1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1249 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

High interest rates on AHOP mortgages. Mr. Gabelmann –– 1249

BCDC loans and U.S. prime rate. Mr. Leggatt –– 1249

Bank of Canada interest rates. Mr. Stupich –– 1249

Allegations against Ritchie. Mr. Macdonald –– 1250

Environmental reports on Okanagan Lake system. Mr. Skelly –– 1250

Facilities at Como Lake private hospital. Mr. Cocke –– 1250

Administration of James Bay Lodge. Mr. Cocke –– 1250

Surgery cancellations in Victoria. Mr. Hanson –– 1251

Speech from the Throne.

On the amendment.

Mr. Passarell –– 1251

Mr. Ritchie –– 1252

Mr. Cocke –– 1255

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 1259

Mr. Lockstead –– 1263

Mr. Brummet –– 1264

Mr. Levi –– 1266

Hon. Mrs. Jordan –– 1271

Presenting reports

Public Service Benefit Plans Act, third annual report as at March 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1275

Pacific National Exhibition financial statements as at November 30, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1275

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the people of British

Columbia live in hope; we have a great deal of hope for the future of

this province. Today I would like to introduce the mayor of Hope, Bud

Gardner, and Alderman Alex Kirilows.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to introduce

to the House a very close friend of mine, Vanessa Geary, who is here

with a friend of hers, Annette Burkhart.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce three

close friends of mine, Mr. and Mrs. Sparks and Mr. George Zimmich. Mr.

Zimmich is a miner who lives very close to me up in Atlin when he is

allowed to mine.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce Brian

Klaver, seated in your gallery, who is now a student at the University

of Victoria. Brian was the mayor of Port Hardy in the old days when it

was part of Comox constituency. He gave up politics to become a

student. I hope we will make him welcome this afternoon.

Oral Questions

HIGH INTEREST

RATES ON AHOP MORTGAGES

MR. GABELMANN: My question is to the Minister of Lands, Parks

and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). In view of the ever-increasing mortgage

interest rates — 20 percent in the U.S. as of Tuesday — and in view of

the fact that the renewals are now coming up on mortgages on assisted

home ownership plans, and interest rates presently mean that those

average- and low-wage earners are about to lose their AHOP homes as a

result of dramatic increases in monthly payments — in some cases a

doubling and tripling of monthly payments — what has the minister done

to protect these people?

HON. MR. CHABOT: No one residing

in an AHOP home has approached me expressing the concern which the

member for North Island has expressed. Based on that statement, I have

to believe that it is a concern that is prevalent only in the mind of

that member.

BCDC LOANS

AND U.S. PRIME RATE

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Ministry of

Industry and Small Business Development. It also concerns this real

crisis we are going to have in interest rates. As you know, the

American prime rate is now projected at up to 20 percent. It's

presently at 17½ percent, Mr. Speaker, so we know it's going up. The

minister has responsibility for the British Columbia Development

Corporation, and at the present time the loans from that organization

are running, I believe, at 1 to 2 percent above prime, although I

understand that the LILA rate is also a subsidized rate that is

dependent on the prime rate. Now my question is this: what action is

the minister taking now to tie the prime rate of BCDC down so that it

doesn't leap ahead with the rates that are obviously going to go up if

the present federal government continues its policy of just following

U.S. prime rates?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the hon. member's question,

as you know, we have, through negotiation with the federal government,

brought in the Low Interest Loans Assistance program, which has helped

many hundreds of businesses in this area. We've also brought in our

Assistance to Small Enterprise Program, which has helped more than 500

small manufacturing firms in this province that need assistance to

expand their manufacturing base. The member should also know that

negotiations with Ottawa…. We've signed our TIDS agreement to help the

tourist industry develop and expand. We will continue to monitor the

situation, Mr. Speaker. We realize that high interest rates are indeed

an inflationary problem in British Columbia, and that's why this

government was able to put out $200 million to help every homeowner, to

help people to build homes.

I would suggest that maybe the member should question the federal

government, which is in charge of interest rates, and wait until the

budget comes out.

MR. LEGGATT: I have a supplementary question. The minister,

of course, knows that he has jurisdiction over BCDC, and he doesn't

have to slavishly follow the federal government on prime rates. This

government has the power to set the rate at BCDC, and it knows it.

Presently, under these loan programs, the minister restricts the loan

to certain target areas; there are areas in British Columbia, for

example, that are excluded from the program — Victoria and Vancouver.

It also is limited to manufacturing and processing, which means that

there are many, many small businesses in British Columbia that don't

qualify for this kind of money that should be available to everyone. Is

the minister now going to change the target area, and is he also going

to expand the limitations on the loan so that every small business man

in British Columbia gets a crack at this money?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm very disappointed that the member for Coquitlam-Moody

hasn't done his homework. They seem to be very ill-prepared to come into this

House and debate the issues. Last year in the Legislature in the budget speech

during my estimates we brought out and expanded the LILA program, which is a

B.C. program, to all the lower mainland, to Victoria and to the lower part of

the Island. So I would suggest the member do his homework before he stands up.

If he's going to be the critic on economic affairs, I see that I'm going to

have to take him for three or four days and educate him so that he can at least

be credible in opposition.

BANK OF CANADA INTEREST RATES

MR. STUPICH: If I could just for a moment join in the

filibuster attempt by the Minister of Economic Development, from what

I've heard of that $200 million program something less than everybody

is being helped by it. My question is to the Minister of Finance. Will

the government join with the official opposition in urging the governor

of the Bank of Canada not to follow the example of the U.S. banks and

in urging the federal government to roll back interest rates to prevent

this institutional usery from economically crippling the citizens of

B.C.?

[ Page 1250 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: I would find it a little strange for the

government to join with the official opposition in enunciating a policy

which has been very clearly, frankly and forcefully enunciated by the

Premier of this province repeatedly in negotiations with Ottawa.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm still not clear as to whether

or not the government has taken any action with respect to the recent

increases in interest rates, whether the government has made any

representations to the governor of the Bank of Canada recently with

respect to the most recent increase and whether or not — I hope the

minister is able to listen to me and to the Premier, Mr. Speaker — the

government is currently encouraging the federal government to do

anything about the rapidly increasing interest rates.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think it is a matter of record over a good

long time, and again very recently, that the government of British

Columbia, through constitutional papers, through direct contact,

through....

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: The point has been made repeatedly and very

forcefully by this government, and directly to the governor of the Bank

of Canada, with respect to our position concerning high interest rates.

I think the member, in asking the question, knows the answer, sir.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST RITCHIE

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the

Attorney-General. On Monday last I asked a number of questions relating

to the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley. The Attorney-General has

had two days to consider the matter. My question to him is this: has

the minister now decided whether or not he will answer those questions

that he took on notice?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The procedure in our House is

that if a minister takes a question on notice, it is at his discretion

that he bring back the answers.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Attorney-General may wish to answer.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I've asked him whether he has decided whether or not he will answer the questions.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'll answer. Mr. Speaker, while it is a

question which under your rules is not obliged to be answered, I would

like to allay any fears of the hon. member. I decided at the same time

the questions were asked that they would be answered. Very specific

questions were asked with respect to dates. The official of my ministry

who has those dates available to him has been out of Victoria until

noon today, and I expect to have the answers back, hopefully for

tomorrow.

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS ON

OKANAGAN LAKE SYSTEM

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Environment

confirm that 1978 and 1979 reports of the 2,4-D program in the Okanagan

lake system are now complete, including reports on stem counts, areas

treated, costs, drift studies and aquatic ecosystem impacts?

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

question. I'm informed by officials of my ministry that these reports

are not yet complete, but will be shortly. I'm also informed that the

results of the reports are disappointing, in that they feel that they

are not really startling.

MR. SKELLY: I don't think anybody is looking for startling

reports, Mr. Speaker. But I have a further question to the Minister of

Environment: has he decided to make these reports public, so that they

will be in the hands of people prior to the Pesticide Control Appeal

Board hearings for the 1980 permits for Wood Lake and Kalamalka Lake?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Subject to those reports being available,

Mr. Speaker. However, I would not want to delay or give the false

impression that we were prepared to delay our implementation of the

hearings before the pesticide control branch based on these reports not

being available — as it affects Kalamalka Lake and Wood Lake.

FACILITIES AT COMO

LAKE PRIVATE HOSPITAL

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to

the Minister of Health. At Como Lake Private Hospital, we are informed,

there are no personal toilet articles and only four commode chairs for

70 bedridden patients. Has this private hospital passed inspection

under the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act?

HON. MR. MAIR: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

ADMINISTRATION OF

JAMES BAY LODGE

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I noted that some time ago, just

before Christmas as a matter of fact, when the minister was full of the

spirit, he announced that he was apprehensive about the profits

accruing to the operators of private hospitals from long-term care

patients who are funded by the government. Does the minister realize

that Beacon Hill Lodges of Canada Ltd., which owns James Bay Lodge,

made a net profit after taxes last year of 16.85 percent?

Does the minister also realize that, while there was an inquest

going on over the case of the person, Mr. Pascoe, that I brought up the

other day, there was an Ada Lock who also fell to her death from this

same private hospital funded partly by government money? And the

minister is concerned over their making large sums of money. I'm

concerned, Mr. Speaker, about them squeezing the government in terms of

their service. What is the minister's reply?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I had a very difficult

[ Page 1251 ]

time discerning the question. I heard a number of

statements and I'm grateful for the information that the member gave me

— which I already knew — but I'm afraid I did not detect a question.

I'll be delighted to answer one, if you'll put a question to me.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the member will state the question,

remembering the rule that it's not permitted in this House to make a

statement under the guise of a question.

MR. COCKE: Oh, Mr. Speaker, how would I ever be accused of

such a thing? I would ask the minister whether he has developed policy

around the question of profits in the private hospitals catering to

public cases.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: Let it be shown, Mr. Speaker, that the question was clearly out of order.

SURGERY CANCELLATIONS

IN VICTORIA

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the

Minister of Health. Would the Minister of Health please confirm that

surgery cancellations at the Royal Jubilee and Victoria General

Hospitals have risen to a figure of 253 for the first two months of

this year? In view of the fact that the elective surgery list in the

two hospitals combined now totals 2,300, and that these two hospitals

are operating at 99 percent capacity, what action has the minister

taken to overcome the serious situation for the period intervening,

prior to the Helmcken hospital coming on line?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I am going to take that question

on notice, but I am going to undertake to the member and to the House

to bring a full statement on this situation to the House, I would hope,

within the week.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. PASSARELL: Right at the onset I'd like to congratulate

the hon. member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) on his selection as the Deputy

Speaker, and secondly I'd like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on the

handling of what we did yesterday.

Speaking on this motion, I was sitting back yesterday and listening

to the name-calling — and I certainly hope it doesn't happen today as

much as it did yesterday.... On this non-confidence in the present

leader, in the Times

newspaper yesterday there was talk about beating the bushes for votes,

and I was wondering why the Premier of this province was having such a

difficult time controlling his group. It was given to me right on the

front page of the newspaper, Mr. Speaker, and by the hon. member for

Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem). I'd just like to read this to you, sir. In

fact, says the hon. member, he wouldn't be surprised to see a Sasquatch

elected to the Legislature. "I think you would find one taking a

prominent place in our party." Well, there it is. There's the

leadership right there — the Sasquatch for that party.

Why does this government lose the confidence of the people? First,

the Premier himself not voting.... There he goes. He leaves. He knows —

it's not important for one vote. Well, just ask my opponent, Mr.

Speaker, how important one vote was. Secondly, we get hired employees

of this government told to do a job, to carry out the orders like good

soldiers, and what happens? They're dumped upon, fired or asked to

resign, because these good people, the little people, were forced to

sacrifice themselves, pressured to take the full blame for the

disrespectful conduct of this government. The wealthy, up to their

elbows in sugar, are calling the little people who did their dirty work

"jerks" and "stupid." What shameless respect for these people who just

did their jobs.

Let's review some of the facts and put them into the public record.

Earlier yesterday afternoon the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre

(Mr. Lauk) spoke about moral conduct. What type of moral conduct is

demonstrated by a government that allows Social Credit campaign tapes

to tell workers to forge names, and then many months later, when it

appears in the press, uses the line: "We don't know anything about

these tapes."? The word was out to cover up, to put the blame on the

poor little people of that party.

One of the disadvantages of this madness, Mr. Speaker, is the

embarrassment to the government of B.C., not only to the leader but

also to the backbenchers, who must face their constituents. Not every

one wins a cabinet seat. No matter if they're sugar stilettos, no

bouncing through the flower bed will save face for this government.

Truth, like secret reports that are covered up because of political

motives....

I'd like to tell a little story about these dirty tricks, Mr.

Speaker, and what I am going to use is a literary guide. So often in

debates we talk about famous books and novels to give a philosophy.

Well, my literary guide today to talk about this government, its leader

and the dirty tricks is TV Week ,

a famous literary guide, to demonstrate an issue. This story will be

interspersed with TV shows to make the point — the wheel of fortune,

spinning around, not letting anyone off. Why the issues of dirty tricks

became a problem was because of two shows, Mr. Speaker: "The Young and

the Restless," and "The Chain Reaction of a Government."

Referring back to the motion, Mr. Speaker, "The Guiding Light" of

that party was caught into "The Good Life," and was afraid of losing

power at any cost. The government believed in "One Life to Live," and

National Geographic's "The Invisible World." Power could not be lost at

any cost. "As the World Turns," the little people involved were dumped

upon. "The Hour of Power" and "Faith for Today" came into the crest.

The mad dash began by members seeking cabinet positions. The first

member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Rogers) said it's a complete

tempest in a teapot. Soon the sugar stiletto was stuck in again; the

sugar-coating aspect of Miss McKay's and Mr. Kelly's dismissal was

nothing more than a family feud by members wanting a cabinet position.

Next the "Comedy Shop" pops up, hon. members, knowing that by

getting out and cutting the little guy the government would be saved.

The reward — a cabinet position by a government who knew their "Love

Boat" was sinking. The "Search for Tomorrow" was followed by Mr. Kelly

resigning. Miss McKay stuck to her guns. "The $20,000 Pyramid" all

became active ingredients in the government's "Hour of Power."

Mr. Speaker, the government, knowing by this time that the "Funorama" was becoming serious in the eyes of the

[ Page 1252 ]

public, next became the "Boomerang" in "The Price

Is Right" by the government, who saw its leadership falling apart. That

government was left leaderless, Mr. Speaker, like the "Banana Splits,"

heading off into the deserts of California to "Take Thirty," with no

forwarding address, as the "Bewitched" aspects of public life caused

another holiday.

Referring back to the motion, Mr. Speaker, the "Nature of Things,"

demonstrated the "Quirks and Quarks" of that leader. For a time it

looked like the government was "Over Easy" and "Eight Is Enough," but

the foolishness continued. Soon the government's life became "One Day

at a Time." As soon as one cabinet minister, or aspiring cabinet

minister, bailed out the "Love Boat," another "Tempest" filtered down

upon this government, showing distrust at the abilities of the "Jokers

are Wild."

Referring back to the motion, Mr. Speaker, why this debate is

happening is because "The Guiding Light" became the "Comedy Shop," all

because "The Price Is Right" and "The Good Life" was too good. "As the

World Turns" became "Fantasy Island," with the "One Life to Live" of

this government falling apart because "Masterpiece Theatre" became "The

Saint," since dirty tricks had progressed from the "Dukes of Hazard" to

"Definitions" to the news, until finally, not even the "Incredible

Hulk" could save the face of this government, who found "Another World"

in the "Monty Python" "Midnight Special" of government.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the niceties of public life when a scandal

appears is not an issue to take lightly, or allow to drag on for

months. The scandals are thrust upon this government, and the

government alone, with its leader, must take full blame and

responsibility.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will stop and go watch some afternoon TV, and I also support this motion.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I know that you were very concerned

about my adjustment from life down on a turkey farm to political life

when I was elected last year. Well, Mr. Speaker, I want you to know

that as I observed the opposition yesterday I felt very much at home.

I don't intend to begin my remarks with a recitation of economic

statistics with which members opposite are perfectly familiar. The

steady hand of our Premier has steered this province on a course of

fiscal responsibility and growth. He has once again made British

Columbia a province where investors are prepared to risk their money

and to create jobs. I will not recite the facts to the opposition for

the umpteenth time, because I don't think it would get through.

What I will tell them, however, is that the Premier of the province

of British Columbia, the hon. member for South Okanagan, has brought

this province into the twentieth century as far as the governing

process is concerned. He and he alone must get the credit for

introducing sound management principles to B.C. in the seventies. Was

this provided by NDP government? Did that government introduce reforms

to the planning and the budgeting system? The answer is a resounding

no. They didn't know how.

The members opposite cherish their reputation as reformers, but

there is no record of reform during their time as government. Rational

and sound government is what taxpayers want today and that is what they

are getting from the present government. The performance of this

government and this Premier has built confidence in the efficiency and

the economy of provincial affairs.

The people of this province will always be indebted to the present

Premier for his efforts at reforming and strengthening the

administration of the public purse — not the public trough but the

public purse. It is well known that such reforms were sadly lacking

during the NDP term of office. If any of the members opposite are in

doubt on this score, I refer them to the

article written by Professor

Paul Tennant on the NDP administration between 1972 and 1975.

The

article I refer to is appropriately titled: "The NDP Government

of British Columbia: Unaided Politicians in an Unaided Cabinet." The

second sentence of this political scientist's analysis of the NDP

government reads as follows: "Under the NDP government the cabinet,

lacking staff agencies and firm leadership, proved unable to effect

interdepartmental coordination." Professor Tennant goes on: "Thus,

contrary to what might have been expected, the NDP government was

characterized by lack of overall planning and coordination." That comes

as a real surprise to you. It is not a surprise to the people out

there. Under the present Premier this province has been given all the

things that were lacking under the NDP government. They talk about

leadership. Our Premier gave this province the sound management it

needed.

Mr. Tennant's conclusion, written less than two years after the swearing in

of the present Premier, is: "With the defeat of the NDP, the Social Credit

government introduced planning and coordination at all levels of cabinet. That

was the beginning of a series of reforms designed to make B.C. the best-governed

province in Canada." Mr. Speaker, that was the beginning of the application

of modern management thinking.

Does the opposition really think British Columbians will fall for

their arguments about a lack of confidence in this government? Were the

people of this province confident in the NDP government, which Dr.

Tennant called "little more than a bargaining centre, lacking a

collective view of overall government problems"? The people of this

province showed just how confident they were in the NDP government when

they threw it and its leader out only three years and three months

after it was elected. That is non-confidence.

How could any reasonable person support an amendment put forward by

such a negative group — a group that blew a golden opportunity, an

opportunity to govern in a debt-free province with a substantial

surplus? In about four years our government, under our Premier's

leadership, has brought stability to a province which was on the brink

of financial disaster.

The second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) went on at great length to

justify this amendment. Does he expect this House to take his remarks

seriously? I don't think so. Or maybe he is naive. Does he expect to be

treated as a moral paragon, joining the self-righteous condemnation

which is typical of the opposition's contribution to this debate? I

remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall)

is the former minister who tried to use his office for political,

partisan purposes. We talk about dirty tricks. This is the member, you

may recall, who told the employees of Panco Poultry that they had

better vote NDP in the 1975 election or face the loss of their jobs.

Dirty tricks? A letter on government stationery said: "If you don't

vote for us, you are going to lose your jobs." You talk about ethics!

I'm sorry he's not in his chair today. Talk about abuse of office!

Disgusting!

Then we also heard from the first member for Vancouver

[ Page 1253 ]

Centre (Mr. Lauk). Oh, yes. There is another opposition stalwart.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are all these people?

MR. RITCHIE: Oh, they're disappearing; they can't take the

heat. He's a stalwart who would abandon his principles in his search

for votes. I refer to the support for independent schools, made

possible by this government. Only three years after his party had done

everything in its power to prevent such support from being given, he

wrote this letter and he said: "We will support your private school

system if you return us to government." Dirty tricks?

Then, of course, we heard a little bit from the member for Burnaby

North (Mrs. Dailly). She did speak at great length but really said

nothing.

The member who really surprised me was that member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King). A disgusting performance! I want to tell

the opposition that, believe it or not, I must confess today that I had

a high respect for that man. In spite of his socialist philosophy, I

used to think that he was a very sound person. In fact, I often thought

that here was a man who really knew where he was going, but yesterday

he blew it. Any man who would come in, as he did, with such a dirty,

filthy attack on a member has to hang his head in shame.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Since the member who is being vilified now by this member across the way is not here....

MR. RITCHIE: Get him in here!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Would the member

for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) please take his seat until we

hear the point of order? Only one member can stand at a time.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Yes, I heard it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. MAIR: Were you here last night? You ought to hang your head in shame the same as he.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that Minister of Health, such as he is, has been using this kind of tactic ever since we came in here.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we had recognized

the member for New Westminster on a point of order. I have not yet been

able to determine what the point of order is. Would the hon. members

please allow me time to determine that.

The member for New Westminster, on a point of order.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. COCKE: The member indicated that the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) did something irregular last evening. I

understand that everything went through under the Speaker's purview and

that everything was fine.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the point that is

being made is that the member who is presently being referred to in

debate is not in the House. I'm sorry that the Chair is powerless to

make a ruling in this matter, because all members are invited to attend

all sittings of the House, and if they choose not to do so it is at

their own discretion.

The hon. member for Central Fraser Valley continues.

MR. RITCHIE: I too am disappointed that he is not in the

House. He can't stand the heat in the House, that's his problem. I'm

MR. SPEAKER: Please address the Chair, hon. member.

MR. RITCHIE: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I just started to say that

as I became interested in politics in British Columbia, and I followed

the various members' careers, including your own, there was one man in

the opposition party about whom I used to think, man, there's a great

fellow. Here's a guy that I really don't think is a socialist at all. I

think he would make a very good Liberal, possibly. But what I liked

about him was his upstanding, courageous, really fine way of handling

himself, no matter where he went — something to be admired. I know my

colleagues are going to take me apart for this, for having this ideal

who got lost somewhere in his political activities.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: Well, I want to be nice, because I thought that

member was a fine politician — very constructive, a man of honour. Mind

you, he didn't do a very good job as minister when he was in there, but

that doesn't take away from the fact that he had credibility. He had

respect from many people. Now I'm glad to see he's in here.

But, Mr. Speaker, the performance that that member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) put on yesterday was absolutely

disgusting. Now I'm going to have to change my sights and, hopefully,

select one or two others over there that I think may qualify as

Liberals. But I don't know whether there is anyone over there that

would come anywhere close to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke as far

as my admiration for him was concerned, before he put on that terrible,

disgusting, filthy show yesterday — the dirty, low attack. Mr. Speaker,

I hope that it never happens in this House again. You should hold your

head in shame.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Before I take the point of order

I would like to remind hon. members that "Good temper and moderation

are the characteristics of parliamentary language." I read that on page

418 of May's eighteenth edition. "Parliamentary language is never more

desirable than when a member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of

his opponents in debate."

[ Page 1254 ]

We have under the rules of the House all kinds of room to debate

performance, but we do not have any provision anywhere that I can find

where we can have personal allegations, personal charges or personal

abuse except on a substantive motion. I remind all hon. members of

these provisions.

Now, on a point of order, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I think the member should withdraw the terms "dirty" and "filthy," unless....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, if his conclusion is that my

recitation of the facts relating to dirty tricks by that government is

dirty and filthy — if that's his version of the appropriate terms in

describing the government's conduct — so be it. But, Mr. Speaker, let

that be on his head. I did nothing more than recite facts, and I

challenge anyone on that side of the House to challenge those facts. I

challenge anyone on that side of the House.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before the hon. member who has the

floor proceeds.... Order, please. Would the Minister of Health please

come to order. Order, please, hon. members. Would the House please come

to order. Order, please. Unless the House comes to order I will have to

take the measures that are provided under the standing orders and

dismiss those members who have contempt for the Chair.

If it is a desire of any member to have words withdrawn, it is

sufficient to simply stand and say: "The words having just been spoken

and being identified, I request that they be withdrawn." It is not

competent for a member who stands seeking a withdrawal of certain words

to be entering into the debate a second time, particularly after he has

already had his occasion under the existing amendment.

Hon. members, unless it is the will of the House to be orderly, it

is simply not possible to conduct business in this House; and I would

urge all hon. members that they change their will and make it their

business to conduct themselves in this House in such fashion as is

provided for under our standing orders. All who wish to do otherwise

will be dismissed from the chamber under the standing orders.

Can we now return to debate in an orderly fashion? I would ask the

hon. gentleman who has the floor to use restrained and parliamentary

language, such as would not be inflammatory so that we would have to

have a recurrence of that which we have just seen.

On a point of order, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. KING: I did request that the member withdraw the term

"dirty." I recited the other term, which escapes my mind at the moment

— filthy.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please withdraw the offensive language?

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be fair to say that I should withdraw....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member just withdraw the offensive language.

MR. RITCHIE: I withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered. Let's proceed.

MR. RITCHIE: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the word "dirty" won't

come up again. It seems like a question of don't do as we do, do as we

say. I have to admit I'm a rookie in the House, and I guess I got

carried away a little bit. It's not my normal form. But it's only

natural that I should be stirred up by what went on in this House

yesterday. It is only natural and fair that I should be allowed to

express my feelings, as the feelings have been expressed on the other

side.

Mr. Speaker, just a week or two ago I, as Social Credit caucus

chairman, was interviewed, as was the caucus chairman of the

opposition. I heard him say very distinctly that to say that we would

be throwing mud would be prejudging. Yet that is all we have

experienced from that side all through the session so far.

But truly, Mr. Speaker, what I want to try to do today, as briefly

as I can, is tell the people out there exactly what is going on. I felt

that the most honest and the fairest way to do that was to say that I

have lost a hero in the political circles, in spite of his political

philosophy. Because sincerely, I have admired this man in the past. Mr.

Speaker, yesterday was a great disappointment.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) — and I wish he were

here; I hope he is listening; I'd like him to come in — spoke in a very

compassionate way about suffering during the last war. We all remember

his remarks. I'm not so sure that he knows exactly or is just quoting

something he has read or was told. Mr. Speaker, I lived through the

last war. I believe I know more than that member what suffering

resulted from it. As he went on I couldn't help but think of the

hypocritical way the matter of the last war was being used. Because I

can remember very, very clearly and vividly the sounds of the bombs

dropping, the machine guns as they fired close by where we were, houses

being blown up, aircraft….

MR. MACDONALD: And you knew who the national socialists were.

MR. RITCHIE: I'm going to tell you. I know exactly what

suffering in the last war was. I get very disgusted when I hear people

like the member for Skeena use it to try to degrade a fine leader. Real

gutter politics. Don't tell me anything about suffering in the last

war. I know what it was. I lived through it.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that that sort of discussion doesn't come up in

this House again. I can recall how people were herded into camps. I can

recall going to see what help we could offer to people who had been

bombed. I can recall coming out of our own shelter to find our house

gone. I can also recall, in spite of my underage serving with the Royal

Navy and going through all the dangers of war, all of that.

[ Page 1255 ]

But when I hear it used the way it was used here in the House yesterday, it makes me sick.

Mr. Speaker, I stayed and helped with the last war. I didn't leave

Britain because of the war; I left Britain because of socialism. That's

why I left Britain. I'm really sorry that the member for Surrey (Mr.

Hall) wasn't here, because I'm sure he may remember some of it too.

But anyway, listening to this member reminded me of how much the

opposition follows its leader. The Leader of the Opposition, as all

members know, Mr. Speaker, signed the famous — or the infamous —

manifesto of the Waffle movement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he today?

MR. RITCHIE: Here he comes!

Yet, Mr. Speaker, this same movement was rejected publicly and

forcefully by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). Now we've got

ourselves a real problem over that. But I would venture to say that

possibly he would be more acceptable to the public out there than the

leader they have at the moment because of the fact he has condemned the

signing of the Waffle Manifesto.

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to quote a few words from an

article that

was written some time ago. It goes as follows: "A candidate for the leadership

of the New Democratic Party has scathingly rejected proposals of the party's

so-called 'waffle group' for public ownership of Canada's resource industries."

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, I note, Mr. Speaker, that

there is a motion on the order paper dealing with this question. If

that member wants to debate that, that's the time to debate it. He is

cut off from debate according to our standing orders, I presume.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member give us the number of the motion?

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall. I think it's number 2, presented by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman).

MR. SPEAKER: Any matter which is contained within the ambit

of a motion which is on the order paper is out of order for normal

debate. Would the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley please take

notice.

MR. RITCHIE: Okay. You've got your beard cleaned up, I see, since lunchtime.

Mr. Speaker, it was just a passing comment, and if I may continue,

surely one of the fundamentals of intelligent people is that we should

learn from history and be guided accordingly. Even the most elastic

imagination should recognize that nationalization is no universal

remedy for economic sickness.

Mr. Speaker, this member called on all clear-thinking people in this

party to reject "the academic and professional theories of the Waffle

group which feed upon themselves for support and substantiation, such

as the cohesion created by the leadership of the New Democratic Party."

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite had their chance to gain the

confidence of the people of British Columbia, but once bitten, twice

shy.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I, along with all members of the House have

been bored to tears, more tears over the poor member not achieving his ambition,

which was to be in the cabinet. Probably one of the few things that the Premier

has done since assuming office that he hasn't bungled was that: he kept that

member out of the cabinet, and for good reason. We've all seen it, up to and

including defying the Chair after the Chair admonished him about a motion on

the order paper.

AN HON. MEMBER: Stop lecturing.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I plan to lecture as much as I like.

I will not be intimidated by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair),

who is the most nervous man I've seen since this session started. He is

twitchy to the extent that I just don't understand it. That minister

came in here, Mr. Speaker, a confident, relatively competent man of

letters and law, and look at him now: he's quaking, turning red, going

almost apoplectic when someone offends his honour. You know, he is so

embarrassed to be with that group over there, I don't blame him. He's

trying to make up his mind whether he should stay or whether he is

ruining his future career by just being associated with that group.

MR. LEA: That's what Nelson Riis was saying.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I was also interested in the attitude

of another Liberal over there that turned, for a time, who knows how

long. And that was the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). I don't think I'm going to talk about

you today, Bill, so just get back to your papers. But the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications was very interesting

yesterday. He did his kind of twist and turn. He wrote a book about

paradise — Politics in Paradise ,

as I recall. It was a critique of the Social Credit government over a

number of years, while he was sitting over here as a Liberal. Then,

when they took that dive.... Now he was suggesting that the House was

poor by virtue of the fact that there were no Liberals and no

Conservatives on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that he is the person at fault, along

with two or three of his colleagues who did the Julius Caesar trip. The

only problem was Brutus got all mixed up. His knife wasn't long enough

and Cassius couldn't collect the reward. So we got Bill Bennett, and

that's really what this is all about — the new Premier, the Premier of

British Columbia. And I'll withdraw that name.

I think that I would like to deal with a number of the people over

there, but I would like to deal with the first minister to begin with,

and I'd like to deal with him in some context. I would like to quote

from Edmund Burke. He said: "Our times demand statesmen." That's what

he said, and it hasn't changed. He said: "The great difference between

a real statesman and the pretender is that one sees into the future,

while the other regards only the present. The one lives by the day and

acts on expediency; the other acts on enduring principles and for

immortality." He was a rather thoughtful gentleman, and he certainly

expressed himself well under those circumstances.

I think that our problem here, in this province, is around that

whole question of leadership, around the question of living for today

and forgetting about tomorrow. And that kind of situation developed

into a bevy of headlines, that

[ Page 1256 ]

carried on longer than any series of headlines that

I have ever seen in my life in this province — all on the same subject.

"Socreds Haunted by Shadow of Scandal." This is the kind of thing that

occurred as a result of the lack of leadership when the Premier got

back from his trip to the Orient — and incidentally he was tipped off

before he left that there were problems brewing, and he made no

comment. But when he got back his first comment was the one, I think,

that we should all recall. That's where he wore the kamikaze hat, and

I'll get back to that shortly. He suggested that that kamikaze hat that

he put on — remember the picture in the paper — was what people use in

Japan during election campaigns.

I hope the Premier wears that kamikaze hat in the next election in

this province. It would probably be most fitting. One of the best

friends, it would appear, of the Premier, is the former Minister of

Health and now Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon.

Mr. McClelland). The rumours, of course, around here, were that in the

next go-round he was going to be Brutus. But I think that he went home

one night, read Julius Caesar, and found out what happened to Brutus,

decided maybe there was a Cassius in the wings and therefore changed.

He went to the convention, and not only did he address the women's

group on behalf of the Premier, but he came back and did a job of

introducing the Premier to that very large convention...

HON. MR. WOLFE: Gathering.

MR. COCKE: ...gathering — very large — described as a pillow

fight, I understand. They didn't even have any resolutions this year

that suggested one should handle rapists in a very odd fashion — by

circumcision, as I recall. But in any event, what they did have at this

convention was a love-in. They had to have a love-in. They didn't even

have the right-to-work resolutions. They had to have a love-in to save

that caucus, that cabinet and that Premier.

You saw the whole tone being set. The cabinet and the caucus went

down to Tsawwassen in Walter's riding, met, embraced one another and

said: "Live together, die together." Then they came back and spread the

word around the convention. But just to get the thing started on the

right foot, up jumps the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources and introduces his illustrious leader, our Premier — I won't

use any adjectives. It was described as very, very carefully worded:

"Gee, gosh, I love this guy. Isn't he good-looking? Isn't he a charming

leader?" Famous Allen Gaff said about it that instead of the

traditional president's introduction of the party leader they were

given Bob McClelland at his gee-whiz best.

The day before, he spoke in Bennett's stead at the WA luncheon. He

told the ladies that you could cure cancer if you changed your

lifestyle. Now he was doing the Premier another favour and softening up

the crowd, telling them what a great guy plain old Bill really was.

That was the first time he ever dared call him that. They decided they

had better change his image. I understand they had been calling him

"Mr. Premier."

He also said if the issue today is the challenge of leadership, then

that challenge has been met and won. Can anybody here in his right mind

agree that that challenge has been met and won? Day after day in this

province we are being admonished by this kind of headline.

Mr. Speaker, when that group, one after another, person after person, gets

up and says, "Goodness me, we didn't think that the opposition was going

to handle this, because the press did," what do you expect us to do? We

are here to ask you to answer some questions, not only to us but to the press

and to the people of this province. I will tell you why: because we are all

offended. You don't understand, but we are all offended.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: If you did understand, Mr. Member, you'd know that you don't speak outside of your seat.

Mr. Speaker, this minister, who went to the convention and introduced the Premier, and who recently got shifted....

AN HON. MEMBER: Shafted.

MR. COCKE: Did he get shafted? Well, that's okay too. I

understand that the guy who was shafted was the present Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), but that is just a rumour going around the

building.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) calls on

Ottawa to control heroin. He was one of the guys who got this poor

Premier into trouble. I want to deal with that for a moment or two. I

know it is very difficult to live in a situation where, having been

admonished for two years — really three if one thinks in terms of when

the White Paper was first introduced.... We warned and we warned that

minister.

MR. BRUMMET: Who takes your advice?

MR. COCKE: The member is quite right; who takes my advice?

They did take my advice when I was Minister of Health, and I didn't get

this province into a lousy mess like that minister got it into,

spending millions and millions of dollars. When your estimates come up,

you and I are going to have a beautiful debate.

That minister got us into a great deal of trouble over this whole

heroin question. He didn't take advice from anyone who would give the

kind of advice that he needed. He went out and sought advice that would

cater to his bias. We saw his bias developing when he was a member of

the opposition. We saw the advice that he was obviously taking from

some of his now bureaucrats. We understood what he was talking about.

We suggested to him when he brought out the White Paper: "Go easy."

Then he brings in the act. We told him that he was dead wrong, and so

have the courts. He has participated in this whole question of

leadership because of the fact that he was close enough to the Premier

to persuade him to continue on in a course which, had they even sought

the advice of anybody outside their group, they would have found to be

the wrong course.

That minister was told: "Be sure to mind the bayonets, Bob, when you

go down to meet those unenthusiastic ministers in Ottawa." Well, he

went down; they haven't bailed him out, nor will the Liberals. The

Conservative cabinet ministers sought advice, of course. They said they

didn't agree with the compulsory system; it wouldn't work. The Liberals

had already said that, and now they're back in again. So you're up a

tree with a very large expenditure of money that went nowhere.

This is the government that told us and told the people of

[ Page 1257 ]

B.C. that they were going to do everything in a

businesslike way. That retired businessman — not as tired as he is

retired — said: "Good business." He also said....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to be insulted by two lamebrains at the same time.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Phone up Dominion Life sometime. If you want to

put your private practice prior to your political career up against my

private time in the insurance business....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Well, forget about ICBC, because they're wrong on

that. People know all about ICBC and how they got hooked after you

people took over, but that's neither here nor there.

That member is the same man who told us yesterday that we have a

businesslike government. He said: "What's wrong with thousand-dollar

bills?" That's what he said yesterday; I read the Blues this morning. I

couldn't stand to listen to his speech, but I did read the Blues.

What's wrong with Dan Campbell handing out thousand-dollar bills? I'll

tell you what's wrong with it. If you've read the Elections Act, you

know that you're supposed to account. Dan Campbell admitted....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Where is Dan?

MR. COCKE: Where is Dan? I guess he's down the tube — one of the fall guys.

Will that member get back to his own chair, if he wishes to…?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A member can only be heard when he's standing in his own place.

MR. COCKE: Or sitting in his own chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Not even then, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: If the member had read the act.... The

thousand-dollar bills were not accounted for. I understand they were

floating around like confetti. There was $250,000 or thereabouts not

accounted for. It was just a little oversight. What it almost suggests

to me is: how much was there that we don't know about? We'll probably

find out. You don't know, I can tell you that. I'll tell you right now

that none of the rest of them know, except possibly one or two.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: What friend?

MR. SPEAKER: Please address the Chair, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), when he was a Liberal, didn't....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I'm going to ask you a question right now, since you've brought it up. When he was a Liberal....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The debate should flow through the Chair, not across the floor.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm speaking to you. When he was a

Liberal — remember, I said "he," not "you" — he was unfortunately in a

party that decided not to provide their provincial party with

receipting rights. Our provincial party has that. That's all. He wanted

a tax receipt, he got his tax receipt, and that's it. And that money

went into Lapa's campaign, you can be darn sure of that. You think Lapa

is going to give money away, for heaven's sake? Come on!

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Well, of course he gave the election away. People in Kamloops hadn't caught on to you yet, but eventually they will.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Give your man his money back; he's got a tax receipt.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask that the hon. Minister of Health

please restrain himself in his constant — and I say "constant" —

interruption of members across the floor.

Please proceed.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I think, since the government are

particularly apprehensive about discussing health matters now, I'm

going to get back to other matters. I was going to give a little

discussion about this whole Heroin Treatment Program, what they should

have done, and what they could do even yet. But what's the point? The

minister sits there and decides that he makes a lot more sense in his

talking off the cuff than he does when he stands up and speaks to the

issue. I don't think that's quite right. But in any event, let him do

what he likes. Therefore I am going back to the first minister.

First, on October 17, we notice in the Province where the minister says that he takes responsibility for the dirty tricks. At that point, people in this province....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: "Bennett Takes Responsibility for Dirty Tricks."

AN HON. MEMBER: There you go, letting the newspaper do your work again.

MR. COCKE: You know, Mr. Speaker, I've been in this House for

11 years, and I've watched every member in this House, during throne,

during budget, during estimates, using and referring to newspaper

articles. That member gets, at the present time, at least four free

newspapers delivered to his desk every day, so that he can do that very

thing and keep track of what's going on around him. Now I know it is

going

[ Page 1258 ]

to be difficult for him; it is a tough job for

some. But if he takes the course he might just be able to use those

papers himself, because I suggest to you that it's a very important

thing to put things into context, and I'm using a number of newspaper

articles to go over a little bit of history here.

On October 17 he says: "I take responsibility for the dirty tricks."

Mr. Speaker, do you know why he did that? Because on October 13 he did

this. This is your leader. On October 13, the day he got back from the

Orient, he put a big smile on his face, put on a kamikaze hat, and made

a joke of it. He had then been back four days. He got back here and he

said: "Oh, my heavenly days, what have I walked into?" And at that

point he said: "I take responsibility for the dirty tricks."

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

But I just want to remind you that after October 17.... And I'm not

going to refer to the articles, because there were so many. It was

almost daily, where there was a statement from the party, a statement

from the Premier, a statement from the party, a statement from the

Premier, each trying to sort of duck and get away from the issue. Mr.

Speaker, the one thing that the first minister in this province cannot

do is duck either his government responsibility or his party

responsibility, because he happens to be one of the top officials in

both, if not the top official in both. If it's the party's fault, he's

the leader of the party. If it's the government's fault, he's the

leader of the government. If it's the caucus' fault, he's the leader of

the caucus — not caucus chairman. They're dispensable, aren't they?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No, a tuppenny's worth. I thought that was the case.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, that's the kind of situation that we've had

going in this province, and I suggest to you that that is not

leadership.

I also want to talk to you about another aspect that is not

leadership. How many of you recall in the last election campaign a

person by the name of Ralph Loffmark? Incidentally, I happened to speak

to Ralph Loffmark prior to that campaign. He is a person who was

extremely concerned about the direction this province was going. He

used to sit right over there where the new Minister of Tourism (Hon.

Mrs. Jordan) now sits — the woman who wears the golden crown of tourism.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I read it in her letter to me, but I'm taking a

long time to write back, because I want to write an appropriate reply,

and the price of gold goes up and up.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to one of the most vindictive

things I've ever seen. This isn't part of leadership; this isn't what

Edmund Burke describes. This is Ralph Loffmark, who was once a Socred,

who became very concerned about the direction in which that Premier and

his cohorts were taking this province and came out and made statements.

Incidentally, he did not join our party. However, he made statements

backing the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) because he felt that

Leader of the Opposition has more imagination and more thoughts about

the direction our province is going, and he is right.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Make that charge anywhere you like, because I was

one of the first people who discussed this question with Mr. Loffmark.

You step outside and tell me that, and you'll be sued in every court in

this province, I'll tell you, if you have any sense. Nonsense! He came

on his own.

Anyway, Loffmark, because he had the audacity to challenge that

first minister politically, lost his pension. They put the bite on him.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this relevant?

MR. COCKE: I think it's relevant, and if you don't see the

relevancy, then now I understand why you're a Socred. He has no sense

of fairness, no sense of concern for even-handedness, and there is

nothing more important than those qualities in a leader — fairness,

even-handedness, thoughtfulness and looking to the future.

What did he do in taking Loffmark's pension away? Oh, he hurt him

for the moment. Fortunately for the province, I guess, Loffmark wasn't

a patsy, and he took him to court and won his case, and he got his

pension back. So, obviously, they were wrong in doing what they did.

MR. HALL: Two pieces of advice, two court cases and two losses.

MR. COCKE: And guess who paid for those court cases? We did; the people did in their taxes.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) says

when they take legal advice from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair)

you really get yourself into a lot of trouble, and he is quite right.

In my little town there is a paper called the Columbian . Now the Columbian is not necessarily NDP. The Columbian ,

as a matter of fact, I recall, in 1969 when I ran, ran a headline

saying: "Tenants to Receive Homeowner Grant." And then that paper was

delivered free to every apartment in New Westminster, one of the

greatest jobs of hustling I've ever seen in my life.

But anyway, having said that, they also said on October 29, "It's

hard not to pity poor Bill Bennett," and they recited all the problems

he'd got into since he got back from Japan. I want to hold those two

together. It was hard not to pity poor Bill Bennett, but he showed no

sympathy for poor Ralph Loffmark.

One other aspect of leadership — and I want to go back to that

trip.... Remember he was away when the first blush of the letters and

the research people's admonitions came forward? What was he doing when

he was away? I'll tell you what he was doing. He was suggesting to

Japan and other Pacific Rim countries that they do business with

British Columbia. The business

section of the Vancouver Sun

described that trip aptly: "Weak Position Hindered Bennett on Trade

Mission." He went there, just like the Minister of Small Business and

Economic Development or whatever it is now — it changes monthly —

travelling all over the world at our expense, taking mission after

mission, living it up and coming back with his hands empty.

[ Page 1259 ]

They've had some good fortune, and most of the good fortune that

this government has enjoyed has been a result of things that were done

before they took government. In that short period that we were

government we set you up. Everybody boasts about BCRIC. Where did it

come from? It's one of the best assets in this province. Where did it

come from? Col-Cel were prepared to dump the whole thing down the tube.

You didn't understand anything then; you were still out prospecting.

What happened? The first year Can-Cel was under the new

administration they made so much money they didn't know what to do with

it all, and that's the way it continues. The same thing happened when

we took the natural gas….

AN HON. MEMBER: One dollar.

MR. COCKE: That's right — one buck.

The same thing happened when we took the natural gas and sought....

AN HON. MEMBER: You took Plateau Mills too.

MR. COCKE: Took it. You hear that? Took it! Took it! Took it!

Why don't you get on your feet after I'm through? That member is a

stranger to the truth. He knows it and I know it. They negotiated the

price on Plateau Mills and were delighted with it, and if you don't

believe it then you're sniffing something.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to go on for one second and say: what about

the Petroleum Corporation? Because of the previous mistake of the previous government

where we were giving natural gas away at 30 cents U.S., we decided that there

would be a different way of doing it, and the people in this province finally

got something out of their natural gas. It's been hundreds and hundreds of millions

since, and these people have been going about boasting about all the money they're

making.

MR. HALL: Giving cheques out.

MR. COCKE: Yes, giving cheques out in every municipality.

Every week or so I get a copy of a letter: "Dear Mayor Evers: Here is

your glorious share of our abundance." And then they go around giving

their own back-benchers opportunities to pass these cheques around.

Mr. Speaker, this government's behaviour is such that no person with

any kind of thoughtfulness, with any kind of morality, could possibly

support it. Their behaviour is beyond doubt the worst behaviour this

province has ever seen. I hope they get their just desserts; I hope

they get their reward. I hope they get their reward, because if this

province ever has to go through a time again, virtually a year, with

all the people losing faith in government, losing faith in politicians

every day because of their behaviour, well, it will be the beginning of

the death of our political structure.

Mr. Speaker tells me that I have three minutes. I would just like to say that

I feel that the Premier still has a chance to pull himself out a little bit,

and that would be by getting up in this House and saying: "I'm sorry."

Remember, he's the chief of staff of the whole works. He's the leader of the

party, so he can't say: "Lay it off on the party." He's the president

of the executive council, so he can't lay it off on them. He's the leader there

and he's the leader of the caucus. He should get up in this House and say "I'm

sorry" to the people of this province and: "I'll see to it that it

never happens again as long as I have any kind of control." But I doubt

if he'll do that, and the reason I say that is because I charge that he, along

with one or two of his close confidants, was the author of the whole thing,

the whole mess. All we have to do is to go back to 1975 to see him admonishing

all his party people — plug the hotlines, write letters to the editor,

have a letters-to-the-editor campaign. Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of thing

that started it all. I think, under those circumstances, he has absolutely no

right to hold his position. He should resign and he should resign today as the

leader of that party, as the president of the executive council, and give this

province the biggest break that it ever had.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, may I first congratulate you

on your appointment to the chair of Deputy Speaker. I'm sure that you

will carry on in the same good style that your predecessor used.

I am always reluctant to follow the member for New Westminster (Mr.

a little surprised and amused, however, when he was talking about the

Social Credit convention. He meant to say that there was a

circumvention of certain procedures we usually carry out in our

conventions. However, the member used the wrong word and I'm sure he,

and the rest of us, will have great delight when we see that word in

the Blues, and I'm sure he'll have it corrected.

Mr. Speaker, we are here debating a motion to amend the throne

speech — a motion brought forward by a party which lusts after power

and authority and control over the people of British Columbia. I would

remind those members that that party did have a chance to be the

government in British Columbia not too many years ago, and the people,

after seeing the performance of this party which once again seeks to be

the government of British Columbia, had a choice in '75 and they made

that choice. This motion before us now is, in effect, saying to the

people: "If you made a wrong choice again in 1979...." That party

believes that the people should have another election so they can be

back in to destroy the economy of this province once again. The people

of British Columbia don't have such short memories as that. There's

been a great deal said about election tactics, the means used by

various political parties to accomplish their ends, and yesterday, as

was pointed out by the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie),

we saw the most disgusting display of tactics that I ever saw in my

life. Like that member, at one time I thought the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) was a fairly reasonable person, that at

times he spoke sense — not all the time, but at times. Then I heard him

yesterday, through innuendo, make a personal attack on the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), and imply, with the

protection of this House, where he knows he is immune to any legal

action, that that minister had done something irregular. I challenge

that member, who once again is absent from the House, to make the

statements he made here outside of these chambers so that he can be

held accountable for what he said in the courts.

MR. LEA: He did.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Did he? That is fine. I hope he has because I'm sure it'll be interesting to the minister to

[ Page 1260 ]

contact his counsel. The member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke, when he was speaking yesterday, said that we, as

members of the government of the Social Credit Party of British

Columbia, must remember that when we vote on this amendment we have to

some day go back to face our constituents. Well, indeed we do. We in

this party face our constituents regularly; we are always with our

constituents in our constituencies. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have, as you

know, a mobile constituency office in which I travel around my rather

far-flung constituency, to regularly meet with my constituents to help

them in the problems they have in daily dealings with different

ministries of the government. The last time was about two weeks ago. I

was in Cache Creek. A lady dropped in to see me. The first thing we

always do, of course, is get their name, their address and their phone

number so that we can know where to contact them. I asked this lady

"What's your address?" and she said "Box such-and-such, Salmon Arm." I

said: "Well, really you should be seeing your own MLA about your

problem." She said: "I would love to see my MLA but he's never there; I

don't know where to find him. I've read your local papers and I find

that you're here. My only access to a member of the Legislature is to

come and see you, Mr. Waterland" — which she did. So I would suggest

that the member for Revelstoke-Shuswap pay the occasional visit to the

beautiful part of British Columbia which he represents.

As I mentioned, in 1975 the people of British Columbia made a

choice. They saw the performance of that party, which once again claims

that it should be the government. In 1975 the people had seen their

performance over three years and booted them out. Again in 1979 the

people made the same choice, in spite of the tactics used by that party

during that 1979 election.

They wish to talk about campaign tactics, in spite of the scare

tactics which they used relative to the hospital situation in British

Columbia. Do you remember those ads on television, which would put the

fear of death into anyone who happened to be sick or contemplating

entering the hospital or in the hospital? Do you think that was

comforting to the people using our hospital facilities? At the same

time, we had the best hospital-building program anywhere in Canada.

When other provinces in Canada were closing hospitals we were building

them.

Do you remember the letters, mentioned by the member for Central

Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), to employees of Panco Poultry, written on

government letterhead during the 1975 election, threatening the people

there: "Unless you return us to office you're going to be out of work"?

Remember them telling the senior citizens of British Columbia that

their Mincome would be cut off — putting the fear of poverty into the

minds of these elderly people and literally scaring them to death, in

order to gain power in this province? Well, they had their opportunity.

Remember them telling the people of British Columbia about the

resource giveaways in this province, and that we were selling off our

natural resources and not getting any return for the people of British

Columbia? Remember the resource revenue achieved by that government

when they were in office?

Mr. Speaker, this last couple of years we have had all-time high revenues for

our resources in this province. We have those revenues because we're using those

resources. We're not leaving the ore in the ground, as that former Premier would

have our mining industry do. Who would benefit from that?

These were the election tactics used by that party. Let me tell you

about one particular election tactic used in the largest town in my

constituency, Merritt, during the 1979 election. It was in the fall of

1978 at the Nicola stockbreeders' meeting in Lower Nicola, attended by

me and the Minister of Agriculture. After coming out of that meeting,

we were approached by an East Indian gentleman who said: "Tom, you guys

are going to be having an election pretty soon. Many of my countrymen

you want, I'll get them as they come to the poll, and I'll show them

how to mark their ballot in your favour. You can gain a lot of votes

that way." Well, I told him: "Get lost, fella! I don't need to use that

kind of tactic to win an election. I win an election in my constituency

by providing good service to the people in Yale-Lillooet." I told him

that I would win the election on the record of this government and on

my record as an MLA.

But, lo and behold, on election day in Merritt, it happened that the

NDP campaign headquarters were two doors from the main polling station.

Oh, there were no signs up; don't worry — they weren't displaying

signs. But as many of these East Indian people, in their innocence and

inability to understand the polling system, came down the street, they

would be ushered into the NDP campaign headquarters. We found out later

that they would have thrust into their hands a facsimile of a ballot,

marked with an X beside the NDP candidate's name, and then they'd be

told to go to the polling station and mark their ballots thus.

We reported the goings-on to the returning officer. But I didn't

care to make too much of the issue, because I felt that the people in

Yale-Lillooet understood good government and good representation, and

that I would be elected again. I wasn't surprised at that going on. For

years I had heard stories of that type of tactic being carried out by

the NDP in Yale-Lillooet. So I just took it for what it was and where

it came from. I don't have to resort to that type of tactic to win an

election; nor does anyone in this party.

Speaking of the performance of that former government, when they

were in office, brings me to the reason that I got involved in

politics. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) just said that I

didn't understand what was going on then because I was out prospecting.

Well, I guess he's trying to indicate in some way that prospectors are

some lower form of humanity. Yes, I was involved in the mining

industry; I was for many, many years, as was my father before me. When

I saw the things that were happening to that industry, as a result of

the actions of that government, I felt that I must do something, as an

individual British Columbian, to destroy that government, and I ran for

office.

I am sure we all remember that

article in the Vancouver Sun ,

April 29, 1975. It was written by one Malcolm Lorimer, the brother of

one of the members of this Legislature, I believe. It describes what

was happening to the mining industry in British Columbia. Let me read

just a few paragraphs from it to remind those members of what they have

forgotten. And they think the people of British Columbia have forgotten

what took place in those days. The letter says:

"Dear Mr. Editor:

"From the pinnacle of my career as a mining engineer,

now unemployed, I unfortunately have the time to reflect on the present

state of the mining industry in British Columbia. What I see is a sick

industry, at a time when most metal prices are at an

[ Page 1261 ]

all-time high. Numerous deposits are awaiting development, labour

and technology are available, and other jurisdictions, subject to the same federal

and international influences, are booming."

This letter goes on, Mr. Speaker, to outline some of the things that were happening and why they were happening, and he says:

"There are several reasons for this decline, but one

stands out above all others — the Mineral Royalties Act, also known as

Bill 31. Your government often ascribes the situation to declining

metal prices, and that is what they usually cite. But the real reason

is Bill 31."

In the closing remarks in this letter, Mr. Lorimer,

the brother of one of our members here, quotes from a statement made by

the then Minister of Mines, and I think we all remember that saying.

Remember, he said: "I think the industry, once it is on the statutes,

will relax and enjoy what we've done."

We all remember that statement, Mr. Speaker. We all remember what

happened to the mining industry. And the justification for it from

those members was that there was a ripoff taking place by these

terrible multinational mining companies, not even realizing that mining

companies are corporations owned by shareholders, people who invest

their money in hope of a return. Someone here today asked a question

about some 89-year-old farmer losing his land because of taxation.

Those people took the income away from many elderly people in British

Columbia when they stopped the mining industry and made it impossible

for that industry to deliver dividends to people who had invested in a

thriving industry in this province.

Here's another letter from my little clipping book of 1975:

"The sad state of the mining industry in British

Columbia was dramatically brought to the attention of the elderly at

the annual meeting of Western Mines Ltd., Wednesday. The board of

directors has decided, the company president, Hugh Snyder, told the

gathering of some one hundred people, to pass up the 20-cent

semi-annual dividend normally paid in June. The government was taking

all of the company's profits this year, he explained, and there would

be no money for dividends for elderly investors in British Columbia's

number two industry."

They thought they were destroying the multinational corporations,

when, in fact, they were attacking the many, many thousands of people

in British Columbia who invest their hard-earned money in the resources

of this great province.

MR. LEA: You're almost ready to go in the cabinet.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Speaking of cabinet, Mr. Speaker, that

member was a cabinet minister in 1975; and he's always very happy to

read letters in the paper. I remember 1973-74-75, when that member was

the Minister of Highways. I remember that in my constituency — what is

now my constituency — during that member's term of office, one new

piece of road was built. That was the road, about three miles long,

from Ashcroft out to the proposed Du Pont explosives plant. They built

the road and then they killed the mining industry, which was supposed

to buy the explosives. So Du Pont decided not to build that explosives

plant in British Columbia after all. That was that Minister of

Highways' great record.

Let me read this

article from the Kamloops Daily Sentinel ,

Wednesday, February 12, 1975. It states: "Highways Minister Graham

Lea's last comments about the purpose of his department is another

example of the NDP government working at cross purposes. He said:

'Building roads to accommodate the private automobile is a

self-defeating exercise. The growing pressures of the automobile have

forced the government to realize that the Department of Highways can be

turned into a tool to protect the land on behalf of man's sensitivity.'"

MR. LEA: Can I see this?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, you will see this. This

article goes

on to say: "One would gather from these remarks that the Department of

Highways is moving into the conservation and ecology field. One would

gather from all the work on highways evidenced since 1972 that his

department must have moved somewhere."

The people of British Columbia, especially those who live in the

vast interior areas of our province, knew the Department of Highways

was certainly not doing anything about highways. And they call us the

"blacktop government," Mr. Speaker, because we believe that the people

in British Columbia who work and enjoy this province, the people who

are well and healthy, shouldn't have any of the government funds spent

on things which they can use such as highways and recreational

facilities.

Mr. Speaker, the member for New Westminster a few moments ago was

talking about somebody delivering cheques to New Westminster. Just

after I was elected in 1975 I can remember the editor of one of the

weekly newspapers coming up to me and saying: "Thank God, Tom, now I

don't have to buy a new camera. I wore three of them out taking

pictures of Hartley delivering letters to the municipality."

Mr. Speaker, let me read you another little clipping from my 1975

file. The caption is: "Payments System Needs Checking." It said:

"The B.C. government wrote cheques to the regional district

on May 30 and June 12 that then took, says Jim Gorst, NDP MLA for Esquimalt,

until July 22 for them to reach his office for him to pass on to the district.

Then he went away for a couple of weeks and what with constituency business

and Labour Day and one thing and another, it took until September 16, eight

weeks later, for him to deliver the cheques with the ceremony required for public

relations purposes."

And that member is complaining about the delivery of cheques to municipalities

and letters accompanying them. Eight weeks to deliver a cheque, and it cost

that regional district almost $2,000 in lost interest because that member was

running around with the cheques in his briefcase.

Mr. Speaker, I guess from time to time we in government always think

the press is being unkind to us. From time to time we certainly think

they're being a little political or anti-government in their attacks. I

guess every government that was ever in office thought the same thing.

But I'm glad the press is there and they're taking the part of the

opposition, because, God knows, we have no opposition in British

Columbia. We have no opposition, and we have a party that wishes to be

government sitting over there, unable to fulfil the role of an

opposition and yet wanting to be government.

[ Page 1262 ]

This is not unique to us. I realized when I was going through my old

press clippings that the press was not very kind to the NDP in their

term of office.

I remember this little article. Mr. Barrett said, when speaking to

about 400 party members at a dinner in Burnaby, "the number of people

on welfare has reduced," and so on. He accused the press, who he

described as politically mixed up, as unwilling to publish these facts

as presented. I guess it's nothing unusual that politicians don't like

the press at times. Quite frankly, I think the press does — by and

large and with a few exceptions — a pretty good job.

They talk about responsibility in government and tactics in

elections and tactics in accomplishing the things they wish to

accomplish. I have another little

article here from June 1975. I don't

know the exact date.

"Political Extortion. Chatter at Vancouver City Hall

says the B.C. government is trying to hold up housing construction

beside False Creek as a pressure tactic in Resource minister Bob

Williams' war with the city over the Pacific National Exhibition.

"Word is that Williams won't transfer required land to

the city without resolution of an unrelated issue that's taken to be

the city's bid opposed by Mr. Williams, who's charged the PNE $1

million a year instead of the old token $1."

Political extortion as a government tactic. Shocking indeed, Mr. Speaker. An NDP government tactic.

Mr. Speaker, I became involved, as the Minister of Forests in 1975,

in the forest industry which had almost been scared out of British

Columbia. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) mentioned the

assets of BCRIC and how they were acquired and they were a great asset.

Any resource investment in British Columbia can be made into a good

asset if it's properly managed and properly administered.

He was proud about the Plateau Mills purchase, saying it was

purchased in a free and open market. Well, I happen to know something

about what took place in those days when Plateau was being purchased.

It was for sale. The government, of course, controls the timber

allocations and is in a pretty strong bargaining position if it wishes

to purchase companies in the private sector. That is why we don't feel

there is any place for government to be directly involved in these

industries which they control through ownership of the resource.

Remember the companies that were taken over, the threats that were

made, the squeeze that was put on existing companies? I found out when

I became minister that many expansion plans which had been on the books

and ready for construction — prior to that terrible day in August 1972

— were immediately shelved. So the industry went through a several-year

period in which much of this modernization should have been taking

place, in which they were afraid to invest in British Columbia because

they didn't know when the axe was going to fall and they were going to

be nationalized. That is the same threat that will hang over British

Columbia if ever there is a chance of those socialists once again

forming the government in this province. Thank the Lord the people of

British Columbia don't soon forget the lesson they were taught during

1972-1975.

Mr. Speaker, it took a couple of years to restore that confidence.

We provided new forestry legislation which provides a good balance of

all the aspects of forestry in British Columbia. Right now, through

that encouragement and proper climate for investment, there is more

capital construction and investment under way in the forest industry in

British Columbia than there has ever been at any point in the past. It

takes work and effort to create that environment. Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I am speaking specifically of the forest

industry right now, Mr. Speaker, but the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is quite right. The problem we

are going to have in the next few years is providing the skilled

construction workers to take on the massive heavy industrial

construction taking place in this province right now. The people of

British Columbia know it is going on; they see it happening. The

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development likes to talk about

things happening in British Columbia because he comes from a

constituency where many things are happening — things which are

happening as a result of incentives and climates created by this

government.

Remember the Grizzly Valley non-gas field that that party talked

about? I have another little newspaper article, dated September 2,

1975, captioned "An End of Innocence." "The provincial cabinet was

clearly jolted by the B.C. Energy Commission natural gas report. The

commission said government policies have brought the gas industry to a

standstill, that shortages loomed as early as 1978, that a vigorous

private industry was needed, whatever the government's feelings."

Thank God, Mr. Speaker, that in 1975 that government was turfed out,

because otherwise we wouldn't have natural gas flowing today. They

didn't believe it was there. They did everything they could to

discourage the industry from exploring for, finding and delivering

natural gas, both to our customers here in British Columbia and also to

our friends in the United States, with a very handsome return for the

province of British Columbia.

Never in the history of British Columbia has the revenue from our

natural resources been as high as it is now and has been for the last

couple of years, and will be, I'm sure, as long as we have a free

enterprise government in this province that encourages people to get

out and do things and make use of the tremendous resources which we

have to work with in this province.

They are questioning the performance of this government in spite of

the tremendous things that are taking place in this province: the

massive capital investments, the thousands and thousands of new jobs

that are created every month in this province, for the people of

British Columbia and for the people of Canada who come here because

they know where the action is.

We have to make no apologies to British Columbia or to that

government. We don't have to be afraid to resoundingly defeat this

idiotic motion. The people of British Columbia have good government.

The people of British Columbia have a good Premier, one who has brought

forth policies which have assured we can take advantage of the many,

many opportunities presented to us.

Your entry timing was perfect, Mr. Premier.

Never before in the history of British Columbia have there been more

opportunities for the people who live and work here, and never before

has there been more optimism for the future, because we have good

leadership, we have good financial control in our province, and we have

the resources — physical, natural and human. Through the

[ Page 1263 ]

leadership of this party by our Premier, this

government will lead the province of British Columbia into the

eighties, into the nineties and into the next century in handsome style.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: May I, as well, take this opportunity to place in Hansard my congratulations on your elevation to the position of Deputy Speaker.

Before I proceed with my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

quietly remind the member who has just spoken, the member for

Yale-Lillooet, that that member was a civil servant before he was

elected, and that under the regime of the former Social Credit

government of W.A.C. Bennett, public servants were not allowed to

campaign. It was under our leader, the former Premier of this province,

the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett), that public servants like

that member were given the right to campaign and get elected to office.

Mr. Speaker, that member's defence of the Premier, to me, appeared

pretty weak. This is a motion of non-confidence in the Premier — that's

what we're debating here — and in the government. It's a motion which I

will be supporting, you will not be surprised to learn, and with very

good reason.

I think that the people of this province have lost confidence in the

Premier and this government. There's no question about it. It's not

only because of this government's — and perhaps this Premier's —

involvement in the dirty tricks affair, but because of the way they

have administered the affairs of this province. I think the people now

see that they have lost complete confidence in this Premier and this

government.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This Premier's overall conduct in office is marked by indecisiveness

and/or bad decisions, many of which are made right off the top of his

head, without real thinking. In my view, the people of this province

have been without an effective leader of government for some time now.

For example, where's the dental plan that was promised? Every year

in the throne speech we get a promise of a dental plan, and where is

it? We had another promise this year. We hear about $300 million

surpluses and, of course, $200 million overruns, I guess, being spent

on things like bridges and complexes and things like that, but where is

denticare for our people who really need it, for our senior citizens

and all of the other people?

In spite of raging inflation in this province, under this government

and Premier there have not been corresponding increases for our retired

people, our handicapped people and our unemployed people.

I see no move on the part of this government to meet and discuss in

depth with our native Indian people the many, many concerns that they

have, and how they wish to fit into our society.

I see no initiative by this government whatsoever to start a

merchant marine for this province to carry our goods to other nations,

hopefully in a manufactured form. This initiative as well, by the way,

Mr. Speaker, would create a viable shipbuilding industry in the

province.

I'm glad to see that the Premier has returned to the House, because

I do have a matter that should be of deep concern to everybody in this

province, but basically to me and certainly to him. I want to take this

opportunity to once again bring to the attention of this House the

Premier and the government's failure to deal with the very serious

situation we now have in Ocean Falls. Rumours are rampant — and we have

very good reason to believe — that that community and that corporation

will have to probably shut down very late this spring or early summer

if the government does not take action now. This is a perfect and

proper time for that Premier, Mr. Speaker, to make a very clear

statement as to the future of that community. Morale in that community

is at an all-time low. Qualified tradesmen are leaving all the time.

New people won't come in because everybody up there thinks that

community is closing down. This government has had four years, has

spent over $1 million in studies on the future of that community, and

nothing of significance has been done in that community by this

government.

The corporation has budgeted for a $15 million loss for the year of

1980, and we are, as I said before, going into a disorderly shutdown of

that community because this government is not taking any action. I

suspect once again in this instance, Mr. Speaker, that we have a clear

case of government interference in a Crown corporation. Mr. Williston,

the chairman of the board of that corporation, has said publicly — and

has told me privately — that the whole situation is completely out of

his hands. It is now in the hands of the Premier of this province and

the government, and yet we hear not a word. I am very concerned, as I

hope the Premier is.

I hope when the Premier gets up to

reply to many of the statements that have been made in this address and

on this motion he will address himself to that question.

By the way, Mr. Premier, while you are in the House — through you,

Mr. Speaker — I am just going to ask, are you intending to keep your

promise to representatives of the Canadian Paperworkers union to meet

them in Ocean Falls on April I – an appropriate date, in my opinion?

Because if you are, how are you going to get there? Do you know what

you are doing? Do you know what your government is doing? You are

taking off the ferry service to that community, completely abandoning

that community for almost a two-month period. How are you going to get

in there? A jet won't land there; there's no airstrip.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No. He's going to Ocean Falls. He promised

April l. I hope he'll keep that promise; I'd like to see him there.

But I don't know how he's going to get there. They're taking off the

ferry service. There's no airstrip. Rowboat? Canoe? I have no idea. I

hope you keep your promise to the Canadian Paperworkers union on that

particular event.

While we're talking about ferry service, Mr. Speaker.... I'm not

going to dwell a long time on any of these items, because we'll have

ample opportunity, I'm sure, to discuss these matters in detail during

the course of this session. But I want to take this opportunity to tell

you why I am going to be supporting this motion. There are a lot of

reasons. One is that the ferry transportation service on this coast is

in complete and utter chaos. There is no question about it. Just

visualize this, Mr. Speaker, if you will: they are taking the Queen of

Surrey , which is going to be renamed Queen of the North , and they are

going to refit it and spend — what, $7 million? I don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Seven point four.

[ Page 1264 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Seven point four million dollars to refit that

vessel and put it on a route from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert and stops

between — eventually, when they get around to refitting it. They're

adding staterooms and all these things. Then they are going to take the

Queen of Prince Rupert , a vessel that was constructed for that route,

refit it, tear out the staterooms and put it on a run between Seattle

and Victoria, for which it is totally unsuited, spending another —

what, $3 or $4 million? I don't know; I don't have the figures. I hope

to get those in question period; take notice.

In the meantime, the Marguerite , we are told, with an expenditure of

possibly $1.4 million is fully capable of sailing for two or three

years between Victoria and Seattle. It really doesn't make any sense

financially for the best interests of the people living on the coast of

this province, or any other way. It just doesn't make any sense

whatsoever.

In any event, as I have said before, the problem is that the government has

no water transportation policy — no transportation policy, period. We have

a pretty good Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). I hope

that minister will bring in a policy before this session adjourns.

AN HON. MEMBER: Minister of Education?

AN HON. MEMBER: Or the Minister of Finance?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Minister of Transportation. Another area, Mr.

Speaker, in which this government has no policy is energy. I am not

going to dwell a long time on that particular item at this time. But

because this government has no policy, the Premier was moved not too

long ago to make statements that a proposed natural gas line to

Vancouver Island would not be required at this time, in spite of his

campaign promises some nine or ten months ago. The point I wish to make

here is that the government has promised that it is going to set up an

energy utilities commission to look at the pros and cons and merits of

these particular situations. Yet the Premier, in spite of campaign

promises, continues to make statements which are, in my view, totally

uncalled for.

What we're talking about here is a British Columbia resource that

should be and could be utilized by British Columbians. It may not be

the best form of energy in the world, but it is certainly cheaper to

the user and a cleaner form of energy than many other forms — as

opposed, perhaps, to the Cheekye-Dunsmuir transmission line, which may

or may not work when it's completed after an expenditure of a billion

dollars by this government and B.C. Hydro.

However, all may not be lost. I have here a news

article about the

member for Omineca, entitled "Kempf After Answers." This article, by

the way, is dated February 27, 1980. Here's what the member says:

"Mr. Kempf intends to use his chairmanship of the

Crown corporations reporting committee to oversee Hydro. This committee

has made several and many recommendations on the public utility company

but, says Kempf, none of them have ever been acted upon. One of the

more important recommendations is to expand Hydro's board of

directors.... "

Mr. Kempf says here as well that he is going to oppose Hydro rate

increases. So I would expect that when it comes time to vote the member

from Omineca will vote with the opposition on this particular motion,

Mr. Speaker.

While I'm on this topic, there's one other item. The fact is we have

been promised time and time again by this government and by this

Premier that there would be no political interference on the boards of

directors of Crown corporations. Yet we find time after time after time

that there is direct political interference in the B.C. Ferry

Corporation, B.C. Hydro, B.C. Steamships, Ocean Falls Corporation, B.C.

Cellulose...and the list goes on and on. Perhaps that's the way it

should be. Crown corporations are the creations of government, set up

on behalf of and for the best interests of the people. Perhaps there

should be politicians of the governing party on those boards of

directors. But what I'm talking about here is that we had a distinct

and direct promise from that government that there would be no

political interference; but there has been direct political

interference, usually with bad decisions, just about any day of the

week that you'd care to name.

I've listened to the speeches and to minister after minister getting

up — very few of them actually defending the Premier. I've heard them

say nothing to persuade me not to support this motion. So I will be

supporting this motion. Hopefully, after the vote, we'll be going into

an election campaign and forming a new government in this province

within two months.

MR. BRUMMET: I think the House might well suspect that I will

be speaking against the amendment. The previous member, who just sat

down, inferred lack of confidence in the Premier, and that we are not

saying it often enough. We have confidence in the Premier; we have

confidence in this government. We really don't need to say it every

second sentence.

Yesterday we were very quickly introduced to what the socialists see

as their contribution to responsible government in this province. I was

disturbed by the socialist tactics of personal attack and character

assassination which we witnessed yesterday. I notice the tone somehow

or other has changed today. Perhaps they're trying to give the

impression that they are also reasonable people. I'm sorry, but

yesterday, I think, was a truer characterization of their philosophy

than today.

It wouldn't be so difficult to accept some of this criticism if it

were based on facts, but instead it is a constant barrage of innuendo,

inferences, implications and spurious analogies. I'd like to point out

that they were very careful to cover themselves by saying that they do

not have any direct evidence of wrongdoing. That was stated by both the

mover and seconder of this amendment. I don't think that the people or

the members of this House should forget that they did make that

statement several times. "We do not have any direct evidence of

wrongdoing by either the Premier or by members of this government."

Nevertheless, that did not deter them from going on with their personal

attacks and character assassinations. Then, through a calculated use of

histrionics, nebulous associations and baseless innuendo, they tried to

put together a case purportedly of non-confidence, but really intended

as personal attack and character assassination.

The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), the mover of the amendment,

certainly used his cheap shots through histrionics to set the tone for

the debate that followed during the rest of the day. Then the first

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), the seconder of the

amendment.... And what a pretence we had of reason and rational

preparation and presentation of a case. I think that it was based on

something of this nature: the Premier once wrote a letter, therefore the

[ Page 1265 ]

Premier is responsible for all types of letters that ever go out in

this province. What a ridiculous assessment! Surely nowhere else would

we expect that to be accepted as a reasonable development of a case.

Then we had a carefully orchestrated continuation of what the socialists see

as the real issues — a few letters, not authorized; a few people who said:

"Sign somebody else's name." And they tried to make a case out of

it. This is the real issue in this province? The people in this province were

sick of this long ago. Yet I think, as one report in the paper indicated yesterday,

they reviewed what the press had already done so much better, and came up with

absolutely nothing new. So as part of this some people who were in a position

where they should have used judgment misused that judgment and were let go.

Other people who were in positions of service, of dedicated service, resigned

simply because of the vindictive personal attacks on them. They could no longer

serve as they chose to serve, so they resigned. The fact that some people lost

their jobs, the fact that some people resigned their jobs, is not enough for

the bloodthirsty socialists on that side of the House. They've had to try and

drag it through the mud hour after hour after hour in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about President Nixon?

MR. BRUMMET: I think I mentioned the term "spurious analogies" earlier, and that fits, Mr. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: The House will come to order, please.

MR. BRUMMET: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe

the members opposite are yet satisfied. They want more blood; they want

to hurt people as much as they possibly can. People have already been

hurt; they'll never be satisfied. Even an investigation which

exonerated members of this government is not satisfactory for them.

It's not good enough. They did say, over and over again: "Despite the

fact that we do not have any evidence...." Nevertheless, away they

go, carrying on.

Then we get to the research work we have seen evidence of in this

House. They use carefully selected phrases taken completely out of

context from press reports from the past, and around that they build

character assassinations. From these carefully selected phrases they

then draw inferences, try to create an illusion of an internal rift or

leadership problems. What nonsense! It's an old elementary stunt that

if you say "rift, rift, rift, rift" often enough, sooner or later

someone will say: "What rift?" Then you explain and describe a rift

that does not exist. What a tactic! Something does not exist, but say

it often enough and perhaps it may come to be. What wishful thinking!

And then they brought on the socialist big guns, the member for

Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) — histrionics, with little content. However, that

has never deterred that member from repeating his one set of

disparaging comments. I guess with that I will leave that refugee from

reality to his own means.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) — what a fine

performance we had there. I believe in his presentation there were

terms used such as "ethics," "morals," "respect for parliament," "the

end justifies the means." Yes, we did see his exemplary behaviour. Some

example!

Unethical? That member certainly provided an example of "unethical"

in his references to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Nielsen) and other members of this government, and the

records will show that. Talk about unethical! "The end justifies the

means," I believe was the expression he used. That group of socialists

wants power by any means, despite the will of the people, who have

spoken twice in consecutive elections. I think as one member in the

federal campaign said: "Every time there's a full moon they want

another election."

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke said: "We must preserve the parliamentary process." What an example he set.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Please proceed, hon. member.

MR. BRUMMET: I am not usually a patient man, Mr. Speaker, but I have learned that in this House you have to wait it out with those members.

What a master of evasion that member for Shuswap-Revelstoke is when

it comes to withdrawal of offensive remarks. Perhaps it's just as well,

because those irresponsible remarks shall stand as a tribute to his

style. He mentioned style, which is being followed by the other

members. Talking about style, they've tried to attribute responsibility

for style to the leader of the party. Do they stand by that in their

own case? Can they be proud of that? Is it the leader, who spends most

of his time out of here, who set that style? I recall that they cheered

and supported that member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, who so aptly

exemplified their style, as he said — the style which they have

adopted, the style which relies on personal attack and character

assassination.

We can certainly be proud, and we are proud, and we can continue to

be proud of our leader. Can you say the same for yours? Can they say

the same for their leader, Mr. Speaker, since the style is attributed

to him, by virtue of their own arguments?

Since they have made such a case of picking isolated comments from

newspaper clippings, allow me to use one which was reported in the

Vancouver Sun , a document they quoted so often in the debate

yesterday, on March 18, 1975: "I'm not here to pass moral judgments on

the world. A buck is a buck."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. BRUMMET: The hon. Leader of the Opposition said that when he was Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BRUMMET: I think I should repeat that, because I think it

bears repeating: "I'm not here to pass moral judgments on the world. A

buck is a buck. " And they talk about moral judgments.

I, too, would like to quote that member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, when

he said: "Each and every member of this House will have to account for

his behaviour in this House." You bet, Mr. Speaker, they'll have to

account for it. I would love to be there when he accounts to his

constituency for his behaviour. Certainly I have no hesitation in

accounting to my constituents for my behaviour. But let's leave that

member; he's probably better left alone.

[ Page 1266 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: He is alone.

MR. BRUMMET: He's very alone today, I suspect. The member for

Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) then gave every appearance of returning to

rational debate. At least he digressed from personal attacks until the

very end of his presentation. I was certainly impressed by his concern

that this government was delaying Hydro projects. However, he was very

careful to say on each occasion that he did not necessarily support

those Hydro projects, and I don't doubt that he doesn't dare to,

because, I believe, they are against all Hydro projects. However, to

give him his due, he finally got back into style near the end of his

speech, the style having been set.

Throughout this debate, Mr. Speaker, we have heard, with mechanical

regularity, them repeating the phrases "a lack of leadership," "a lack

of ethical behaviour," "a lack of public confidence." What else can you

expect when seven months of research has come up with this theory that

if you say it often enough, maybe some truth will come of it? It's the

old adage: say it often enough and something may happen. Again, using

isolated phrases from newspapers, completely out of context, they've

tried to show a rift in this party; there is no such rift. You can't

create one by simply talking about it.

However, they did cover themselves early in the debate by saying:

"Although we have no direct evidence of any wrongdoing by the Premier

or any member of that government...." And then they went on and on

with personal attacks. The lack of any direct evidence doesn't bother

them one iota. I think the people of British Columbia will be aware of

that despite the insinuations that this opposition makes.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. There is an

opportunity for each to enter the debate in due season. The member for

North Peace River has the floor.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I could cite a number of instances

of good economic development in this province, of continuing prosperity

and so on. I think that might be better left to the debate on the

throne speech. However, on this amendment, I think it should be said

loudly and clearly that confidence in British Columbia has never been

greater. I think that this confidence has come about because of good

government and good leadership, and I will conclude with this

statement: there is confidence in this government and in this Premier,

and for good reason.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we've had from the

government benches a series of interesting analyses of the speeches

that took place yesterday and today. I would have thought they might

have used it a little bit more beneficially on behalf of the government

to tell us about all of the things which, they say, contribute toward a

good situation in British Columbia. Now the previous speaker, who has a

kind of problem with dyslexic ramblings that he gets into — you know,

mechanical irregularity — I would have thought would have taken the

trouble to do some research, not as far back as 1975, but about

'77-78-79, and do that kind of analysis about all of the programs that

have taken place and the good standard of government that has come from

that side. He might have started some time last August with that

fantastic gaffe of the government where they put an insurance company

out of business, but you don't want to talk about that, because

immediately we had a new tactic from the Premier. He jumped into the

House and said: "I am responsible. I am responsible for everything that

the government does." We didn't get such a statement from him in the

fall, that he was responsible for the problems that took place that

have been enumerated here over the last two days. Was it expected by

those people over there, Mr. Speaker, that we would come into the House

and we would allow that the whole business of the dirty tricks and all

of the problems that took place that filled the newspapers right up

until the time of the federal election...that somehow nobody would

discuss it? We purposely stayed away from the dirty tricks; we made no

comments about it. We left it to the press; we left it to the members

of your party to make their comments.

The man out in the Fraser Valley, Mr. Gilchrist, had enough to say

on the hotline shows and on TV and in the newspapers. We didn't talk

about a code of ethics; your Premier talked about the need for a code

of ethics in this party. The previous speaker said that we said there

is no direct evidence. I don't recall that we said that, but for four

months this province was faced with a series of front-page articles on

the goings-on both in the party and the government, during which we

kept silent. We didn't add to that. It was up to you to make your own

explanations to the public, which you did not do. You made the fatal

mistake of not being able to learn from history. You saw the mess that

Nixon got himself into in Watergate because he simply wouldn't be

candid and tell the truth. Nobody wanted to tell the truth about the

dirty tricks and it got deeper and deeper and deeper.

Yesterday we had the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) telling us

that what happened wasn't really that important — the Minister of

Health, an officer of the courts when he is not in politics, saying

that it's not so terribly important. If it's not so terribly important

I'd like to know how much taxpayers' money has been wasted on police

investigations into this business — if it's not that important. It

obviously was important. There obviously was a feeling out there in the

public that something was wrong and had to be explained. And the

Attorney-General decided to investigate it and we were to get a report

in November, then in December, then in January, and finally in February

we've got one, which is no report at all. But don't expect that you can

come into this House after not having the House meet for eight months

and somehow not be bloodied, because you are. Part of the intent of

this amendment is to point out to you that there is something badly

wrong with the way the government is running its affairs, both in the

party and in the government. If you can't see that, then you are

following blindly a leader who is also blind. If ever there was a case

of the blind leading the blind we have it with that government. We have

a first minister who only knows the way to the bunker; he knows exactly

where to go when the heat's on. He disappears and goes on holiday and

then comes back and needs another holiday from the holiday that he had.

Certainly there is something wrong over there. You people were not

fortunate enough, because, as you point out, you do not have a national

party; but we do. During the last federal election we went and

canvassed and knocked on doors for our candidates. That's the nature of

our party: people who work for us work both provincially and federally;

that's how we operate. When we left the doorstep one of the

[ Page 1267 ]

things that always came up was that they would say to us: "Well,

when are we going to have an election here?" This is eight months after

the last election.

At the beginning, when you took office in 1976, we took the position

at that time: "It's a new government. Let's see what they can do."

Inside of 7 months there were 13 separate investigations going on,

either by the police or in municipal affairs or by a royal commission —

right out of that government, within the first 7 months. We didn't have

to make any contribution to that. I'm sure that the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) remembers

that one; I know that he didn't remember anything else at the time. But

I'm sure he remembers all of what went on in those days. We sat back

and we waited.

We didn't even get a chance to sit back and wait after the last

election. When we came back in we saw the kind of thing that was going

on. Then they adjourned the House, and then they had to bring us back

because they had the problem with putting Seaboard overboard. Yes,

we'll remind you about putting Seaboard overboard. That's really the

talisman that will stick to you. That's how efficient you are; that's

how understanding you are of the process of government.

For the new members who are upset by some of the rhetoric that goes

across this floor, that's the nature of debate in the British

parliamentary system. Sometimes it gets hotter than it should, but it

happens because feelings are very strong. I would remind the new

members that I can remember when the blood used to run when the other

government was in, when the government that I was part of was there. We

would have the now Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

doing a high-flyer for 15 hours, making accusations which were

completely baseless. There's the man who made a statement in this House

that members of the cabinet of the NDP traded in shares in respect of

the purchase of Can-Cel because there was inside information — no

basis, no facts, nothing to prove it. It was just like the statement

the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

McClelland) made. One day he got up in this House, and it was a slow

day for the press for him, so he asked the Minister of Human Resources:

"Is it true that you're putting juveniles in the Empress Hotel because

you have nowhere else to put them?" You know, that's the same kind of

statement that came out of the mouth of the now Minister of Industry

and Small Business Development. That was the calibre of debate, my

friends.

What you have to do, if you are unhappy with the calibre of debate

over here in terms of facts, is show us the facts. We showed you the

facts. We certainly explained the facts. You give us other facts to

deny those facts; that's what we have to have, not your sitting back

there and mumbling to yourselves about how rough it is in here. Well,

it is a very rough place, and if you don't like it go sit in your

office and listen to everything on the squawk box. But when you're in

here you're on the line. If you've got facts that refute the facts we

have, then you have an obligation to get up and state those facts;

that's the basis of debate.

When we had the temerity, as was suggested from over there, to raise

the dirty tricks, we were breaking all the codes of ethics in the

world. My gosh! A code of ethics! The first statement of a code of

ethics came out of the mouth of the Premier: "We need a code of ethics

in the Social Credit Party." After 25 years of operation they finally

got the message: "There's something wrong that we've got to get squared

away." So you put up a code of ethics. A code of ethics is not going to

help you. You don't legislate that kind of behaviour. The reason you

don't legislate it is because if you are part of a government and

you're going to blindly follow the leader, who doesn't know quite where

he's going, then you're going to get into a, lot of trouble — all of

the trouble that you've got into since.

Do you think it's pleasant to be able to stand here and to deal with

this? Certainly we deal with it. We'll deal with it for four months

because nothing else was dealt with in this province for four months.

We waited for four months to get an energy policy. We had a statement

from the Premier that it was coming down in August; then it was coming

down in October; then November.

But how could you bring anything down? He was running and hiding in

the bunker; the ministers couldn't reach him; and you had the dirty

tricks all over the front pages. Who put them there? There are

ministers who'd say: "Oh, it's the terrible way it was handled." Or

another minister would say: "It's terrible what you're doing. There's

really nothing to it." Yet it kept being ground out. It was your story

and it was the press' story; it wasn't our story, because we were quiet

about it.

You got yourself into the soup; the idea was to get yourself out of

it. A