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)

TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1207 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings.

Oral questions.

Surrey Inter-Section and Crisis Centre. Ms. Brown –– 1207

B.C. Place. Mr. Lauk –– 1209

Speech from the Throne.

Mr. Howard –– 1209

On the amendment.

Mr. Lauk –– 1213

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 1215

Mr. Hall –– 1217

Mrs. Dailly –– 1221

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 1223

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1225

Mr. Lea –– 1228

TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to draw the attention of all hon.

members to the fact that we have invited to the floor of the House

today a former Speaker of this Legislative Assembly. Please welcome Mr.

Gordon Dowding.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to

introduce a guest who is perhaps one of Canada's more distinguished

parliamentarians. He has spent his career representing Toronto

(Greenwood) in Ontario and was external affairs critic in the House of

Commons for many years. He has a special interest in British Columbia

since he represented Japanese Canadians, largely from this part of

Canada, in the Supreme Court of Canada during those many difficult

years following the Second World War. I would ask the House to welcome

Mr. Andrew Brewin, who is with us today.

MR. KING: I would like to introduce to the House today a

former executive assistant of mine, now a resident of the fair city of

Cranbrook, British Columbia: Mr. Jack Currie, along with his good wife

Marcelle, and my own better half, Audrey.

MR. HANSON: I would like the House to join me today in

welcoming a number of members of the Grace MacInnis Club of Victoria,

which is the backbone of the NDP, as you know. They are led by Margaret

Hobbs, who is a former member of this House. Her name was attempted to

be deleted by the Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act last year, which we had

to put back into place — so you can't get rid of Margaret Hobbs. Will

you join me in welcoming her?

MR. SEGARTY: In the gallery this afternoon is Nancy Banks,

from Cranbrook, and Avril Dishaw, from Kelowna. Both are students at

the University of Victoria. I would like the House to welcome them this

afternoon.

MR. BARBER: Needless to say, I join in Gordon's welcoming of

the Grace MacInnis Club. As well, I would like to welcome to the

gallery today, from the mighty neighbourhood of James Bay in the

capital city, Sid Blackburn, Carolyn Chamberlayne and Simon Carroll,

good friends of ours. I hope they feel comfortable this particular

afternoon.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), I would like to introduce and ask the House

to welcome students from Lambrick Park Secondary School, part of whom

are in his constituency and part of whom are in mine.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have two guests in the gallery

today. One is a good friend from the interior whom I have known for a

long time and who was very closely associated with the packinghouse

workers in that area — Alma Fauls, from Oliver. Also in the gallery is

a young friend and supporter of mine, whom I don't want to pass up.

He's a student at UVic and he's in the gallery this afternoon,

Dominique Roelants. Would the House join me in welcoming them?

Oral Questions.

SURREY INTER-SECTION

AND CRISIS CENTRE

MS. BROWN: My question is directed to the Minister of Human

Resources. The unsupervised placement of a 17-year-old girl by the

Ministry of Human Resources in a hotel in Delta, where she was later

arrested for drinking, would seem to indicate, Mr. Speaker, that young

people in the care of the ministry are at risk. Would the minister

consider diverting funds from her public relations capers to funding

Inter-Section and crisis lines in Surrey, to ensure that there will not

be a repetition of this near-tragic incident?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would recommend in phrasing all of our

questions, and indeed our speeches, in this House, that we use language which

perhaps would not encourage repercussions on the other side of the House.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: First of all, Mr. Speaker, may I respond to the

member by saying that the charge of unsupervised placement is incorrect. I,

too, read the account in the press over the weekend of the 17-year-old girl

who was placed in a setting in Surrey, which I wish to look into. I've had a

report from my ministry. I understand that my ministry, without divulging some

of the confidential background of a very difficult case…. Frankly, Mr.

Speaker, I take exception to any member of this House who says that our ministry

staff has not considered the very best placement they possibly could for some

of the very difficult placements under their care.

In this province we have had, in this past year, 4,000 children

taken into care, and I would like to, in this week particularly,

commend the staff of the Ministry of Human Resources, who have done an

outstanding job of looking after some very difficult cases — cases, Mr.

Speaker, that natural parents, adoptive parents, emergency placement

homes and foster parents have not been able to handle. This is just

such a case. As I have reported to the media earlier today, I am very

concerned about this case; I am concerned as well that there will be

placements in hotels throughout the province. We have a wide range of

services to care for children who are difficult, young people who are

difficult. We use these services, we use some outstanding foster-care

placements, and we use some outstanding facilities in this province.

This member has brought to the attention of the House, and the

newspaper report has brought to the attention of the people, just one

side of the story. I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that although I am

not free to give the total confidential report of a case that is a

very, very difficult one for not only myself to report on but for my

ministry to deal with.... But as I do so, there are two things I would

like to have emphasized here: (1) our ministry will continue to deal

with the young lady who is now, and has been prior to being placed in

that hotel, in an emergency shelter. We will continue to deal with that

young girl until we can help her the very best as is possible. We will

continue to give her the kind of attention that we are giving to many

troubled youngsters in this province.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I want to share with the House the fact I have re-emphasized to my ministry that only in the

[ Page 1208 ]

most isolated and extreme cases do I feel that a

hotel setting should be used. It is my belief, and I have had a report

from my deputy minister, that the very best care was taken to make sure

that this young girl was looked after as best as is possible. I hope

the member will accept that.

MS. BROWN: A supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. I would

certainly like to agree with the Minister of Human Resources — not just

this week but every week — that the staff of the ministry, working

under incredible odds, are doing an excellent job. Nonetheless, Mr.

Speaker, this student, this young girl, when she was arrested, was not

being supervised. The question I would like to suggest to the minister

is that $40,000 of the department's funding would probably have been

better spent dealing with the shortage of staff in the department

rather than decals and buttons and cassettes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I did not detect a question. This sounds

like debate, and this is not the purpose of question period. But the hon. minister

wishes to answer. Please proceed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the member raises a figure of $40,000

to 200 offices throughout the province of British Columbia and to a staff of

5,000 who are attempting this week to tell of the services of the Ministry of

Human Resources and to pay tribute to the many thousands of volunteers who bolster

the services of that ministry. And may I say that, on a budget of close to $700

million, I am not sure of the $40,000 figure that the member.... But then

I am never sure of the figures that that member puts before this House, having

found them to be erroneous before. But may I say that if her figure is correct

— and I certainly haven't had that substantiated by any member of my ministry

— that is a very few cents to tell the people out in the province what

this ministry has done.

This morning, Mr. Speaker, I was at a Ministry of Human Resources

office in Victoria, where I heard of some very highly successful

programs that are being put forward by my staff members. I have heard

no complaints of short staff. I found no complaints, as I've been going

through the province, of people who are without service. But I'll tell

you what I have found, Mr. Speaker. I have found the people of the

province not knowing where to go for help. And I hope that after this

week is over they will have found out where they can get help from the

Ministry of Human Resources.

And may I say this in conclusion: I hope that the members on that side of the

House will stop playing politics with the poor people of this province.

MR. HALL: A supplementary to that very political minister.

The minister talks about people wanting to know where services are. Mr.

Speaker, on February 23 there was a full-page

article in the Vancouver Sun

regretting the minister's inability to provide the services in my area,

talking about people who were wanting to help. Mr. Speaker, my

question, before the minister gives me a political answer....

Interjection.

MR. HALL: Wait for the question. My question is: in view of

the fact that Inter-Section needs some money, in view of the fact that

the crisis line needs some money, in view of the fact that other

associations composed of volunteers who want some money, who have been

trying to get some money off this minister and who referred in this

meeting to this whole-page

article about the tragedies in Surrey the

minister knows well.... I'll ask the minister this question.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Do your homework, Ernie. Don't go by the newspaper.

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

MR. HALL: You talk to your friend Mr. Vogel about it, Billy,

and you'll know, if you ever meet him these days. I want to ask the

minister this question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister meet with

representatives of the crisis

section of the Inter-Section Society of

the community resources in Surrey at a public meeting with the

attendant publicity the minister will always give to these kinds of

meetings when they sometimes happen in shopping centres and malls

throughout the province? Will you meet with these people at a public

meeting to discuss their needs and their requirements?

MR. SPEAKER: The question inquires into the future activity of the minister.

However, the minister wishes to answer.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, may I report on a past activity? I

met with the crisis centre people at a public meeting last Saturday, and it

was interesting that the MLA for Surrey, Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm, was present but

I didn't see that the other MLA was present at that public meeting.

Mr. Speaker, may I also give information to the hon. member for Surrey...?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. We cannot hear the answer.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: May I also give him the information, because he

refers to newspaper articles which did not give the whole story, because they

left out the fact that the Surrey emergency shelter had been offered $23.50

per diem guaranteed for a nine-bed facility. That is what they apparently had

asked for, and we are just waiting for their submission as to whether or not

they accept the ministry's program.

MS. BROWN: It's not the same one.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: That is the emergency service, which is also mentioned

in that article. On the crisis line, we are at this point in time negotiating

since the public meeting I held with them last Saturday, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HALL: The minister is dealing with two separate

organizations. I may respond to her that I would have been pleased to

attend the meeting on Saturday. Had I had the courtesy of an invitation

to that conference — I had in my pocket the $3 she was charging to go —

I would probably have left the conference, as many other people did

when they were told it was being catered by the Social Credit Women's

Auxiliary.

[ Page 1209 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I think it is in the best

interests of all members to protect the purpose of various functions in

the House. The function of question period, as I understand it, is to

seek information from the administration via question. The last two

individuals have stood to make statements, and I have detected no

question — unless I missed it entirely.

B.C. PLACE

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Environment in his

capacity as minister in charge of B.C. Place. By the way, I take this

opportunity to put in Hansard

that the first member for Vancouver Centre congratulates the minister

on his elevation; he won the cabinet sweepstakes. Has an agreement been

reached between the government and Marathon Realty — an arm of the CPR

— concerning the exchange of public lands for the 120-odd acres in

False Creek in the city of Vancouver for use as a stadium site?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the

question. The agreement between the government of British Columbia and

Marathon Realty — through its parent company, Canadian Pacific Railway

— is an agreement only in principle and not in finite details.

MR. LAUK: Supplementary question. Has the public land to be

exchanged been identified before the agreement or as a result of the

agreement in principle?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, if I repeat the answer a second time.... Or maybe the member could refer to Hansard

tomorrow. But the agreement has been in principle that exchanges will

be made of government property and Crown-owned property for property

currently held by Marathon.

MR. LAUK: I repeat the question to the minister. Has the public land been identified?

HON. MR. ROGERS: To the member, Mr. Speaker, negotiations

involving the British Columbia Place properties and Marathon Realty are

continuing at the present time, and they're not specific.

MR. SPEAKER: The bell terminates the question period.

MR. LAUK: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, the voice of the minister trailed off.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member stand on a point of order?

MR. LAUK: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I could not hear the minister's answer.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: No, his voice trailed off. I wonder if he could say what it was.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member. I think that the answer is on record and perhaps we can refer to it when the Blues arrive in a few minutes.

MR. LAUK: Has Hansard got the answer?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker wisely advised all members of the House

during question period to ask questions and not enter into debate. I

point out to the Speaker that that admonishment, or — let's put it more

generously — that advisement, should well have been received by the

hon. Minister of Human Resources, who took of her own time while

standing on her feet the better part of six minutes in answering three

simple questions which she inevitably did not answer.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Permit me to respond to the point of order.

The question period is regulated by, first of all, the motion which

is moved on opening day which permits question period at all, and then

by agreement of a committee which was struck to establish the

guidelines for question period. I have to report that those guidelines

do not include any process whereby the Speaker is permitted to time

either questions or answers. We are depending upon the reason of both

the questioner and the answerer. If at any time it appears that they

are unduly long, the Speaker would undertake to draw that to the

member's attention. Thank you very much.

MR. LAUK: Further to the point of order, could the Speaker advise what he considers to be unduly long?

MR. SPEAKER: It would have to be determined at the time.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order. For the edification of the hon. member across the way, perhaps if he would read Votes and Proceedings of Monday, February 28, 1977, the points which he raised are, I am sure, covered.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in the

debate, I think very appropriately I'd like to first express my

appreciation of the opportunity of both sitting closer to you

physically in the chamber and having the opportunity to work with you

in the pursuit of the orderly development and progress of business in

the House. I look forward to a long life together in that capacity,

both on this side of the House and on the other side.

I would like also to express, through you, sir, to the member for

Delta (Mr. Davidson), my appreciation of the opportunity to have

seconded the motion which elevates him to the position of Deputy

Speaker. I wish him well in that function.

I would like to express also the thought that I had anticipated from

some earlier conversations he had made that perhaps he would have been

chosen to that position from a

[ Page 1210 ]

position in this House identified as independent.

However, he has overcome that difficulty by way of a bridge, and I must

say that's an awful price to have to pay for one vote. When the final

tabs are in, it will be something in the neighbourhood of $500 million

for that particular project.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Is this a gong show?

MR. HOWARD: If it's a gong show, Mr. Speaker, all the dingdongs are on that side of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Perhaps we could select temperate language. Please proceed.

MR. HOWARD: I enjoyed listening to the mover and the

seconder, especially their references to the free enterprise system,

and the applause they evoked every time they mentioned that word,

almost a kind of knee-jerk reference. I wondered, though, why each of

the honourable gentlemen when they spoke and made reference to that

matter of free enterprise had to look at their notes and read the words

— perhaps because of an inability to make declarations of that nature

coming from the heart. I think that's understandable, because it's not

possible to talk of free enterprise coming from the heart in support of

it, because it's a heartless system, a system that has a balance-sheet

morality to it, measured by m.p.g. I don't mean miles per gallon, Mr.

Speaker; I mean money, power and greed. Those are the identifying

points of the system which the hon. gentlemen lauded.

Let's look, though, in our discussion today, at the government,

because that's what we're talking about. There is a legacy attached to

the Social Credit members of the government which that particular party

had placed upon it by some of its predecessors, a stamp of

identification. It's the stamp of identification of the likes of Robert

Bonner and Phil Gaglardi and others in that particular category. It's

not a particularly ethical stamp. It's not a particularly ethical

inheritance. It's not the inheritance certainly of other hon. gentlemen

who have graced this place and who belonged to that particular party,

like Eric Martin or Bert Price or, indeed, the gentleman who served

with distinction in the office that you now hold, Mr. Speaker. I'm

talking of a dear friend of many of us, the late Tom Irwin, who also

was a member of the House of Commons in Ottawa. That's not the

authority that Social Credit has inherited. It has inherited the legacy

of an approach by government that bespeaks manipulation, connivance,

adjustment of principle, a kind of elastic morality that permits them

to do anything and say anything to remain where they are. That's what

we will be dealing with in

part in this Speech from the Throne and in

the days ahead — this administration, this government. I was going to

say this Premier, but he has moved now. Vested in the hands of the

Premier is the crux of everything that goes on in government. That's

the focal point of what it is we will be dealing with in subsequent

days.

I intend, in a moment, to move a motion, an amendment, Mr. Speaker.

Perhaps for the interest of the chamber, without moving it at this

point, I might read it so that hon. members will have it in their

minds. At the appropriate time I propose to move that at the end of the

question we add certain words, namely these: that we feel it, however,

to be our humble duty to submit to Your Honour that it is essential

that Your Honour's government should possess the confidence of this

House and of this province, and respectfully to represent toYour Honour

that such confidence is not reposed in the present advisers of Your

Honour.

I would have enjoyed the opportunity to have had placed in there

reference to the reason this confidence is not reposed in the

administration is because the president of the executive council has

not been resolute in establishing and enforcing standards of conduct

and behaviour appropriate to the high and noble expectations of His

Honour. It would of course have offended the rules of the House to have

inserted that, and I would not want to do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: We don't know what the problem is.

MR. HOWARD: Well, we know what the problem is; perhaps the hon. gentlemen opposite may not know.

AN HON. MEMBER: They know who the problem is.

MR. HOWARD: The other day I read in the newspaper an

off-the-cuff comment, I understand that it was, by the Premier to the

effect that if his government was defeated on a want-of-confidence

motion here in the House, he and his government would not resign and

there would not be an election. I wondered what he was getting at by

that, and I thought about it some time since then. The other night in

bed I was thinking about the Premier [laughter]...

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that that's that member's

problem and not mine. [Laughter.]

MR. HOWARD: ...and I must say that it was a strange activity for

me to engage in, to be thinking about him. And I finally concluded, in thinking

about what the Premier had said...

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, and then I woke up and discovered it was a nightmare.

... that what the Premier was saying to his members opposite, to his

government supporters, was: "Look, this vote that we are going to have

on this amendment is a free vote." That's what he was saying. "Vote any

way you like." He wants you to stand up and tell him what you think. He

wants you not to to stand up converse in the back rooms about your

disagreement with some of the functions that his government has been

engaged in; he wants you to stand up here and be counted. And that's

obviously what he meant by that reference — if defeated he would not

resign. He wants it to be a free vote, and hon. gentlemen opposite will

have the opportunity to examine that aspect of it and stand up and tell

the Premier directly to his face by a vote what they think — I mean,

whether they support him or whether they don't.

MR. LEA: They've sure been doing it behind your back.

MR. HOWARD: Oh, yes, but the government is not going to fall

if you exercise your independence in this regard. There are some things

that concern can be expressed about, Mr. Speaker. For instance, in the

early 1950s — 1952-53-54 — there existed a fund....

AN HON. MEMBER: This really is a gong show.

[ Page 1211 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They're opposition.

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if you could protect me from this hon. and empty barrel from the Peace River rattling on, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Please continue with the debate.

MR. HOWARD: In that period of time there existed a thing

called "The Social Credit Education Fund." Now that fund was a slush

fund; it was the private preserve of some people in the cabinet; it was

one of those secret accounts. The custodians and the trustees of it

were Robert Bonner and Robert Sommers. The Premier of the day, the late

W.A.C. Bennett, didn't know anything about that fund. We see a

similarity last year in there being secret accounts existing, secret

accounts outside of the Social Credit Party, and the Premier didn't

know anything about that fund, oh, no. This Premier, like his

predecessor in office in 1952 and 1953, didn't know anything about that

secret fund, didn't know anything about the Adams' or the Taylors who

gleaned the money and set it aside for specific, near-illicit purposes

in terms of the campaign. In fact, it's interesting to note, Mr.

Speaker, that one of the trustees or the collectors of money for that

special fund that existed over here last year was Austin Taylor Jr.,

who, I understand, has got some association with an investment firm to

which this government sold some ferries a few years ago — some kind of

hanky-panky.

When hon. members opposite get a chance to cast their vote on this

particular amendment, they'll have an opportunity to vote as to whether

they agree that passing out $1,000 bills...whether they think that's

fair and proper and the correct thing to do. They'll have an

opportunity to vote as to whether they think it's correct and proper to

have something in the neighbourhood of a quarter of a million dollars

in unreported election campaign expenses hidden from public view;

they'll have an opportunity to stand up and say to the Premier that

they think that's right or they think it's wrong. That's one of the

things that you will be dealing with.

In September 1975 — I'm trying to give an indication of a pattern of

thought that exists — threats were made against the life of the then

Premier of this province, my colleague the now Leader of the Opposition

(Mr. Barrett). In any society, especially a democratic society, where

such threats are made, the almost automatic response would be to

deplore a threat against a person in public life. Any responsible

person would, as a minimum, express regrets that such a thing could

take place in our society.

At that time, the gentleman who now holds the office of Premier in

this province was then the Leader of the Opposition. His response to

the news that death threats had been made against the life of the then

Premier was basically to say: "It serves Barrett right." He didn't

express any regrets at an intrusion into our democracy or any concern

about what might happen in a society if that sort of thought was given

support and succour. No, his statement at that time was an inflammatory

statement, I submit, one that basically supported those who had made

the threats, an endorsement to go ahead because, after all, the Premier

at that time deserved it.

I only say that with sadness in my heart, but it's an indication of

the attitude and the concept of the man who is Premier in this

province. When we have an opportunity to vote, those of you who so

desire will have an opportunity to vote either to endorse that action

in 1975, endorse those comments, or to vote against them, without fear

of your government being defeated.

Just the other day, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity of picking up the Vancouver Sun and reading it. I came across an

article I want to refer to, written by one Tony Begbie, as a special to the Sun , involving a visit that he made — this was the Saturday, March 1, 1980, Vancouver Sun

— to Dachau. Well, Dachau, as I discovered from reading the

article — I

had heard of the place before but didn't know the significance of it —

was the first concentration camp established by Heinrich Himmler in

Nazi Germany. We all know from the later recording of history and after

the war what took place in those concentration camps.

Mr. Begbie, if I could just read a very brief reference from it —

and this is 40 years or more after this camp had been established —

said:

"It is an intensely moving experience to walk through

the museum that exists now at Dachau and see the well-documented

evidence of Nazi brutality. Haunting faces stare back at you from

grainy black and white blowups. There, inside a glass case, is a

striped prisoner's uniform, muddy and threadbare. Over there, in

another glass case, are the records of families who have disappeared

forever. A theatre shows a film in several languages. When you leave

the camp, you will take with you a feeling of unreality."

Myself, Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine mental processes of people who

engaged in that sort of brutality in Germany against more than six

million people. I cannot encompass within my mind the inhumanity that

existed, nor the psychotic glee that people would have stripping skin

from prisoners while they are still alive and then making lampshades

from human skin. I know it from reading it, and it does make me a bit

sick at heart to think of it and talk about it.

When I look at that and read about that and think about that, I

cannot help but remember clearly and vividly that the last election

campaign was started by this gentleman who now holds the Premier's

office, identifying those of us in the NDP as Nazis, a deplorable thing

for a Premier to say. When it was pointed out to the Premier what he

was saying, he feigned ignorance of the use of the words "National

Socialist."

When you vote on this particular amendment that I am going to move,

you will have an opportunity to stand up and vote for or against a

person who didn't have the decency to admit that he made a mistake.

You'll have that opportunity.

I want to mention, if I can, another reference to a subject matter

that has concerned me and others in this House for some time. It

relates to the previous Minister of Labour, now the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Williams), who had a responsibility with respect to Indian

affairs when he held the post of Minister of Labour. This was discussed

in the last session very briefly. I would like to quote what the then

Minister of Labour said, as a preliminary. This is on July 23 last

year, page 948 of Hansard :

"At no time did the government of British Columbia indicate that we

on the question of aboriginal rights or land claims." At the time I

disagreed with him. I indicated that the Nishga people had

[ Page 1212 ]

heard otherwise, had thought otherwise and had said otherwise.

In November 1975 the then Leader of the Opposition was in Terrace

and met in the Slumber Lodge Motel with the executive of the Nishga

tribal council. He discussed with them the matter of Indian land

claims. The then Leader of the Opposition, now the Premier, handed to

the tribal council executive a copy of a resolution passed unanimously

by the Social Credit convention just shortly before that particular

meeting. Part of that resolution says as follows. This is provincial

Socred policy. "We must encourage and formulate a mechanism whereby

actual negotiations will take place between the Indian people, the

province of British Columbia and the federal government." Notice that:

"negotiations."

Further on, the next point: "We must inform the general public of

British Columbia that after negotiating and arriving at a just

settlement....," and so on. I stop there, because the references are to

negotiating. Those are the words of the gentleman who is now the

Premier. He met with Nishga tribal council people, gave them the

resolution, committed himself that if he became the government his

government would enter into negotiations. That's what he said.

Shortly thereafter he did become Premier. His Minister of Labour

went to New Aiyansh on January 12, 1976, and attended a meeting there

which was taped. It is interesting to read what the Minister of Labour

said: "The letter of invitation from your distinguished president

received after the December 11 election asked the government of British

Columbia, which it is my pleasure to represent, to come as a third

party in the land settlement negotiations." Now, admittedly that's

talking about the invitation.

Then he said: "And the fact that I am in attendance here today is to

be regarded as an expression of the wish of the government of British

Columbia to acknowledge and accept its rightful place as a full and

necessary participant in these discussions."

Suddenly he moves from negotiations to discussions. Later on, on two

separate occasions in the same remarks of the Minister of Labour, he

talks about these negotiations and the need to have meaningful

negotiations. Then he stands up in this House and says that at no time

did the government commit itself to enter into negotiations. The proof

shows otherwise.

The question I am wondering is: why in heaven's name did the

Minister of Labour then let the Premier make such a fool of him by

permitting him to make those kinds of statements which would put the

Minister of Labour, as they did, in the position of having to stand up

in this House last session and say something to us which is not in

accordance with the facts?

Now that's not the former Minister of Labour's doing. That's not the

current Attorney-General's doing. That, I think, is the doing of the

Premier. Again people will have an opportunity when we vote to

determine whether or not they want to support that type of

double-dealing — of telling people one thing out of the depth of his

commitment and then denying that later on and forcing the Minister of

Labour into the position to deny.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to these things there is the whole question

of the record of competency of the government, and as to whether or not

it is competent in the sense that we as British Columbians should

expect it to be competent in the handling of our affairs. It applauds

itself on being businesslike and administratively effective, and yet

all that's shown up is a record of being able to lurch from one crisis

to the other with no meaningful plan, no meaningful projection into the

future. Those things that it has touched have been bungled and have

been mismanaged.

When people vote later on on the amendment, they'll have an

opportunity to vote for the fiasco or against the fiasco created with

respect to B.C. Ferries. You'll be able to vote as to whether you think

it's a good thing that the city of Prince Rupert and the north coast

should be without a ferry service for two months — all because this

government didn't have the foresight to see that by putting the Queen of Prince Rupert

on the run to Seattle, they were going to leave the north coast without

service for two months. That's bungling, straight incompetence and

callous....

If someone is going to object and say, "Oh, no, we knew what we were

doing," then it's callous disregard for the rights of everybody living

along the north coast and in the northern interior as well. You'll be

able to vote as to whether you agree that that type of action by

government should be supported because of the loss of income as a

result of tourists not being able to travel here. You'll be able to

vote as to whether or not you want to support the idea that there's a

loss of thousands of dollars to small business people who rest on

tourism, a great deal of their activities on tourism, all the way from

Prince Rupert through the riding of Skeena, through the riding of

Omineca and into Prince George where countless thousands of dollars

have been lost and where there are literally hundreds of hotel

reservations that have been cancelled because of that bungling activity

of chopping off a twomonth period with no ferry service to Prince

Rupert. You'll be able to vote to support that type of incompetence or

vote against it.

You'll be able to vote to endorse the complete and horrendously

stupid decision about the Heroin Treatment Program up in Vancouver

Island here — whether you agree that that money should have been spent

or not. You'll have the opportunity. A complete fiasco, and that's part

of the record of this government that the Premier is asking you to vote

for or against — and committing to you beforehand that there won't be

elections. We'll stand up as free, independent men and women and tell

the Premier what you think of this type of horrendous, horrendous

incompetence — not behind his back. Now I think, Mr. Speaker, just

before I seek to close my remarks and move the amendment....

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: I understand that's a subject matter that if I so

wanted to indicate, I would indicate it to Mr. Speaker. Obviously the

government House Leader doesn't talk with his chief government Whip,

because I told the government Whip that information earlier today.

Perhaps the crowning indignity visited upon our democratic

institution took place on February 18 — that was when there was a

federal election. That was the time that somebody prominent in this

House exhibited his lack of interest in the whole process of democracy,

showed the worst possible example for citizens in this land and visited

upon decent, responsible people the incredible insult of saying he

wasn't even interested in voting — a fundamental right to be preserved

and to be protected.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's one vote?

[ Page 1213 ]

MR. HOWARD: I mean, what's one vote?

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: He knew what one vote was when he dealt with the member for Delta.

I can imagine, Mr. Speaker, after listening to the Speech from the

Throne, after listening to statements later on about this government's

question of constitutional arrangements.... I can imagine the Premier

of this province sitting down and talking with the Prime Minister of

Canada and saying, "Mr. Prime Minister, we need this and we need that,

and we want these changes made," and Prime Minister Trudeau would look

at the Premier and say: "Listen, man, if you don't vote, you've got no

right to bitch." That wouldn't be the Prime Minister of Canada's

comment in isolation from the view expressed to me by hundreds and

hundreds of people when they heard of this latest failure of "citizen

Bill."

When you vote, my friends, you have the opportunity to stand up and

say to the Premier: "That's right on, Mr. Premier. I think you should

have ignored the democratic processes. I agree with you that you

shouldn't have voted." A fine thing to do. Show the way to everybody

else in this land that you don't want them to participate in the

democratic process. You'll have the opportunity to go the other way and

say, as has been said privately by some Social Credit backbenchers:

"Shame on you, Mr. Premier. Shame on you!"

I have to express my indignity and my shame for you by voting

against you, and by voting for the amendment that I now move, seconded

by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

I move, so seconded, Mr. Speaker, to add at the end of the question

the words: "that we feel it, however, to be our humble duty to submit

to Your Honour that it is essential that Your Honour's government

should possess the confidence of this House and of this province, and

respectfully to represent to Your Honour that such confidence is not

reposed in the present advisers to Your Honour." Implicit, though

unstated, in there — and I wish I could have put it in — is that the

reason for this is because the president of Your Honour's executive

council has not been resolute in establishing and enforcing standards

of conduct and behaviour appropriate to the high and noble expectations

of Your Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I consider the amendment itself.... I was

looking feverishly through my edition of Sir Erskine May to draw to the

attention of all members of the House a courtesy to which we have grown

accustomed and, I think, one which we should seek to preserve. I find

it on page 418 of the eighteenth edition where it says: "In the upper

House, however, a lord is now alluded to by name, but in the Commons" —

from which House we gain our precedent — "each member must be

distinguished by the office he holds, by the place he represents or by

other designation, as the noble lord, or the Secretary of State for

foreign affairs, or the hon. member, or the right Hon. gentleman" or

other such phrases. You'll find them there on page 418. We resist

calling each other by our Christian names in this chamber.

The amendment I have in hand is properly signed by both the mover and the seconder. The motion appears to be in order.

The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), seconder of the motion.

Order, please. Is the member for Dewdney standing on a point of order?

MR. MUSSALLEM: I am quite surprised that the hon. member for

Skeena stated that there was lack of cooperation in the House and said

that we did not ask to identify who was the designated speaker. I

didn't hear it very clearly, but he mentioned that this happened. I

want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I'll be looking for Hansard

when it comes out. I've asked him in the hall only a little while ago:

"Who is your designated speaker?" He said: "I'm not going to tell you."

Those were his very words.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, please. This is a matter which is

not the business of the House. It is a matter which is considered

between Whips, who establish things like speaking order and designated

speakers. Please, let's not bring that into this chamber.

On the amendment.

MR. LAUK: I intend, even though I am entitled under the

practice of this House to speak on the main motion, only to limit my

remarks to the amendment. I am pleased that the Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. Williams) has retaken his chair, so that I can refer some of my

remarks to his statement on St. Valentine's Day of this year dealing

with the so-called Lettergate affair.

The amendment to the motion, as stated by the member for Skeena (Mr.

Howard), is designed in such a way as to focus attention upon the

conduct of the president of the executive council, the Premier of the

province. The Lettergate scandal, as it is called, is not so much a

question of law; it is not so much a question of the Attorney-General

and the RCMP investigation to find out whether a forgery had been

committed; it is a question of the free political system and whether or

not all of us in this province can expect that that free political

system will survive untampered with by a conspiracy to destroy its

integrity and to destroy freedom of expression in the press.

The facts involving the Lettergate case, we are told, do not

directly link the Premier with such a conspiracy. I say that is not so.

I say there is evidence, sufficient to bring before this House, to

indicate that the Premier was involved in such a conspiracy and that

that conspiracy involved the entire structure of the Social Credit

Party — from the Premier's office to his leadership of that party and

on down.

May I refer, Mr. Speaker, to the statements made by the hon.

Attorney-General on St. Valentine's Day. He gave a press release

absolving all people of criminal culpability. On the other hand he made

the comment:

"Whether criminality exists in any letter or not, the

practice evident in these instances discloses — except in the

justifiable cases where noms de plume may be used — a cowardly,

reprehensible and irresponsible attitude involving the use of a medium

for the expression of opinion which has become a traditional feature of

newspapers in our society."

I want all hon. members of this House to keep that statement in mind as I go through the evidence implicating the accused.

The Premier, although not directly linked to the use

[ Page 1214 ]

false names and forged letters, as leader of his

party has set the moral tone for the members, official or otherwise, of

his political party. It is his leadership which we must assume has led

to this disdain for the political system, for this contempt for the

political process. His watch-word, his calling-cry to his

comrades-in-arms is "victory at any cost" — at any cost, including the

undermining and subversion of the free political system.

We know from Nixon's Watergate that the head of a political party

need only give the appearance of approval for unsavoury practices to

encourage the employment of such practices by enthusiastic followers. I

ask the Attorney General: who provided that kind of leadership in this

sordid affair?

Let me read from the Attorney-General's message. On page 7 he says:

"You will appreciate that counselling involves recommending the

commission of an offence. If the offence is committed, the person who

counsels it is a party to the offence itself." What the

Attorney-General did not deal with was the definition of conspiracy

which may or may not involve criminal conduct. For that purpose I refer

to Stroud 's Judicial Dictionary , vol. 1, fourth edition, in which it is stated:

" It is sufficient to constitute a conspiracy if two

or more persons combine by fraud and false pretences to injure another.

It is not necessary, in order to constitute a conspiracy, that the acts

agreed to be done should be acts, which if done would be criminal. It

is enough if the acts agreed to be done, although not criminal, are

wrongful."

Again, on page 564 — I refer to the judgment of Mr. Justice Willis in the Mulcahy v. Regina case, where he stated:

"Much consideration of the matter has led me to be

convinced that a number of actions and things, not in themselves

actionable or unlawful if done separately without conspiracy, may, with

conspiracy, become dangerous and alarming, just as a grain of gunpowder

is harmless, but a pound may be highly destructive, or the

administration of a particular drug may be most beneficial as a

medicine, but administered frequently and in larger quantities with a

view to harm, may be fatal as a poison."

Not fatal, Mr. Speaker, to the New Democratic Party, but fatal to the political system in which we live.

Although we may not find a conspiracy here to commit a criminal

offence, let's look at the evidence for conspiracy — an action by

design by two or more people in concert to undermine the political

system of free and fair elections. Fact number one: on May 27, 1975,

the leader of the Social Credit Party writes a letter to "Dear

friends," marked "personal and strictly confidential." He sent,

presumably, pamphlet material outlining a program: "It is hoped that

this new material will be useful to those in the constituency who are

directly working in the field of communicating in hotline shows, and in

the preparation of material in the letters to the editor column in

newspapers circulating in your area."

I ask hon. members to pay close attention to his very precise and

considered choice of words — "who are directly working in the field of

communicating." This letter enthusiastically encouraged them to use

pre-prepared material on current issues to be used by those in the

constituency who are directly working in the field of communicating.

Now let's analyze that phrase. "In the field of" can mean only one

thing. Under the Premier's leadership of his party, and his direction,

there were certain individuals who were designated as special party

workers who were assigned by special skill to work in the field of

communicating and who were assigned to prepare letters to the editor

and call hotline shows.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I have to determine something for

the direction not only of the member who now has the floor, but also

for the Chair. Although the member has not alluded to it, I must

suggest, perhaps even warn, that the imputation of false or unavowed

motives is not permitted in the content of speeches, and is only

possible if the member has a substantive motion which he wishes to move.

MR. LAUK: Thank you for that. I was most aware of that and

have jotted down copious notes to avoid that problem. I asked hon.

members, and I would ask Mr. Speaker also to perhaps....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let's hear the debate.

MR. MACDONALD: The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips) has been chattering away in his seat in a loud voice on

a very serious matter which is being debated, and I think he should be checked

by the Speaker, and also the minister down below there. This is not a funny

matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would remind all hon. members

that the only person who is to be recognized is the one who is in

possession of the floor, and he ought not to be interrupted. I think

that it is the precedent which we have established in this House that

an occasional outburst is permitted. However, as soon as it becomes any

kind of a flow, it must be resisted. Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: I thank all hon. members for their courtesy. I

mentioned the words "in the field of communicating," and I suggest to

the hon. members of this House that that was a carefully chosen phrase

to identify in his letter that group of people who were designated by

special skill and training to work in that field of communicating, and

who were assigned in the Social Credit Party to prepare letters to the

editor and call hotline shows. Who were these people? How were they

trained, and by whom? What were they taught to do?

Fact number two: on May 28, 1975, the leader of the Social Credit

Party sent a letter to presidents and regional directors of the Social

Credit Party. In his letter he referred, in the bottom paragraph....

"For the convenience of your letter-writing team, these address sheets

for the media are enclosed for distribution and their convenience."

First we have "those in the field of"; now we have confirmation the

next day of a "letter-writing team," again evidence that those in the

field were highly trained people in each constituency, designated by

the leader or his party's executive for the purpose of writing letters

to the editor. At this stage we know that such specially trained teams

were in operation; what we don't know at this stage is what detailed

instructions such teams had, and from whom.

[ Page 1215 ]

Fact number three: on September 22, 1978, senior researchers of the

Social Credit caucus advocated phony letter-writing to party workers,

and such advice was tape-recorded, and 170 tapes were distributed out

of the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain's (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy'

s) office, who was then Provincial Secretary. I would ask

this. Is it likely that at this stage the Premier's office was unaware

of advice given by caucus staff at such a level in the presence of high

party officials? Wouldn't righteous members have brought it to the

attention of the leader of their party at the first available

opportunity? Is that likely? I say no, Mr. Speaker.

Fact number four: I'm referring to September 18, 1979, at the Social

Credit constituency meeting in the Colwood Community Hall in the

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew constituency. Jack Kelly, the chief of Social

Credit caucus research, stated.... "He urged the use of phony names in

letters to the editor. He also said that the research department has

used this method, taking names from the telephone book. They have used

about 50 such aliases." Fifty aliases were used; police investigated

only five. The 50 so-called investigations were not the aliases

referred to by Jack Kelly, 45 have yet to be identified.

Is it likely that the head of research in the Premier's party caucus

in Victoria would be supplying such aliases over the months, since

1975, without the Premier's knowledge and condonation? Let's discuss

the Premier's denial of this, Mr. Speaker. He had something to say

about that. On September 27, 1979, he says to the press: "We had no

intention of having our party try to manipulate the media through

hotlines or letters to the editor."

MR. BARBER: When did he say that?

MR. LAUK: September 27, 1979, in the Vancouver Sun :

"We had no intention of having our party try to manipulate the media

through hotlines or letters to the editor." Yet in the letters I've

referred to on May 28, 1975, he calls upon his party officials to do

just that with letter-writing teams. Now ask yourself about credibility

when you're looking at this evidence.

Fact number five: on October 11, 1979, Ron Grieg....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I seem to be disturbing the hon. member for

Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair), Mr. Speaker. I have heard on the best of

authority that he is most disturbed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let's hear the debate.

MR. LAUK: On October 11, 1979, Ron Grieg of the Premier's office resigns under suspicion of involvement with one of the phony letters.

Fact number six: on November 3, 1979, a senior researcher of the

Social Credit caucus states that she was working under the instructions

of the director of the caucus, the executive assistant to the caucus,

Mr. Mitchell, when advocating phony letters.

That's the evidence, Mr. Speaker. We have no direct evidence of the

conspiracy. We have circumstantial evidence, and the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Williams) knows the strenuous rules of circumstantial

evidence applied in the court of the law. Let's apply them here. Let's

be fairer to the Premier than he's been with the people of the Province

of British Columbia.

The first rule is: "Where a case depends on circumstantial evidence,

the evidence must be such that a reasonable person could conclude the

accused's guilt and that such evidence could not admit of any other

rational conclusion than that of guilt."

The second rule is: "By 'any other rational conclusion,' it is not

meant any other 'possible conclusion,' but rather a conclusion based

solely on the evidence." The evidence here admits of no other rational

conclusion to right-thinking, reasonable people in this province. The

Premier was involved in a conspiracy to try to manipulate the media

through hotlines or letters to the editor, and although there is no

criminal responsibility, there is a moral one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, I would have to

refer you to page 419 of the eighteenth edition of Sir Erskine May, and

perhaps would suggest that in your extensive research in order to

prepare for this speech, you should have read this entire page. I can't

take the time to read it to you now, except that an example of that

which is called unparliamentary, even contemptuous, and requires the

prompt interference of the Chair, is an imputation of false or unavowed

motives. I wish the hon. member would consider this as he continues his

speech.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I chose my words not to indicate any reference to "false."

I can only conclude by using the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr.

Williams') own words, that all those from the top to the bottom — not

just those scapegoated, not just those fired, not just those treated

like "little people," not just those used by that party on the other

side with contempt, running them through like a meatgrinder.... The

responsibility rests in the Premier's chair; it always did, and it

always will.

There's no use hiding behind the Criminal Code and saying: "Ah,

there were no offences." This is the free political system we're

talking about, a free electoral system we're talking about, and it's

not a question of partisanship. It's a question of all of us joining

together and protecting that system, and the Premier's chair is the one

all members should be looking to. You shouldn't be looking over here.

You, with us, should be looking at that chair and pointing the

accusatory finger where it belongs.

Let my speech conclude, Mr. Speaker, with the words of the

Attorney-General, who said: "It was a cowardly and irresponsible

attitude which set the low moral tone of such behaviour." It is an

attitude which threatens the integrity of this House and our free

political system.

HON. MR. McGEER: I am sure it will come as no surprise to

you, sir, to the members of this House or to the public of British

Columbia that I will not be supporting the amendment put forward by the

hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). It comes in two parts, Mr.

Speaker. One part the member had the courage to put in print and lay

before the House in the Journals ; the other part he didn't have

the courage to put in print, but in it he intended to make an

implication about the leader of the government.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

[ Page 1216 ]

Mr. Speaker, the confidence that the government enjoys is first of

all displayed by the people of British Columbia. They had their choice

in 1975 and at that time rejected the government of the members

opposite. They had a chance in 1979 to review that decision in terms of

the progress made by the NDP and their stewardship of the public

affairs of this province, and that of the present government, and they

rejected the members opposite again. There will be another test in the

future. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that unless the members opposite

begin between now and then to display some grasp of the issues in

British Columbia, some knowledge of what is required to bring sensible

government to this province, they will be rejected again and again and

again.

Mr. Speaker, if I have one regret about the outcome of this past

election, it's that the House and the people have been deprived for the

first time in many, many years of the benefit of the kind of

constructive opposition that has characterized the parties in this

House other than the NDP. Because it is beginning to show that without

the benefit of those members to prop up the official opposition in

debate their case begins to collapse.

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite suggested that the government of British

Columbia and the people who supported them, and I presume the people opposite

who presented the constructive ideas and debate when they were in opposition,

are motivated, as the member said, by money, power and greed. That would be

the case presented by the opposition: that those who represented the other parties

in the House when they served here, those who represent the government now and

their supporters have that motivation.

The public of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, should be reminded that

that is the philosophy and the attitude of the New Democratic Party.

After all, that is what motivated them when they were in power: to

reject all forms of private enterprise and the people who supported

that philosophy of government, because it was motivated by money, power

and greed.

It is no accident that British Columbia today is a have province.

It's a have province, Mr. Speaker, because it has had the kind of sound

administration and advisers which that member opposite suggests should

not have the confidence of the people of British Columbia, despite the

fact that they have returned such people to government again and again

and again and will do so far into the future.

Why, Mr. Speaker? Precisely because of the words used by the mover

of that amendment, who believes in his heart, as do the members of the

official opposition, that others in society are motivated only by

money, power and greed and are unworthy to operate public or private

enterprises in this province, because they do not share their

philosophy. It's because of that philosophy and what flowed from that

philosophy between the years 1972 and 1975 that during that period our

province was rapidly sliding from the place of freedom and prosperity

that had been built up through a century of progress into one that was

beginning to show conspicuous evidences of sliding back.

I refer, Mr. Speaker, to things that other opposition members have

said in this House when the former member for North Vancouver-Capilano

came and explained to the House that in a time of world-record mineral

prices, the NDP had managed to bring despair to our second-largest

industry in the province, the mining industry. They had done the

reverse of the alchemist's dream of turning ore into rock. I can

remember that during those days gas was on the decline in British

Columbia, because as long as the NDP were in power, believing that

everybody who hunted for and developed the resources in this province

was motivated by money, power and greed, the NDP drove them out of this

province, every last one. Mr. Speaker, during that era when we were

beginning to wonder whether we had supplies to carry ourselves into the

future, we had only one problem on our hands: a government that

believed that people who brought prosperity and progress to this

province were motivated by money, power and greed. And so they left,

Mr. Speaker — and so they left.

It would not have been so bad to have had those who could make this

province move ahead leave it, if there had been others in government

who were competent to make up for the exodus. But that's not what we

found at all. We had a Minister of Highways who suggested, "Yankee, go

home." That's mentioned in the throne speech as coming to be the

world's number one industry in the future. That's what the government

member, the Lieutenant-Governor's adviser, suggested as a policy for

British Columbia, and what will become, according to others — not to

this government — the world's number one industry.

Some of us had the misfortune to take over Crown corporations either

commenced or managed by the NDP. I was one of those unfortunate souls.

The private industry was deliberately driven out of the province by the

NDP. That would not have been so bad if the people who replaced that

private industry that was driven out — because they believed in money,

power and greed — had the confidence and the ability to substitute

something in its place. But, instead, what was created was a

corporation run by the NDP that lost more money than any corporation,

public or private, in Canadian history.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's performance.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker, that is performance.

When you talk about confidence in advisers to the

Lieutenant-Governor, we need to think about whether the public of

British Columbia and this House should have confidence in ministers who

have brought progress and prosperity to British Columbia, who have

given administration with a fair and even hand. The Minister of Tourism

who doesn't say "Yankee, go home" but "We've got a special smile for

you."

The Minister of Labour, who now sits as the Attorney General (Hon.

Mr. Williams) took over the labour chaos that you left behind. Remember

in those dark days of the mid-1970s, when this province set a record in

Canada for man-days lost for labour disputes, and Canada set a record

in the world, surpassed only by Italy, for man-days lost. We had a

Minister of Labour brought in who brought peace and common sense to

this province, to everybody's benefit.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that

there were some in your government — and, I daresay, some in the media

— who praised a minister on your side. But the record is there, and

anybody can go and look at the man-days lost in British Columbia and

Canada and the world. People who want power but don't believe in money,

[ Page 1217 ]

power and greed and reject the philosophy that has

brought progress everywhere in the world, including British Columbia,

and who say that "we have something better," should be able to

demonstrate by their own record, either by encouraging those who can

bring a better system, or themselves, if they're going to operate it

from government, something which is as good or better. Otherwise, Mr.

Speaker, you're not worthy to serve in government, and not worthy

either to serve in opposition.

The public of British Columbia do have to look to alternatives in

the future. And if the alternative they have to look to is somebody

whose philosophy is going to destroy the prosperity of British

Columbia, as indeed you demonstrated you were capable of doing between

1972 and 1975, then the choices for British Columbians are perhaps not

what they should be. The other provinces in Canada, in the main, can

look to better choices than that. We don't have to look in other

provinces in Canada to find the kind of opposition that has a dismal

record in office and has no concept of the future and of where this

province should go and has demonstrated an inability to substitute, to

administer or to function.

There's no question in my mind that the public, the government and the House should utterly reject....

MR. LEA: Have you ever seen a voter up close?

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, I can tell you, Mr. Member, I've had

the great pleasure of serving for some years in what was the largest

riding in British Columbia, and during more provincial elections than I

suppose any member who sits in this House. So I've had plenty of

opportunities to see voters at close hand. Having run in seven

provincial elections, worked in eight of them and worked in some seven

federal elections, I would like to observe that the partisanship and

the enthusiasm and the election practices of various parties are not

always what any of us would like to see. I think that if the member

opposite has made one constructive suggestion, it wasn't in his debate

today, but in his amendment which he proposed on opening day, which I

was pleased to support as a member of the government. I think such a

standing committee would be most worthwhile, and it would give all of

us an opportunity, perhaps, to mention the sorts of things — on all

sides of the House — that we disapprove of in election campaigns, which

involve hundreds of thousands of people. And I'm sure that you don't

like some of the things that occur on this side of the House; nor do I.

And I'm sure we don't agree with all of the things which happen on your

side of the House.

MR. LEA: Is that an apology?

HON. MR. McGEER: It's no apology; it's a statement of fact. I

think it will be very healthy, Mr. Speaker, to have some of those

practices with which we may all disagree thoroughly aired before a

committee. Perhaps in the future the workers for your party and for our

party will be more respectful of the things we say between elections —

of which we heartily disapprove. It is only through this that we are

going to improve the conduct of election campaigns, because it bears

entirely on the people who serve in those election campaigns — their

motivation and their degree of partisanship. I think that there are

plenty of things that could be aired on both sides of the House. Let he

who is without sin in this matter cast the first stone.

I think all of us, if we've worked in any number of elections, are

aware of the fact that election campaigns are not perfect. So perhaps

that will be one of the more positive stances that will emerge from

this election.

As far as this amendment is concerned, Mr. Speaker, and the general

approach of the NDP, I would only say this: if you are to serve the

interests of your party, and the interests of the public of British

Columbia, then you need to take some leaves out of the book of

opposition members from other parties who are no longer with us,

because the essence of opposition is constructive ideas and a

demonstration that your party has a clear vision of where British

Columbia should be going, not just in the matter of government

enterprises and your philosophy of government — which, you admit, is

that the others are motivated only by money, power and greed — but how,

given power again, you would be able to manage well, where you

mismanaged before; where you would be able to encourage resource

development in this province, where you drove it out before; where you

would be able to direct Crown corporations, where you mismanaged them

before; where you would be able to bring labour peace to British

Columbia, where you brought labour warfare before. Those are the things

that the public, and, indeed, the government, is entitled to know if

you aspire to power.

By putting this amendment forward you are saying: "You shouldn't be

in government now; we should be in government." Isn't that essentially

what that says? The members opposite are nodding. Even though the

public rejected you twice, with your leader over the present leader of

the government today, you aren't satisfied with the mandate given you

by the public. You want to walk into the House and take over power.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I say that that's an unworthy approach for those who

say they believe in democracy.

Instead, what you should be doing is laying clearly before the

House, for the benefit of the public of British Columbia, precisely

what you would do if you were in power — especially how you would

correct your own errors; especially how you would broaden your

philosophy; especially how you would develop a program that would be

for all the people of British Columbia, instead of the limited friends

whom you have in this province. That's what's needed, Mr. Speaker, in

debate. That's what's needed by this party. And I hope the members of

the House will reject, as they should, the amendment put forward by the

member for Skeena.

MR. HALL: The previous speaker always answers these debates

with a flourish. He's taken over from a previous minister of defence,

who used to be the member for Chilliwack years ago. He will remember

his speeches like I remember them; and I think we remember his

speeches, as he remembers those speeches of those days — just defence,

not much substance, a great deal of self-congratulation, and some

moralizing. He talks a lot about greed and power and money. I remember

reading all about those qualities, Mr. Speaker, way back in 1975, when

a small group over here suddenly disappeared. I don't know what their

motivation was, and I'm not allowed to cast any aspersions on the

motivation of that small crowd of people who disappeared one night, but

I know that the only member who's been thrashing around the morality of

the situation is one of those who disappeared in the dead of the night

only to reappear somewhere else.

[ Page 1218 ]

He also mentioned the disappearance of another body, another agency.

He talks about the insurance companies. He said that the New Democratic

Party government of 1972 to 1975 drove away the insurance companies. By

his record that may be true. I suppose we could examine that. Indeed, I

suppose one could argue by his lights they were driven out. But I'll

tell you this, Mr. Speaker: they came back and they have left again,

but the second time they left, they were shouting "double-cross." They

didn't shout "double-cross" the first time, because we put down exactly

what we were going to do, just as he asked us to do.

Every election I've ever been connected with, and I've been

connected with as many as the member opposite — in fact, I well

remember canvassing and working against him in a by-election in 1963;

unfortunately I wasn't successful — I have never known any time in any

election when this party did not put its policy down on the order paper

in the election. In fact, Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons that that

party knows, and has used, is that we kept our promises. He talks about

greed, power and money. He talks about the attribution of those kinds

of characteristics to political parties. I can only refer him to the

authority on this particular subject — it's a book which he can find in

the library, called Politics in Paradise.

Mr. Speaker, just dealing with the last two things that the minister

mentioned — one was labour chaos and the other was the attitude of the

ministry that I happened to have for all but about four weeks of the

three years that we were there. I'm going to tell you that your facts

are wrong. No Minister of Tourism ever said the kind of thing that you

said. When he talks about labour chaos, he really is whistling in the

dark. Because every single person that examined our program, our

policies in labour, in the labour code, in the introduction of the

various mechanisms, knows that that was a terrific success. And if it

was all that bad, Mr. Speaker, why haven't they changed it? They've not

changed it at all.

But he likes to confuse us with those statistics, as he used to do

when he gave his Liberal budgets from this side of the House. If he

wants to talk about money, let him repeat and recycle all his old

speeches about the river treaties and all the rest of it. Really it's a

little bit too much.

But lastly he talks about morality. He's not easy with some of the

things that happened, and he's sure that we're not easy with some of

the things. That's the kind of line that we're hearing a lot of, Mr.

Speaker: that somehow we're all bad. I reject that. I say if you find

something bad you should do something about it. And I'm going to tell

that minister he can do something about it. He can find out who was in

charge of all that dirty tricks stuff in the office down the corridor,

because he's now got him working for him. If the minister wants to know

anything about election practices and some of the things that were

recounted by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), let him

ask who was then the chief of staff of the research department. It's

been well documented in the press. Because he's now a senior assistant

to himself.

Mr. Speaker, dealing with the want of confidence motion in the

government, in the Premier, the leader of the government, his

ministers....

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I wonder...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister on a point of order.

HON. MR. McGEER: ...if I may be permitted an interjection.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: I would like the member opposite to step outside in the hall and say that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. minister, you may rise on a point of order. You may not rise on an interjection. The member for Surrey continues.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I'm almost tempted to use that old line: I know this won't go any further.

I want to deal with the want of confidence — moved by the member for

Skeena (Mr. Howard) — in the government, in the Premier as leader of

this province, of his ministers and indeed of his party that works so

hard. And I have some respect for a political party that works hard to

elect its members, a lot of respect for it, and I'm sure that the back

benches particularly on the other side have some respect for the party

members who work so hard to get a government and a member elected.

Now I want to look at the record that we are complaining about, a

record that deals first of all with something that we can start off in

this House about; that is the House itself. Mr. Speaker, I've only been

here since the last election this time around. I was on an enforced

leave of absence for a while, but I was a student from afar. I notice

that in the last two years, two years when it's fair to say we've faced

unparalleled difficulties in this province, unparalleled shortages,

unparalleled inflation, the energy crunch, the constitutional proposals

and problems that have been discussed, perhaps almost ad nauseam at

times, certainly the economic slowdown.... We faced all those problems

in the last two years at an unprecedented rate which I think every

politician must admit has never been seen before. While that has been

going on in the last two years, the parliament of this province has met

for so little time. In 1978 it met for 66 days. It sat 66 days in 1978,

with the majority government before the election, with all the brains

and all the ideas they were claiming to have. They met for only 66 days

to grapple, in the legislative sense, with the problems that I have

just listed.

HON. MR. MAIR: Did you vote against adjournment?

MR. HALL: I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, first of all to bring

the member to order, or shut him up one way or the other, and also to

advise the member that I wasn't here then, as I said in the first place.

In 1979, when everything was worse — when the Premier felt compelled

to go to the people for a mandate, for a message from the people to the

government; when he felt compelled to foreshorten the parliamentary

life of that particular parliament — he came back here and we met for

48 days. We met for only 48 days in 1979, plus one day in which we had

to un-deregulate Seaboard Life, making 49 days altogether. There were

no proposals, there was no legislation, that would go anywhere near

meeting the problems I have listed since the end of 1977, first of all

in a 66-day session and then in a 48-day session.

On that ground alone, in terms of grappling with the problems, in

comparison with other provinces who tried to tackle these things, we,

as a Legislature, led by this government, led by the man over there

who, by the way, seems to

[ Page 1219 ]

have gone away again.... He is not here to listen

to the debate. He has run away again from the very issues we are trying

to deal with. The proposals and the legislation that would have met the

problems in 1977 have gone unnoticed in the actions of this government.

In effect this Legislature has been on strike. It seems to me that is

the first thing on which I would like to register my complaint and my

want of confidence in this government, as far as dealing with the

problems that face not only British Columbia but the rest of the

country, in that legislative performance.

It said in the Province — and I always read the Province ,

because we seem to get the news early — there were 22 pages in the

throne speech. I only got a document with 8 pages; I am wondering where

the other 14 are. I wonder if somebody could check Judge Eckardt's

chambers in Laurel Point and see if they are there. I wonder where

those missing pages are.

In supporting the amendment, Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about

the performance of the government, elaborating on some of the words of

the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). I think the first thing that was

difficult for me to understand, in looking particularly at the last few

weeks, was the inexcusable conduct — as far as I am concerned — of the

Premier, the leader of this province, in not exercising his franchise

in the recent federal election. I just can't understand that. That

really bothers me. I think that is far and away beyond partisan

politics.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you vote?

MR. HALL: Yes, I did.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, would you bring him to order again? He

casts the most ridiculous statements across the floor. That was a long,

long time ago. You've been passing that rubbish around for a long time.

When the Premier of the province fails to exercise his franchise,

how does that leave the teachers of the province? I would like to pose

this question to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) if he were

here. In what position does it put the teachers of this province who

are trying to teach such things as civics and social studies to the

students of today who are asking questions much more than we used to

when we were in school? Where does that place the teachers and

educators of this province, when they see a complete abandonment of

that responsibility? He scratched himself from that particular debate.

He is a no-show; he is a non-runner.

From 1966 to 1972, when I was on this side of the House before, we

used to complain about the empty chair at federal-provincial

conferences of the Premier of the province of that time, Mr. W.A.C.

Bennett. That was a serious thing in British Columbia. I think it cost

the Social Credit Party of that day a lot of votes and a lot of support.

Now we have this kind of thing happening from this Premier. I want

to suggest in the most sincere way I can that in my view that is not

satisfactory conduct by a leader of the province. He is our leader as

far as the province is concerned, and I find that conduct less than

satisfactory. As the children in our schools today are trying to

grapple with the problems of Confederation, we have a non-starter, who

is taking his name from the list.

But what about the rest of the time since the government obtained

that new mandate in 1979, the slim majority that the side on the

opposite enjoys? What's happened since that near rejection in 1979?

What has it contributed to the national debate since May of last year?

What has been contributed to those debates on our behalf, in the debate

that is going on in Canada today? Basically two things: one, that he

wants a redrawing of the boundaries into some regional situation. It

seems to be almost an obsession with the Premier to redraw boundaries.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: Yes, they're on my desk and I've read them.

Mr. Speaker, the second one is that he wants some kind of

non-elected but provincially appointed representation. Well, Mr.

Speaker, no comments from the government about this, no comments about

the Ryan proposals.

The minister who used to be in charge of constitutional affairs

laughs, he guffaws, sniggers. He says: "Ho," when I mention the Ryan

proposals; he doesn't even wait to the end of the paragraph. He's

either a very quick learner, a very fast reader or he perhaps suffers

from extrasensory perception or something. Maybe the only government in

the whole of the country that made no comments about the Ryan proposals

is yours.

AN HON. MEMBER: Rubbish!

MR. HALL: "Rubbish" he says. Well, perhaps you could tell me

other rubbishy governments that didn't make counter-proposals or

comments about the Ryan proposals. I'm not asking the government to

endorse the Ryan proposals. I'm not endorsing them. I'm pointing out

that this government hasn't done anything about them at all; they went

on a holiday. They went on a holiday and they switched horses for

constitutional matters in midstream. To speak of the only government

that hasn't had some word, some encouragement for the commencement of

talks, some comments, basis of debate, call it what you will as all of

these words can be used, as politicians know, from the politicians in

this province to the politicians in Quebec particularly while the

politicians in Quebec are leading the current fight against

separatism.... Let's look at the comments, Mr. Speaker. This is the

only government that has made no significant comments about those

proposals.

Proposals from Newfoundland: Premier Peckford said that Mr. Ryan's

proposals were in keeping with his personal view of the way Canada's

political development should proceed. I'll just put one sentence to

each province.

Prince Edward Island: Premier Angus MacLean stated that many of the

divisions proposed in Mr. Ryan's document are sufficiently fundamental

in nature so as to open a new type of federalism for Canada.

Nova Scotia — Premier John Buchanan etc. accepted; New Brunswick —

Premier Richard Hatfield; Ontario — the Deputy Minister of

Intergovernmental Affairs, Don Stevenson; Alberta — Intergovernmental

affairs minister Johnston; Northwest Territories and the Yukon; Roy

Romanow from Saskatchewan.

But perhaps worst of all, Mr. Speaker, worse than that silence is

the habit that we got into between '66 and '75 of knowing there'd be no

contributions of any significance in matters like that. We've now gone

into the same. From '66 to '72 the silence was deafening from the other

side. The empty chair that I mention again — we're now getting into the

same

[ Page 1220 ]

kind of bunker mentality, the same siege mentality, the same "run away and hide" we're experiencing now.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps worst of all of the record that we're citing

chapter and verse today is the record of the government in dealing with

the fairly simple question of political morality, of campaign funds and

administering itself. There is not much difficulty in those three

things, not much difficulty at all. Two previous speakers, Mr. Speaker,

from this side of the House have outlined in some detail the errors,

the omissions, some of the facts that have surrounded the tragic and

really dreadful

chapter that we had — Lettergate, campaign funds and so

on.

But what has troubled the people of British Columbia, the press, the

opposition, and I presume many members of the government itself, over

the last eight months in particular, has been the kind of reactions

from self-styled spokespeople acting completely out of concert. Here I

think we can do no worse, Mr. Speaker, than to look back on the eight

months with the clarity of hindsight and realize that it's not just

eight months we're talking about. Some of these events that we're

talking about took place, as the member for Vancouver Centre mentioned,

way back in the letter-writing campaign even in 1975.

It is, I suppose, centred mainly around the conduct of the

government, its leader, some of its MLAs and staff in what have been

some of the most bizarre events that I've ever seen in politics in a

couple of countries that I've been actively engaged in the political

life of. Now eight or nine months after the election, with the benefit

of this clearer vision and a greater sense of the order of those

things, some of my friends have made speeches today enunciating some of

those problems, dealing with the morality and dealing with what should

have happened.

In case this House would like some more independent testimony than

that of the member for Skeena, the member for Vancouver Centre and even

myself, let me get the words of the other member for Surrey (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm) on the record. That way, Mr. Speaker, we can have the

whole picture of what I think, as the second member for Surrey, and

what the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the first member for Surrey,

has to say about the government handling of some of the problems.

My colleague said that the government blew the handling of the

scandal — they blew it. Earlier Friday, my colleague, in this cutting

dated November 17, 1979, in the Vancouver Sun ,

said: "The government blew the handling of the scandal. I don't think

it was handled properly. We blew it. It's all hindsight now. I'd be

telling something other than the truth" — that has a certain familiar

ring about it — "if I said the matter had been handled correctly."

That's what he thought about what was going on. So it's not just me,

and it's not just the member for Vancouver Centre or the member for

Skeena; a whole pile of ministers and ex-chairman and people have had

comments to make about it.

The interesting thing is, following that revelation by the Minister

of Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy), whose executive assistant was well featured in this

particular story, came dashing to the defence. She said that she didn't

believe that either the new Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) and the

Minister of Municipal Affairs were criticizing any individual. I don't

know what they were criticizing, but they said they blew it, that it

wasn't handled properly. I don't know what they were really saying if

they weren't criticizing somebody's handling of the situation. If you

handle something, somebody's got to handle it. And if they said it

wasn't done properly, then that somebody who handled it handled it

badly; that's fairly simple to follow. But the Minister of Human

Resources rushed to the defence, said there had been many people

involved, and said: "I don't think their comments reflect on any

individual." Well, I think they do. I think those comments from the

ministers reflect on the people who were supposed to be handling it.

When all else fails, one goes to the leader, one goes to the head of

the whole affair.

Lettergate, the dirty tricks, the bag men, the inquiries, the

hundreds of man-hours of policemen's work investigating, checking,

double-checking, looking into each others' eyes, I suppose, in the dead

of night and wondering what they should check next. I have never in my

life seen such a number of inquiries into one government and one

political party's existence in written history in this province. It

used to cost us about $25,000 to $30,000 a day to listen to the member

for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips). I don't know what it has

cost us just in RCMP wages to check into the Social Credit Party of

this province. It's just incredible.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, can I withdraw the words "the member

for South Peace"? I must have woken him up. Eavesdropping and the RCMP

investigations — what a record! It's a history that must make many of

the members of the Social Credit Party ashamed of themselves.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: Eavesdropping means when you listen in to two other people's conversation.

It's a history of activity that really is a shame for the members of

the Social Credit Party, who are entitled to a different standard of

behaviour from their elected representatives.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We not only have the inaction on matters that should have been

attended to, both governmentally and legislatively, but we've seen

obstructions as well to those few rights that have been afforded to the

opposition. After that lengthy period of inactivity that I've

described, we've had no meetings, nothing referred to the standing

committees of the House — no meetings of those committees. The Crown

corporations committee has been totally frustrated by its chairman: no

meetings were called, meetings were called and then cancelled. Requests

for information from the public accounts committee have been denied by

ministry officials. Now that denial has been confirmed by the Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) himself.

We've no confidence in a government that's been a party to all of

that. We've no confidence at all in a group of ministers who have been

a party to the things that have been itemized in the contributions made

by this side of the House. How can we have any confidence in a

government where the Premier hides at the first sign of trouble,

disappears instead of voting, and governs by press release and

order-in-council? It's a government that turns down honest requests

from volunteer health and welfare organizations, that uses lottery

funds for political partisan purposes, that sees friends and

[ Page 1221 ]

ex-MLAs lobbying, pressuring and

influence-peddling. How can we have any confidence in a government that

produces a worn-out, threadbare list of campaign promises as some sort

of advice to His Honour?

MRS. DAILLY: I rise to also support this amendment. In my 14

years as a member of this Legislature, I've taken part — yes, I'm

getting on — in many motions of non-confidence in this government, and

in the former Social Credit government.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I heard that insulting remark, but

I don't worry because I know where it came from, and I am really not

bothering to pay any attention to that sexist minister. I don't mind

being referred to as a woman, but when he brings in age.... There are

levels.

In the vast number of motions that have been expressed on the floor

of this House, there, of course, has always been a basis for moving a

vote of non-confidence in the government. But never before have we had

so much basis for calling for the resignation of a government and its

leader, because this present Social Credit government has not only

shown that they are inept and bungling in handling the affairs of this

province from a financial point of view — and all that will come in

future debates, Mr. Speaker — but they also have set a new low in political ethics for this province.

I intend to deal with just one aspect of what I consider points out

very graphically and clearly why this government and their present

leader should not remain. And that area I want to deal with

specifically is the area of the relationships of this government and

its advisers and ministers, including the Premier, with the press. You

know, Mr. Speaker, no politician is ever pleased when he or she is

subjected to public criticism through the media, and I know because, as

a former cabinet minister, I certainly had my share of it. And none of

us are ever pleased with it, deserved or undeserved. But there are many

politicians who overreact to this criticism, and out of that

overreaction there are some very strange things that happen. But I

think it's not just a matter of overreaction; I think it's a complete

misunderstanding of the role and the rights of the press in this

province, as we have seen handled by that government.

The Premier of this province has actually made attempts to

manipulate his appearances before the media, and this was done in an

apparent attempt to heighten the subsequent coverage and at the same

time attempt to make the media appear to be on an unwarranted

witch-hunt. And not just the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Premier, who has just left the floor of the House, tried

very hard to throw off in a very contemptuous and arrogant way any

suggestion that there was any such thing as dirty tricks involved in

her government. And many of us have seen her appearances on TV where

she tried to brush off anything that made it appear that her government

had been involved. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) actually suggested, when contacted

by the press on October 12, 1979, that the dirty tricks campaign

reflections on her own office were just foolishness, and she added that

the reporters who wanted to pursue the matter were sick. That is the

attitude that the Deputy Premier of this province has towards the

press, which was simply trying to do its job.

We have in this province, with this government, with this Premier,

with this Deputy Premier and with many of their advisers, including

other cabinet ministers, a complete contempt for the functions of the

free press in this province. One of the basic functions of any press,

Mr. Speaker, has been well stated by a very famous editor who said that

the function of the press, of any press, is to give information with

exactness and truth, and not to omit anything. The public has a right

to know. And that's all that the press of this province were attempting

to do, and have been attempting to do, in their time, during this whole

period of Lettergate, etc.

To attempt to have only certain information published, and to

attempt to prohibit the publication of other views, which, I contend,

Mr. Speaker, has been done and attempted by this government — and I

want to repeat that — and then to attempt to prohibit the publication

of other views, is a step that could lead us into a police state.

I do wish the Minister of Human Resources were here, because if I

recall, that was the minister who ran up and down the breadth and width

of this province years ago, before a provincial election, stating that

the NDP was on the verge of a police state. By the way, Mr. Speaker, if

I recall, she never did apologize for that to our party with an

unqualified apology. That is a shameful example of the level in which

this government wants to take government in this province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to attempt to prohibit publication, as I said, is

really the first step to a police state, and surely all of us are

morally and philosophically opposed to this. That is why I am calling

on the members of the Social Credit caucus, who themselves, I know,

must be shocked at some of the things that have been going on in some

of the higher offices in their government. Here is your chance to stand

up and show that you, too, do not want to be part of this handling of

the press in a way which could inevitably, if not checked, lead to a

police state.

The only way politicians in government can truly say that they

endorse the freedom of the press is to do it by their deeds and their

actions. We have had the Premier of this province say that he endorses

the freedom of the press, so let's look at the actions of the Premier

of this province and his government in the last year to see if those

actions match his words.

Any government which truly believes this must be prepared to make

available to the press all the information it needs to do the job. But

this Premier only professes to want to see that the proper information

gets out to the press. You know, sometimes I think that if this

government had its way, with reference to the press and publications

and news, they would limit us to only one publication in the province

of British Columbia, and that would be the B.C. Government News .

In March 1978 we had an attempt — and I'm going to document why I do

not think the Premier of this province puts his actions where his mouth

is — by the Premier's staff to have a press conference to which only

selected media were to be invited. In other words, this present Social

Credit government was trying to give information only to those

reporters in the press gallery that it believes it can trust. The

Premier of this province and his cabinet ministers obviously condoned

it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Rubbish!

MRS. DAILLY: Someone says "rubbish" across the way. I have the quote right in front of me. I think that cabinet

[ Page 1222 ]

minister must condone what he calls rubbish if he just thinks it's rubbish.

Reporters are, it would seem, to be rewarded by this Social Credit

government for their behaviour according to how they feel about the

government. But, unfortunately, it's not the job of a reporter in

Canada to be trusted by the government. Instead, and indeed, a reporter

who is entirely trusted by any government is probably not doing his

job. If any reporter were to succumb to this carrot-and-stick approach

advocated by that government, the readers of any publication in B.C.

might find themselves with a little more government-sponsored news, but

they would also find themselves with a much less balanced view of

what's really going on in the provincial administration.

The media's job is to disseminate all the facts, not just those

facts that will keep it in favour with the government. Any government

that attempts to do that, which this government did, is showing

complete contempt for the integrity of the press of this province. No

reporter, except the most naive reporter, would expect that the

government actually would expect them to cooperate with that goal. If

the politicians truly understand the democratic process, they should

never use their power to undermine it actively. But we have a

government here, Mr. Speaker, that by their actions show they do not

understand the democratic process.

Then again, let's look at the actions of the Premier, who says he

believes in the freedom of the press. In June 1978 we had the scene of

the Premier getting very upset over a news story that he apparently did

not like, and saying to two newsmen in the legislative corridor that he

wouldn't talk with reporters anymore on an individual basis. From now

on he would only communicate through the press or through press

releases and conferences. Mr. Speaker, I must say, though, that the

Premier of this province actually has broken down and talked to the

press, individually. As a matter of fact, the other morning on the

radio I heard the Premier being interviewed by a reporter in the

corridor. The reporter asked him a very serious question. What the

question was is irrelevant to my point. Do you know what the Premier

said to this reporter? "Isn't it a beautiful day?" And he wandered off.

Now that's what I call complete contempt. It's really strange, because

we've listened to those ministers across the way calling across this

floor, and not one of them has yet been able to come out with a

positive defence of their own government. Not one of them. How can

they? For the last four or five years they tried to blame everything

that went wrong with them on the NDP. That won't wash anymore with the

public. So you are wasting your time to get up in the next four or five

hours and try to talk about how terrible the NDP was. The people of

this province have a chance to weigh both parties, and they want to

hear what you have to say in defence of your own government.

MS. BROWN: And under your own names.

MRS. DAILLY: And under your own names, as the member for Burnaby-Edmonds just said.

Now, Mr. Speaker, regarding the manipulation of the press and the

letter-writing campaign, I am not going to go into that again, because

I know you will say we are becoming repetitious. Certainly the public

of British Columbia has had a lot of fine reporting on that, despite

the attempts to muffle the reporting.

All speakers who have spoken so far have pointed out the hypocrisy

of the Premier, who professes that he's against and was shocked at the

idea of letter writing....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the word "hypocrisy" will need to be withdrawn. Will the hon. member please withdraw?

MRS. DAILLY: I withdraw that, Mr. Speaker. May I just say

that people are stunned in weighing the statements that the Premier has

made on one occasion regarding letters and who they were written by,

compared to his actual actions. Those actions and deeds have already

been documented by the reading in this House of letters written by the

Premier himself. I think it bears repeating just this once, if I may,

Mr. Speaker. The Premier said: "It is not our party policy to condone

this letter writing, we do not approve of letters going to the

editor...." etc., etc. Then we have here documented the actual letters

that he personally sent out.

In December of 1979 we also have another attempt by the Premier to

have an off-the-record chat with the media. Most reporters dislike the

suggestion by any leader of any government that they have an

off-the-record press conference. Do you know why they dislike this and

why they resent being put in this position, which the Premier of this

province put them in? If subsequently, and independently, after that

off-the-record discussion, those reporters should discover facts that

have been given them off the record, they are bound not to use them. In

other words, we have seen here again an attempt by this Premier not to

give out the full information and to manipulate information that goes

out through the media to the public.

As a matter of fact, one reporter suggested, Mr. Speaker, that the

Premier perhaps wanted a dress rehearsal for the questions he was going

to be asked later. But do you know what the Premier replied? "No,

that's not true, because they may not be the same answers." Can one use

the word "duplicity," Mr. Speaker, when referring in a descriptive way

to the leader of a government? I understand I can, and I would like to

say that that is the height of duplicity by the Premier of this

province.

"Off the record simply will not do."

I quote Marjorie Nichols from the Sun . She says:

"Suppose the off-the-record session had actually taken

place. Suppose that Mr. Bennett had made some startling revelations

concerning secret funds and police investigations. The reporters would

then have been in an untenable position. They would either have had to

break their word to keep the utterances confidential, or by keeping

their word they would have had to betray the public trust."

Mr. Speaker, we should pay tribute to the press of this province who had the courage to walk out of that press conference.

Then, of course, we do have the latest episode, and this one endorsed by the cabinet. This is from the Times of 1980; we're right up to January now.

"The legislative press gallery was told by the

Premier's press secretary that members of the media will be banned from

the entire west annex of the Legislature when the cabinet is in

session. That order means that reporters will have no access to the

offices of the Premier and the Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations,

as well as to the cabinet chamber, for

[ Page 1223 ]

several hours each week. He said the cabinet made the decision

after one gallery member was seen on the breezeway outside the second floor

cabinet room."

Well, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, they are getting twitchy, and their whole manner

here today shows a certain twitchiness that makes it quite apparent that they

have no defence. One of the members over there has just said: "Get down

to something meaningful." May I assure the House that nothing more meaningful

has ever happened in this province than the handling by this government of Lettergate

and dirty tricks, and to the public of B.C. It's one of the most meaningful

things. The problem is, Mr. Speaker, that this government, the Premier and his

cabinet laugh and joke about this issue, and it shows that they must lack political

ethics themselves. I think that is the danger of this government. Their blundering

and ineptitude certainly are going to bring a lot of suffering to the people

of this province. But, as far as I'm concerned, a government that has no political

ethics is demeaning the whole parliamentary system of this Legislature, and

it is building up lack of respect for the whole political system. I accuse that

government of lowering the respect for the political process in this province

as no other government in this province has ever done before.

Now, Mr. Speaker, finally, at the Social Credit convention, speaking

to the party faithful, the Premier really showed his contempt for the

press and their rightful function as a press. He actually suggested to

the people at the convention, his party faithful.... I think he made a

point in saying: "God help democracy if the press become the final

court in the land." And the party faithful cheered and cheered. And as

this editorial said: "The issue was surely not that the press had

reported the matter of the phony letters and the taped Socred dirty

tricks strategy, but that the media kept on reporting every new

development and repeating the old news." The messenger, in other words,

had made too much of the message.

But that is not a judgment — I would like to close on this note, Mr.

Speaker — for any politician or political party to make. Every person

who reads a newspaper story, or listens to a radio newscast, or watches

the news reported on television, makes that kind of judgment for

himself or herself. It is a subtle exercise in weighing, accepting and

discounting information. All of us undertake it countless times a day

in daily living. It is a personal thing, and will be there as long as

there is freedom of information. And our parliamentary system will be

here long after many of us are gone. What I'm concerned about is, I

want the people who are in charge of this system to preserve it so that

future generations can look up with respect to a government, and not

with complete contempt and disrespect.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to introduce a famous Canadian who is in the gallery this afternoon?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: I have the honour to introduce a highly distinguished and well-known Canadian actor, Mr. Barry Morse. Barry, will you stand?

Barry Morse is a reverse brain-drain — back to Canada — and the new

artistic director of the Globe Theatre, which a group with boundless

imagination are going to reconstruct on the site of the Maltwood Museum

property, to build a replica of the old Globe Theatre and to bring to

Victoria an entire Shakespearean festival, unique to Victoria,

recreated in an Elizabethan environment. We're delighted to have you

here today, Barry.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, when I looked up in the House and saw Mr. Morris, I found myself groping for my credit cards. [Laughter.]

I know that the members opposite will pay close attention to what I

have to say and won't heckle, because I've always said you live by the

sword and you die by the sword. As you well know, Mr. Speaker, I have

always sat in my place quietly with respect for the members opposite,

and I am sure that they will give me that same respect.

I was very interested on opening day in the Speech from the Throne

to hear the amendment of the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) concerning

a committee for election practices, and then to hear again today the

amendment calling for a vote of non-confidence. There is a problem when

you call morals into issue, which seems to be the case now. You run

into a problem, for one thing, of selective sanctimony. I thought it

was rather interesting yesterday, in light of the amendment of the

member for Skeena on opening day and his amendment today, to hear the

second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) introduce Mr. Gordon Townsend.

Mr. Gordon Townsend, as you all know, is a wronged man. Mr. Gordon

Townsend is a sufferer for democracy. He is a pillar of law and order

and a bulwark of righteousness. He has now been adopted, of course, by

the members opposite as their patron saint.

We heard a little earlier today some quotations from the Criminal

Code on conspiracy, I think it was. But we didn't hear anything about

breaking and entering. Well, I happen to remember the patron saint of

the New Democratic Party very well, because I remember the day in March

1976 when, along with a band of 25 or 30 ruffians, he broke into the

cabinet room — broke and entered the cabinet room, hollering

obscenities, hollering the usual Marxian slogans, and making a general

pest of himself. Had it not been at that time, Mr. Speaker, for the

courage of the Premier of this province, a very serious situation would

certainly have developed. There is no question about that. It was an

act of unparalleled courage on that occasion to turf out the patron

saint of the NDP and the symbol of their selective sanctimony for the

day.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, my friends, we are going to

hear more about this in the months to come. I want to tell you that

during the time of the so-called Lettergate matter it was a great

temptation to many of us to see if we could find something else about

the other guys. But I want to tell you that that temptation was very

quickly resisted. If we are going to take our lumps, let's take our

lumps, and that we have done. For a matter that wasn't a very serious

matter, for a matter that was a very minor matter, really, we have

taken our lumps, and we continue to, and we will take them. But it is

amazing how many people have come forward with some very interesting

things about how the New Democratic Party conducts its affairs.

I want to tell you a little story, Mr. Speaker. Unlike some members

opposite, I won't identify the person involved for fear of embarrassing

him, but I have among my constituents and, I think, among my friends, a

lawyer in Kamloops, whom I will call Mr. X. Now Mr. X....

Interjection.

[ Page 1224 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: I knew you'd have difficulty with that, but

follow the alphabet down logically and you'll get to it. It's the same

way you sign your name, Mr. Member. [Laughter.]

Mr. X, as long as I have known him, Mr. Speaker, has been a Liberal,

a dyed-in-the-wool Liberal. In 1975 he came to me, and he said: "I'm

afraid I can't support you. I have to support the Liberal candidate."

I said: "Fair enough." And he did, which was his right, of course, and he did it well.

In 1979, however, in the provincial campaign in Kamloops, there was

no Liberal candidate. Mr. X came to me and said: "I'm sorry I can't

support a person of my own choice, and I'll tell you frankly that I

can't support you."

I said: "Well, that's fine. Support the person that you wish." So he

did. But, you know, there was a curious coincidence in April and May

1979, Mr. Speaker. At the same time that there was a provincial

election, there was a federal election. Mr. X, being a devout Liberal,

actively sought the nomination for the Liberal Party federally. But he

thought: "What I'll do is also get involved in the provincial campaign.

I will go down to their headquarters and give them $400 so they can

beat Mair." He went down to the NDP headquarters and gave them $400 of

hard-earned money. He said: "Mr. Lapa" — who, incidentally, is a fine

gentleman — "here is $400. Use it to beat Mair, and beat him badly."

Well, you can imagine his surprise in 1980, in the nomination for

the Liberals where he was very active again and had to disclose his

donations. It turned out that he hadn't given $400 to Mr. Lapa at all.

He thought he had, but they'd used it for the federal campaign.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. MAIR: Here he is on the one hand fighting the

federal campaign for the Liberals, and his money is working for the

NDP. I didn't ask for this information, Mr. Speaker. I didn't seek it

out. It came to me by way of a column written in the Kamloops News .

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's not dirty tricks — that's socialist philosophy.

HON. MR. MAIR: That's not dirty tricks at all. If that were a

criminal matter, it would be stealing, but we won't talk about criminal

matters. What's the civil term — conversion, is it?

Mr. Speaker, as I say, normally one would let that pass and laugh it off and

say: "Poor Mr. X — wasn't that a good joke on him?" But now I'm

beginning to wonder whether it was such a joke. Here is a man trying to exercise

his democratic privileges and rights in supporting the person that he wants,

and he has that money converted so that it's actually running against him and

fighting the candidate that he wants to win in the federal election.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if the opposition wish to pursue this

course throughout what I'm sure is going to be a very lengthy session —

and I welcome it.... I only hope you quit by my birthday, which is

December 31. That's all I care — you can sit for the rest of the time,

as far as I'm concerned. But if we persist in this course of not

dealing with the province's business but trying to talk about

"Lettergates" and silly things that should have been dealt with better,

I'm sure, but are no big deal, then we will be here wasting the

public's time for the next ten months. As I say, we will deal, if need

be, more with that subject in due course.

But let's talk about something that the second member for Surrey

(Mr. Hall) said a while ago. I was very surprised, Mr. Speaker, because

I would have thought that that member, of all people, would have taken

the time not only to have read the constitutional proposals put forward

by the province of British Columbia, but to have put them in their

proper context and to have read what the leading constitutional people

in Canada are now saying about those proposals. I'm not talking about

Professor Edward McWhinney, who happens to be somebody that nobody pays

attention to except the second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald) and the CBC — I rank them accordingly.

AN HON. MEMBER: He pays attention to you.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, there is one redeeming feature then, Mr.

Member. But if I understand the second member for Surrey, his point was

that we should have answered the Ryan proposals. I'm sure that the

Minister for Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) in due

course will make clear what our position is relative to the Ryan

proposals, but let me put this before you and the House, Mr. Speaker.

Why on earth would we in British Columbia react to the Ryan proposals

when they are virtually a carbon copy of the proposals we put forward

as a province in 1978?

Mr. Speaker, under the leadership of this Premier, far from British

Columbia being an empty chair at constitutional conferences, it has

provided the leadership at constitutional conferences for the last four

years. I don't suppose it behooves any member or any minister to talk

about how hard they work, but I will indulge myself for a moment and

say that nobody could have worked harder than I have, nobody could have

worked harder than the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations and

certainly nobody could have worked harder than our Premier in trying to

keep this country together.

Mr. Speaker, I won't belabour the point; I will ask in all fairness

that the members opposite read the statement made by the Hon. Tom Wells

to the Ontario Legislature. He is their minister for intergovernmental

relations, and he responded to the Ryan proposals because at the time

their House happened to be in session. He pays great tribute to the

Ryan proposals, but at the same time puts them in the context of

following the Pépin-Robarts proposals, their own Macdonald committee

proposals and, most importantly, the proposals put forward by this

government two years before Mr. Ryan's.

So I think that those who have dealt with the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations, when he was Attorney General, and myself

and the Premier during the last three years would be very surprised to

learn that we were empty chairs or that we are any kind of pushovers.

This province, as no other province, can be proud of the leadership

provided by this Premier in trying to save our nation from a very

serious constitutional problem.

Mr. Speaker, I said that I would be brief, and I will. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke

(Mr. King), who lost his seat in the last election, used to say: "They've

legislated me out of the seat." What happened to poor Bawtree? It seemed

to me he was the guy who lost his seat by reason of the redistribution.

Mr. Speaker, let me speak for all of the members of this

[ Page 1225 ]

government and all of the government members of

this House in saying that never has a party been more united behind a

leader and never has a leader more deserved that support than our

leader.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the

remarks of the minister from Kamloops, he falsely attributed the

introduction yesterday of Gordon Townsend to me when in fact the

introduction was authored by my colleague from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew

(Mr. Mitchell). It continues to prove that the government has great

difficulty surrounding the true authors of the Townsend letters.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We have the point of order, and

it can be corrected in the record. The minister rises on the same point

of order.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to correct the

record and acknowledge that the member is quite right. I can understand

why he would want to get off the record in introducing that hooligan to

this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Shall we use temperate language whenever possible.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you at the

outset that I will not be supporting this amendment. In all my life I

have never heard such utter garbage on the floor of this Legislature as

I have heard here this afternoon. After being away from this

Legislature for eight months, if this is the best they can get up with,

they're the ones who should resign. They don't deserve to be opposition.

Instead of coming in here and talking about things that are of

interest to the people in this province, such items as the economy,

which their leader said on the was going to be the main topic of

deba