1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 1980

Night Sitting

[ Page

1233 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Speech from the Throne.

On the amendment.

Mr. Mussallem –– 1233

Mr. King –– 1235

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1241

Mr. D'Arcy –– 1243

Mr. Strachan –– 1246

TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 1980

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Without encroaching upon the members' time at

all, I was thinking over the dinner hour of the congratulations I might

bring to the House on the style of debate that we had this afternoon. I

thought that I should perhaps read to you from Beauchesne's fourth

edition,

section 128. It says:

"A personal attack by one member upon another is an

offence against the House in the person of one of its members which, on

account of the respect due from every member to the character and

dignity of the House, as well as the importance of preserving

regularity in debates, calls for the prompt interference of the

Speaker."

This afternoon there were many instances in which the Speaker felt

that he should interfere, but not wishing to interrupt the debate

itself and hence disrupt the flow of debate, I refrained from doing so.

Nonetheless, I must add that

section 128 of Beauchesne does apply. I

wish that hon. members would be cognizant of the fact. And although any

one member perhaps may not have been guilty of an offence, nonetheless,

the cumulative effect does have a very gross effect upon the overall

debate.

I think a word to the wise is sufficient.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, indeed we all appreciate your

words of wisdom. We hope that we would have the same wisdom that you

have for the Chair. We honestly respect your decisions. I do confess

that the House was a little unruly today. I'm sure that we will change

very rapidly with that admonition we've just received.

I think, to bring this debate into focus, it is necessary to read the amendment to the motion:

"That we feel it, however, to be our humble duty to

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

government should possess the confidence of this House and of this

province, and respectfully to represent to Your Honour that such

confidence is not reposed in the present advisers to Your Honour."

How could we possibly get further from the fact. His Honour

recognizes the fact that the public voted for this government, and to

place such a motion on the order paper is undoubtedly a parliamentary

procedure, but at the same time it is facetious in content. The vote

implied dissatisfaction with all members of this House and particularly

with the Premier. The scurrilous attacks today on his person were, I

think, beyond the realm of parliamentary procedure and should be

considered an abhorrence to us all.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) thundered greatly and talked

of the philosophical differences between our party and theirs.

Certainly there are great philosophical differences. We have and do

consider the dignity of mankind,

whereas the opposition have

demonstrated very clearly that they have the philosophy of socialism,

wherein the end justifies the means. I just chanced to come on a

statement that the end justifies the means in the socialist atmosphere

of the master-and-serf philosophy, where the parliamentarians are the

masters and the public are the serfs. That is the way, that's the

socialist philosophy, and I have it here before me. I have the words

from Hansard for September 24, 1973, by Mr. Gabelmann:

Maybe the government has got to be involved in

building homes. Maybe we have to say that land can no longer be owned

privately. No one ever suggested air should be owned privately. Air was

given to us by God, or whoever we believe gave it to us, and so was

land, Mr. Speaker. It is foreign to my philosophy that land or anything

on this earth that is natural should be privately owned.

That is the difference in philosophy, yes, indeed. We stand for a

different philosophy. We stand for the sanctity of the individual and

the dignity of mankind and we do not stand for the master-and-serf

philosophy that is a socialist ideal.

It was a matter of great shock to me that the name of Mr. George

Lenko would be brought up in this debate today — that George Lenko, an

honoured and respected young man who did his duty as he saw fit, would

be considered by the opposition as breaking his responsibility by

sending out certain tapes that he never heard or read. That this man

would resign because of this seems foreign to me.

I wonder which of you have thrown the first stone, which of you

could say he has never made a mistake. Certainly he should have heard

the tapes, but he did not and he mailed them. I think we have sunk to a

new low today when we brought this young man into focus and said to

him: "You did wrong; you have to quit or you will get fired." It is a

shame, one of those low levels parliament gets into in the heat of

debate.

MR. MACDONALD: Who was really responsible?

MR. MUSSALLEM: The responsibility, if I may say, is this: the

responsibility is that of the ones who encouraged and abetted a mistake

— an honest mistake made by a single individual. I do not want to

debate what happened. I only want to debate the lowness of an attack on

a man who is not here, an attitude of a great victory because they got

this young man to leave his vocation in which he wanted to make a place

working for the government of this country. It is a shame that we have

come to these low depths. He did no wrong except to mail some tapes

that he never heard and that none of us here ever heard.

That is the only thing. The engineer of the tapes made the

statement: "Yes, I made the tapes. I am responsible. I am the only one

involved. I'm sorry and I resign." But that is not enough. To this day,

eight months later, we find this matter being dragged out here which, I

think, is indeed a great regret.

The hon. member goes on in speaking to this motion.... "The terrible

people" — referring to us. They called the police force that we had "a

secret police force." Well, I want to tell him that I am one of the

people who believed it was and I still think it was but they never had

time to bring it into effect because it was not only the police force;

it was the road on which socialism travels. It was the first mark. The

people who came to this land from the countries of Europe would tell

you all. I only tell you what I understand. That is the way that

socialism starts. First it's with the police — that is the direction.

Then the next thing, strangely enough, is a freeze on land.

[ Page 1234 ]

They said to us: "You'll never remove that land freeze." Of course

we'll never remove it. It was improperly done, incorrectly applied. Our

government before was embarked on a land freeze, but in an orderly,

proper fashion.

What did the land freeze do? It made millionaires out of every land

developer in British Columbia. They talk about low-cost homes, but they

raise the price of land beyond the reach of the individual. That's what

the land freeze did.

That is what we're afraid of. We are afraid of socialism and what it

represents. We are afraid of the way they get to where they are going.

The people from Europe will come and tell you this is the route that

socialism takes. This is what we are afraid of, and this is what the

people of British Columbia were afraid of when the NDP were turfed out

in 1975. They don't want to ever have that again. I talked to members

of that party, and they said to me: "There's only one thing we did

wrong. We'd be government today, but we went too fast." What does that

mean? It only means: "We would have got there anyway but we should have

got there a little slower." That's the difference in our philosophy.

I am not sure whether it was the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard)

or the hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) but one of them

referred to the thousand dollars that Mr. Dan Campbell paid for hotel

bills, etc., through one of the caucus staff. Here's another thing I

decry. An honourable man who served this government well, who served

this province well for many years, was not a businessman, but a school

teacher. This man made a mistake. Most businessmen would not do it. He

flashed a thousand-dollar bill and said: "Here, go and pay the bill."

I can understand that happening. But what's so wrong about it? Why

are you so happy, I say to the opposition, that this man lost his

position and lost his job? What did he do wrong? Let me make it clear

here today that it was not government money. This is party money. This

was party money that he had a right to spend any way he saw fit. That

is not the business of the government but the business of the party.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the elections act?

MR. MUSSALLEM: There is nothing wrong with paying bills with

a thousand-dollar bill. I will say it was injudicious. I will say that.

But what joy you take! I say that the opposition has come to a new low

when they take pride in accomplishing the fall of a fine and honourable

man. Now that you're bringing up money, I want to ask questions. There

was a former minister of the NDP who gave up his seat so that the

honourable leader could find a seat. I was told he received, at a

certain sum per year, a total of $80,000. Is this true? I have heard

this many times. If he did, I ask where the money came from. Right

after an election where did the money come from? I want to know. I

think I'm entitled to know.

You bring up the question of $1,000. Where did the money come from?

I want to know. I was told it came indirectly from government funds.

I've been told. I make no charges, but I'd like to know. If they want

to bring up the fact that Dan Campbell paid $1,000 for a just and

proper bill, then I think I'm entitled to ask where the $80,000 came

from.

MR. LEGGATT: Where did the $1,000 come from? Where did Dan get the $1,000?

MR. MUSSALLEM: It's party money — $1,000 to pay bills. We

have meetings, we have budgets and they're paid for. I admit it was

injudicious, but why should you take joy in such an action?

Where did such a large sum come from? Who paid it? Right after an

election, when their money has all been spent — it should have been

spent, and I presume it was — where did this money come from? I have

been told that it came indirectly from an improper source, and I

charge....

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Never mind. Let us come and tell this House where you paid off "the $80,000 man."

We haven't mentioned this before, but I get tired of hearing these

scurrilous attacks. Furthermore, this same man was working in the NDP

caucus for what I was told was $24,000 a year. Is this true? I ask

these questions. Where is he today? Was it government money again?

These are things which should be answered. It is very important. This

government is so open it is distressing to the opposition, but we do

our work and we do it well. We do it with confidence and we do it under

good leadership. There is nothing hidden in our government. It is the

strange anomaly of government; I don't understand it. When the

Premier's father sat in that same place he was called almost every name

in the book. He was derided in every way that you could get your hands

on. There were a lot of compliments, of course, but mostly derision.

But what's the difference today? Today he has suddenly become an

honourable man — and so he should be; he always was. The Premier today

is following in the footsteps of a great man and doing a job for

British Columbia which we should be proud of. I am proud that we have

his son. I have said many times that W.A.C. Bennett was Canada's

greatest Canadian; I still believe that. I tell you that his son is

following so closely in his steps, every motion he has is almost like

his father. When this government has the audacity to attack the Premier

on no grounds at all and on such facetious little items as a

thousand-dollar bill paying a just and honourable debt, because a young

man like Mr. Lenko would mail out some tapes that he never heard — and

that's an attack. Is that parliamentary? Is this the great NDP? What a

shame! We've fallen to a new low.

We find the Premier under attack for mailing out pamphlets to inform

the public of British Columbia on the process of our government. Well,

I want to know here, Mr. Speaker, why shouldn't the pamphlets be mailed

out? What was wrong with that? I think it was fitting and proper, and

it should be done again and again. People have precious little means of

finding out what's happening in their government unless the government

tells them in print. I've never seen them question what the pamphlets

had in them. Our opposition only questioned the fact that the pamphlets

were sent. There's no attack on the content, but attacks on sending

them and informing the people. There are the people who talk about open

government. You are seeing open government in process.

The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), to my shock and dismay,

brought out the old adage about the national socialist red herring

again. I am thoroughly and completely disgusted with this ridiculous

attempt to suggest that the Premier was calling them Nazis. At the same

time, I'm amazed that he brought in the inference of the skinning alive

of people under the Nazi regime. I didn't think it was proper

[ Page 1235 ]

and fitting for this floor. To allude that the

Premier was unconsciously indicating their skinning people alive….

Maybe they are, theoretically; maybe they did, theoretically. I'll tell

you this much: the national socialist statement was made by the

Premier, and you know and we know what it meant — the socialists

nationally of Canada. But they turned it around. And that's what this

opposition is good at: turning everything around. So it doesn't fit. It

becomes a square peg in a round hole. In truth, that is the problem

with the socialist philosophy: it's a square peg in a round hole. It's

a master-and-serf philosophy that we do not support.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the hon. members of the opposition and

to this whole House — every single member in this House — that the

majority of British Columbians support our Premier for what he has done

and is doing. We have never had a Premier of this calibre. That these

people would endeavour to create an attack, facetiously, without

grounds or purpose, I think is beneath an honourable party. The

national socialists — this is a socialist party; they admit that. But

they must also admit they have a national socialist party, and what's

wrong with that? We don't deny that. We don't have a national Social

Credit Party; we have a provincial party.

We have a provincial party, but you have a national socialist party.

Now what is wrong with calling you national socialists? I see nothing

wrong with that. And what's all this talk? Sit down, Mr. Lauk.

But again I say with clarity and purpose that every man of this

caucus.... I respect and honour the leadership we've had, not only from

the Premier but from the members who are doing their job, the best I've

seen in this House in my many years here.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister was on his feet first. On the amendment?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The only reason I ask is that you will recall

that at one point I promised to recognize the hon. minister at the

conclusion of a speech if he had something to say. Would the hon.

minister please defer to the opposite side of the House, who would in

turn logically be ready to speak? The hon. member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke would be the natural rotation. I appreciate the

deference.

MR. KING: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the

member for yielding the floor so that the rotation of speakers can take

its proper course.

Mr. Speaker, I may say that I rise in support of the amendment which

has been put forward by the official opposition, and I do so for quite

a number of reasons which I shall attempt to enumerate for the House

tonight. But first of all it might be appropriate if I commented fairly

briefly on that rather incomprehensible presentation made by the member

for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), which in my view was completely lacking in

logic and lacking in any natural sequence of the member's suggestions.

He talked about the end justifying the means. I suppose members on

the government side are well equipped to talk about that philosophy,

because that is precisely the philosophy which has landed this

government in so much hot water. It is the philosophy of the end

justifying the means that led them to attempt to manipulate the media

in this province and to indulge in unethical campaign practices which

resulted in their scapegoating of junior staff, including Mr. Lenko,

whom the government fired or whose resignation they accepted. Mr.

Speaker, it was not the opposition that fired George Lenko; it was not

the opposition that fired Mr. Grieg, Mr. Kelly, Ms. McKay and all those

other Social Credit staff who received the tender mercies of the caucus

chairman's euphemistic term "a menial reprimand."

Mr. Speaker, it was not the opposition that was responsible for any

of these events. It was that government and their propensity to allow

their quest for power at any cost, their philosophy that the end

justifies the means, that landed them in the whole controversy that has

resulted in this government's lacking credibility with the public in

British Columbia today. I mean that very sincerely and very seriously.

There is absolutely no credibility as far as the public is concerned in

the programs that this government has hurriedly tried to put together

as a diversion from their internal problems, as a diversion from

further scrutiny of the lack of leadership in this governing party.

They have no one to blame but themselves. It was not the opposition

that brought to light all these misdeeds, the lack of moral fibre, the

lack of proper character by the governing party, particularly the

executive council. They have no one to blame but themselves.

As far as other diversions are concerned, where attempts are made to

direct attention away from all the sordid details, the whole litany of

misdeeds, the whole litany of unethical practices that this government

has committed which are there for the world to see, which are not only

a matter for discussion in the media in British Columbia, but

throughout the length and breadth of Canada and, indeed, North America,

they have brought disrepute and disrespect to this chamber and to the

people of British Columbia through their own misconduct — no one

else's. And to now try to suggest that in some way the opposition, or

our treatment of staff in our caucus office, is in some way associated

is not only spiteful, it's irresponsible, Mr. Speaker. If there are any

suggestions regarding the source of funding to any of the NDP caucus

staff, Public Accounts is the

source for anyone to check. And senior members of this Legislature, if

they have any respect for the institution whatsoever, if they have any

intelligence, in terms of knowing where to find information that is

readily available to a member of this House, should be ashamed of

themselves for making the kind of inferences and suggestions that were

made here tonight.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have no confidence in the government; I have no

confidence in the Premier; and certainly we disagree in philosophical

terms. But I'm saddened to see the institution of parliament and the

institution of the Premier's office brought to disrepute by

questionable conduct, by seedy practices which have been apparently

endorsed by the government party in terms of their staff practices. The

Premier has lost the confidence of the public, and that's witnessed

throughout the length and breadth of this province by the people that

are coming into my constituency office and my colleagues' constituency

offices and ripping up Social Credit cards and saying, "I did not elect

the government to indulge in this kind of conduct," and taking out

memberships in the NDP. The governing party must know this is the case,

although they put on a brave face through some braggadocio. They know

that the public is concerned, that the public is aggrieved by the kind

of reputation that this government has brought on British Columbia.

I submit that the Premier did in fact set the tone for the

[ Page 1236 ]

kind of seedy practices that their workers have

apparently indulged in on all fronts, and I support my colleague from

Skeena when he said the Premier's reference to national socialism was

the benchmark by which the Social Credit members of the executive

council, members of this House and staff took their signal. I suggest

that the reference that was made to national socialism on at least four

occasions by the Premier, when he called the election in 1979, was not

made in ignorance of the import of that statement. I suggest that the

Premier knowingly, and with complete appreciation of the implications

of what he was saying, insulted thousands of veterans in British

Columbia who happen to be supporters and members of the New Democratic

Party. He insulted loyal British Columbians who had fought in the war

against fascism, and he did that because he was not concerned about

what type of rhetoric or what kind of conduct he indulged in as a

method toward winning power at any cost.

That's completely in keeping with the kind of conduct that the

former president of that party, and now Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and now Provincial Secretary, indulged in when she

talked about a secret police force and a cache of arms for that secret

police force, knowing that that was not the case. But the end justifies

the means — because we don't like the NDP, we are going to feel free to

make any scandalous statement, any prevarication whatsoever as a method

of paving the way back to power for that coalition.

Given those kinds of signals from senior cabinet people, from the

top echelon of that party, is it any wonder that Jack Kelly and Ms.

McKay and Lenko and Grieg, and a host more that I can't even remember

the names of.... It's almost like a resurrection of the Watergate

scandal. I wish I could read out all of the names in the same laconic

fashion that Sam Erwin did when the investigation was going into that

equally seedy practice south of the border, which damaged the electoral

process down there.

They have the gall to stand here today and suggest that they should

go scot-free and not be asked to assume any of the ministerial

responsibility for that direction. They sit here and expect us to

blithely brush aside the devastating internal corruption that has

eroded the effectiveness of the governing party to the point where they

can no longer effectively govern on behalf of the people of British

Columbia. Mr. Speaker, that's what the amendment is about. The

government in a free society and under the British parliamentary system

is required to enjoy the confidence of the population and the

confidence of this Legislature.

It is completely appropriate that we challenge each and every member

in the governing party tonight, or sometime in the future whenever this

motion is called, to stand up and take the position, remembering that

you will have to return to your constituencies and look people in the

eye and tell them whether you condone all of the seedy practices that

this government has visited upon the people of British Columbia, or

whether you say: "No, enough is enough. I am going to represent people

rather than political expedience." The choice is yours.

It seems that the the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), the "Minister of Defence" on that

side, is the only Liberal who is prepared to get up and in however lame

fashion attempt to defend his coalition. He had a lot to say about

labour chaos in this province. He had a good deal to say trying to

divert attention from the essence of this motion. I want to say, Mr.

Speaker, that not only was that farcical, but it was particularly.... I

can't use the word "hypocritical," Mr. Speaker — I won't do that — but

it was very difficult to digest coming from one who has further eroded

the credibility of this government, who by his conduct has demonstrated

contempt for the independence and the integrity of a quasi-judicial

agency of this very government.

I refer, Mr. Speaker, to a decision of the Labour Relations Board,

decision number 73/79, in the case of the Association of Commercial and

Technical Employees, Local 1728, the complainant, and Dr. Patrick

McGeer, the respondent. I want to read to you some excerpts from the

decision which that quasi-judicial agency arrived at with respect to a

minister of the Crown, a minister who is a lawmaker and a minister who

consequently has a bounden duty not only to represent the law well and

respect it, but to set an example so that others might respect the law

that is passed by all members of this institution.

At page 33 of that decision it says:

"Instead there evolved what can only be described as a

program of public coercion, the clear purpose of which was to mount

intense and irresistible community pressure on the FANDU membership to

give up that membership in the union."

The minister is accused of coercion in a decision by the Labour Relations Board of British Columbia. At page 35 it states:

"Moreover we are satisfied that the statements we have

labelled as coercive could reasonably have the effect of compelling or

inducing the faculty at NDU to cease to be a member of FANDU. We accept

that the statements must have had the chilling effect alluded to in the

testimony of Salvo, and that the NDU faculty members must have felt

intense pressure to shuck off their lawful union membership."

It goes on. At page 37 it states:

"The difficulty with the position advanced on behalf

of Dr. McGeer, however, is that there is a distinction, and sometimes

this can have important legal consequences between the introduction or

enactment of legislation to reflect and crystallize a government policy

and the use of other techniques to achieve one ministry's objectives.

When a government introduces legislation, it is debated publicly in the

House. Once passed into law, with or without refinements, the

government is accountable to the public for that action. This process

provides a necessary check on the use of legislative power. That check

does not exist where a minister or his officials engage in the kind of

conduct under consideration here. The right of the faculty members of

NDU to engage in collective bargaining was guaranteed, at least prima

facie, by the Labour Code, and as we said earlier, the unfair labour

practice provisions of the Code were intended to safeguard employees

from various kinds of interference with that right."

The conclusion is marked on page 39, and it states as follows:

"We have weighed with care the desirability, indeed necessity,

of the widest possible ministerial freedom of expression against the harm which

section 5 of the Code was intended to eradicate and the fundamental freedom

it was designed to protect. It is our conclusion that in the manner and to the

extent earlier indicated a violation of

section 5 did indeed

[ Page 1237 ]

occur. Pursuant to

section 38 of the Code we so declare."

Here is a minister of the Crown wilfully and flagrantly breaching an

act of this Legislature, and that same member has the unmitigated gall

to stand up in this House this afternoon and suggest that there has

been a disregard for labour's rights under the previous government.

What a farce! What a complete sham! Never in my experience in the

Legislature of British Columbia has this kind of contempt for an agency

of government been manifested and taken to hearings and condemned as

clearly and decisively as the case I have just alluded to. Never! I

wonder what the Minister of Labour thinks of that. I wonder if the

Minister of Labour or the Attorney-General issued any statement about

the impropriety and the inappropriateness of a cabinet colleague

breaching a law that they are sworn and bound to not only administer

but to protect and uphold. We never heard a word from any of them — not

a word.

The point is that we have a government that is contemptuous of the

institutions of parliament. We have a government that is contemptuous

of the electoral processes. We have a government that is even

contemptuous of the law when it comes to serving their own aims and

objectives. That, I submit, is a very dangerous situation.

Can it be any wonder that junior staff members, taking their lead

from the kind of statements that the Premier has made, taking their

lead from the irresponsible statement that the Provincial Secretary has

made, and taking their lead from the Minister of Science and

Technology's contemptuous conduct in ignoring the laws of this province

which protect the right of working people to belong to the union of

their choice.... Can it be any wonder that they have indulged in

questionable tactics in terms of fighting elections and in terms of

manipulating the press? Of course not. Not when in the private sector —

which this government likes to refer to so often — there is that kind

of internal rot. It is not the secretary and the office boy who are

dismissed, Mr. Speaker. It's the board of directors. They're the ones

who are responsible.

On every front there has been conduct by this government and its

ministers which can only be calculated to lower the esteem of the

Legislature, to bring disrepute on the government and to destroy any

public credibility that they may have enjoyed in the past and certainly

since the last election.

From the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Nielsen), problems with the law to the extent where they have found it

necessary to bug his office....

HON. MR. MAIR: You know better than that.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Minister of Human Resources rises on

a point of order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I stand on a point of order. The Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is not in the House to defend the statement

that has just been made which is completely erroneous. I ask the member who

has just been standing to make his apologies not only to this House but to the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, my hands are tied unless the remark that

was made was unparliamentary, which I cannot....

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The remark was unparliamentary.

MR. SPEAKER: Was the remark unparliamentary?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: In order to refresh my memory, what was the remark? I'll rule on it immediately.

MR. KING: The remark was from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: "problems with the RCMP."

Interjections.

MR. KING: Problem with the law?

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. members allow me to look at the Blues and come back to those? I did not hear an unparliamentary statement, and I apologize.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I'm attempting to recite facts here.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the House allow me to peruse the Blues and come back to the House tomorrow?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I heard the remark from the member opposite

on the speakers in the building. I think perhaps, to be charitable, it

may have been an error on his part, but I would ask him to withdraw the

remark that myself, as minister, had troubles or problems with the law

which led to the incident which is before this House for consideration.

I think it's inappropriate; I think it's improper. At least an apology

should be forthcoming, if not a complete withdrawal. Otherwise, Mr.

Speaker, his ignorance of law and justice is showing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Now that the phrase has been

drawn to my attention, inasmuch as it appears to be an attack on an

individual member, I would ask the hon. member to please withdraw the

phrase and perhaps be a little more selective in his selection of

language.

MR. KING: Fine, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw. The only thing I

want to clarify is that I did not say: "...which led to bugging his

office, trouble with the law." I was referring to his problem of the

bugging. Let there be no mistake about that. That was my intention.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member withdraws. Please proceed.

MR. KING: The point I wish to make....

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, if we didn't have so much

[ Page 1238 ]

chatter from the other side, perhaps they would better be able to understand my remarks.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Can we be a little more restrained on both sides. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke has the floor.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I hope this time is not being deducted

from my speaking time, because I don't want to waste it on that kind of

frivolity.

I did want to comment on the fact that the minister's offices were

bugged by the RCMP — his ministerial office in the Legislative

Assembly, his office in his constituency and, apparently, his home. I

want to observe that it is my understanding that under the Criminal

Code the RCMP is obliged to present its request for a listening device

to be implanted in such a telephone before a judge, with the provision

of some evidence to justify that kind of intrusion into one's privacy.

I suggest to you, sir, that when that kind of presentation was made to

a judge and he found, apparently, satisfactory evidence to issue that

permission against a minister of the Crown, it does little to confirm

the confidence of the people of British Columbia....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Attorney-General rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I must rise and suggest to

the hon. member that he has drawn an inference with respect to these

matters which would suggest criminal conduct on the part of a minister

of the Crown. There is no justification whatsoever for that.

MR. LEA: How do you know?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The evidence which is presented before the

judge is evidence that a particular interception is required in order

to conduct an investigation. It was made perfectly clear by the Crown

in the particular case involved that there was no such evidence

involving the minister. Yet the member has drawn the clear inference

that because this occurred it reflects upon a minister of the Crown.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is clear that the subject which

has been approached by the hon. member who now has the floor is not

only one which is inflammatory but may well be one which is damaging to

the character of one of the members of the House, which, of course, is

not allowed. In addition to that, it seems to me that the entire matter

being referred to is one upon which a decision is still pending, if I

am not mistaken, and perhaps ought to be one which should be avoided

until a decision is with us. This is a warning I hope all hon. members

will take to heart, and I trust that we can return to reasonable

debate. Please proceed.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in the first

place, the interruptions are such that I did not have an opportunity to

complete my statement with respect to the minister. That's true, and I

intend to complete it. In the second place, the Attorney-General's

sensitivity is understandable, but he does not have to put words in my

mouth. He is barely able to represent himself adequately. I resent him

putting words in my mouth and I do not accept the inference which he

attributed to me. If that is his submission, so be it.

My point is this: it has been a history in the British parliamentary

system that where a minister and his conduct in office is called to

question in any way without presuming guilt, without presuming to view

the evidence, that minister would stand aside until such time as the

whole matter is cleared up. And I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in this

case that course of action would have been a very honourable one to

take.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On a point of order, the hon. House Leader.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member is suggesting that the minister's conduct is called in question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I cannot hear the point of order.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that the

hon. member has suggested that the hon. minister's conduct has been

called in question. That's not true. It's not true, and the hon. member

should withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in any event, should the action or

conduct of any member of this House be called into question and should

that be fair debate in this House, it would have to be made on a

substantive motion, and I have to tell you that I do not have such a

motion in my hand.

The hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke proceeds.

MR. KING: I'm talking about proper respect for the parliamentary system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

MR. KING: I have nothing to withdraw.

Mr. Speaker, that and other matters which I have outlined with

respect to statements made by the Provincial Secretary, with respect to

statements made by the Premier, and certainly with respect to questions

raised about the administration of justice in this province, when it

came to a member of the governing party, are such that the credibility

of this government has completely collapsed in the public mind and

certainly in this chamber.

[ Page 1239 ]

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Attorney-General has overruled Crown counsel....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: I would be ashamed of myself if I belonged to a governing party which had indulged in all of the shabby tricks imaginable.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: Then I'd be ashamed.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: I call for order in the House. I call for

orderly debate in the House. I would ask the hon. member who has the

floor to cease and desist from debate which is only in order under a

substantive motion, and I would ask all the members not to interrupt

the man who has the floor and if, indeed, he is making any remarks

which are incorrect, he accepts the responsibility for his own

statements in this House. Shall there be any corrections to be made by

any member they will be made at the conclusion of his speech. The

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke has the floor. Please proceed.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to raise the question of the Attorney-General overruling

Crown counsel's recommendation to prosecute or to take proceedings, at

least, against a government member — not only the Crown prosecutor's

recommendation but the RCMP — and to suggest that in light of that the

ethical conduct of the government could well be called into question

and certainly a further signal to party workers, party functionaries

and staff that this government is prepared to indulge in any kind of

protection to mask the practices which their electoral run for power

has been revealed to endorse.

Mr. Speaker, they are the things that this amendment embodies and it

is proper that they should be brought to light in this chamber for

debate. I can understand the reluctance of government members to face

the music and to face the reality of what each and every member of that

governing party is indeed a party to and a part of. It's a style for

which low party functionaries have taken the rap to this point,

completely escaping the concept of ministerial responsibility,

completely flying in the face of any parliamentary accountability and

then responding in a very inflammatory and really hostile and surprised

way when they are called to account in this Legislature. Shame on you!

Did you expect to do it all with impunity? Shame on you.

Mr. Speaker, one of the members talked about all the wonderful

things this government had done. I want to say to you that the internal

problems that they have had, the lack of ethical conduct by this

government and their membership has resulted in the complete

stultifying of any legislative initiative or approach that they should

have been taking, with the exception, Mr. Speaker, of secret cabinet

order-in-council. They seem to like to hide everything. They brought in

a cabinet order-in-council last summer which changed the farmland

classification for taxation. They brought it in after the last session

of the Legislature had adjourned. In the secrecy of cabinet they

brought through an order-in-council which changed the whole system of

taxing agricultural land.

At this point I want to tell you a little bit about the impact that

has had in my riding and undoubtedly throughout the province of British

Columbia. In the Salmon Arm area it resulted in this

article appearing

in one of the local papers, referring to one Henry Krebs, an

89-year-old gentleman, and his picture is here on the front page:

"Old-timer may lose farm. Eighty-nine years of age,

Henry Krebs, who farms within the district of Salmon Arm, is in danger

of losing his farm because of reclassification of farmland. His taxes

in 1978 were $1, and in 1979 they were increased to $2,900."

From $1 to $2,900 on an 89-year-old farmer. By secret

order-in-council, Mr. Speaker, not by legislative debate, not by

consulting members of the opposition and indeed their own back bench

about the impact that this kind of surreptitious cabinet order would

have on the farmers of this province. Taxation without debate, the

exercise of power without debate — it's completely consistent with

their contempt for this institution. It's completely consistent with

contempt for the Labour Relations Board. It's completely consistent

with their contempt for the niceties of proper election practices. They

don't want to debate in this Legislature. They don't want to be called

to account.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this kind of secret order-in-council

system of government smacks of dictatorship, of contempt for

parliament. It's something that should not be countenanced in this

province. That's another reason I support the amendment.

I've got dozens and dozens of cases here — which I shall be dealing

with as the legislative session proceeds — of the harsh, unfeeling and

inhuman impact on farmers of the tax policies of this government.

Senior citizens all over my riding are being forced off farmland that

they have worked for years. This 89-year-old gentleman was born on the

same farm that he is now being forced off.

I can understand a policy that would have attempted to drive

farmland into use, but to think that without the benefit of debate in

this Legislature they would bring in this kind of punitive, secret

policy which has the effect of thanking those pioneers who built up our

province by kicking them in the pants and saying: "We are going to

increase your taxes to such an unrealistic level that your only

alternative will be to flee the land" — is that the thanks, is that the

compassion that this government shows for the senior citizens, the

pioneers of British Columbia?

This minister got up and bragged about their taxation policy. The

other minister complained about scurrilous attacks on members of this

House. I have never heard such inflammatory attacks on anyone as the

member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) made on one Gordon Townsend earlier

today, using terms such as scoundrel and so on. They have a double

standard, Mr. Speaker: one for themselves and quite another for the

people of British Columbia. They're contemptuous; they think they have

a God-given right to wield power without even the benefit of democratic

parliamentary debate. Shame on them!

I'm going to be dealing a great deal more with this issue of

farmland reclassification. I'm going to be dealing with it a great

deal, because it is injuring hundreds and hundreds of senior citizens

in this province who have pioneered and farmed the land, produced food

for this province, and now in their twilight years are being forced to

vacate their homes

[ Page 1240 ]

because of the narrow and punitive taxation

policies of this government. This government has such contempt for the

Legislature that they did not see fit to provide for proper debate of

this kind of policy initiative before visiting it on the people of

British Columbia. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it's all part and parcel

of the same syndrome: a government under siege. A government rocketed

from disaster to disaster by their own misconduct are not only unworthy

of governing; they are incapable. It's sloppy practice; it is punitive

policies against old people such as the farm population which are a

manifestation of that inability to plan for the proper and orderly

governing of this province. It's brought about by the dry rot that has

beset that party from the very core.

I want to say very seriously, Mr. Speaker, that when the vote is

taken on this motion, each and every member of this House is going to

have to account in his own constituency for how he voted. You're going

to have to justify voting for the kind of conduct that would force

80-year-olds off their farms. You're going to have to vote for the kind

of ethical standards that you think should be the benchmark in the

province of British Columbia. Are you going to validate the shabby

record of the government that sits across this House today? Are you

going to stand with some independence of mind, some higher devotion to

the principles of good government on behalf of all the people of the

province, show your independence for once and say: "Enough is enough;

we support the amendment."? That's where you should be, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Unless there is a point of order, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is next in rotation.

The Attorney-General on a point of order.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, during

the course of his remarks the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke said

that the Attorney-General overruled recommendations of Crown counsel

and the RCMP with respect to commencing proceedings against a

government member. That is not true, and I would ask the member to

withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member withdraw the statement or allow it to be corrected in the record?

MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that statement. It was

the Ministry of the Attorney-General. Apparently the minister is not in

total command of that ministry.

MR. SPEAKER: The matter stands corrected. The Attorney-General on a point of order.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In the continuing abuse of the rules of

this House by that member, Mr. Speaker, he has only worsened the

situation. It wasn't an overruling by a member of the Ministry of the

Attorney-General whatsoever, and I would ask the member to withdraw.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It must be the same point; otherwise I must dispose of it first. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Is the minister implying, in terms of my

colleague making the decision, that there was no recommendation from

Crown counsel or the RCMP to proceed with charges? If indeed that was

the case, we have been misinformed by the media, and I would suggest to

my colleague that he withdraw. But our information is that the Crown

counsel and the RCMP recommended charges be laid. If that information

is correct, I would advise my colleague to withdraw his statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Any further opinion on the same point? If not,

then all hon. members in this House are honourable members. Their

statements are accepted as they are proffered. If any member

inadvertently or because of lack of information makes a statement which

is incorrect, he then will stand corrected at the suggestion or request

of another member. I am not the judge as to which is truth or which is

not truth. I must accept the word of an hon. member. There has been an

incorrect assumption or statement, and I ask the hon. member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke if he will either withdraw the statement or allow it

to stand corrected in the record.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is not a debate; this is a point of order.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I withdrew that the Attorney General

had ordered them and said that in my understanding it was the ministry.

In good conscience and in all truthfulness, that is my understanding,

and I'm not prepared to withdraw that.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. The Attorney-General is satisfied?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I'm not satisfied. This member's understanding is wrong and I would ask him to withdraw.

AN HON. MEMBER: On a point of order, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it on the same point?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General has admitted on

the record in this Legislature that his ministry officials overruled

the decision of the RCMP to lay charges in this case.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same point? It appears we may entering a debate here, hon. members.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I made no such statement in

this Legislature. The members' facts are wrong, and I would simply ask

them to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: In the instance where a remark is made which is

incorrect, it stands corrected as stated by the Attorney-General.

Therefore it is a matter not of withdrawal but of correction, and the

official record has taken notice.

On a point of order, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, before the member

[ Page 1241 ]

for Shuswap-Revelstoke leaves the chamber I would

also ask him to withdraw a statement which he made during his diatribe

to this House: that the conduct of the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs was called to question by the RCMP, as he alluded to

certain circumstances. Mr. Speaker, I find that implication to be

offensive, and I ask him to withdraw that statement.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister misunderstood. I

attempted to outline the sequence of events, as I understand them. I

said that the minister's conduct could be called into question, I

think, by the public, not by the RCMP. I pointed out that the RCMP must

have laid a body of evidence before a judge in order to gain permission

for the bugging. Now that was my statement, and that's correct as I

understand it.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. We will remedy this. In the absence of immediate Blues ,

we will remedy this by simply asking the question: did the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) impute any improper motive to the

minister? The answer is no.

On a point of order I recognize the member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. NICOLSON: It appears we might be embarking upon what

could become a new practice of the House. I think that there are two

matters here to be undertaken. I think both members really rose under

standing order 42, at which time they can correct a statement made

during a speech. I think that the proper time to rise and ask for a

withdrawal is at the time. In order that we not embark upon a new

procedure, I would appreciate it if you would give this some

consideration, in terms of delineating between the two.

MR. SPEAKER: The member makes a good point. The Minister of

Municipal Affairs. I want to thank the minister for deferring to

another member a few moments ago. Please proceed.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The previous speaker spoke about a

style, and he continually harped on a style. Well, I frankly think that

his style, and certainly that of those who supported him on the other

side in his presentation, is one which we should all detest. I have

never heard such horrendous claptrap and innuendo. I was surprised to

see the amount of support he received from other members on the same

side of the House.

I should remove the tag, Mr. Speaker. I came into the House wearing

a "Hello" tag. Actually, that's because I had the pleasure of attending

the official opening of our new Social Credit Party office in the 1100

block Blanshard Street. The Premier officially opened the office, and

we had hundreds of people attending. The support was tremendous. I

think it's indicative of the support for the Premier and for the party,

not only throughout the province but right here in Victoria on the

Island.

I would like to have spoken in a positive way about the very

positive aspects of the throne speech. I'll try to be as brief as

possible, since we're dealing with an absolute negative, but not

unsuspected, I suppose, amendment by the opposition.

I wish to take this opportunity of showing my full support for the

government and, particularly, for the Premier of our province. I came

prepared, and I hope I'll have the opportunity later, to discuss those

things that I thought perhaps the opposition might have raised, as

there had been mention of them previously in the media. I thought

perhaps we could talk about energy or the economy or our natural

resources or perhaps employment, but no, as I said, we're dealing with

a very negative and ridiculous amendment. But it's not surprising. I

don't believe that the members on the other side have any understanding

of the word or the meaning of leadership. They've never had leadership;

they don't understand leadership. If they had understood leadership,

would the people of British Columbia have booted them out after only

three years of office? If they understood leadership, would they have

driven the mining industry down, down, down in only three short years

of rule? Would they have killed the forest industry in only three years

if they had understood leadership? As a matter of fact, I'm reminded

again of their approach to forestry in British Columbia. They went out

and purchased millions of trees that they might plant in the area of

False Creek in Vancouver. What were they, at the expense to the

taxpayers? Hundreds of thousands of dollars went into the purchase of

alders, scrub willow and swamp birch; that was their understanding of

leadership in our greatest resource — forestry.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, we have the greatest leadership right here in British

Columbia today in our Premier. As we have the opportunity of speaking

to the very positive Speech from the Throne, I think we'll have an

ability to express it. Hopefully there will at least be some

recognition for those very positive approaches from the other side of

the House, but I have some doubts.

Not only has our Premier shown tremendous leadership in the

province, about which I would like to speak in a few moments, but we've

also had tremendous leadership shown through his participation at the

national level. We in British Columbia have enjoyed a tremendous growth

in employment over the last several years, and certainly all

knowledgeable British Columbians recognize this and are appreciative of

it. We have seen in British Columbia, unlike anywhere else in the

world, with the exception of Alberta, a reduction in taxes. We have

seen in British Columbia tremendous improvements in all of the social

programs, and yet, unlike governments elsewhere, we've been able to do

so with a balanced budget.

Our Premier, and this government under his leadership, was able to

bring in a program that was watched and commented on by people

throughout Canada, the United States and the rest of the world, a

program that no national government could take on at this time, a

program of subsidizing the mortgages, or making available low mortgage

loans to our young people wanting to get into a first home, a program

that was brought on stream when the forest industry needed some

additional help, when we needed some boost to the economy because of a

downturn in the U.S.A. where much of our market is. But this British

Columbia government was able to do what no national government anywhere

in the world could do.

Mr. Speaker, the truth is there is no leadership issue. This

government has done a tremendous job in that respect. The real issue, I

think, was well brought to our attention by the introductory remarks by

the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), who put forth the motion. I would

just like to go over

[ Page 1242 ]

his introductory remarks very briefly. I think it

ought to be on record, because every British Columbian who cares about

the province, its future, our children and their children's children,

should hear that message time and time again. The mover said: "I have

no use for our system." He spoke against the system. He hates the

system. He says the free enterprise system is a heartless system. He

detests a system that has effectively worked throughout the western

world. I'm wondering, Mr. Speaker, what would happen to the economy of

this great province and country if ever — somehow, unfortunately — that

member should be in the position of sitting in one of these chairs here

and repeat what he said as a member of the opposition. I wonder what

would happen to the economy of our great province. What would happen to

the industry, the jobs and the investment we need in a growing economy,

if he were to repeat that statement sitting on this side in one of

these chairs? Disaster! That is the difference. Fortunately, the

majority of British Columbians will have no part of socialism.

Do we again need to remind that member for Skeena? I am concerned,

because even those statements which he made as a member of the

opposition could certainly be of tremendous harm to us in British

Columbia. Do we need to remind him that we need only compare the

systems that exist in great countries like Canada, the United States

and most other nations in the western world with those economies that

exist in Russia and China and Cuba and most of those eastern nations,

where they too say: "We're socialists."? Does he want the lack of

social programs that exists in those so-called socialistic countries?

Does he want the rule of Afghanistan as opposed to the rules which we

enjoy in a free society in the United States and Canada? Does he not

appreciate the great programs that have been provided by a free

enterprise system, the social benefits we enjoy in the areas of health

care, in long-term care, in human resources, in handicap programs, in

the programs that are provided through my ministry to assist

municipalities to make decisions for the community at the local level?

Does he want to do away with all of that? Mr. Speaker, I think we

should repeat his statement over and over again, and remind British

Columbians of the consequence that could follow from such ridiculous

thinking.

I want to remind that member as well that this beautiful building,

with all of its marble and all of the things we enjoy, and that

indemnity he is paid — and I don't deny him this — for serving as a

member, and the ferries he spoke of which run up and down the coast and

back and forth from the Island to the mainland, were provided not from

the profits of government but from the hard work of free enterprisers

who pay their taxes. When that member from Skeena.... I'm going to go

to his constituency and I'm going to read that message from Hansard

to all of those people throughout his constituency. I don't believe for

one minute that northerners are not good, hard-working, free enterprise

people. I'm going to read that message time and time and time again at

every opportunity in that man's constituency.

When he speaks of a heartless, free enterprise society, is he

speaking about such free enterprise-based groups as the Kinsmen, the

Kiwanians, the Lions, the Rotarians, the Elks, the United Way, the

March of Dimes? Are these free enterprise groups that heartless bunch

of which he speaks? I think it's disgraceful.

But, Mr. Speaker, socialism comes in various shades, all red, but

various degrees of red. There are those in Russia who call themselves

socialists; there are those in China who call themselves socialists;

there are those in Britain who call themselves socialists; there are

those in B.C. who call themselves socialists; and, yes, there were

those and there are those in West Germany who call themselves

socialists. It's all a matter of degree. But from what I've heard

today, maybe we've got one of the worst bunches of the whole lot in the

whole of the world.

We are a fortunate people in British Columbia. The reason we enjoy

all the benefits we enjoy is not only because we have good government

now, and it's not only because we have a tremendous Premier at the helm

of this government; it's because we have many people who on their own

initiative are prepared to get out there and pick up a shovel and do a

day's work. They expect rewards, but they'll return what needs to be

returned, as they've always done, in order that we might provide

programs for British Columbians. They don't want to be herded into some

factory that's going to be ruled over by some socialist who thinks that

because he's suddenly become a minister he's now an expert on

everything in what was otherwise the free enterprise system. They don't

want it. If we ever see that day — and I hope it'll never come, for the

sake of a great province, which I chose to live in — not by birth; I

picked it — and I think it's the greatest place in the whole of the

world.... If ever that free enterprise system — which that member for

Skeena called heartless and which he detests terribly — should be

replaced with socialism, I'd feel terrible for my children and for

their children. I care about my kids. I care about their future. I

don't need to sit here because I'm out of work, Mr. Member, as you may

be. I'm here because I care about my kids.

They talk about leadership. Take a look at our great country, and

compare British Columbia and what's happened in these last several

years to every other province — I don't care where — in the whole of

this great dominion, and nowhere will you see the successes that we've

experienced in British Columbia. That didn't come about because we came

in on an easy gravy train, like the NDP did back in the early seventies

when they inherited a surplus and a province in good shape. No, that

came about despite the fact that we were left with a chaotic situation,

a deficit and everything going to wrack and ruin after only three years

of disaster. Is it not leadership when you see in British Columbia,

unlike anywhere else in Canada, a reduction in taxes? Don't you think

it's leadership when we appear to be the only province in the whole of

the country where in fact we can operate on a balanced budget? Don't

you think, Mr. Speaker, it's leadership when we can introduce a great

program like BCRIC, which is an example for the whole of the free

enterprise world, a program engineered and brought about by our Premier

and this government, a program which is now giving every British

Columbian an opportunity to invest in the future of this province and

get back some of its wealth?

Mr. Speaker, what about B.C. Place? While everywhere throughout the

country we have cutbacks, we have a tremendously imaginative program in

B.C. Place, which is not only going to be a fantastic place for all

British Columbians and all of those who enjoy the beauties of the lower

mainland; it's going to be a fantastic place for tourists, who will

come from all over the globe to visit the most beautiful city in the

world — Vancouver. It is going to add to the economy. It is certainly

going to be a tremendous example of the type of leadership we have seen

in British Columbia during these last several years.

[ Page 1243 ]

And what about the city of Victoria — a most beautiful city, which

is attracting tourists by the thousands and tens of thousands and more

every year? Here we have the promise of speedy action on a beautiful

convention centre, and similarly in Vancouver. We are seeing example

after example of progress through good leadership, like no other place

anywhere in North America, let alone Canada.

Mr. Speaker, there is one other thing that really bugged me during all of that

diatribe from the other side. That was the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea)

getting up and questioning the morals of our Premier and making some ridiculous

statements. Let me say this very clearly: I think our Premier has more morals

in one hair on his head than some members have in the whole of their beards.

I'm proud of British Columbia and I'm pleased to have this

opportunity of speaking against this ridiculous amendment. I want to

get up in response to the Speech from the Throne and again speak in a

positive manner about a positive and very beautiful province which

holds nothing but promise under a good system with good leadership. I

want all members to turn down this ridiculous amendment and proceed

with the activities of the House, to assure that we can continue to

provide good leadership and good government in B.C.

MR. HOWARD: I gather I am permitted to rise pursuant to

standing order 42, with respect to correction, and simply say that, in

listening to the first member for Surrey, his comments with respect to

what I had to say were a complete distortion and fabrication for his

own peculiar purposes — typical Social Credit connivance and

misinterpretation. What can one can expect from a pro-fascist in any

event?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I

don't know where that member was during the war, and I don't care

really, but I can tell him where I was. I know what fascism is, and I

would ask that member to withdraw immediately and apologize for that

ridiculous remark — which I somewhat expected.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has asked for a withdrawal. Hon. member, would you withdraw?

MR. HOWARD: I thought it was quite appropriate that if he can identify me as a communist, I can toss the word back at him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will you withdraw the remark?

MR. HOWARD: I have no hesitation whatever. Let it stand on

the record that he is not gentleman enough to withdraw the accusations

he made against me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member withdraws.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I wish to welcome you back to the

House and congratulate you on the W.D. Bridge that I gather is going to

be constructed. Hopefully it will have tracks as well as traffic lights.

AN HON. MEMBER: Double tracks.

MR. D'ARCY: Double tracks, yes.

This afternoon the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) preempted me. I was

hoping to get the opportunity to introduce Mr. Barry Morse, because I felt I

knew him intimately, when I was much younger, as one of the deep throats of

CB Radio. The reason I have to mention that is that I have to contrast it with

today, when a lot of young people, including my own children, think of Barry

Morse as the guy who shows up on the scene immediately after traveller's cheques

are stolen and has the aplomb, of course, to never be suspected.

I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate the four new

ministers who have been elevated to the boat deck of the Titanic ,

particularly the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) and the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich). Those are difficult portfolios

in any government, especially under this one. I welcome the member for

North Okanagan (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) back into the cabinet. Particularly I

want to wish the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) well.

Certainly under this government that is a very difficult position to

hold, and I hope he manages to hang on to his good humour, which he has

always shown in the House.

Before I get into my remarks, Mr. Speaker, regarding this

lack-of-confidence motion in the Queen's head adviser, I wish to just

make a brief reference to the speech just concluded by the first member

for Surrey, the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He has made the

suggestion, and I think it's rather a foolish and insensitive

suggestion, that a great many public organizations in this province, in

fact, have a partisan point of view. I would like to suggest that as a

member of this House who has been associated with many community groups

and service clubs, both before and since I've been elected to this

assembly, I have yet to know of a single local organization of any of

the groups that the minister mentioned which had a political point of

view. Not only that, it's been my experience that the elected

executives of those clubs and organizations at the local level have

objected very strenuously to anyone who attempted to bring political

discussions or partisan talk into those service clubs or community

organizations. Certainly everyone has a secret ballot and a right to

take a position in an election, actively or inactively, but there's no

room for that sort of thing in the public organizations of this

province. It seems to be a figment of the imagination of the Minister

of Municipal Affairs.

I am very concerned about the leadership of the government of this

province. Government is big business in British Columbia. Whether I

happen to agree with the policies and points of view of the government

is one thing. I feel very strongly on one area, Mr. Speaker, and that

is that the government of B.C. must have the confidence of the major

industries in this province. It must have the confidence of small

businessmen. It must have the confidence of ordinary citizens and

working people. It must have the confidence of other provincial

governments, of the federal government, and it must have the confidence

of foreign governments with whom we are doing business. I submit, Mr.

Speaker, that the current Premier of this province and the government

that he heads do not enjoy the confidence of any of those

interprovincial or international or local groups that I have mentioned,

regardless of their point of view. Most of them probably don't have a

point of view.

It is bad for this province, bad for every citizen, every investor,

every pensioner, every property owner and every industrialist to have a

situation where no one within the province, even within his own party,

even within his own government, has confidence in the Premier and his

policies.

[ Page 1244 ]

Little more than a year ago the Premier said (it was a good speech,

a good line) B.C. is not for sale. I, for one, believed him to be

sincere when he made that statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were alone.

MR. D'ARCY: Hope springs eternal.

Since that time we have seen the spectacle of the government

actively supporting greater and greater exports of natural gas — the

one domestically consumed fuel, Mr. Speaker, of which British Columbia

has an abundance. We have seen the Premier actively support greater and

greater amounts of coal to be exported in an unprocessed state. We have

seen the government hand out coal leases galore for a pittance, both in

the Kootenays and in the Peace River area of the province. We have seen

the government idly standing by while Kaiser Resources was transferring

effective control to Japanese interests. We've seen the government

standing idly by while substantial tracts of land in British Columbia

were sold to foreign interests.

We know that the government deliberately, in the area of

transportation and tourism, sold outside this province three ferries,

as well as the Gray Line tour line. We know that the government, with

the effective lobbying of certain backbenchers, has actively followed

the policy of issuing more and more restricted hunting permits for the

exclusive use of guides and outfitters, who sell those permits to

persons not just outside the province but in most cases outside the

country. That reduces the number of big game permits available to

British Columbians. But the Premier would still have us believe that

B.C. is not for sale.

The Premier told us in 1975 and in 1976 that there was not going to

be government interference in Crown corporations; there was not going

to be political interference. The government was going to appoint the

boards and they were going to do their thing in businesslike way.

I'm not going to get into a long discussion of the current

ridiculous situation surrounding the British Columbia Steamship

Company, Mr. Speaker. I do have to note that it would appear that the

B.C. Steamship Company's biggest crime and the Princess Marguerite's

biggest crime is that last summer and last fall she began to make

money. When you make money and you are a government enterprise under

Social Credit, that means you get the skids pulled out from under you

pretty darn fast, and that's exactly what's happened to the B.C.

Steamship Company.

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise one other notable question of

government interference with a Crown corporation. I would note that

what has come to be known as Hydro-bashing is a very popular sport in

British Columbia with politicians in the Social Credit Party, with

politicians in the New Democratic Party and certainly at the municipal

level as well. In fact, one individual working for that corporation

suggested to me that they had adopted the mantle that used to be worn

by the CPR 30 years ago, where you could blame the weather and crop

failures and Lord knows what else on the Canadian Pacific Railway. Now

in British Columbia it has come to be B.C. Hydro.

In any event, for once B.C. Hydro last year took a responsible

position that nearly all British Columbians could agree with before the

National Energy Board on the question of Westcoast Transmission's

application to export greater amounts of natural gas. B.C. Hydro, at

those hearings, when they intervened, took the position that since this

was a fossil fuel, since it had a preferred rate, a preferred cost of

delivery relative to hydroelectric electricity and petroleum, and since

we could control the price in British Columbia.... Therefore they

made the very logical assumption that the use of natural gas for

residential, commercial and industrial purposes in British Columbia was

going to grow in relation to other forms of energy. They also made the

point that there were large parts of British Columbia, particularly

Vancouver Island, that were not yet served by this resource which

belongs to all British Columbians, and therefore we really had no

knowledge of what our demand was going to be for this fossil fuel over

the next 20, 30 or 40 years. Even though we had some knowledge of what

the supply might be we had no knowledge of what the demand might be. It

was a very reasoned and cautious position, Mr. Speaker, as I said

before, one that nearly all British Columbians could relate to.

As soon as the government heard that B.C. Hydro had taken this

position before the National Energy Board, there was immediate

political interference from the Premier and the Minister of Energy

through the board of directors of Hydro, telling them to cease and

desist from their involvement at those hearings that were taking place

before the National Energy Board. I consider this a very serious case

of immediate and direct political interference with a Crown corporation

that was taking a responsible position before a national export agency.

Mr. Speaker, what ever happened to the non-political boards of

British Columbia Railway? What happened to the McKenzie commission,

which made certain recommendations, some of which the board may have

been interested in. But we certainly know that none of those

recommendations were acceptable to government, and so they didn't take

place.

Mr. Speaker, what is the government's and the Premier's position on

energy developments in the northern part of the province? Nearly six

months ago British Columbia Hydro announced that they were about to

apply for a water licence to build a dam on the Peace River at Site C,

because they said, and I believe them to be correct, that if the demand

for electricity continues to grow in British Columbia, another

hydroelectric project needs to be commenced. I'm not advocating here

that Site C is the one that they should build first; I only note that

it happens to be the one, for better or for worse, that B.C. Hydro has

furthest advanced on the drawing board.

They were told by government that the ground rules for issuing water

licences and issuing permits to go ahead with hydroelectric projects

were about to be changed, and just to hold the phone for a little

while. Mr. Speaker, that was six months ago. The government, in spite

of an energy policy statement that really was no policy at all, in

spite of being in office for now a little over four years, has yet to

decide exactly what is likely to be changed — or if anything is likely

to be changed — in the ground rules regarding the applications to

government for permission to go ahead with hydroelectric projects. And

so the large Crown corporation shakes its head and says: "My god, here

we have a government that can't make decisions, even on policy changes."

What about the other energy proposals in the north? I should say in

the central part of the province really, Mr. Speaker, because we are

told by a great many people, including the Aluminum Co. of Canada, that

they are prepared — once again, for better or for worse — to go ahead

with a major project known as Kemano II. We also know that over and

[ Page 1245 ]

beyond that project B.C. Hydro has considerable interest in what may

happen to certain waters involving the Bulkley River and the Morice

River, and yet we see no action by government to take any leadership,

environmentally or economically, on this proposal either.

Three or four years ago, B.C. Hydro announced that they were ready

to proceed with the thermal project at Hat Creek. I'm not advocating

that that go ahead at this point. I would want to point out, however,

that they indicated to the government that they were prepared to

proceed with this if the government could tell them what emission

control standards would be acceptable. They asked the Premier, they

asked the Energy minister, they asked the Environment and Land Use

Committee. They have still to get an answer on that point, and so

naturally the Hat Creek thermal project has gone on the back burner and

all of the investment that B.C. Hydro has put into that project, using

your electric bills and mine to pay for it, at this point is completely

wasted because the government is unable to make a decision on emission

control standards on a project that's been on the Premier's desk for

three years.

Perhaps the Premier, since he is in the House now and is getting

somewhat vocal, could tell us where he personally believes

hydroelectric development should take place in the north, if it's to

take place at all. Does he prefer the Nass? Does he prefer the

Stikine-Iskut? Is he going to give Hydro a go-ahead on the Liard? Could

the Premier perhaps tell us whether or not he and his government and

his Intergovernmental Relations minister intend to fill the empty

British Columbia chair in the discussions which are currently going on

between Ottawa, the Yukon Territories and the state of Alaska over

Northern Power's proposal to build a dam on the Yukon River, thereby,

Mr. Speaker, cutting off any options B.C. may have in the future for a

Taku diversion? That chair has been empty for some time.

I'm not advocating the Taku diversion here, but I am suggesting very

strongly that if there is an empty chair involving British Columbia

energy resources going on interprovincially and internationally, the

Premier is completely derelict in his duty by not even having an

observer there. Where was the Premier and his government and where are

the Premier and their government when just over the border from

Abbotsford there is still the possibility of a nuclear power plant

right in the foothills of Mount Baker, a partially active volcano?

Where was the Premier?

Mr. Speaker, while we're on the subject of nuclear power plants, why

has there been no mention of nuclear power either in the energy

statement or in the statement made the other day regarding the

moratorium on uranium exploration and uranium mining? There has been no

statement surrounding the possibility of nuclear power plants in

British Columbia.

What is the Premier's and the government's position on the question

of tanker traffic on the British Columbia coast? Every political party

in Canada saw before the Premier and his government that the best

proposal, from British Columbia's point of view, of getting arctic and

Yukon petroleum south to the lower 48 was the Foothills proposal. It

was the best proposal environmentally and the best proposal

economically for British Columbia. Every one in the country saw that

except the B.C. government; they were the last ones to show any

leadership on this question. We don't know for sure whether this is

needed, but I would suggest that the government's foot-dragging on the

issue made the question of tanker traffic on the west coast, possibly

two routes, absolutely inevitable. There'll be tanker traffic through

the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and at the same time we hear certain Social

Credit activists from the past trotting out that old Kitimat pipeline

proposal.

Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit Party when they came into office in

1975 never was pretending to have a big heart. Naturally there was a

lot of apprehension among a great many organizations in the health-care

field and the social-services field, but since that time the confidence

that was felt in 1975 and 1976 by commercial and industrial interests

in this province — confidence in the judgment and the ability of the

Premier and his government — has absolutely disappeared, until major

segments of the industry today are saying that almost anything would be

better — almost anyone would be better.

What's happened to the people who were supposed to know how to run

the store? These are the people who gave us the Family Relations Act

that was tossed out of the courts. These are the people who gave us the

Seaboard fiasco. It was the Premier and his government that gave us the

Heroin Treatment Act. It was the Premier and his government that had to

face, on the eve of a provincial election last spring, an

auditor-general's report that stated that several million dollars were

inadequately accounted for during the period this government was in

office.

I would find it rather interesting to know whether the Premier and

his ministers would be pleased when they are on one of their many trips

— if they happen to be visiting, let's say, West Germany, looking for

investment in British Columbia or for money to borrow for one of their

major capital projects, which they seem to have to borrow money for, or

merely looking for markets for British Columbia goods — I would wonder

how they would take to having the government of West Germany, the

government of Helmut Schmidt, know about the kinds of remarks that have

been made in this House today by the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem);

those insulting remarks, Mr. Speaker, on the integrity and morals of a

government of a country which has the firmest currency in the world,

the lowest inflation rate, and the lowest unemployment rate of all

developed western democracies. They like to make those statements in

this chamber, but I sincerely doubt the Premier is going to continue to

encourage his ministers and his members to make statements like this,

as to whether they are having a positive effect on international and

national confidence in the government of British Columbia, which I

discussed earlier.

Mr. Speaker, we have had people in this debate today, as we have had

over the last few years, rant and rave and boast around the allegation

that this government has reduced taxes. Only one tax in this province

has been reduced since this government took office. It took them four

years to do it, and only after increasing that tax for the first period

of office. And that was the social services sales tax, which is now 4

percent; it used to be 5 percent when they took office; for most of the

time in between it was 7 percent.

What else has happened, though? Is the government across the way

going to suggest that they have lowered property taxes in British

Columbia? Is the government going to suggest that they have lowered car

insurance rates? That is in effect a tax, because you have to have it

if you're going to drive a car? Is the government going to suggest that

they have lowered ferry rates since they took office? Is the government

[ Page 1246 ]

going to suggest that they have lowered Hydro rates? Let's get down

to one of the most nefarious taxes of all that this government has been

involved in, and that is personal and corporate income tax. This

government raised personal and corporate income taxes. By the way, Mr.

Speaker, I'm not talking about the tax points that were transferred due

to a change in federal policy; I'm talking about the basic personal

income tax that was raised three percentage points by this government

when they took office. It has yet to be lowered. That applies to

corporation income tax as well as to personal income taxes. The reason

I referred to it as a nefarious tax increase is that we all know that

income taxes have a built-in inflation factor. As people's wages and

salaries and business earnings increase, hoping to keep pace with

inflation, they find that even though they have the same — or even a

lower — real disposable income, in fact their income tax as a

percentage of that has gone up.

While this government has been in office, the government take out of

the gross provincial product has been increasing every single year, in

spite of what they say come budget time. Hydro income as a percentage

of gross provincial product has increased. Car insurance as a

percentage of gross provincial product has increased. Property taxes

have increased as a percentage of the gross provincial product.

Mr. Speaker, during this period of time that they have been in

office, the real wages and salaries of British Columbians have

declined. They have declined and so has small business net revenue

after taxes. To put it in five concise words, Mr. Speaker, inflation in

British Columbia has been higher than salary growth in real terms.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has left the chamber. I suppose he's gone

into the bunker. He is seldom in the House these days. The one thing

that really worries me is the confidence that all British Columbians

seem to lack in the Premier and his government.

In the eight years I have been in this House, Mr. Speaker....

When the Premier entered the House — whether it was the member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) or the member for South Okanagan (Hon. Mr.

Bennett) — the members of his party applauded, particularly at the

opening or the early stages of a session. On the few occasions of this

session when the Premier has entered the House, there has been no

applause from the treasury benches, Mr. Speaker, and there has been no

applause from the back bench. That is the level of confidence that his

own appointed cabinet and elected backbenchers of the Social Credit

Party have.

Mr. Speaker, I think we should record for Hansard that the Social

Credit Party applauds the entrance to the House of the member for South

Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) in far greater terms than they are

concerned about their own leader.

As a British Columbian and as a Canadian, while I disagree with many

of the policies of the government, it disturbs me greatly that so many

major segments of the British Columbia economy and British Columbia

society, regardless of how they voted last April, feel deep in their

hearts that they simply don't trust or believe in the judgment and

integrity of the present government of British Columbia. Unless the

government can turn that around somehow, I would anticipate that they

will go down to a resounding defeat, which they clearly richly deserve,

in the next provincial election.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) has been out in the library doing some

research on the Taku diversion. He possibly hadn't heard of it before.

However, in the period between now and when the Premier, or whoever

succeeds him, dissolves this Legislature and goes to the people I trust

that the government will make sincere attempts to work with the members

of this House and with all British Columbians who are concerned about

the level of dismay and the lack of esteem and of confidence in which

the Premier of this province and the government are held by so many

people here, in our neighbouring provinces and in other countries.

Because we are all a loser, Mr. Speaker.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the amendment.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: May we proceed, hon. members.

MR. STRACHAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. To paraphrase

the famous bard, "Methinks they protesteth too much." However, it

occurs to me that the opposition are raising the amendment because they

really have nothing much else to say. They have nothing at all to say

about our government, our legislation or our record. So with this

absence of anything to criticize, the opposition party takes the only

thing they can find and trots out all of their 1976 speeches, picks out

some items from the newspaper and proposes non-confidence in the

Premier.

I want to tell all members that if there's anyone who should be

worried about leadership in this House it is the Leader of the

Opposition. If this is the only opposition he can muster, he's got a

far bigger problem than anyone on this side of the House. If that

Leader of the Opposition can condone what has gone on this afternoon

and then again this evening, then I would submit that there is no

official opposition, rather a leaderless ragtag bunch of muckrakers.

Come on now, folks, where is your great socialist philosophy? Where is

your great defence of all that you hold holy? Where is your manifesto?

Where is the opposition?

The members opposite have asked one question since we began sitting,

one question only. Question period has been dismal; but they have asked

one question: do we support the Premier? Of course we support the

Premier. Our party supports the Premier, and the electorate of British

Columbia support the Premier. That, my friends, is why we're government

and you're not. It's democracy.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has called us negative. Well,

Mr. Speaker, on some things we are negative, I must admit. We don't

want to see this great province go down the tube again, we don't want

to see people in industry leave, we don't want to see the tourists

being told to go home, we don't want to see pothole highways, we don't

want to see labour unrest decimate our province, and we don't want to

see our province in the red. We are negative about those things.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No more reds.

MR. STRACHAN: Being in the red, that's right. That colour

might be politically attractive to the members opposite, but it

certainly doesn't look well on a ledger sheet.

As a member, I'm starting to feel pretty negative about those

members opposite. They're wasting the taxpayers' money with this drivel

about the Premier. When I spoke to

[ Page 1247 ]

the throne speech yesterday, Hansard will record my statement that

the only thing missing from His Honour's address was something to

criticize. Now someone in the NDP got that statement sorted out pretty

quickly and I'm sure said: "You know, the member for Prince George

South is right. This speech is too solid." Well, not knowing what to do

then, they probably asked themselves: "What do we do now?" "I don't

know," said one. "Beats me," said the other. Finally someone in the NDP

caucus said: "Well, if we can't think of anything to say, then let's

dig out some of those newspaper articles that speak against the

government. Let's see what we can dig up from someone else's research."

Well, they did, Mr. Speaker, and here we are listening to these people

regurgitate the news — big, lumpy chunks of news. And this is

opposition.

This is silly. The amendment's a crock, Mr. Speaker; and you know

that, members opposite. Mr. Speaker, those members opposite have had

seven months to do research, form an opposition party, plan strategy,

and get their act together. These seven months were not very effective.

Those members make a lot of noise about some of the members of our caucus that used to sit in opposition.

Interjections.

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

MR. STRACHAN: Those members opposite have made an awful lot

of noise about the make-up of our caucus and about some of the current

members of our caucus who used to sit on the opposition benches. I

think the real reason they're so miffed at the present make-up of our

caucus is that when those members left the opposition benches, the NDP

lost their only source of inspiration. I think that is most evident.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) has asked us to go back

to our constituencies and look our constituents in the eye. Well, Mr.

Member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, wherever you are, I am going to do that

and I am going to tell them about this opposition.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour — the member for

Prince George North (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) — and myself had some pretty

good opposition during the campaign. We were opposed by some

well-qualified — in my estimation — NDP opponents. They mounted an

effective campaign; they tried to bury the NDP advertising that was

hurting them so much and, in general, they were quality opponents.

Their advertising...this is interesting. Mr. Kinnaird is telling

everybody, on behalf of the NDP, what our government is doing to

hospitals. Right on 15th Avenue in Prince George we have a $3.5 million

expansion going on. Needless to say, that type of advertising by Mr.

Kinnaird wasn't very effective on behalf of the party — and they had a

doctor running!

If those candidates who opposed the Minister of Labour and myself

were in the House right now, they would be ashamed of the opposition's

debate. They would be red-faced and embarrassed beyond belief with

their party.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr.

King): I have no trouble at all looking my constituents in the eye. I

am going to show them Hansard from today and from this evening and I am

going to point out most abundantly the deficiencies of the opposition.

The opposition argument is all over the place. We have a specifically

stated amendment. The members opposite are trotting out every argument

they have ever written, everything from Hydro to the Marguerite , from

soup to nuts. Flexibility is wonderful, hon. members opposite. It helps

you wriggle through life; it also helps you when you are on the run.

And that is where the opposition is — on the run.

Mr. Speaker, I speak against the amendment. Let's defeat it and

let's get on with the business of the people.

Mr. Passarell moved

adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:53 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1980,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada