made sense, the government would have offered it by

now. There would be no need for conjecture tonight about why these

people were dismissed. Were the government honourable and honest in the

whole dealing, they would have told us repeatedly, and there would be

no need to pursue the question. But the wilful refusal of this

government to be honest with the people of British Columbia means that

these eight people, by design, or by some misfortune not of their own

doing, are the victims of the political leadership that we are now

debating in this amendment.

Let's talk about the principal political leader. Most people would

agree, would they not, that, regardless of the party in power at any

given time, the person who heads it, at the very least, is expected to

be honest and candid about his intentions, about his policies, about

his own conduct in office? How then do you reconcile that reasonable

expectation with the behaviour of this Premier? On May 28, 1975, he

wrote a letter on his own letterhead as leader of the official

opposition. The letter was directed to the president and regional

directors of the Social Credit Party. This letter and its authenticity

have not, to this hour, been challenged by the Premier. We presume it

is in fact a valid document. We presume it's his signature we see at

the bottom of it. He hasn't challenged it, and we see no reason to. On

May 28, 1975, he said, when he thought no one would find out he was

saying it:

"We hope that all constituencies will be gearing up a

massive letter-writing campaign, both in their own area and outside of

it. Some material which can be used in communicating letters to the

editor will go on 'Do you know' sheets and some will be going through

to you on 'Say it isn't so.' The first of the 'Say it isn't so' has

already been sent to you.

"For the convenience of your letter-writing team, the

address sheets for the media are enclosed for your distribution and

their convenience.

W.R. Bennett,

Office of the Leader of the Opposition."

This letter is now a matter of public record. No one challenges its

authenticity — they wouldn't dare — but we do challenge the Premier to

tell us how it was that in September this year, the 27th, to be

precise, he went on to say he was disturbed by reports that a caucus

employee had "raised the spectre of encouraging our party to write

letters to the editor that would not be a normal reflection of a

person's thinking,

[ Page 1279 ]

but would be manipulative," and he went on to

insist, as if anyone might believe him: "I want to say this is not the

way in which I want our party members to be encouraged, and I don't

condone the suggestion, nor will it become the practice of our party."

Now when he said that on September 27 last year, he didn't know that

the letters he wrote in May 1975 might ever become public. So he said

one thing in September 1979, but we know he said quite a different

thing in May 1975.

Now whom are we to believe? Whom are you to believe when the pathetic defence,

especially of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) during his lamentable speech,

would have us believe that we are dealing with a perfectly honest and endlessly

candid Premier, and then we see this stuff? I'm not going to be unparliamentary;

I won't say anyone fibbed. I sure will point out, though, that there is an extraordinary

conflict which any honest person would acknowledge between what the Premier

claimed was his position in September last year and what we know his position

was in May 1975. "For the convenience of your letter-writing team, the

address sheets for the media are enclosed," he said in 1975 when he hoped

no one would look; and in 1979, when he still thought no one was looking, he

said: "I want to say this is not the way in which I want our party members

to be encouraged, and I don't condone the suggestion, nor will it become the

practice of our party." On which occasion, then, was he telling the truth?

One doesn't hear a lot of members opposite leaping to his defence right now.

They should, of course, be embarrassed by the fact that their Premier has been

caught out, he's been found out, he's been exposed for what a lot of people

have known him to be for some time.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: A great leader!

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

My colleagues have pointed out repeatedly that we can't discuss, we

can't debate, we can't examine the leadership of this party separate

from the whole political leadership provided by Social Credit since

1952. The party of Robert Sommers, Robert Bonner and Phil Gaglardi has

always had some trouble with political ethics. This party has always

had advisers to the Premier, it would appear, who engaged in the

forgery of letters. Was it just people in the Premier's office this

term who were forging the signatures of people like Gordon Townsend?

Well, no. Was it just people like Arthur Weeks, another adviser to this

Premier, who was busy forging signatures? No, it wasn't just him

either. It wasn't just the forger of the Townsend letters, nor was it

just Arthur Weeks, the forger of the cheques, the adviser to the

Premier, the adviser to the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). No, in the political history of this

province it goes back even further.

I want to read to you, very briefly, from a remarkable editorial

that parallels the precedent; it's really quite extraordinary. Once

again, we're dealing with a Premier whose surname was that of this

Premier. Once again, a man committed a forgery; once again, the attempt

to separate that leadership from that act seems stunningly similar to

the pathetic attempt of the government to separate their leadership

from the dirty tricks. Look at the parallel; listen as carefully as you

care to to part of the history of the political leadership of Social

Credit in this province. On the Vancouver Province editorial page, Saturday, June 12, 1965, there was an editorial called "The Pall Guy," dealing with another Socred forger:

"During the past few days British Columbians have had

a stark and ugly glimpse of the sordid dog-eat-dog politics behind the

lily white window dressing of the Social Credit Party. Al Williamson,

one of the party's veteran back-room boys, influence broker and speech

writer, has gone to jail for forging the now notorious "Dear Hal"

affair. While he was in court fighting to save himself from ruin,

members of the party for whom he had laboured so assiduously looked

studiously in the other direction."

Get this!

"Premier Bennett, chief beneficiary of Williamson's

unremitting diligence in polishing up the Socred image on the

government's front door, was away in Japan when he could have made it

his business to be at the trial. Whether calculated or not, reports

reaching Vancouver of his doings and of the benefits which will accrue

to B.C. from new trade with Japan helped draw some attention away from

the government's involvement in the 'Dear Hal' affair.'' The editorial

goes on to note:

"Justice P. Craig Munroe mentioned the unexplained

failure of the Crown to call Mr. Bennett as a witness, which might

indicate that his testimony could have been favourable to the accused.

But no, the Premier who makes a point of personal purity turned his

back on an opportunity to offer an explanation that might have helped a

faithful friend."

Forgery is not unknown among the supporters of Social Credit. I

wouldn't argue that every member of the Social Credit Party is a forger

— not at all. Many of them are very honest and very fine people; they

work hard, they work with loyalty, they work with conviction and high

principle. They've never changed parties. They've believed consistently

and honourably in the things for which they think their party stands.

No one here condemns every member of the Social Credit Party — it's

unfair. But it is reasonable to wonder why it is that such a

disproportionate number of people who engage in this sleazy kind of

business have always been politically associated with the leadership of

that party in this province. Now is it totally a coincidence? Is it

nothing but coincidence after coincidence after coincidence? The

similarities between this and the unfortunate events that surrounded Al

Williamson and another Premier Bennett are really pretty startling.

Let's talk a bit more about the political leadership of this

province. The Premier cannot have it both ways, as he has learned to

his considerable embarrassment in the last six months. He can't tell us

one thing in September and do another thing in 1975 and hope we never

find out about it.

The political leadership of this province has provided the

instructions and created the atmosphere for the whole dirty tricks

thing; if they hadn't, it could not have occurred. Are they to have us

believe that they didn't know anything about what was happening in that

caucus office? Are they to have us believe that no one paid attention

to the instructions of the then Leader of the Opposition in 1975? Would

they have us believe that 170 tapes were never listened to by anyone?

Would they have us believe that no one knew about the attempts to

coerce and intimidate the candidates of the Conservative and Liberal

parties in the last two provincial elections? Would they have us

believe that the leadership of this

[ Page 1280 ]

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

Interjection.

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

Would they have us believe that the leadership of this party knew

nothing at all, by example, by activity, or by compliance with

instructions, about the whole dirty tricks thing since it began?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let's all restrain

ourselves while we listen to the speech. The first member for Victoria

has the floor.

MR. BARBER: What does the government do when it gets caught?

The Premier comes back from Japan, wears a silly red bandanna on his

head, grins and smirks and hopes to dance his way out of it. That's the

kind of responsible leadership that you're going to be supporting if

you oppose our amendment? Surely not. After he's grinned and smirked

and no one believes it, we then hear the grins, the smirks, the

cackling, of other guys from the same backrooms of Social Credit, who

try one by one to set up a fall-guy in the hope that that will satisfy

the interest of the press and the interest of the public; one by one

they discover it won't. So here we are tonight. They dismissed eight of

them. We wonder whether or not any more are coming down the pike.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who are the eight?

MR. BARBER: Do I have to read the names again? Maybe I

should. Jack Kelly, Ellen McKay, Bob Husband, Susan Cowan, Penny

Lifton, Ron Grieg, George Lenko and Dan Campbell — they are all the

victims of the political leadership that you tell us you admire, all

the victims of the Premier whom you tell us you support and who himself

didn't have the wit or the honour to be honest and say: "Okay, I erred

in '75 when I told people to write phoney-baloney letters, and I erred

again in '79 when I said I didn't know anything about it. I apologize."

Some honour would have gone a long way. But the problem you have

tonight is that you've denied the honour and the honesty for too long,

and you can't get away with it any more.

You have to ask whether or not at any point they thought they could

get away with it: the forgeries, the fake letters, the intimidation of

political candidates, the tapes, the phoney election expense

declarations. All of this is a matter of public record. Not one aspect

of it is denied by any member who has spoken yet. They deny their own

culpability, but they don't deny that the events occurred.

You might be interested in a story I heard a couple of months ago,

Mr. Speaker. At the then height of the scandal, someone told me: "You

know, after you guys got bumped again in May of '79, it was so close we

thought that the only thing that stood between you and forming the

government were two convictions and a heart attack. Well, we've changed

our opinion. Now it's just three convictions." Such is the respect with

which Social Credit is held in this province.

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) was for once perfectly

correct when he pointed a finger at those who were guilty of what he

called "cowardly, reprehensible and irresponsible behaviour."

Unfortunately this muckraking Attorney-General didn't go all the way

and wasn't prepared to define and describe the source of this cowardly,

reprehensible and irresponsible behaviour. Mr. Speaker, did the

advisers to His Honour really think, all these years, they would never

be found out? Did they really think they could keep it secret? Did they

really think no one would discover anything about the tapes, the

forgeries, the fakes, the phoney election expenses declarations, the

thousand dollar bills, the intimidation of candidates from the third

and fourth parties in this province? Did they really hope they could

get away with it all?

It's not just, however, those matters. Let me restate, as I did, I

guess, nine months ago in this House, the personal and very strong

offence I took at those disgusting references to national socialism

made by the Premier when he called the election. Once again the Premier

is caught between that rock and a hard place; he can't have it both

ways. Either the man is a hopeless dunce who doesn't know history and

didn't know what he was saying, didn't know what national socialism

meant, or he knew darned well what he was saying and said it in such a

fashion as to insult and degrade and humiliate the thousands of

democratic socialists in Canada and around the world who fought Nazism

whenever they could. They fought it in Spain, they fought it in Italy,

they fought it in Germany, they fought it in the theatres of Japan and

Europe; they are socialists and proud of it. To be insulted and slurred

by that Premier can only represent that the Premier knows nothing of

history and is intellectually unfit to serve, or that he knows nothing

of the implications of what he said, in which case he is unfit on

different grounds to serve. It was a revolting statement for which he's

never, even once, hinted at an apology. What kind of leadership is that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I would just remind

the hon. member that although the performance and the policy of all

hon. members is fair material for debate, we try to resist personal

attack. Please proceed.

MR. BARBER: I think that's fair advice, Mr. Speaker, and I

don't get angry a lot in this House. But I and a lot of others weren't

even born during the war. Nonetheless, because of the political culture

and tradition that I honour, I felt insulted by the lamentable comment

of that Premier. Mr. Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications, do you endorse what the Premier said, referring to this

group or any other as national socialists? Come on now.

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

[ Page 1281 ]

MR. BARBER: There are a number of reasons why this government

has lost some of the respect and some of the confidence that was

previously offered it by the people of British Columbia. It wasn't

simply that loathsome reference to national socialism; it's not just

the lies that were told about a secret police force; it's not just the

physical and economic intimidation of persons who wish to run for the

Conservative and Liberal parties. These things, those statements, that

behaviour, is the trademark of certain leaders of the Social Credit

Party in this province, and that's a matter of public record; no one

disputes it. Once again they deny responsibility, but they don't deny

it occurred.

In this House, Mr. Speaker, many members on our side know full well

what a number of members opposite have been saying behind the back of

the Premier for the last three months. Many of us here know what some

of them have been saying as they struggle with the failing fortunes of

their government and their party. I'd be surprised if any of them had

the courage — and I would understand it; they have a political career

to conserve as well — to stand up in this House and say to the Premier

directly what they've been saying to others about him. But even some of

those guys, who are good politicians, who are shrewd and canny

political leaders, who've been, some of them, in several political

parties and are familiar with all brands of politics in this province,

know what political survival is all about. So I doubt they'll do it.

But I also doubt that they are very far off the mark when they talk

about the fact that the political leadership provided by the gentleman

who occupies the Premier's seat has in the last six months been

defective and inadequate, and — to say the least — has only hurt and

further diminished their image and their reputation with the people of

British Columbia. Of course they've lost public respect, of course

they've lost public confidence, and of course they've lost public

trust. Is there a single member opposite who defends the Premier's

wilful failure to vote in the last federal campaign? Is there one of

them who would tell his own children: "This is how you should behave.

Don't vote because you shouldn't be interested. What's one vote,

anyway"? Is there one of you who would say that?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would

like to say what I have been saying about our Premier — that I think he

is a great leader, that I think he has worked hard all his life, and he

hasn't lived off the backs of hard taxpayers in this country and got

money from Ottawa and never worked a day in his life. I'd like to tell

the people of this province how hard a worker he is.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I know that the

hon. minister would love to make a second speech. However, his

opportunity has been exhausted.

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

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

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

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARBER: Did I lose any time from my allotted 40? I just

want to sum up that particular argument by pointing out again that some

members of the coalition have, at least in private, been politically

acute and politically able enough to recognize the trouble they are in.

And, at least in private, they join with us in acknowledging that the

leadership of the current Premier in the last six months has been

hopelessly inadequate. It would be a fine thing if they stood up to say

so in public, but I guess it won't happen.

I want to talk now about what is, I think, one of the most dangerous

and one of the most genuinely subversive dirty tricks that any

government could ever pull — it is called gerrymandering. It uses the

whole authority of government, in a blunt and crude way, to be able to

predict in advance the successful outcome of its own election.

Gerrymandering is a notorious tradition in North America. It was named

after. I think, a Governor Elbridge Gerry of the New England states in

the United States of America, was it not? It has a famous history. But

in this province that government seems to have a difficult time

recognizing just what they did a couple of years ago, and just why it

is that tonight, and many nights after tonight, we will be returning

again and again to the theme of one of the most dangerous and difficult

of all the dirty tricks — the one they managed to do in public; the one

they were somehow so unashamed of that they actually introduced it in

the form of law and hoped they could get away with it. They almost

didn't, you know. In Saskatchewan Ross Thatcher thought he could — he

got dumped completely. They thought they could do it here and they

almost got dumped. The percentage vote and the seat results were

stunningly and dangerously close for that group.

Mr. Speaker, I would like you to use your imagination for a moment.

I would like you to construe something that never happened but, I

suppose, just might have — according to the theorists opposite. If I

use Christian names, it's to save a lot of time and not have to refer

to present and former so-and-so's. Let's imagine what would have

happened if, when Dave Barrett was the Premier in July of 1975, he

decided to appoint a royal commission on redistribution. He stands up

and he solemnly announces that he has appointed a one person commission

— one person who will do all of these things. He solemnly announces

that he has appointed, shall we say, Yvonne Cocke.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Mair) to withdraw a slanderous comment about a person who not only

is not in this House, but is deceased.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I did not hear the remark that

was made. Would the member identify the remark, and I will determine

whether or not it needs to be withdrawn.

MR. BARBER: The Minister of Health made a comment about the

late Justice Thomas Norris. He said, "Certainly he did" — referring to

Barrett — "he appointed an enemy of the Bennetts," clearly implying

that the man was not capable of being impartial, fair or reasonable.

It's a slanderous remark. He should withdraw and apologize.

[ Page 1282 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. We've had a

demonstration on both sides of the House, and the House is not

particularly bent toward order. I declare a recess. The House will

resume when I ring the bells.

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

The House resumed at 9:40 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall we proceed, please, hon. members. The

first member for Victoria has the floor, and he has nine minutes

remaining in his assigned time.

MR. BARBER: If the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) has any

form of withdrawal or apology to make, I would be pleased to yield for

the moment he makes it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MR. BARBER: What I was trying to talk about, Mr. Speaker, was

the kind of political leadership we've seen in this province with

regard to the extraordinarily delicate and sensitive matter of

electoral redistribution. What I was saying before being interrupted by

the Minister of Health was: imagine the furor that would have resulted

if Premier David Barrett had appointed, say, Yvonne Cocke to head an

electoral commission. Yvonne is a marvellous woman, a splendid

organizer for our party, hopelessly biased in favour of our party and,

of course, David Barrett would never appoint her or anyone like her to

such a sensitive position. But rather his style of political leadership

saw that he would appoint not one person but three. He would appoint

three people of — I think, in the opinion of most; it should be the

opinion of all — impeccable integrity, impeccable honesty and

commanding the respect, I think, of almost every British Columbian.

Well, in fact, our political leader didn't appoint, shall we say,

Yvonne Cocke or our equivalent — he would do no such thing to degrade

the political process in this province. He appointed the late Justice

Thomas Norris, an enormously respected barrister in this province; he

appointed Professor Frederick Bowers of the University of British

Columbia; and he appointed the then Deputy Provincial Secretary Lawrie

Wallace. Would anyone care to attack Lawrie Wallace's integrity? I

thought not.

We are all aware, Mr. Speaker, of who the government appointed to a

one-man commission; we are all aware of the outcome of that commission.

We are aware that as a result of this government's legislation, three

New Democrat MLAs were pushed out of electoral existence. But, of

course, they returned because the people have a better sense of fair

play than the government does, and they knew something unfair when they

saw it. The government created the marvel — I don't have time, I

gather, in this speech, but I'll certainly do it in my very next — of

what has become colloquially known as "Gracie's finger."

Now we don't know how that got in the report, and I wouldn't blame

any one individual nor any one judge. I'm sure that other factors were

present, but I do have little maps here that I will be showing next

time, to point out as illustratively as I can for the members opposite

who might not have seen them the strange, strange result of electoral

redistribution under Social Credit, the very peculiar notion they seem

to have of how to divide up boundaries in Vancouver city. Now I don't

know really how it happened, although we will be talking about it in

estimates yet to come.

Nonetheless, I think most fair-minded people would acknowledge that

the current Vancouver–Little Mountain boundary is, shall we say, a

curiosity that many people have commented upon and that will be

commented upon and examined much more closely in the time to come. It

should be pointed out as well that this odd little finger, this

peculiar appendage attached to the Point Grey end of Little Mountain

riding, just happened to vote 77 percent in favour of Social Credit in

the previous provincial election,

whereas the provincial average for

the whole riding of Little Mountain was 53 percent.

It should be noted as well that after this government appointed the

one-man commission to examine boundaries in British Columbia, it was

only then that we discovered that some time prior one Dan Campbell had

commissioned a report of Jack Kelly and Glen Mitchell and others. The

report was commissioned of the research staff of the Social Credit

caucus and it was — we're informed by Mr. Kelly chiefly — a

poll-by-poll study of the 1975 election results and an examination of

possible profitable electoral changes. The report was presented to Dan

Campbell on January 12, 1978. Peculiarly, that's nearly the date when

they appointed their one-man commission to start his work. Now maybe

it's just a coincidence. Maybe the fact that within their own research

operation they looked at all the poll results in British Columbia, and

after they had that information appointed a one-man commission, is a

coincidence. If the Minister of Health tells me it's a coincidence,

I'll almost believe him.

Interjection.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

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

MR. BARBER: Oh, come on, Rafe.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member who

has the floor to address the Chair, and I ask the hon. Minister of

Health, for the second time today, not to interrupt the man who has the

floor.

[ Page 1283 ]

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, for reasons which I

cannot explain, an interruption occurred and I no longer have time to

finish the whole of my remarks. So I will speak later about the other

peculiarities of redistribution under Social Credit.

I want to conclude by summing up what are for me compelling reasons

in favour of support of the amendment. Most hon. members opposite know

that their government is in trouble. Most of them have admitted in

private what we say in public. The quality of political leadership

shown by the Premier has been impaired; has been, to say the least,

unsuccessful; and has led them into further and further problems.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Name one name.

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

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

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

MR. BARBER: It is important to ask whether or not the

government believed that they would never get caught, that all of the

people engaged in the scandals and the tricks would never be found out,

that the letters written by the Premier when he was the Leader of the

Opposition in 1975 would never be published. One has to ask whether or

not they actually felt they could get away with it. The answer, clearly

and resoundingly in every corner of this province, is that they have

not gotten away with it. In fact, in the last six months the ability of

the party to govern has been significantly impaired. Their

preoccupation with the scandals is manifest, and the chaos, not just in

northern transportation, not just around the B.C. Place decision, not

just around the preparation of their legislative program for this year,

but around many other issues, is self-evident to anyone who looks at

the government's behaviour in the last few months.

So it's not just because of dirty tricks, but it's because, in fact,

they have not been governing for this last half-year. There has been no

effective leadership in this province, because, like another political

leader in another jurisdiction, they've been so caught up in trying to

protect themselves from the legitimate inquiries of the press, and the

legitimate criticisms of the public, that they have had no time to do

anything else but try to wash their skirts and keep clean of it. Well,

they've failed — it hasn't worked.

The amendment should pass not simply because the opposition has no

confidence and trust in the Premier — that's to be expected — but

because the people of British Columbia have also lost confidence and

trust in the Premier. That's why it should pass, and I pray it does.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, in opening my comments may I say

very strenuously I shall be voting against this amendment. But before

proceeding to the reasons for that vote, may I take this first chance

to extend and join in congratulations to the member for Delta (Mr.

Davidson) upon his unanimous election as Deputy Speaker by this

assembly.

In view of some of the tone of the last several days it becomes

clear that the Chair of this assembly is going to have to become

engaged in some forms of bridge-building in this chamber. I speak of

some new bridges of civility, and if those bridges are needed I suspect

the member for Delta is thoroughly well equipped to begin the task of

building them. So I join in congratulations to him.

If I could, Mr. Speaker, before I directly address the amendment,

I'd like to say a word or two about that small, exclusive, largely

unknown and most certainly misunderstood group known as the Whips of

this assembly. I refer to the Whips on both sides: on the government

side the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), the member for North Peace

River (Mr. Brummet), and I; and on the opposition side the member for

North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), whom I congratulate on becoming the new

opposition Whip, and the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who I gather

is his new deputy.

Because in the months ahead the five of us are going to have some

challenges in terms of the work we have to do, in maintaining some form

of progress within the assembly, I thought it might be instructive if I

reviewed with you, Mr. Speaker, some of the comments about the

functions of the Whip in the parliamentary process that have been made

from time to time by authorities and writers. These thoughts are well

known to those five of us who labour in these vineyards as Whips, but,

I suspect, not well known to the other 51 or 52 herein, and perhaps our

friends in other places.

The name "Whip," Mr. Speaker, comes from the old name "Whipper-in,"

which was used in the days of the first fox hunts, being the people who

whipped in the dogs. But as people probably don't appreciate, the

authorities hold that Whips hold positions, as I'm sure you'll agree,

of the utmost responsibility and influence.

As Disraeli said, Mr. Speaker, we Whips are required to have "a

consummate knowledge of human nature, the most amiable flexibility and

complete self-control." It is important to know that on the occasion of

important debates it's the job of us Whips to "choke off any garrulous

nonentities who may wish to make their voices heard." These are the

writings of Professor Harry Graham, talking about parliament at work.

More important, Mr. Speaker, the writings tell us that tact, good

temper and unceasing vigilance are the virtues necessary to all Whips.

It is written that we must combine the discretion of the diplomat with

the acumen of the sleuthhound. It is our business, we are told, to

smooth the ruffled feathers of any members who consider themselves

aggrieved, to listen patiently to the bores and to suffer the fools

gladly. All Whips, it is written, are expected to ascertain the sense

of the House upon all important questions, either by instinct, by

worming their way into the confidence of members or by secret detective

work in the smoking room.

With those few comments about the duties that befall Whips, Mr.

Speaker, and that short plea on behalf of the five Whips in this

assembly, I hope all members might help to make our duties somewhat

easier in the months ahead.

Now to move to the amendment, which we understand is taken from a

form that is 88 years old. In looking at the wording of the amendment,

Mr. Speaker, we note that it refers to the word "advisers" in the

plural and alleges that such confidence is not reposed in the present

advisers of His Honour. The topic of advisers becomes particularly

apropos given the regrettable events of last evening on this floor and

[ Page 1284 ]

the comments the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr.

King) made in respect to the member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen).

Because there are advisers to the opposition as well as to the

government benches. Any motion of no confidence in the advisers to His

Honour, as part of that consideration, must require some thought about

the alternative, and in this case the alternative advisers to the

opposition.

I don't know from whence the advice came that prompted the member

for Shuswap-Revelstoke to make the statements he did in respect of the

member for Richmond. As I am about to show, there were clearly two ways

for the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke to go. I think any elementary

student of this place could have predicted there were two ways to go.

One was the high road and one was the low road.

Let's just look at the two essential ingredients of the evidence

adduced in the Supreme Court of British Columbia which bear on the

member for Richmond, who was a witness in a proceeding. The evidence is

simple, clear and uncontroverted. The first is that the member for

Richmond at no time ever talked to either of the accused in the court

case. That evidence was clear. It was well publicized. There was not a

scintilla of evidence to suggest that the member for Richmond ever had

talked to either of the accused about the topic in question.

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

MR. LAUK: I hate to interrupt the speech of the hon. member

for Vancouver South. The decision in that case has not been rendered.

The matter is sub judice.

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

MR. HYNDMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that point, and I

thought I'd made it clear that these were press reports to which I was

referring. But in any event, I needn't repeat that point.

The second point is that it is common to that episode that some

250,000 taps or intercepts of that member's home and riding office were

made, again with no evidence of wrongdoing.

Now in the face of that background of the member for Richmond (Hon.

Mr. Nielsen) as a witness — not as a party charged, but a witness —

with those clearly understood aspects of the case, there was a high

road to take. I suggest that there were three issues of concern to any

member of this assembly who wished to address himself or herself to the

episode involving the member for Richmond. Those issues of concern were

these: first, the whole question of the bugging of ministers or MLAs,

which, Mr. Speaker, you are now considering.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that the hon. member is aware of the

fact that the matter has been drawn to the attention of the Speaker,

and that the Speaker is wrestling even at this moment with a decision

to be brought to the House. I trust that the hon. member would only in

passing make reference, but would please not debate the matter at this

time.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that rule. I am simply saying

that if the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) wished to relevantly address

matters involving the member for Richmond, there are three very relevant aspects:

one, in passing, would have been permitted comments on the issue of privilege;

secondly, on the entire issue, in the age of Abscam and whatever else we've

seen, there's the question of the image of politicians, and the member for Richmond,

to use an old phrase, came out of the press reports of that episode squeaky

clean after a quarter of a million taps. The third principle which might have

been discussed was the whole question of our principle of law as to whether

parties to a charge are deemed innocent until proven guilty — along the

same lines, whether a witness should be afforded the same general recognition

and protection of innocence without imputation.

Had the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke approached any of those topics

I think it would have been a wonderful new high road for this assembly.

Notwithstanding that that member or his colleagues might have had many

other things to say about many other events of the past six months,

there was an opportunity for the high road. But presumably those who

give advice to the opposition benches chose not to advise that road;

rather, it appears, they counselled or chose what might be called the

low road, which takes the presumption of innocence of a party charged

and somehow subverts that to a notion of presumed guilt of the party

charged. A new low road takes it a step further: now simply by being a

witness in proceedings one is somehow presumed to have been touched or

to have done something wrong.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that that was a smear. I use that word

advisedly and very regrettably. I think that very unfortunate inference

was the low-road route and a very regrettable route. To infer on the

basis of what any ordinary citizen could have read about those

proceedings that the member for Richmond had been "touched" by them was

a smear of the grossest sort. I would suggest it was a McCarthyite-type

smear, which has no place in this assembly.

I've sat here and listened to the group on your left talk about

political morality and political piety. I want to tell you that in the

case of what was said last night about the member for Richmond, I think

that there was a new low road reached. The question I asked, since the

amendment talks about advice, is: where did the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke get the advice to take that low road? As I've

observed him and come to know him, I cannot believe that the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke, governed by himself, genuinely wanted to do that.

Where did the advice come from? It would not have come, I am sure,

from the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), one of Her

Majesty's counsel, a former Attorney-General, a man from a

distinguished judicial family. Nor, I suggest, could it possibly have

come from any of the other three lawyers on the front bench of the

opposition. I doubt that it could have come from the member for Comox

(Ms. Sanford); I respect the ongoing concern of the member for Comox

for the issues of civil rights and human rights. It could not have come

from that long tradition of speeches and writings in the CCF-NDP of

Woodsworth or Coldwell or Knowles or Douglas. Where then did the

suggestion of the low road come from? It would appear it had to come

from the advisers to that group to your left, Mr. Speaker. So, since

the amendment is couched in terms of confidence or no confidence in

advisers, it becomes relevant to weigh the kind of advice that's being

given to the group on your left, and if that's the kind of advice — the

low road —

[ Page 1285 ]

that's being given, Mr. Speaker, I suggest the

people of this province and this House have no confidence in that kind

of advice and that kind of an approach.

Because the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) did not choose

to say it last night, I want to say something to the member for

Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) tonight that I think every member of this

assembly should say to that member, publicly or privately. At a time

and during an era when the reputation and profile of elected persons

and politicians is not great, I congratulate that member for a record

which shows a quarter of a million wiretaps all over the place, and not

a hint of improper wrongdoing or conduct, and I congratulate him for

the fact that notwithstanding all the allegations in this province

about land and land commissions and wrongdoing, there is not a

scintilla of evidence to suggest that that member came close to any

kind of a discussion that could have been controversial.

Now I think, Mr. Speaker, it's only fair that we spend some time, on

balance, looking at the question of the advisers to His Honour,

presumably including all members of cabinet and the Premier as chief

adviser. The amendment suggests that both this House and the province

have no confidence in the Premier's advisers and cabinet. As to whether

or not this House has that confidence, Mr. Speaker, that will be

determined on this floor in the future, and so the question is: what of

the public of the province?

Well, it's a peculiar amendment; most amendments to confidence

motions target in on an issue. If you think back historically to

various places, amendments to throne speech motions usually target in

on an issue. Strangely the opposition has gone back 88 years and

finally found an amendment which avoids issues, and is it any wonder,

because here's a brief list of recent issues that I don't think the

opposition would want to vote against — issues reflecting the advice

coming from the Premier and his cabinet to his Honour. The topic of

uranium mining and exploration — we've seen the results of that advice

to His Honour: a ban for seven years. The opposition would not vote

against that. Any member voting in support of this amendment is voting

against the advisers who proposed that ban. The question of denticare —

those same advisers in whom it's alleged the province has no confidence

were those who suggested denticare. Any member who chooses to support

the amendment is voting against the advisers who advised denticare and

are voting against denticare itself. The handling of the B.C. rail

dispute was the product of the advisers to his Honour. Any member who

chooses to support this amendment is voting against the advisers who

advised on the handling of that dispute. The low-interest mortgage

program, this afternoon called "a pretty good idea" by someone to your

left, was the product of advisers to His Honour, and anybody who

chooses to vote in support of the amendment is voting against the

advisers who initiated that concept. British Columbia Place is another

product of the advisers in whom it's said there is no confidence. The

Annacis Island crossing is another product of the advisers in whom it's

said there's no confidence. And BCRIC itself is another product of the

advisers in whom it's said there's no confidence, and yet today that

group to your left, Mr. Speaker, called "sensible" the latest work by

BCRIC.

Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment is not framed in

terms of an issue? There's not an issue that that group on your left is

prepared to stand and be counted on, so instead we see an amendment

dealing with advisers. The amendment suggests the people of the

province lack confidence in the advisers to His Honour. Let's look at

some evidence of confidence or the lack of it, not in terms of rhetoric

but in terms of cold, hard fact. If you want a yardstick for the

confidence of the people of British Columbia in the results of the work

of the advisers to His Honour, consider, in terms of investment large

and small, the record-keeping pace of the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

That is the result of British Columbians with confidence in the

advisers to His Honour.

In terms of major capital investment, Mr. Speaker, more than $4

billion by the mining and forestry sector is being invested right now

in this province, and that's a vote of confidence by people in this

province in the advisers to His Honour. Housing starts and house

building, always a barometer of confidence in the province…. The facts

are that compared to a year ago housing starts in this province are up

57 percent; the mortgage program was sold out in three days. The people

of British Columbia have confidence in the advisers to His Honour.

The BCRIC program has gone on, issuing and selling more shares to

more British Columbians who have confidence in their province. The

employment pages of our newspapers quadrupled in size with employment

opportunities in this province, and the employment pages of the eastern

newspapers are full of companies and employers in British Columbia

saying: "Come on out where the jobs are." The migration into this

province of people of all ages is running at a more record pace than

any level since 25 years ago, and that's a reflection of confidence in

this province. If it is suggested that this province has no confidence

in the advisers to His Honour, those facts don't reflect that

fallacious argument.

What confidence can the people of this province, by contrast, have

in the advisers to the group to your left, whose policy-making seems to

be in disarray? They differ with their colleagues in Ontario, for

example, on the topic of nuclear power; they differ with their

colleagues in Saskatchewan on the question of uranium mining; they

differ with their colleagues in Alberta on the question of foreign

investment. And within themselves in this province they differ on the

question of financial aid to independent schools; they differ within

themselves on the question of mineral royalties; they differ within

themselves on the question of essential services legislation; they

differ within themselves on the question of property rights. That's a

coalition for power if ever there was one, Mr. Speaker, desperately

groping to put together a patchwork quilt of acceptable ad hockisms

that somehow will let them tiptoe in the back door of government. I

don't know who the advisers are to that group on the left, but if

that's the quality of advice that's coming, there's no question of

where the vote should go.

There is another key reason for voting confidence in the advisers to

His Honour, because they've been very wise in suggesting to His Honour

that the most sensible thing for the government of the province of

British Columbia is that it be headed by a political party with no

federal ties and no links to any group in parliament in Ottawa. That's

a very wise policy, and advisers who suggest that policy are to be

supported, Mr. Speaker. The advisers to His Honour have advised that it

is in the best interests of British Columbia, as indeed it is, that the

government of the day be a party with no obligations, no commitments,

and no political ties to parties in Ottawa or in the federal parliament.

[ Page 1286 ]

Again let's contrast that with the alternative. The group on your

left is compromised by their federal affiliations. We saw the Leader of

the Opposition and Mr. Broadbent waltz around this province together.

Valentine's Day came and went, but it is very interesting that it

wasn't said in British Columbia; it was said on the campus of the

University of Manitoba. After days of warm embrace between the Leader

of the Opposition and Mr. Broadbent, Mr. Broadbent got up at the campus

of the University of Manitoba and announced the NDP policy on gas

export in Canada: there should be none. That, presumably, is also,

although we aren't sure, the policy of that group to your left, Mr.

Speaker — no further exports of natural gas from Canada.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Well, we look forward to voting on whether we have confidence in

that group's advisers, who would so quickly rob from British Columbia

$300 million or $400 million a year in revenues, 2 or 3 points in the

sales tax, and that's before we get to the jobs, to exploration and

processing. There can be no confidence in a policy like that, and no

confidence in advisers who link the group on your left to their

soulmates in Ottawa.

We see it again in the question of the trade-off to Ottawa of B.C.'s

oil and gas rights in the name of nationalization. So that there is no

more misunderstanding about that, let me just read a sentence from the

former Premier. He said: "British Columbia, under the NDP, is prepared

to share all the oil and natural gas rights granted to it by the

ownership all of the oil and gas in this country."

It's really interesting with this group chained to Ottawa. Poor Mr.

Notley, next door, is chained to this group too. And gosh, I don't hear

him going around Alberta suggesting the same thing.

The difference between the advisers comes down to this: that group

on your left is bound and chained to a group in Ottawa. They are

required to put their socialism first and British Columbia second. Keep

the gas in the ground or trade off our oil and gas rights to Ottawa all

in the name of nationalization and NDP philosophy — socialism first,

British Columbia second. Mr. Speaker, the government's advisers — His

Honour's advisers — look at the whole question somewhat differently. It

is British Columbia first and socialism second. That is a very

fundamental difference between the two groups in this assembly.

When we come to talk about the quality of the advice being given,

and apart from the reasons we see for supporting the advisers to His

Honour — those advisers who have initiated policy decisions in terms of

the ban on uranium mining and exploration, policy decisions on

denticare, B.C. Place, the Annacis Island crossing, BCRIC, the

low-interest mortgage program — all of those programs come from

advisers in whom we should have confidence. By contrast, we should be

lending no shred of support to the group on your left whose advisers

would put socialism first and British Columbia's interests second. On

those grounds the amendment should be wholesomely rejected.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, I want to start by commenting a little on

the remarks of my colleague whom I cannot see very well — he sits behind

me — and particularly his comments with regard to the defence of the Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). Like anyone else who is

new to the debating in this House, I am interested in seeing a certain degree

of decorum. I am interested in seeing that we keep a reasonable degree of order.

But it is the first time I have heard a defence of the minister from a member

of this House saying: "Isn't it wonderful? The minister has had 250 taps

and he hasn't been charged. Isn't that marvellous?" With that kind of a

defence, I hate to think what would happen if there were trouble.

But there is a difference between the particular incident that my

colleague behind me has made so much of and what occurred tonight in

this House — and I am sorry to see the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Mair) not here. You see, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

can go out into that hall, he can defend himself in front of those

cameras and he can do it as a person living in this world. He can

defend himself, but Mr. Justice Thomas Norris can't do that tonight.

Mr. Tom Norris isn't here to defend himself against the outrageous slur

that came across the floor of this House.

Quite fairly, the member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) rose in his place

and offered the Minister of Health an opportunity to correct the record

— offered him a chance to say: "Look, we all make slips; we all overdo

it. Let's calm down a little bit." The minister would not take that

opportunity.

Who is this man? I think I am quoting the Minister of Health

accurately. He described him as "a lifelong enemy of the Bennett

family." He was talking about Mr. Justice Tom Norris who was previously

the treasurer of the Law Society of British Columbia. He subsequently

became a supreme court judge. Subsequent to that he became one of the

finest justices of the court of appeal that this province has ever

seen, bar none.

Mr. Speaker, somewhere a halt has got to come to this kind of

outrageous and scurrilous slander. But, you see, Tom Norris can't

defend himself in this place.

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT: You know the member — and I wish the member

would come back — the Minister of Health is also a member of the bar

and a practising lawyer.

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

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, if the bag of wind wants the floor,

give him the floor; but if he won't shut up, throw him out of the

House, which is pursuant to the rules.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon. members, if any kind of order is

to be maintained in this chamber at all, then only one member is

permitted to speak at a time. The member for Coquitlam-Moody has the

floor.

MR. LEGGATT: With regard to the Minister of Health, as I say,

Mr. Justice Tom Norris cannot be here to defend himself. But I think

it's worth putting into the record some of the things that Judge Tom

Norris contributed to this province over a lifetime of service. I find

it a tragedy that his name would become besmirched in this chamber. You

know Tom Norris; you may recall something called "The Norris Inquiry

into Great Lake Shipping." In that inquiry, Tom Norris, over a long

period of time, in which his health was seriously affected, was

effective in cleaning up the criminals on the

[ Page 1287 ]

Great Lakes. He had Hal Banks thrown out of this

country. He did more in that one commission than this government has

done in all its time in office.

But there is another thing that the Minister of Health should have

kept in mind when he brought Tom Norris' name into this chamber: Tom

Norris was appointed by the federal Minister of Justice. Tom Norris is

a person without any relationship whatsoever to the Attorney-General of

the province of British Columbia; he doesn't take orders from the

Attorney-General of British Columbia. He doesn't have any relationship

to the group that administers the provincial courts. He is completely

independent of mind, of thought and always objective in his actions in

the court. He always received tremendous credit from anyone who

appeared in front of him. But, Mr. Speaker, he can't be here tonight to

defend himself. He can't be here tonight to defend himself from the

Minister of Health who, in conducting himself in this manner, has

brought this chamber to a new low. And, particularly since he is a

minister of the Crown, he should be setting some kind of example for

the rest of this House.

As I say, he was the treasurer of the Law Society, court of appeal

judge, a supreme court judge. To say that this man, who contributed so

much to the life of British Columbia, was somehow some kind of lifelong

enemy of somebody, casts a pall over all the judgments that he made

over the years, casts a pall over the memory of his family, and causes,

I would think, a tremendous anguish to his widow who has quite rightly

and justifiably taken great pride in his career. It's a sad day, Mr.

Speaker, when we find that that kind of cheap shot comes up; but it's

out of desperation. This is a desperation government; they're clutching

at every kind of straw to hang on.

They started it with this phrase that was thrown out — and I won't

dwell on "national socialist," because it's been dealt with a lot. But

I can tell the Premier that if he wants to remove the ambiguity around

that charge, I ask him to go to the Minister of Veterans' Affairs in

Ottawa and demand that the veterans of the Mackenzie-Papineau Brigade

who fought in the Spanish Civil War receive the pension that the people

of Canada should pay them. Now let him put his money where his mouth

is. I haven't heard a word about that from our Premier; I haven't heard

a word about the poor veterans of that courageous battle, those

veterans who are now passing on and haven't got a dime from the people

of Canada in terms of any veterans' benefits. I don't think there is a

more courageous group of veterans anywhere in the world than the people

who volunteered to fight fascism back in the thirties, and we owe them

a great debt. And if the Premier would like to remove that ambiguity, I

ask him to publicly state that he supports the benefits that those

veterans are due. But he won't do it, because he lacks that kind of

leadership quality that's so necessary.

That's why the motion is so appropriate. Look at the motion. It

says: " ...should possess the confidence of this House and of this

province." Our friends over here on the government side haven't had a

chance to canvass the province. There's a reason why our House Leader

put in the words "and of this province." It's because people on this

side of the House have had an opportunity to go out and engage in a

federal election and to talk to our constituents and find out what they

feel, and we came to the conclusion that they had genuinely lost

confidence in this government. Everything one could look at at the

present time — the polls, the general atmosphere, the total

disillusionment on this side of the House — clearly confirms that that

confidence has been lost. It's been a bit of a cruel debate tonight and

yesterday. It's been a bit of a cruel debate because it's zeroing in on

one man. I think perhaps when we zero in on one man, like the Premier,

we should ease up a little bit. There's a reason for that. You see,

when a political figure has made a contribution to the life of the

province of British Columbia and is about to retire, it seems to me

that we could go easy now, because, after all, it's pretty clear that

the game's over. It's pretty clear that this temporary

administration....

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

MR. LEGGATT: How many members did the Social Credit Party

elect to the federal House? Can you tell me? These people had trouble

beating the Rhinos. I don't think they did beat the Rhinos. Do you know

why they didn't beat the Rhinos? It's because the Rhinos made more

sense; that's why they didn't beat the Rhinos.

It's all over. I think it's time perhaps to be a little kinder. In

the political life of British Columbia we have to take some time to pay

credit to those who have made some contribution, no matter how minor.

We should pay tribute to them.

Now it seems to me a $130 million or a $200 million or a $300

million bridge is a bit steep. I think perhaps we could be a little

more cautious around that. B.C. Place is pretty heavy money. Let's go

for a small statue, okay? It seems reasonable that we cut back the

expenditures, and at an appropriate place out the back we'll have a

statue for the Premier, because he has made a contribution to this.

The Premier has made, I think, a significant contribution to the

political life of this province. What he's done is to demonstrate in

the course of four and a half short years what a fine administration he

replaced; that's all he's demonstrated in that four and a half years.

It's not merely a case that the Speech from the Throne was

threadbare or didn't disclose any kind of future for the province; it's

also that the public have had four and a half years to kind of examine

the record and compare the two administrations. After four and a half

years you have to look at your own record; the Premier's got to look at

his own record. They've got to stop being hypnotized with the one they

made up about the party that was in power before. Let's have a look at

that record. What have they done? What is innovative? What is new?

Well, there's one thing: BCRIC. BCRIC is a new concept and a new idea.

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

MR. LEGGATT: I was in Ottawa, and I'm delighted that we

didn't adopt that kind of concept there. They only guy who did was the

former Prime Minister, and he went down to a crashing defeat as soon as

he adopted that kind of crackpot idea.

Let's look at BCRIC for a minute. It's innovative. It is in a way, I

think, a wonderful little funny-money game that's been played with

BCRIC, a little bit like the A plus B theorem — and I know you will all

want to come and debate that when the motion comes on the floor.

There's a great similarity in the BCRIC concept. But it is the only

thing this government will be remembered for, and remember it was

[ Page 1288 ]

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

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

Interjections.

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

Let's give them a couple of credits for the ombudsman. Give them

credit for the auditor-general. They're both very useful, both

long-planned by the previous administration.

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

We have a land reserve, the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, Pharmacare,

Mincome, the rentalsman, resource boards, a Human Rights Code, a Labour

Code, Hansard , BCDC — it goes on and on and on. And I'm looking

at my friend, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips). Where's the originality? Where are the new ideas?

He's going to get up and bluster about it. Have a look at the NDP

record, my friend; it's a good record.

Let's have a look at what new.... BCRIC you cannot call new. Let's

have a look at a couple of things that are new: the Heroin Treatment

Act, that's new. Oh, a terrific idea. I hear my friend, the hon. member

for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), tell me that's a great idea. How many

people are we treating today in the heroin treatment program? How much

is each one of those individuals in the heroin treatment plan costing

the province of British Columbia and the taxpayers of British Columbia?

That's good management, my friend? That's the kind of efficient

government management we have?

The Family Relations Act. Whatever happened to the Family Relations

Act? It's not a bad concept, but they can't seem to put anything

together that the courts don't shoot down in flames. There should be

enough lawyers over there to give some advice.

And then we come to deregulation. Do you remember the concept of

deregulation? That was going to make everything slick and efficient,

and those wonder workers of business management would put this

government on a business footing. Guess what happened? Do you really

think they should have the candy store any more? Isn't it about time

that we started to look at what efficient management is really all

about? I'll tell you where it's all about. Do you want efficient

management? Go to the province of Saskatchewan right now. The province

of Saskatchewan has the lowest cost of government in Canada. It costs

the taxpayers less to deliver government services in the province of

Saskatchewan than in any other province in the country and they're

delivering more services than any other province in Canada. That's

efficiency.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: But you know, that's the real record of this

government, this temporary government that we have. I now want to look

at the state of the economy in the province for just a minute and I

want to tell my friend from Vancouver South, who is also gone — it's

too bad — that this is not from the Waffle Manifesto. This is from an

organization called the Conference Board of Canada.

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

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

Let's just have another quick look at what the conference board, this year,

talks about and tells us about the economy of British Columbia. November 1979:

the 2.5 percent rates of expansion forecast for 1978 and 1979 represent a growth

slowdown. I hope you remember that, my friend, the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development. Oh, my gosh, he's gone. I was hoping he'd stay and

listen to the real state of the economy in British Columbia instead of that

wind that he keeps throwing up all the time. Let's have a look at it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Slow growth. Let's look at the forestry industry: forest related

industries, logging, wood fabricating, pulp and paper manufacturing are

cutting back production gradually. Next, the brightest corporate

profits performance during 1978 and 1979; corporate profits are in very

good shape. Corporate profits have been rising rapidly since 1976 while

wage-rate increases have slackened markedly since that time. My friend

the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development made a great

deal of the fact that workers in British Columbia are the highest paid

in Canada, something that he says is a wonderful thing, and I was very

pleased to see my colleague express the opinion that he must be really

cheesed off about that. I think that probably reflects pretty

accurately what had happened.

Now let's look at another one. The chart also points out the role

played by interest rates. The climb in the cost of borrowing has kept

outlays from rising quickly despite record revenues to the corporate

sector. Such a pattern of high interest rates and high corporate

profits could well continue into '80, postponing capital formation

plans until later in the decade. That's the real state of the economy

in British Columbia, not by some Social Credit puffery but by the

Conference Board of Canada, a very conservative economic organization

which has carefully examined the economy of this province and every

other province in Canada.

The record goes on. The economic record in this province is getting

sorrier and sorrier. Why? It's because you don't have a dream for this

province. You're still operating on the basis of: "Let's grab any

policy while we can and see if it sells." But nothing holds those

policies together.

You know, the cancellation of exploration and development of uranium

— come on, who are you kidding? Surely you know the people of British

Columbia aren't conned by that one act. It no more fulfils the

philosophy of this party than the Waffle Manifesto fulfils the

philosophy of that party. You want nuclear mining so badly you can

taste it, but you've smelled the wind out there and you haven't got the

guts to provide the leadership and the conscience that you should have

as a leader. That's a lack of leadership when you buy that. But I'll

tell you the mining industry isn't conned.

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT: No, oh no. You know where we stand. The only

reason you've decided to ban mining in the province of British Columbia

is that we proposed it and you're so desperate to get some of those

votes back you'll do absolutely

[ Page 1289 ]

anything to get them. That's what has happened, Mr.

Speaker. It's nothing whatsoever to do with Social Credit philosophy,

principle or anything else. You'd love to see that stuff coming out of

the ground, but you can't.

As I said, there just doesn't seem to have been any kind of dream

proposed. That's why the people of the province don't have confidence

in this temporary administration, this administration that's interfered

with the long-term administration of the province, which without any

doubt will be a social democratic administration into the rest of the

century. It happens to be a reality. I'm sorry to bring that news; I

know it sounds upsetting to this strange group that gets together every

once in a while and tries to coalesce all those reactionary forces. Now

what is the dream that you don't have? The nuclear out of one arm, and

who knows what you are going to do next? We know you are predictable.

The dream that you lack is that you don't see the two major problems

that we have in British Columbia. The first is that we continue to be

owned and dominated by foreign multinational corporations. You won't

accept that, will you? You won't accept that when thousands of our

young people come out of university every year they go down to be

trained in California because the head offices are in California. Do

you know that if you look at the amount of research and development in

British Columbia, we are one of the lowest in the western world — 0.5

per cent, Mr. Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon.

Mr. Phillips). Every other province, pretty well, and certainly the

Dominion of Canada and the United States are miles ahead of us in

spending on research and development. The reason we spend so little is

simply because the head offices of so much of what happens up here

don't happen to be here.

So the multinational domination of the economy is absolutely key if

you've got a dream. What have you done? You had a chance — BCRIC. We

could do things with that organization. You could use the public's

money in BCRIC to try to repatriate our economy, to try to make some

decisions right here in Canada for the benefit of Canadians. What have

you done with it? You are worried because Canadian Pacific Investments

has a piece of MacMillan Bloedel. Whether you are interfering in the

operation of BCRIC, we don't know, but we know the Premier's view about

that. He made that very clear. The Premier has also said that he will

not interfere in the operation of BCRIC. What a strange coincidence

that the first major investment of BCRIC is to do exactly what the

Premier wanted in regard to.... I don't believe that for a minute.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: Who cares about CP Investments' position in

Mac-Blo? Maybe you should have a look at the position of Japanese

ownership in the B.C. fishing industry. Maybe you should have a look at

what's happening to the small businesses all around British Columbia,

being taken over by McDonald's Hamburgers on every corner, by

multinationals, leaving our small businessmen to the tender mercies of

New York and Los Angeles. Oh, it's a sad thing. You see, these fellows,

Mr. Speaker, love to stand up and claim to be the great protectors of

British Columbia. They're not; they're the protectors of the

entrepreneurs of California, and they always have been — that's the

difference.

That's why I say, Mr. Speaker, they just don't have a dream about

the province; they just want to try to hang on to power desperately in

any way they can. And why have we had the problem, finally, of dirty

tricks? It's because the end justify the means, as my friend from

Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) continues to say.

tender mercies n You are desperate because you honestly believe that

the people on this side of the House are some kind of terrible,

national-socialist, evil force. You believe that. I can't believe it,

but they do, they really accept it. Dance, stand up, cheer!

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: But you do. I've heard the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), spend half an hour telling us what a

horrible, evil bunch we really are. Imagine, we were supposed to be the

people who were putting together a private police force. You know, Mr.

Speaker, if there is one philosophy and one party that has fought for

individual civil rights in this country, it's the New Democratic Party

and the CCF.

I'd like to know, Mr. Speaker, where the Minister of Highways (Hon.

Mr. Fraser) was in regard to the Japanese question. Where were all of

these great defenders of individual liberties and rights at the time

when we needed them, at the time when the Japanese were put into

concentration camps in this country? They were very silent indeed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Where were you?

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

But I must say, Mr. Speaker, I think there's a tremendous resentment

right across this country, when I hear accusations against people in

this party, that somehow they are insensitive to the rights of

Canadians. Who brought in a Human Rights Code in this province? It

wasn't you guys. We waited in this province for half a century for a

Human Rights Code. It was only the party that protects civil liberties

and civil rights that brought it in.

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

MR. LEGGATT: What about the ombudsman? Interjections.

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

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: That's just what I expected, Mr. Speaker. We

hear "communism" being shouted across the floor again. Here's a party

that's been more diligent in making sure that people who accept the

democratic process are within it than any other party in this country.

Do you know that? They sure are.

I listened with some sympathy to the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) who was concerned about the

question of bugging. I think we should all be concerned about the

question of bugging. That's why this party has allowed that matter to

go forward, and we will be listening patiently to the decision of Your

Honour in terms

[ Page 1290 ]

of that matter. But I don't remember very much

contribution from anyone in this government when the wiretap bills were

going through in Ottawa. I don't remember getting any calls worrying

about the concept of expansion of wiretaps, and whether that created

any danger to the liberties in Canada. They were strangely silent. Only

when somebody gets burned do we hear from them.

I want you to protect the people who need protection against

bugging. Now let's have a good debate about bugging. I want to hear the

defence in terms of preventing the George Orwell 1984 from coming upon

us. I don't expect I'll hear that in this chamber. You know, it's a

pretty sorry record, in terms of civil liberties.

The motion really doesn't do any more than reflect reality in the

political structure and political atmosphere in the province. The

motion just says: let's vote it the way it is, because people really

don't have any confidence in this administration. I don't have any

doubt about that; it's a very objective appraisal. We have been to

meetings of chambers of commerce, of trade unions. Every part of the

community has lost confidence in this government.

The only people who seem to have any confidence left in the Premier

are a few of his front bench. But the rest of the province made a

decision in the last federal election. They had a chance to assess the

record of this government. And when you blame the former Premier for

the federal losses of the New Democratic Party in 1974, you better give

him credit this time for the gains that we got in 1979 and 1980. You

can't have it both ways. Keep whistling in the dark.

I'll conclude on that note. I think we in this chamber should vote

in terms of the reality of what's out there in the province. This

province has no confidence in this Premier or this government.

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

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

The House adjourned at 10:55 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1980,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada