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)

THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1291 ]

CONTENTS

Matter of privilege

Telephone tapping in minister's offices.

Mr. Speaker rules –– 1291

Routine proceedings

Nutrition Awareness Act (Bill M 201). Mr. Mussallem.

Introduction and first reading –– 1292

Oral questions.

Ferries. Mr. Barber –– 1292

Speech from the Throne.

On the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1296

Mr. Mitchell –– 1301

Mr. Davis –– 1302

Mrs. Wallace –– 1305

Mr. Kempf –– 1307

Mr. Macdonald –– 1310

Division on the amendment –– 1313

On the main motion.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 1313

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: In the gallery today is a longtime member

of this House and a colleague of ours. He started making a significant

contribution in the year 1952. He served until 1972, and again from

1975 to 1979, first as the MLA for Omineca and, latterly, as the MLA

for Skeena. The deep affection which not only the people of the north

but the people on all sides of the House felt was expressed to this

member at a "roast" held in Terrace last Saturday night. As a further

extension of that "roast," I ask all members to bid welcome to Cyril

Shelford.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I've known Mr. Shelford for many,

many years. We were companions in a friendly way in the northern area.

I want to express my appreciation to the Premier and join with him in

this opportunity to welcome a dear friend of mine, Cyril, and pay

respect to the contribution that he's made to the political process

over the years.

HON. MR. MAIR: I would like to advise the House that the

apples on the hon. members' desks today are courtesy of my ministry's

nutrition division. They are a reminder that we are in the middle of

British Columbia Nutrition Week, Mr. Speaker.

Now, in view of some recent events, it's with some trepidation that

I provide the House these missiles. However, I'm sure that all hon.

members will accept these apples as symbols of good nutrition and as a

way to lower health costs by keeping the doctor away.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure hon. members will

realize that every winter a number of people visit the coast of British

Columbia in particular, and Vancouver Island as well, to enjoy our

balmy spring weather. That is the case today with two Saskatchewan

residents who are here from Tisdale, Saskatchewan, and I think

that........

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You were asked to leave, Mr. Member, I understand.

I refer to Kelly and Fern Nontell, grain farmers, who manage to spend four or five weeks here every spring.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to acknowledge some comments

made by the Minister of Health and suggest that perhaps these apples were to

be placed on our heads. If the Speaker would be good enough to supply us with

some arrows, we can proceed to expedite the process of democratic operations.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, seated in your gallery are two new but

very good friends of the people and the tourism industry of British Columbia.

I would ask the House to welcome Mr. Harold Murray and Mr. Fred Hamilton from

Via Rail in Winnipeg and Vancouver. I advise you that they are very anxious

to get to know all British Columbians and have British Columbians get to know

other Canadians via rail.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is Cyril

Shelford, my predecessor in Omineca, a fellow who did it very, very

well for 20 years and whose footsteps are very long to follow. I would

add my welcome to that of all those in the House.

As well, sir, in your galleries this afternoon are two individuals,

Mr. John Veenstra from the district of Houston, representing the

Provincial Emergency Program for that district, and Mr. Howard Aikins,

the deputy fire chief from Smithers. These gentlemen are down taking a

course under the Provincial Emergency Program, and I would ask the

House to make them both welcome.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I just spotted Mayor "Bronco" Moncrief from Cumberland in your gallery, and I would like the House to welcome him.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, we have in the galleries today four

ladies from that lovely city of Portland, Oregon. They are, shall I

say, chaperoning some young students who are visiting the North Shore

of Vancouver. These students are from grades 5, 6 and 7 of Ainsworth

School in Portland. I'd like this House to welcome Kate Drew, Brenda

Rush, Arlene Foss and Quinland Porter. I'm very pleased to have Kate

Drew here. At one time she was very kind to my mother and father and

showed a great deal of hospitality in Portland, and I hope they receive

the same from this House in British Columbia, and I welcome them here

today.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, if introductions are finished, I wish to make a short ministerial statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

FUTURE OF OCEAN FALLS

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I wish to inform the House that later this

afternoon Mr. Ray Williston, chairman of the board of Ocean Falls

Corporation, will be making a statement regarding the future of Ocean

Falls, after which time I would be most pleased and happy to report to

the House, if it is its desire at that time.

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

came into the chamber last night during the debate of the hon. first

member for Victoria I heard a remark, and I had to check with the Blues

to ensure that I was accurate. The Blues of the evening sitting for

Wednesday, March 5, 1980, page 165-1, disclose that the hon. first

member for Victoria, in remarks associated with me, said:

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

I find the remark offensive and I would ask the member to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: The remark was made by the first member for Victoria. Would the hon. member please withdraw.

MR. BARBER: It was meant ironically, and I certainly do withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, sir.

Hon. members, before we proceed, and before indicating

[ Page 1292 ]

to you the conclusions I have reached on the

question of privilege raised recently by the hon. Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), it is necessary for me to

briefly review certain aspects of the law of privilege upon which these

conclusions are founded.

The Speaker's duty, upon a matter of privilege being raised, is to

decide two issues. First, has the matter been raised at the earliest

opportunity? And second, does the matter, on the face of it, appear to

be a matter for immediate consideration by the House? In other words,

has a prima facie case been established? On the first issue, I find

that under the special circumstances of this case, there has been no

undue delay.

On the second issue of whether there is a matter raised for

consideration by the House, it is not the Speaker's duty to touch upon

the merits of the matter, as that is for the determination of the House

itself. The Speaker, nevertheless, must be satisfied that the matter in

question involves, or may be identified with, some specific privilege

which has been conferred upon this House or its members.

In the present instance, to be so satisfied presents more difficulty

than would first appear. This is the reason why some elaboration of the

matter becomes necessary. Based upon a purely visceral response to the

discovery of an electronic interference with a member's telephone,

within the precincts of parliament, the conclusion of most would be

positive and emphatic. It does not necessarily follow, however, that

such an activity falls clearly within the ambit of breach of privilege,

as opposed to the possible offence of contempt of parliament, which is

not a synonymous term although often used as such.

A contempt is defined by May in the sixteenth edition at page 109:

"It may be stated generally that any act or omission

which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the

performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member

or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a

tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be

treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence."

Herein lies the difficulty. Assuming for the moment that it is one

or the other, is the matter raised one of breach of privilege upon

which the Chair must make a finding, or is it truly one of contempt

which may give rise to another method of proceeding?

The Legislative Assembly Privileges Act defines the privileges,

immunities and powers held and exercised by the House.

Section 1 of

that act provides that those privileges, immunities and powers are the

same as those in effect on February 14, 1871, in the House of Commons

of the United Kingdom. Without limiting the generality of that

section.,

section 6 goes on to enumerate those actions which are

breaches of privilege and contempts of the House.

Section 74 of the

Constitution Act provides:

"It is lawful for the Legislature from time to time to

define the privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed, and

exercised by the Legislative Assembly, and by the members thereof

respectively; but no such privileges, immunities, or powers shall

exceed those held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of

Parliament of the United Kingdom, and by the members thereof, on the

fourteenth day of February, 1871."

It follows, then, that the circumstance brought to the attention of

the, to define House, must have the potential of being interpreted as

one which may affect one of the privileges set out in the act or one in

existence in the United Kingdom as of February 14, 187 1. Looking first

at the act,

section 6(b), which prohibits "obstructing, threatening, or

attempting to force or intimidate members," is the only provision which

might be construed to be applicable. Telephone-tapping, as an

obstruction of a physical nature, may be a logical and permissible

extension of the prohibition against a bodily, physical obstruction,

without in effect creating a new privilege not contained in the

existing law. The law of parliament existing in the United Kingdom in

1871 obviously predates the age of electronics and is of little

assistance, except to note that molestation of a member was and is an

offence. It may be open to the House to make the same

interpretation as

I have suggested, in connection with the offence of obstructing.

In

summary, taking a broad view, electronic surveillance may fall

within the ambit of privilege as an extension of the prohibition

against obstruction; or, on a narrower view, such activity may be

looked at as a question of contempt. In any event, hon. members, I do

find that a question has been raised which merits consideration by the

House, and I would allow the motion.

Before the hon. minister moves his motion, there is one additional

observation which I trust the House will permit me. When we speak of

the privilege of members of the House, what is really at issue is not a

special dispensation to members but rather the right of a member's

constituents and of the electorate at large to have at their disposal

the unimpeded services of those they have elected.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I move the following motion:

that a special committee of privilege be appointed to consider the

matter of the interception of a member's communications, brought to the

attention of the House on March 3, 1980, and that the said committee

report its findings to the House, the said committee to comprise eight

members to be named by the special committee of selection, and that the

committee so appointed have the following powers — namely, to have all

the powers and privileges of the Legislative Assembly under the

Legislative Assembly Privileges Act.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

NUTRITION AWARENESS ACT

On a motion by Mr. Mussallem, Bill M201, Nutrition Awareness Act,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

FERRIES

MR. BARBER: My first question is to the Minister of Finance.

As he is aware, under Social Credit there have been five ministers in

four years responsible for the fate of the Princess Marguerite . These are the current hon. member for

[ Page 1293 ]

North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), the current

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), one Elwood Veitch,

the current Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon.

Mr. Phillips) and the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr.

Fraser).

My first question to the Minister of Finance is: as the sixth minister responsible for the Princess Marguerite

in four years — which is to say that on November 19, 1979, you were

appointed by the Premier to mediate the dispute between two

corporations and among several ministers as to the future of the vessel

Marguerite — when were you first advised the Marguerite was allegedly unseaworthy or allegedly unsafe, or, as one of your officials apparently put it, "a floating coffin?"

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, there will be an opportunity, in the course of the next few days — indeed, the next many days — to very clearly...

MR. BARRETT: Answer the question.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I am answering the question, Mr. Leader of the Opposition.

...identify the various matters which came to the government's

attention. But as I indicated in a helpful way to the member earlier

this week, while I undertook a particular activity within the executive

council, I was not then, and am not now, the minister responsible for

the British Columbia Steamship Company. The member's question,

therefore, is based on an incorrect assumption.

MR. BARBER: You are, however, responsible for the statement

you made on January 31 of this year, and it is on that basis that I

question you. It is entirely consistent with the rules of this House

and the rules of question period.

Therefore, if I may continue to the same minister, who announced at

that time with some pleasure — although today I'm sure he wishes he had

no announcement at all… What documentary evidence had you received, and

by approximately what date, that persuaded you to make the announcement

that only you made on the January 31 that the Marguerite was unfit for service on the Victoria-Seattle run?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I believe that the answer which I gave

earlier, and the answer which I gave a few days ago, is the appropriate

one. I seek direction from you, sir. In fact, I am not the minister

responsible for the British Columbia Steamship Company.

Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to this dispute between a member

on that side of the House and a member on this side of the House. I

have, however, made statements — not in this chamber — with respect to

a matter of Crown responsibility which is of interest to my

constituents. I believe that there are two entirely separate aspects to

the responsibility in this House: the responsibility in estimates, and

responsibility with respect to questions and statements which are made

by interested members on either side of this House.

MR. BARBER: I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that you find that my questions are in order. Were they not, you would have ruled them out of order.

It's our obligation, for some of our constituents as well, to

question and examine the public statements of ministers who speak on

behalf of their government. I presume that when the Minister of Finance

announced the scrapping of the Marguerite

he did so on the basis of some information. That being the case, I want

to know what that information was, and I will continue to that same

minister.

Is that minister aware that the Edwardson report, which his own

government to this day has denied public access to — although it was

leaked, we were pleased to note — said on page 4: "The vessel remains

fully operational." And, further, on the same page: "It should be in no

way construed that the vessel" — referring to the Marguerite ,

of course — "is unfit for her present service." When the Minister of

Finance made the statement on January 31 that the vessel would no

longer serve, was he aware of the contents himself of the Edwardson

report?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I would again draw your

attention to the orders. I will attempt to assist the hon. member, but

I would draw your attention to the rules regarding question period in

this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't lecture the Chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, you and I have had our

disagreements. I do not lecture the Chair. I seek your assistance with

respect to the rules of question period.

But I suggest to the hon. member that I am not the minister

responsible for the British Columbia Steamship Company. However, if the

hon. member feels that I am uncomfortable about the position taken by

the government, then that member is very much mistaken, as events will

prove.

MR. SPEAKER: May I just interject long enough to remind the

hon. members that if speeches are being referred to, which speeches

were made outside the House, they are not fair material for question

period — as long as the hon. member remembers that.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, the minister informed us on January

31........ Perhaps today he wishes to correct the record; but he was

speaking on behalf of his government.

I will certainly be corrected by you, but it's always been my

understanding that statements made by ministers on behalf of their

government are admissible material for question period. If that's not

the case....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, as long as the speeches are made inside the House, this is true. According to Beauchesne , fourth edition,

section 171(z), page 148: "Speeches outside the House are not to be referred to in question period."

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, for

the help of the members in the House, I'd ask if you could rule. I'm

confused about what's going on here. It's my understanding that the

rules clearly say that questions may not be asked or answered dealing

with the action of a minister for which he is not responsible to

parliament. The minister has clearly said, on six or seven occasions

now, that he's not responsible for this matter, and I ask for your

ruling on that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, perhaps we could rule on it

immediately. If a speech was made inside the House, even though it was

made by a minister who is not responsible

[ Page 1294 ]

for the ministry under whose perspective the ordinary business of

that particular subject would fall, I think that it would be fair game

for question. However, the rules specifically say that speeches made

outside the House are not to be referred to in question period. I think

we shall have to stick with the rules that have been given to us, and I

recommend the same.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll return to the

Minister of Finance in a moment. I think the point has been made,

nonetheless, about who is really responsible for this decision about

the Marguerite .

I have another question, please, for the Minister of Transportation, minister number five responsible for the Marguerite . The Princess Patricia is a vessel identical to the Marguerite , is one year older, and is, as far as engine time and miles logged are concerned, a vessel, in fact, much older than the Marguerite .

It has also had a problem with holding tanks. That problem was resolved

— at least temporarily — when the U.S. Coast Guard awarded an

exemption. The U.S. Coast Guard has indicated as well that such a

waiver would be granted for the Princess Marguerite .

Can the minister inform the House whether or not he bothered to apply

for such a waiver concerning the problem with the holding tanks on the Marguerite ?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of any application made to have or not have holding tanks on the Princess Marguerite , because the government has made the decision it's not going to operate.

MR. BARBER: What we are trying to find today, Mr. Speaker, is

the rationale, whatever it may be, for that decision. Let me ask the

same minister again: what recommendations have you now received from

the chairman of the board and the chief executive officer of B.C.

Steamships regarding the future of the vessel Marguerite ?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I think I can answer that in two ways: we've had recommendations from the gentlemen to run the Marguerite and also not to run the Marguerite .

MR. BARBER: We're well aware of the chaos, we're well aware of the confusion and we're well aware of the conflicts in your government.

Let me ask another question about the chaos: according to the

chairman of the board of the B.C. Steamship Company it's going to cost

approximately $2.5 million to convert the Queen of Prince Rupert from a night ferry to a day ferry. According to B.C. Ferries it will cost $7.5 million to convert the Queen of Surrey from a day ferry to a night ferry. Now the Edwardson report, on the other hand, says that it will cost $2 million to refit the Princess Marguerite ,

to meet every statutory regulation and class requirement in the future,

and goes on to argue that the vessel thereby would be good for, as they

put it, another three or four years.

MR. SPEAKER: The question, please.

MR. BARBER: My question is: what advice then have you

accepted? You're spending millions to convert one ferry from a night

ferry to a day ferry; to convert another from a day to a night, and you

won't spend a nickel on the Marguerite . What advice have you acted on therefore?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'll try and answer your questions. I believe it was B.C. Steamships you quoted as saying what it will cost to convert the Queen of Prince Rupert .

You know, they really don't know what they're talking about, but B.C.

Ferry Corporation say it will cost $1.2 million to convert the Rupert to replace the Princess Marguerite .

You're correct in that the ex- Queen of Surrey , now the Queen of the North ,

is in the shipyards. The contract was called — the low bidder was $7.4

million — to get it ready to go on the north run from Port Hardy, Ocean

Falls, Bella Bella and Prince Rupert to serve the people of British

Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The number of supplementaries has been extended. However, I see no other members questioning. The first member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER: That's correct, Mr. Speaker.

A question to the same minister. Is the minister aware that the B.C.

Ferry Corporation has now passed a motion at its board of directors

meeting, which requires that when the vessel Queen of Prince Rupert ,

is returned to that corporation from the lease, which presumably will

be arranged this summer, that vessel must be in precisely the same

physical condition as when it left — which is to say that the side

loaders, the interior changes, the new ramps, the new air conditioning

and the new wiring, according to the motion of the board of B.C.

Ferries, must all be returned to the original condition before they'll

take it back? Is the minister aware that corporation has passed such a

motion?

HON. MR. FRASER: I am aware of that, and it's not anticipated that that's any additional cost.

MR. BARBER: Can the minister inform the House, because no

doubt they've looked at these things, what the anticipated passenger

losses will be aboard the Rupert , which holds a thousand people fewer than the Marguerite

does? What, therefore, will be the loss in revenue to the B.C.

Steamship Company because of the reduced capacity on that vessel?

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, these have been looked at, and they don't anticipate any loss of revenue using the Queen of Prince Rupert in place of the Princess Marguerite .

MR. BARBER: Either they are going to be increasing the fares

or stretching the ferry. I presume the minister could only have made

that statement because he has figures which indicate the likely revenue

this year on the Queen of Prince Rupert . Could you tell us what those figures are?

HON. MR. FRASER: It's a question of policy. I'll take it as notice.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I think that both sides of

the House would agree that the number of supplementaries that have been permitted

are far in excess of those ordinarily permitted. I recognize the hon. member

for Kootenay, and should time permit, and the hon. members don't object too

long, I will come back to the hon. member. On a point of order, the first member

for Victoria.

[ Page 1295 ]

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, you talked about the number of

supplementaries, etc. I'm not aware that I've asked one supplementary.

They've all been independent questions, all new questions, none of them

supplemental to the others. That I asked them all of the same two

ministers is one point; that they were supplementaries is no point at

all. I don't think that is fair.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. The question period is terminated by the bell.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm rising on a point of order. I would

advise you, Mr. Speaker, that it's not proposed that there be a night

sitting tonight, as all members are aware. Under standing orders it is

incumbent that you call the question on the amendment if the amendment

is under debate 30 minutes before the time for adjournment. I would

like now to ask leave of the House that if the debate on the amendment

is not completed by 5:30, the question on the amendment not be called

by you, Mr. Speaker, at that time, in order to permit debate until the

debate on this amendment has been concluded or until the time allotted

for debate on the throne speech is concluded, whichever shall be sooner.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I read the section? Then

perhaps I'll take another opinion. It says: "On the fourth of the said

days, if an amendment or a subamendment be under consideration at 30

minutes before the ordinary time of daily adjournment, Mr. Speaker

shall interrupt the proceedings.... " Unless we have unanimous consent

of the House I am duty-bound. Did the hon. minister ask for leave?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, I did.

MR. HOWARD: I understood the minister to do two things. He

rose on a point of order, pursuant to the difficulty in interpreting

the rules about what is the ordinary daily time of adjournment, to

indicate that there being no night sitting tonight — as far as the

government is concerned — the ordinary time of daily adjournment would

be 6 p.m. Therefore the interruption to put the question on the

amendment would take place at 5:30. That being the case, that's fine.

He then asked leave as to whether we could dispense with putting the

vote at 5:30 and continue the debate. I suggest what we might do, more

appropriately, is to look at that a bit later in the afternoon. Leave

can't be granted at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: Anything can be done by unanimous consent. However, leave has been requested.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm just asking for that leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If it's to be discussed later in

the afternoon, I simply will ask if leave shall be granted now; and if

leave is not granted the question can arise again.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I think it's extremely

important that this question be considered now, because all kinds of

things could happen in this House this afternoon that we're not aware

of. Since this motion calls into question not only the leadership of

the Premier of the province but also the leadership of the government

and the actions of the government over a period of time, it's important

that all members have an opportunity to stand in this debate and speak

on that motion. For those reasons....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, under the scope of asking for

leave it is not permitted to enter into debate. I think I have

sufficient opinion. I think I'll ask the question. If leave is not

granted, that ends the matter.

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

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, leave can be asked for certain things

that are allowed under the rules. Leave cannot be asked for something

that is not due to be asked in the House until that appropriate time is

granted. If the request was to amend the rules of the House, to proceed

in that way for some future purpose.... But if the occasion arises this

afternoon for leave to be requested by the government, the opposition

will be in a position to consider it at that stage.

How can Mr. Speaker put that? If Mr. Speaker will put that now, I

ask leave of the House that if the federal government imposes a tax on

widgets in 1986, I have unanimous leave of the House to debate it now.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A comment on the point before it

escapes us. The point of order which suggests that leave can only be

requested on matters that are already anticipated in the rules could

not stand, because otherwise how could the House express itself?

Therefore I have to reject the hon. member's suggestion. I will resolve

the matter simply....

On a separate point of order, the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: Apropos of the interjection on a point of order

by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

McClelland), if there was a desire on the part of the government and

the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), acting

in his capacity as government House Leader, to expedite the flow of

business, he might have had the courtesy to approach us about it

beforehand.

I had indicated earlier that leave was not permitted; that it wouldn't be granted.

MR. SPEAKER: We will formally put the question. The debate is entirely sufficient.

Leave not granted.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, not wanting to interrupt question

period, but wanting to bring some points of view with respect to the

orderly process of that area of the business of the House, I suggest

two points be taken into consideration. One is that it is appropriate

indeed, under the rules, that all members of the House — regardless of

the side on which they sit — be allowed an opportunity to ask questions

in question period. That is the name of the game. We feel that it is a

very solemn responsibility on the part of the backbenchers of the

[ Page 1296 ]

government to do just that. The hon. gentleman who

rose during question period was the first, in some two or three

sessions, who has taken that opportunity.

In any event, I should point out that, throughout the first 14

minutes of the 15-minute question period, the hon. gentleman did not

rise in his place. He rose at the very last moment. It seems fair to me

to recognize the continuity of the questions asked by the first member

for Victoria (Mr. Barber), rather than submit to what was obviously a

last-minute thought on the part of the hon. member.... I see that you

shake your head, sir, but I feel that to be fair and just, even in this

House. If the hon. gentleman rose when other members were rising for

question period he would obviously be ready to be recognized. It was

obviously a last-minute thought; it was designed for some other purpose

than the legitimate one for which it should have been.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I would like to remind

the first member for Vancouver Centre that, under the rules of the

House, the responsibility is vested in the Chair to make decisions as

to who shall be called upon. Those decisions cannot be made on the

basis of how many times a member has stood, because in some instances

members have stood six and eight times and not been able to be

recognized at all. Therefore, hon. members, I would think that perhaps

the only misunderstanding would have perhaps been on the issue of

whether or not all of the questions were supplementary questions, or

whether they were individual questions, and I'd be happy to review that

situation.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I need your guidance on a

point of order. I am a bit disturbed about the opposition bringing

forward a motion that is obviously frivolous, since they don't want to

have the opportunity to continue the debate on that motion. We have

asked for leave, under the rules of this House, and that leave has been

denied. At least that is the way you read it. I am not so sure that I

heard the noes. I am asking your guidance on whether or not there is a

way in which this lack of leave can be recorded in the Journals of the House, because I think the people of the province should know about that.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, when leave is requested leave is

asked of the entire House. If there is one dissenting voice it means

that unanimous consent is not present and, therefore, leave cannot be

granted. My hands are tied beyond that point.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Perhaps, with leave, we could have it recorded in the Journals of the House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It will be recorded; it is ordinarily recorded.

HON. MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the

Leader of the Opposition says we have had three days — meaning that

they wish to limit the government members' opportunity to speak in a

debate in which they challenged every member of the government to

speak, and now they are denying them that opportunity. It is the first

time in the history of this House that we have had closure by the

opposition.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, based on the

generally accepted premise that all members of this House are

honourable members, I therefore expect that, when a member stands to

his feet on a point of order, what he has to bring to the House shall

be a point of order. I would have to observe that in the last few days

we have had instances on both sides of the House where that is not the

case. Unless it can be changed, I will have to have each member state

at the outset under which standing order he is standing. Perhaps that

might be an acceptable procedure.

Are there any further points of order?

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I rise to take my

part in this debate on

the amendment to the main motion. Needless to say, I will be voting

against such an amendment, for a number of reasons. The wording of the

amendment suggests that it is the duty of the members opposite to

question the confidence of this House in those who are responsible as

advisers to His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor, those who sit on the

government side of the House.

It should be obvious to all members in this House, by statements

recently made by members on this side, that such consideration is

ill-founded, that the strength of the government and the government

side of this House is consistent, and that there is no consideration

that there is lack of confidence. It is obvious by the words of members

that specific references have been made to the leader of the

government, the Premier, and other advisers to the Lieutenant-Governor,

as to the confidence offered them by the members in this House who

represent the majority of this parliament.

It has been a wide-ranging debate so far on this motion — a great

deal of it acrimonious, some of it nonsensical, and some of it mildly

interesting. Many members have stood in their places and brought

forward their memories, recollections, samples of mythology, rumours,

innuendo, relating to everything from the very earliest days of

parliamentary debate in this House to the last election campaign, and

one or two other events which have occurred since then. Mr. Speaker, it

is an opportunity for a visitor to these galleries who has been away

for a couple of years to get back in line with contemporary thinking

from the opposition, because the questions haven't changed in four or

five years. We were advised by outside sources, by members of the

media, that the opposition would be prepared for grilling of the

government this session with well-researched material. How well we

remember in this House the fight we had, from the opposition, about

their budget for research staff and the need for research staff. A very

large amount of money was provided to the opposition for research staff

so they could come to this House better prepared to bring forth

questions and issues and demand answers from government members. I

suppose they say as an evening ritual: "Thank God for Marjorie Nichols'

column." It seems to be their source of research, because the issues

which they've brought forward so far in this session have not suggested

anything new has

[ Page 1297 ]

happened since 1975, and, in many instances, well

before that. The lack of research is evident not only in this debate,

but in question period, which, out of three days, has almost collapsed

twice. Except for the knee-jerk reaction of one member it would

certainly have gone down the tube at least once.

I was particularly pleased to hear a member ask a question and offer

the minister to whom he was asking the question the answer before he

asked the question, because he really didn't want to know what the

answer was. It is a clever technique — well, clever by their standards.

Mr. Speaker, a great deal of discussion has taken place about

election techniques. I understand that it is unparliamentary to refer

to such words as "dirty" and "filthy" in this House. I gather, though,

that if "dirty" is used as an adjective it is permitted, such as in

"dirty tricks," since that hasn't been ruled out of order. I know of

what the members opposite speak when they speak of election techniques

and dirty tricks. What they're referring to is the use of gasoline on

plywood election signs for purposes of ignition.

AN HON. MEMBER: They wouldn't do that.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm not suggesting, Mr. Member, that they

did that. I'm suggesting that that is what they refer to when they

refer to dirty tricks. Some members in this House may be familiar with

my constituency of Richmond, which, in many sections, is still very

much a rural community. We have drainage canals in our municipality

which require bridging, usually with a wooden material, and many people

take the opportunity of attaching plywood signs during election

campaigns to their wooden bridges. Unfortunately, during the last

election, many of these were set ablaze, and I can assure all members

of this House that they were not set ablaze by anyone connected with my

campaign; they were our signs, but nonetheless they were burned. That,

to me, is a dirty trick.

I suppose it could run into the general category of dirty trick as

well when people who are canvassing for a political party in certain

areas of a constituency are physically threatened because they've been

identified as campaigning for the Social Credit Party — physically

threatened and ordered off the street. I'm not suggesting that those

who made such threats belonged to a specific political party, even

though they identified themselves as such. That, I suppose, would be

considered a dirty trick.

I very much like the newfound knowledge of some members of the House

who sit opposite about manipulation of the media. What a strange

coincidence it is to read in publications throughout this province,

over the past few years, a column by a member of this assembly, in

precisely the same words as a column written by another member of this

assembly in a different publication. I suppose that is perhaps the

ultimate example of unanimity of thought — precisely the same words,

different author. Even the typing errors were the same and the

grammatical errors were the same.

Letters to the editor. I commend some of the people who have written

letters to the editor in support of the New Democratic Party for their

of research — not that the name appended to that letter is necessarily

the name of the person who created the letter, but who nonetheless

agreed to have the signature used for such purposes. That possibly,

while not being a dirty trick, certainly makes you wonder what

"manipulation" means.

Our Premier has been accused of encouraging people to manipulate

open-line shows. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you from memories past

that any manipulation on open-line shows falls into the category of

what's new. I have spoken to a large number of people, under certain

circumstances, relating to political opinions on radio, and I've spoken

to many who take full advantage of these instant polls, phoning back a

dozen times if they can. The little boiler rooms get started during an

election campaign and as soon as someone on the air suggests; "Why

don't we see how it's going?", the calls begin to come in. Those people

who are already waiting say they'll vote Liberal, Conservative, NDP,

Social Credit, whatever, but then suddenly you hear the machine-gun —

NDP, NDP, NDP. They say: "What reason?" "I don't know, I don't know, I

don't know. I wasn't told to give a reason; I was told to say NDP."

There's some confusion, of course. They're slow getting in because they

get confused by the multiple choice on the dial.

So you talk about manipulation and boiler rooms — you know, the

sanctimonious attitude of some members who sit opposite, forgetting

that there are records, that newspapers are kept, records are kept.

They come out and suggest that suddenly there's been a great revelation

to the world and someone may be attempting to manipulate the media; it

has never occurred before. I think probably the people who are truly

angry about all of that are representatives of the media themselves.

They perhaps feel offended by anyone attempting to manipulate them, as

they should. But I'll tell you, the Vancouver Province quickly

got rid of a feature about phone-in letters to the editor. Some guy

phoned in every morning and had a letter published every morning, and

they said: "This just doesn't seem to work."

Perhaps some member opposite could correct me if he or she chooses

later, because they're much closer to the situation than any member on

this side would be. I was told by what I guess the press refer to as "a

usually reliable source," that the NDP strategy was not to get involved

in the so-called dirty tricks affair. The member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) brought this up yesterday and said

that they stayed out of it. I was told they stayed out of it because

they said: "What happens if they start looking into our campaign?" Now

that could be wrong. I know we had a big investigation in Richmond into

letters to the editor.

MR. MACDONALD: It's a nice little innuendo anyway.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Thank you very much. They will be speaking about innuendos later, Mr. Member, and I'd appreciate hearing from you about it.

We did quite a thorough investigation into letters to the editor in

Richmond; we thought we had something going. During the 1979 campaign

we found that there were a total of eight letters written to the

editor, period. So there wasn't much manipulation going on.

Dirty tricks. Someone mentioned yesterday the television and radio

ads during the 1979 campaign. At one time it was prohibited in Canada

to dramatize political ads. You couldn't get some clown off the street

who would say: "I'm a hospital worker and I just threw an old lady out

because the government's not going to pay for her room." That was

prohibited. You couldn't dramatize; you couldn't pretend you were

someone you weren't. That was prohibited for election purposes; that

was changed.

[ Page 1298 ]

So in 1979 we heard a little soap opera being acted out in 30

seconds or 60 seconds. A telephone would ring and someone would say:

"This is your friendly hospital. We're closed because the government's

so mean and rotten, and we're not going to.... Too bad, you wait three

years for emergency." The NDP withdrew those ads. I understand one of

the main reasons is because the nurses, the doctors and the hospital

staff were pretty upset. The ones I spoke to said: "There's no way we

turn away people who need help." That was the inference. That to me was

a bit of a dirty trick, particularly when an elderly person is ill —

possibly terminally ill — and they hear that garbage on the air and

think: "What hope is there for me?" But trading in human misery is not

unknown for that party.

Well, there are so many issues, Mr. Speaker, that can be covered by

this motion of non-confidence in our leader and in those who are

responsible for advising His Honour.

One comment came up — and perhaps later on the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Mair) could advise me what it means, because he seems to have

a particular communication capability with the opposition — as to what

was referred to as "a motorcycle gang." I'm not sure which one of those

referred to the government members as this. I really wonder what that

means — "a motorcycle gang." I suppose there are good things and there

are bad things about a motorcycle gang.

Someone suggested to me in the hall that the reason they want that

distinction is that while they will refer to us as a motorcycle gang,

they consider themselves, in a private way, to be a bit of a powderpuff

moped brigade. They want that distinction. But I don't know what the

motorcycle gang refers to. I understand the head of one of the large

motorcycle organizations in the province would also like an

explanation. He doesn't know whether he wants to be identified with the

government or whether the reference was good or bad.

So many things have been discussed, Mr. Speaker. There was talk

about stealing land; there was talk about expropriating land through

taxation. I was listening, and I knew what they were speaking about

when they talked about stealing people's property. I knew they were

speaking of the Nu-West Development called Riverside Industrial Park in

Richmond, which is an industrial park that never went into the

agricultural land reserve — even though it had been considered for

going in. But it didn't go in. I guess the reason it didn't go in

before was because it was an active farm. But the government of the day

told the people who were developing the land: "I'll tell you what. We

won't put it in the ALR, but you give us 42 acres for allotment

gardens."

Now the company said: "Well, if you want 42 acres, sure. We paid $15,000 an acre."

"Oh," they said, "we don't intend to pay $15,000 an acre. How

about $7,500 an acre, and then we'll let the rest go into an industrial park?"

Well, I guess the company felt: "Well, what choice do we have?" So

they went in with their industrial park, which was quite successful.

The 42 acres, meanwhile, remained vacant until we became government in

1975. The company director has phoned and said: "Do we deliver it by

shovel, or wheelbarrowful, or how do you want the land?" I said: "What

land?"

"Well, we were told we'd have to turn over 42 acres at half price.

I said: "Forget it. It's called blackmail; we don't deal in blackmail."

So they said: "Well, can we continue on and complete our project?"

I said: "That makes sense. That's what you were given permission to

do anyway. What is this nonsense?" I understand that land has been

actively pursued since.

Mr. Speaker, the language in this House in the past few days has been regrettable,

perhaps, in the eyes of some. It is, perhaps, understandable that remarks are

made from that side of the House that members on this side find somewhat irresponsible.

I could give you an example. One of the members over there said: "Most

members on the government side say in private what the NDP say in public."

They have no confidence in the Premier. What absolute nonsense! You can't say

it is a lie, because it's unparliamentary. In any other forum in this world

that is what you would say, but not here. It's fabrication, certainly, it's

untrue, and it is any other word that would be similar to that.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that from the safety of defeat the socialists

growl for power. They seem to have that capacity, that once the decision has

been made, then they say: "Okay, now it's our chance. Give us the power.

There are a few people in this province who insist that the greatest relief

since Alka Seltzer occurred when they lost in 1975. Self-relief for themselves.

They felt relieved. Thank God, now somebody else can do the work, and we can

continue....

AN HON. MEMBER: Plop, plop, fizz, fizz.

HON. MR. NEILSEN: They were the flop, flop, fizz, fizz people.

It seems so strange, the situation that goes on in this province

and, again.... I suppose, maybe, in question period I could ask the

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) a question, but I could maybe

give him advance notice by way of this today. Again I'd like

clarification, and maybe someone over here-or there-knows the answer. I

am told — and I find it very hard to believe — that the Leader of the

Opposition is in contact with some prominent businessmen in our

province, asking him if they would consider taking a government

position.

I'm not privy to that information. I didn't have an opportunity to

listen in on the call so I don't know whether it was conditional upon

them becoming government again or whether the Leader of the Opposition

was asked by our leader maybe to make such arrangements. And I would

not suggest, even though it may be tempting to some of my colleagues,

that perhaps the condition, if indeed that occurred.... I'm not

suggesting it did; I'm saying I've been told that. Maybe it was.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, it depends on who you support in the next election. You never know.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The Minister of Health says no. I accept his....

"Tell the truth." One member said the other day: "Tell the truth

and you will never have a problem." I remember a former member of this

House appearing on a radio program a few days after the 1972 election and explaining

ICBC, explaining why it was a monopoly. The moderator said: "You

[ Page 1299 ]

never said it was going to be a monopoly and drive the other companies...."

"Oh, didn't we? Oh, we meant that. We meant to say that."

He said: "You didn't say it was to be the only game in town. And the private companies...."

"Oh," he says, "how do you know?" Why didn't he know? He

was the minister responsible. "Didn't we say that? We did say you could

get it for $25. No, we didn't say that either. All we said is that the government

insures its vehicles for $25. Why shouldn't you be able to?"

And then, Mr. Speaker, for those who may not be aware of some of that history,

they had the guts to go out to the private companies and say: "Could we

have your records?"

They said: "Yeah, it depends on your capacity to carry them, my friend."

There was so much discussion in this chamber last evening about the

commission on redistribution by Judge Norris and others. We were told,

and I have no reason at all to expect otherwise, that it was an honest

commission, that it was a proper commission, that it was a thorough

commission and every other thing that should be attributed to such a

commission. It was done without regard to politics. It was done for the

benefit of the people of British Columbia in choosing their

representatives. So it leaves one question. If this commission had all

of the ingredients of a proper commission on redistribution, it was

honest beyond doubt, and it was put together by competent people after

proper public hearings, why was it ignored? It was never used. The

panicking former Premier called an election instead. Now that is

absolutely contradictory to that which we heard yesterday about this

fine report, and I suppose it was a fine report. But it was never used.

It was shelved. They called an election instead.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Not for that reason. You would have been

pretty worried, too, if you had to come down with a budget that had to

come down. But it's hard to put the two together and find out where

this "tell the truth" nonsense comes from.

My understanding is that no political party has, prior to an

election, set forth a list of the companies they intend to take over.

That may fall into the category of telling the truth.

Remember the emergency measures act that was introduced to this

House? Bill 66, I believe it was called at that time. It was probably

the most damaging thing that ever came before a political party. "Tell

the truth." I'm not sure what member made reference to that but I'm

sure that member was talking about the overruns...

AN HON. MEMBER: Counting errors.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: ...and other reasons. The member even

admitted in a book: "Apparently I should have been fired over it." And

that's telling the truth. "I should have been fired over it."

But, Mr. Speaker, I think it's been clearly indicated by the

majority of members in this House that there was certainly confidence

in the present advisers to His Honour, certainly confidence in our

leader, the Premier.

The Premier has been criticized for everything from having been born

of certain parentage.... You know, that's something over which you have

very limited control.

It's really unfortunate because we are blessed in this province to

have generations of very hard-working families, and it's unfortunate

that someone should suggest you apologize for being who you are or who

your parents were. In most instances it's insulting to suggest you

apologize on behalf of your predecessors.

The Premier was criticized yesterday for wearing a Japanese band

around his head upon his return from Japan. I suppose the members

opposite appreciate that to the Japanese that's an important gesture.

It's part of a political campaign. They are not, as some suggested, a

kamikaze headband. I know it isn't because I asked the representatives

of the 6,000 Japanese-Canadians in Steveston in my riding what it

meant, and they assured me it was not a kamikaze headband. And it's not

silly. It's a serious election identification symbol they wear in

Japan, but I guess that went over the heads of a few of them.

But, Mr. Speaker, the members opposite advised us that the strength

of their party comes from the fact that they work together, they share

common goals. I can only presume therefore that they are responsible

for the actions of each member on that side of the House, particularly

when they giggle, when they applaud by slapping their desk, or in other

ways, or when they stand up and support....

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) offended me greatly the

other night in the House. He not only offended me; he offended everyone

in the House, I'm sure, and the people of our province. According to

the Blues, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke said that the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) "had problems with

the law to the extent where they found it necessary to bug his office."

We objected to that remark and he came back and he said: "Oh, I said

problems with the RCMP, not the law." But indeed it was "problems with

the law," which was pointed out by our minister and House Leader as

ill-advised and improper and wrong. When I returned to the House I said

that I heard the remark and I said I thought, to be charitable, it may

have been an error on his part; but he chose not to accept that. No,

indeed not — not an error. Then he went into his little lawyer routine

and tried to clarify it. He was absolutely wrong. It was despicable,

Mr. Speaker; it was contemptuous of this House. He further compounded

the slander by saying: "I did want to comment on the fact that the

minister's offices were bugged by the RCMP.... I want to observe that

it's my understanding under the Criminal Code...." and so on, "...with

the provision of some evidence..." And he says: "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...."

He says that "it has been the 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" — isn't that beautiful? — "without presuming guilt, he

should step aside, step aside and resign." Can you imagine how many

there would have been left in that group? Can you imagine?

HON. MR. BENNETT: And then there were none.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: And then there were none.

Mr. Speaker, I asked that member to withdraw his re-

[ Page 1300 ]

marks and he chose not to. When we returned after

our bench-clearing misconduct last night, the member for Victoria (Mr.

Barber) said to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair): "Would you like

to withdraw your remarks?" And it was referred to by another member.

Given the opportunity to do it, he chose not to do it, I guess, because

the minister is learning from the other side — they choose not to. I

thought it was particularly overly generous when I said that it may

have been an error on his part, because he's not that bright, and he

may have made an honest mistake — that can happen. The people of B.C.

made an honest mistake once. But he chose not to, and that perhaps

draws an end to that nonsense, despicable conduct, contemptuous display

of, I suppose, ignorance as much as anything else, attempting by way of

innuendo to smear a member of this House, even though the facts would

have been known to that member, as they are known to most people.

I'm not going to go into great detail about the difficulty of

explaining to children, particularly my own, the subtleties of law, the

difference between being a witness and being accused, the difference of

being served a subpoena or a summons and so on. But when a grown man —

a member of this House — can't understand that, that's inexcusable. But

when you believe he does understand it and still chooses to slander,

that's despicable, and that's below the dignity of this House.

I suppose, Mr. Speaker, it really is not up to me to make that

decision, but up to the members of this House, to the members of the

media, to the members of the public. It is for them to judge if such

conduct is that which we expect. The old tradition of two sword

lengths, I suppose, made some sense when things got really rough in the

old Houses of Parliament, but I'm not sure if we shouldn't consider

reverting back to the good days just once in a while. One member there,

our friend from Vancouver Centre, today suggested that we get the

arrows out and continue on the process of democracy.

The only thing, I suppose, that we can feel comforted about is that

this will contribute to the decline of that member I spoke of. I

understand he's perhaps not running next time or maybe he's been asked

not to, or whatever it is. But he set the tone, Mr. Speaker, for this

session. TheVictoria Colonist

today on the back page outlined it in precise detail, the first such

story that really set out and said very clearly: "It all started with

that member." It all started with that member, so if there is any

concern among the people in our province about the conduct of this

chamber, this session particularly, you know where it all began, you

know where the disease began.

You know, for any member to stand up and defile another member in

such a way just to satisfy personal ego, macho image — "Boy, I hammered

at them tonight!" — to be snide, to be clever, to get some people

giggling.... It's so much fun, I guess. I saw a couple of the other

members squirming badly in their chairs, particularly those who have

had some legal training. I could see them squirming, but by not doing

anything they condoned it, of course. They didn't condemn it, they

condoned it.

Last night the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) said: "You

know, maybe the time has come for us to be a bit nicer to each other in

this chamber." I agree, maybe the time has come. It is like the

Philadelphia Flyers asking for mercy.

He also pointed out last night: "Those statements made by the member

for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) are really meaningless, compared to

what that member across there said." Oh, sure! "Let's divert it to

something else; let's not talk about that. Just because one of our guys

blew it, let's not keep it before the people." I guess the old,

traditional methods of resolving such arguments are no longer valid in

our society, but they are missed by some.

I am asking the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke to repeat outside

these chambers the precise statements he made — not an

interpretation

of what he meant to say, but precisely what he said as recorded in the

Blues. I am advised by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) that,

indeed, such a statement has been made. Well, I haven't heard it, I

haven't seen it, I haven't read it. But I did read an

interpretation of

what was said, which is very, very different than what was said.

I'm not going to invite the member outside, as I understand one of

our members did the other night. But I think the statement that was

made should be made outside so that it is no longer within the

sanctuary of this House. Keep in mind that when I responded to that

scurrilous statement I said: "It may have been an error on his part." I

was quite prepared to accept that.

We all say things that we are held accountable for but that we may

be in error in saying. It doesn't take a very big man to apologize:

"Yes, I made a mistake and I'm sorry; it's technical and I didn't mean

to say it." That's easy. That's not a problem, but it's not going to

happen, because there is hatred in this House that just permeates the

entire chamber. I suppose it is one that many people in our province

find despicable in politics. But we are at the whim of the members

opposite in this House. We introduce a budget, we introduce legislation

— it is up to them how they decide that will be debated.

MR. RITCHIE: They say it's no good.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Of course they say it's no good, but they

can say it's no good in a reasonable and intelligent way. They don't

have to become slanderous; they don't have to act in despicable ways.

There is no point. We don't have to make a snide remark like the member

made last night — I presume about the health of one of our members.

They invent these people they meet on the street: "I was walking down

the street and ran into a Social Credit supporter who said something

nasty about the government." And this member invented someone who said:

"You are only two charges and a heart attack away from government."

There is only one member in this House on this side whom I know suffers

from heart problems. That type of cheap attack is just ridiculous.

These pure-minded purists on the other side of the House call us

names and I suppose that is part of the territory, as everyone seems to

be saying nowadays. Someone was called a pro-fascist; that was

withdrawn. Others called people communists; that was withdrawn. But for

the second year in a row the same member has called a member on this

side of the House subhuman.

It seems to me that we were given a history lesson the other day

about the Nazi Party of Germany. And it seems to me that the Nazi Party

leader, Adolf Hitler, and Goebbels, Himmler and a few of the other

creatures over there, frequently used the term "subhuman" to describe

people of other-than-Aryan origin, to condition people to accept their

extermination by conditioning people to believe that these other human

beings were subhuman.

[ Page 1301 ]

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that word being used by anyone else except that member, who has used it two years running in this House. I hope the people of the province pay attention to that.

In conclusion, I would simply like to assure the people of the

province that this House, this province and its people indeed have

confidence in the advisers to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, and

in particular to the leader of our province, our Premier.

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just want to

correct a statement which the minister made in his speech, indicating

that I had not withdrawn. Reference to the Blues will indicate that, at

the instruction of the Chair, I did withdraw a statement that I made,

and specified that I in no way inferred any criminal guilt by the

minister; that should be a matter of record.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member makes a statement of correction.

MR. MITCHELL: I rise today because I think it's really

important that the voice from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew be added to

Hansard and to the records of this parliament. The main debate on the

amendment — which I intend to support — has revolved around the riding

of Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. It was because of the actions of people

within that riding, people who stood up when they saw something wrong

taking place and called a spade a spade.... I think it should be read

into the record of B.C. political life that one girl, one reporter of

one small weekly, had the intestinal fortitude to stand up and say to

the government of this province: "What you are doing is wrong." I say

this in all sincerity: a lot of people will run with a mob and a lot of

people will shout and jeer; but it takes a brave person, a strong

person, an honest person, to bring the truth out into the open and not

hide behind the group that they are running with.

I would like to read into the record the name of Brenda Dalglish,

who will go down in the political history of this province as one of

those who had the strength to stand up. When all the rest of us have

left this parliament and when the historians are reading what took

place in British Columbia in 1979, the words "dirty tricks" and

"Lettergate" and the name of Brenda Dalglish will be recorded for all

time. There will be a lot of you who shouted and screamed and ridiculed

someone who stood up and said it was wrong.

I find it amazing that it wasn't only because it came to light in

the Esquimalt–Port Renfrew riding, and it was not only because it was

printed in the Goldstream Gazette , a community paper, that the fact

that the Social Credit Party was following instructions, as laid down

by the leader of that party, to start a game of manipulating the press

by writing false letters.... That report was made and printed in the

paper on Wednesday, September 26. That same report was made by members

of the publicly funded caucus research team in Comox the week before —

the same team, paid with funds of the province of British Columbia. I

find that disreputable.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: I say to the hon. member: let us stay to facts

and let us stay to honesty and let us stay to integrity. People say

that we make up names, that we make up Social Credit supporters who

come out of the woodwork and say things that are not true. Mr. Speaker,

when the first member from the government side stood up and moved that

we accept the throne speech — in September 1978, when he as a private

member was a member on the part of the group at the Bayshore Inn, and

heard the same dirty tricks procedure as laid out by the caucus

committee — did he have the integrity to stand up in this House and

disown, or apologize, or even to say: "I'm sorry that I didn't have the

same guts as Brenda Dalglish did when she stood and called a spade a

spade and brought it to the attention of the public."?

When I go through our various research records, the records of the

press, and the records of other people who have spoken in this House;

when I have listened to the cowardly attacks made on people who are not

in this House, who cannot stand up and defend themselves — I find that

far more dangerous than any attack made by a person against another

hon. member. That hon. member can stand up and defend himself, and he

can defend himself well.

When you talk about dirty tricks, dirty tricks didn't start at one

time. I would like to read a letter which appeared in one of our local

papers — if I can find it among my papers here, Mr. Speaker. That was

one of the original dirty tricks, because there it is among my own....

AN HON. MEMBER: I hope it was nothing nasty.

MR. MITCHELL: No, it wasn't. It was one of the nicer things

said by a Social Crediter. This was written by one of the original

Social Crediters in my riding. I will explain her credentials before I

read the letter.

She joined Social Credit in 1952 when we had the coalition

government going out of operation. She was still a member of the Social

Credit Party as of November 7, 1979. Her name is Mrs. Anna A. Ranns,

and she lives at 642 Taylor Road. I'm not inventing her. She is a

Social Crediter, and I will read what she says:

"Dirty tricks in the Esquimalt constituency exploded

in full force, as far as I am concerned, on May 12, 1975. Of course,

there was a leading up to it before that, when quantity took priority

over quality of membership. To get rid of the old image was impressed

upon us most urgently. This riled me, being rather proud of the old

image, since I signed up to be a Social Crediter when there was still

no Social Credit Party in British Columbia. The coalition government

was still in power.

"However, on May 12, 1975, we had a constituency

meeting in Colwood. It was the most frightening meeting I have ever

attended. Had it been held in a communist country I can easily believe

all of the old images would have been liquidated. As it was, when our

duly nominated president stood up to open the meeting, a new image

stood up and yelled: 'Shut up and sit down.' Each time our president

tried to bring order, the hall was packed with new images, and they

supported him by encouraging shouts and feet stamping. Eventually our

chairman and the old images, being outnumbered, accepted the duties of

another chairman, who, being outside our constituen-

[ Page 1302 ]

cy and not eligible, made it an illegal meeting, along with other

false charges against our president."

May I bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that this is a Social

Crediter talking about this organization which started in 1975, with a

policy laid down by the leader, to bring in a false, phony

letter-writing program. And that was stopped, hon. members, because one

person from my riding stood up and said it was wrong.

MR. REE: What's the date of that letter?

MR. SEGARTY: Who signed it? Is there a signature on the letter?

MR. MITCHELL: I read this letter out to you, if you were listening. Anna A. Ranns, and the date was Wednesday, November 7.

"Since then the meetings have been noticeably stacked,

and the only reason I have not turned in my membership is I still

believe in the true Social Credit."

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: Yes, I'm reading from a newspaper letter.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: If you want to speak, you can speak later on;

you have your turn, and I still have my time as laid down. You can

defend your leader; you can defend him anywhere you wish.

But I say, in closing, that I think it's important, when something

is wrong, when something is against the general rights of parliament,

when it is against what we know as democracy, is out of place, that

each one of us within our own seat, within our own home and within our

own constituency stand up and bring it to the attention of parliament,

to our neighbours, to everyone. And I say that one of the main reasons

I am opposed to this leadership and this government is that we have had

many, many reports over a number of years. We have had a report made on

the integrity of this whole Lettergate, dirty tricks scandal, and I

call on this government, and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams),

to either release that report to the House, or at least release it to a

select group of members of the opposition, to peruse it, to assure that

what is being said to the public is in fact true.

I ask that they also release another important report, and that was

the report on the Marguerite — the full report, not the leaked report —

so that this House, and each one of us, can accept our responsibility

and make our decisions with all the facts, and not play a lot of

political games where we shout and badger and ridicule while the

government is sitting on reports and denying the duly elected people of

this House all of the information it has available.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to congratulate you on your

unanimous election to your important post. Keeping order in this House,

I know, is a challenge. But I know that you are up to it and that we

are going to respect your rulings and that our deliberations will

profit from them.

Mr. Speaker, I'm opposed to the amendment currently before the

House. Essentially it's a no-confidence motion; in other words, it

expresses a lack of confidence in the present government. No doubt the

New Democratic Party would like to see more government in this province

— indeed, more government in this country. Under the present

administration we have less government, less government in British

Columbia at least — less intervention also, and this is very important

in the private sector. I'm all for that. I agree, therefore, that His

Honour's present advisers are on the right track, and I wish them well

in their determination to make the state the servant of our people, not

the other way around. That's why I'm voting against the amendment. Big

government in my view is bad government. Big government which is so

complex that the voting public cannot possibly understand it is worse.

It's not responsible government; it's government by default. It's

government which feeds on itself, because the normal checks and

balances of our parliamentary system are no longer there to discipline

those who would make important decisions on our behalf.

Our present government in British Columbia is to be congratulated on

several counts. It puts the private sector ahead of the public sector.

It believes that government should serve the people, not the other way

around. It believes that government should face up to its financial

commitments. It doesn't run deficits, thereby taxing future generations

in order that we can live beyond our means today.

In British Columbia provincial government income equals provincial

government outgo. We don't have continuing deficits on current

operating account. Among Canadian provinces only Alberta can match this

record of financial and fiscal responsibility. British Columbia's

performance is in marked contrast to that of Ottawa in recent years,

where federal spending now exceeds revenue by more than 20 percent.

I would also like to compliment our present British Columbia

government for keeping the size of the provincial public service under

control. Employment in the public service, including that of provincial

Crown corporations, has levelled off. It jumped by more than one-third

in the period between 1972 and 1975, when the NDP was in power; now its

growth is in the 1 to 2 percent a year category, less than the overall

rate of growth of employment in the province. Given the steady

improvement in provincial public services, the emphasis is clearly on

quality rather than quantity. Better delivery systems are what the

public wants; in British Columbia that's what people are getting under

the present Social Credit administration.

Nationally the picture is quite different. Canada-wide, our public

sector is growing rapidly. By contrast, the private sector is declining

in value terms and in employment terms. Take jobs in industry, for

example. As a percent of Canada's gross domestic product, it reached a

high of 40 percent in 1953; since then, industry's share has fallen

steadily. Last year it hit an all-time low of 30 percent.

Including teachers, armed services personnel and employees of Crown

corporations, today our total Canadian public service payroll is

approaching two million men and women. If the trend of the 1970s

continues it won't be long until 20 percent, one in five, of all

gainfully employed in Canada will be working for government: government

departments, government agencies and government-run firms of one kind

or another. Consciously or not, we are creating a large new class of

citizens in our country. Most of them have a degree of job security

which is unknown in the private

[ Page 1303 ]

sector; they are paid as well as, and sometimes better than,

employees of private corporations; their pensions are usually indexed,

and their fringe benefits are often the best in the country. It's

little wonder that young Canadians entering our labour force for the

first time are looking at the public sector with great interest.

Not only do we have a balanced budget in British Columbia, but we

have a level of provincial expenditure which is declining relative to

our total provincial output of goods and services. In 1975, when the

NDP was still in power, provincial government expenditures amounted to

18 percent of the gross provincial product. Now, five years later, it

is 15 percent. The government's target, I understand, is 12 percent.

Admittedly, that is a long-term objective; it may take some years to

achieve. But it expresses a determination to contain the cost of

government, an attitude which could well be emulated by our federal

government in Ottawa. It proves that the private sector has priority

over the public sector, at least in British Columbia.

True, our public services can be improved. Some, like denticare, can

be added to the existing mix. But improvements don't always have to

cost money; they don't always call for more staff, equipment, buildings

or taxation. There are new and better ways of doing things. Some of our

existing services can be supplied in the home, in the store and in the

factory; they can be supplied by paraprofessionals and neighbourhood

workers, some of them performing their services on a part-time basis.

In other words, with the right kind of help we can be more

self-reliant. We can be just as healthy and twice as happy if our

government keeps us in the right way, like a friend and not a guardian

— like a provider of essential services and not a benefactor whose

self-willed mission is to lead us by the hand from the cradle to the

grave.

I'm particularly critical of the federal government in this regard.

Financially it has been irresponsible. In recent years it has borrowed

heavily from the Canadian public in order to fund programs, many of

which, constitutionally speaking, are under provincial jurisdiction.

Ottawa has become increasingly people-program oriented. But many of

these programs, like health, education and welfare, are essentially

provincial in character. Undaunted, the federal government has moved in

anyway. It has taken initiatives which our less fortunate provinces

would not have taken on their own.

But time and rising costs have taken their toll. Now Ottawa is

backing out. It's leaving Canada's provinces, rich and poor alike, with

a finite number of tax points and specified per capita grants with

which to fund these ambitious programs.

It all started with unemployment insurance in the early 1940s. Then

came old-age pensions, grants for hospital construction, then medicare,

then our Canada Assistance Plan for people on welfare. Post-secondary

education was a big federal item for a while, and there was even talk

of a guaranteed annual income for all Canadians from Newfoundland to

British Columbia.

With its unlimited powers of taxation the nation could do

financially what the provinces were legally equipped to do. In other

words, Ottawa had the bucks, or so it thought. It plunged in where many

of the provinces feared to tread. It set national guidelines and

insisted on universal coverage in most cases. The result was a spending

spree which even the richer provinces like British Columbia, Alberta

and Ontario have had difficulty in maintaining in recent years.

Two things have happened as a result of this federal flirtation with

welfare statism. Payments to people and to provinces have gone up by

leaps and bounds. More of the federal budget is fixed and less is

discretionary. Now, as a result of these various commitments, Ottawa is

forced to hand over most of its income on a regular monthly or

quarterly basis to others. Ninety percent of its financial intake is

committed before it's received; less than 10 percent is for goods and

services, other federal obligations of the traditional kind; only a few

percent, like new construction and other public works, can be turned on

and off at will. This is an incredible position for a national

government responsible for full employment to find itself in. In other

words, Ottawa has little room for manoeuvre: it can't prime the pump

with fresh funds in a period of recession; it can't offset cyclical

swings in spending in the private sector with any degree of authority.

All it can do is print more money, thereby adding to the fires of

inflation. Unfortunately, that is what it's been doing all too

frequently in recent years.

Let us look at the numbers again. As recently as 1968 federal

spending for all purposes was the equivalent of 16 percent of our gross

national product. Now in 1980, it's 21 percent, and of that 21 percent

at least 19 percent is fixed — it has to be paid out regardless of any

change in policy. It's fixed in the way that interest payments on the

national debt, payments to old-age pensioners across the nation,

payments to the unemployed, and equalization payments to the provinces

are fixed. Transfers to the provinces, whether they be in the form of

tax points or unconditional grants covering earlier commitments with

respect to health, education and welfare, are fixed. These obligations

annually run into many billions of dollars, currently approaching $10

billion a year. They would not have existed on anything like their

present scale if Ottawa had not invaded these important areas of

provincial jurisdiction in the first place.

So what do we have at the federal level today? In terms of monetary

management we have an impotent nation. Constitutionally speaking we

also have a mixed-up nation. The do-gooders at the federal level have

tried to please everyone at once. Ottawa has tried to be all things to

all people, and as a result it hasn't done its national job properly.

It hasn't done a good job on national defence, transportation, and

industrial research and development, to name a few. It's been

preoccupied instead with programs which in earlier years — and indeed

under the British North America Act as it was originally written — were

always regarded as of local and provincial character.

I for one expect our federal government to be the government of all

Canada. I want it to be national in its sweep. I don't want it to

concern itself unduly with local, provincial or even regional problems.

I'm very much opposed to the federal government's stepping into areas

of provincial jurisdiction and then, because costs are getting out of

hand, or for other reasons, stepping out again. This is upsetting to

the provinces, to say the least. It's very upsetting to the poorer

ones. It results in a lot of unnecessary bickering at the

federal-provincial level. It's centralization for a time and

decentralization when the going gets tough. You don't promote national

unity in this way; instead you promote the cause of those who prefer

separatism.

Constitutionally we should get back to first principles. We should

adopt a division of powers between our national government and the

provinces which sees Ottawa dealing with national issues and the

provinces dealing with property-

[ Page 1304 ]

and people-oriented issues. The more firmly the line is drawn

between our two levels of government the better; the more our people

will understand what's really going on. There will be less talk of

exploitation of one part of the country by another, and there will be

more Canadians thinking optimistically about our future rather than

about our divided present or past.

A nation, to be a nation, must have one flag, a common currency, and

the freedom of its people to move wherever they want to, from one part

of the country to the other. A nation, not its constituent provinces,

should also be responsible for external affairs, foreign trade and

defence. It should constitute a common market for goods and services

and capital of all kinds, and it must have the ability to frame

financial policies which maximize employment and keep inflation under

control.

Nation-building, given these several dimensions, doesn't cost a

great deal — at least compared to the present federal expenditures. It

amounts to less than 10 percent of our gross national product. The

rest, from 10 percent up to our present federal outlay of 21 percent,

is due mainly to federal incursions into provincial affairs — fields

like health, housing, pensions, welfare and education. It springs, in

part, from a desire on the part of many of our federal politicians to

spread the wealth across the country. With surprisingly little

opposition from the provinces, it has caused Ottawa to act more and

more like a unitary state, not a federation, when it comes to raising

money and spending money. Willy-nilly, Ottawa has become the tax

collector for both federal purposes — those which are national in

character — and for programs which our Fathers of Confederation

sincerely believed the provinces should administer by themselves.

What am I saying? I'm saying that if Ottawa stopped playing its

Robin Hood role with the provinces, it would only need half, or,

indeed, less than half, of the revenue which it now takes from Canadian

taxpayers. Include equalization grants, sufficient to allow the poorer

provinces to provide provincial services which are comparable to those

in the rest of the country, and you still have a federal tax take which

is less than two-thirds of what it is today. Obviously Ottawa, if it

holds back, if it gets right out of such provincial fields as health,

education and social security, will make a smaller dent in our

collective pocket-books. It will take 12 to 14 percent of our gross

national product, as compared to the 21 percent it takes now.

I, for one, am for greater clarity in governmental affairs. I want

to see two separate lists of powers-federal powers and provincial

powers, powers which are exclusively powers of our senior level of

government in Ottawa, and powers, which everyone agrees, are powers

which can only be wielded by provincial administrations like the good

government we now have here in British Columbia. I am not opposed to

some sharing of the wealth between provinces. Equalization grants can

be developed for this purpose; but they must be paid out by Ottawa with

no strings attached. Their scale will be settled in a series of first

ministers' conferences. But let's not go overboard when it comes to

unconditional grants of this kind. Using present-day formulas, we are

in danger of making even populous Ontario a have-not province.

Obviously our complicated arithmetic, aimed at bringing provincial

revenues in all provinces up to decent national standards, is getting

us into trouble. Not only is it thrusting the federal revenuer's hand

deeper and deeper into our pockets, but it's also giving most of our

provinces a false sense of security, insofar as provincial spending is

concerned.

In principle it's wrong for one level of government to levy taxes

and another to spend the proceeds. It's poor management to say the

least, and it's not responsible government. Those who spend should have

to raise their own funds; otherwise spending quickly gets out of hand.

Ottawa, raising taxes, gets a black eye, especially in the richer

provinces like Alberta and British Columbia. So it's divisive. This is

one of the real reasons why we have western alienation, why the federal

Liberal Party is so popular in the east and can only get one vote out

of four in the west.

British Columbia has to accept some blame in this regard. It

welcomed Ottawa's initiatives in respect to unemployment insurance,

old-age pensions, and the Canada Pension Plan. It endorsed medicare on

a national scale, it liked the Canada Assistance Plan. It groaned

audibly when Ottawa started to cut back on its grants for

post-secondary education. We still hear suggestions that the federal

government should get itself involved in a guaranteed annual income

plan for all Canadians. When will we learn? Whenever Ottawa initiates a

plan which more properly falls under provincial jurisdiction, it takes

more out of British Columbia than it puts back into British Columbia.

It interferes with our own administration of each plan, and eventually

it may pull out anyway.

My advice, therefore, to our western provinces, and especially to

British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, is to stay away from Ottawa

insofar as new federal initiatives in areas like social security are

concerned. Don't ask the federal government for a dime. You know, and I

know, that federal aid for light rapid transit — in Vancouver, for

example — means federal aid for public transportation in cities, towns

and villages right across Canada. It means federal dollars for metro in

Toronto, metro in Montreal, a few more buses a day for Come-by-Chance

in Newfoundland, and even skidoos, on a cut-rate basis, in Inuvik in

the Northwest Territories. Given Ottawa's current financial

difficulties, I doubt very much if we are going to get any funds from

the federal government for light rapid transit anyway. But why ask them

in the first place? Surely British Columbia of all provinces has more

to gain and less to lose by funding its own urban transpiration.

So let us back off. Let us, as a province, do our own things in our

own way. Those 50-cent federal dollars are a snare and a delusion. We

pay the other 50 cents in federal taxes to Ottawa anyway, and if other

provinces get the same or similar services, you can bet that in the end

we'll be subsidizing them to a greater or lesser degree.

Mr. Speaker, in last Friday's Speech from the Throne I read that our

new Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations "will coordinate and

develop policies, strategies and activities for our province's

relationships with other governments, and be responsible for

constitutional matters." That is good, but I hope those policies,

strategies and activities result in this province doing everything that

it can properly do under our present constitution. Ottawa has enough on

its platter already, and we're not helping Canadian unity by involving

it to an even greater extent in provincial and local affairs.

I agree with the Speech from the Throne "that we British Columbians

have little more representation in many of the central institutions

that govern activities in Canada than our forbears did in 1871 when the

United Colony of British Columbia entered Confederation." Our

population has grown relative to that of the nation as a whole, so we,

for example, should have more senators in the Senate. More

[ Page 1305 ]

British Columbians should also be appointed to the federal courts,

federal regulatory agencies and federal Crown corporations, but this

doesn't mean that they should be appointed entirely by the province.

We've got enough regionalism in this country already. They should be

selected for their competence and their breadth of view. Where they

come from or who they might answer to regionally should have little or

nothing to do with their selection in these nation-building roles.

It's been fashionable of late to talk about replacing the Canadian

Senate with a body of men and women appointed in whole or in part by

the provinces. With a veto over much of the legislation passed by the

House of Commons, it could slow things down there dramatically. It

could block federal initiatives in other areas of provincial

jurisdiction, for example, and that, no doubt, is good. It could also

upset treaties with other countries, cancel international trading

agreements and make the quick handling of emergency situations such as

the FLQ crisis in Quebec in the early 1970s a virtual impossibility. A

sort of year-round First Ministers' Conference, rarely agreeing to

anything and generally critical of federal actions, whether they are

exclusively in the federal area or not, would rapidly become a national

bore.

Why, I ask you, should delegates from our provincial capitals have

so much power in Ottawa when we elect Members of Parliament to run our

national affairs for us anyway? Frankly, I would prefer to do away with

the Senate altogether, or, if that isn't possible, to make changes

which are more in line with the workings of parliamentary democracy

here and elsewhere. For example, I would limit the Senate to 100

members, limit each senator's term of appointment to 10 years, give

each province a senatorial representation which reflects the population

of that province. B.C., for example, would have 11 senators in a

100-member Senate, not six out of 104 as it has now. Every second

senatorial appointment would be made by the Premier of the province

concerned. In other words, 50 percent of the Senate would be appointed

by our 10 provincial Premiers; the other 50 percent would be appointed

by the Prime Minister of Canada, as it is now.

The suspensory veto which the Senate has over legislation passed by

the House of Commons would be limited to a period of six months;

otherwise the Senate's powers and functions would remain unchanged. It

is principally an advisory and consultative body now; occasionally it

initiates legislation, but the Commons has the last word. Right, it

must have the last word because it is an elected body. It has to answer

to the people. This is what our parliamentary democracy is all about.

You see, Mr. Speaker, I am against the Senate becoming a sort of house

of obstruction. I'm all for action, but action at the federal level

should relate to national issues and be confined to areas of federal

responsibility.

I cannot, for example, agree with Mr. Claude Ryan, who may well be

the next Premier of Quebec, when he says that an altered Senate should

give his province a 50 percent voice in such matters as cultural

affairs and communications. This sounds suspiciously like special

status to me. True, the more populous provinces will always tend to be

the heavies in Ottawa, but Quebec mustn't be given a position in a new

federal council, as he calls it, in which it is officially recognized

as being the heaviest heavy of all.

Mr. Speaker, we have enough government in Canada already. We're all

so confused as to which level of government really does what. We have

too much duplication, too much red tape, and by confusing our voters we

are inviting a kind of paternalism, which few Canadians really want.

Surely there are simpler ways of doing things.

Each level of government must have its own job to do and, in doing

it, must relate more effectively to its true masters, the people, the

voters in the particular constituency each serves. Interprovincial

rivalries will diminish. Regionalism, in the sense of east versus west

or Quebec against the rest, will be less of a problem than it is today.

We would focus instead on other things. With our newfound energies we

will make more of our national heritage; Canadians everywhere would

feel freer to concentrate on the great task of nation building, which

still confronts us today. Decentralization, then, is my theme. It's

decentralization with a purpose. It's decentralization within the

existing framework of Confederation. It's decentralization with a view

to involving the grass roots, the people, as much as possible.

I'm all for strong leadership in government. I'm for decisiveness

and I'm for action, but that doesn't mean big government and it doesn't

mean governments frequently getting in each other's way. Our present

Canadian constitution, the British North America Act, isn't all that

bad, but we're twisting it out of shape. We're ignoring its division of

powers and we are allowing our various levels of government to

duplicate each other in their pursuit of popular causes.

Let's get Canada back on the rails again. Let us put government in

its place. Let's give each level of government its own job to do, and

then Canadians, as voters, will be in a better position to judge each

party and to judge which one — especially which leaders — they want to

lead the country and our provinces. British Columbia will perform a

great service for our nation if it bears these basic principles of

responsible government in mind.

I am confident that the present advisers to His Honour, Mr. Speaker,

will bear these principles in mind. That's why I am going to vote

against this non-confidence motion presently before the House.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to take the opportunity of congratulating you on your permanent appointment as Deputy Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Permanent?

MRS. WALLACE: Well, permanent tenure. You're not just third

in line; you are now second in line. It certainly has been a rather

arduous task that the Speaker and yourself have been subjected to in

the last few days. I think that the Speaker has certainly used a very

even hand in dispensing justice in this chamber and you, Mr. Speaker,

are doing very well to bridge the gap as well.

I want to deal just very briefly with the remarks of the House

Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom), who is not present, and comment on the rather

strange motion that he attempted to put through the Legislature earlier

today, an attempt to circumvent the rules of the Legislature, the rules

of this House. I'm particularly concerned with the timing of that

motion, but I think the thing that really disturbed me most was the

Premier's comments.

I just don't understand why the Premier left the inference in this

House that somehow the government benches had not had an opportunity to

participate in this debate. I would just like to quote from Hansard , March 4, night sitting, where there was a little bit of confusion as to who was on their feet

[ Page 1306 ]

first. There were two members, apparently, on their feet at the same

time, as it were: one from the government benches and one from the

opposition. The speaker asked the government member, in this instance,

to give way because.... He said: "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 the speech if he had something to say. Would the

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

turn, logically, be ready to speak?"

The Speaker has maintained — and you, Mr. Speaker, have maintained —

a complete back and forth debate in this House. Why the Premier would

see fit to indicate that he had to have more time because his side of

the House hadn't had an opportunity to participate is somewhat beyond

me.

I want to deal, just briefly, with a couple of things relative to

this debate, and I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that this has

not been an easy amendment for the opposition to bring forth. But we

have a responsibility to the voters of this province. We have a

responsibility as opposition to ensure that the public interest is

protected. It has not been an easy decision to bring this debate to the

floor of the Legislature, but it was a decision which we had to take.

The disappointment in this Legislature has been the lack of any

meaningful response from the government benches — simply a rehash of

speeches that I heard from that side of the House in 1976, '77, '78 and

'79, over and over again, calling us all kinds of names, but no defence

of their government. And defence they must raise, Mr. Speaker, because

they are very subject to question. That is why this amendment is on the

order paper.

I was interested in the last speaker, who brought a very interesting

discussion to the floor of the Legislature. But the only question that

kept occurring to me was whether he somehow thought he had crossed the

House in Ottawa rather than crossing the country from Ottawa to B.C. It

was a very interesting paper with a lot of interesting thoughts, but

there was no defence of the government. He just said he supported them,

with no reasons, no explanations, nothing.

When the Eckardt report was introduced to this House in the way of

an amendment to the constitution, you may or may not recall, Mr.

Speaker, that I stood and spoke about the way in which this report had

been introduced: introduced within half an hour, after it was filed;

introduced and followed by a bill which simply took that report word

for word and put it into legislation. During that discussion I raised

the point that while we had seen the report for about half an hour, it

was quite obvious from the remarks coming from the government benches

that the report had been seen by them prior to that time. It was

obvious that they had prior knowledge of what was in that report.

I spoke at the time about what had happened to the constituency of

Cowichan-Malahat in the report, and in retrospect it's interesting to

see how well my arguments were borne out. I said at the time that they

had taken a small constituency and subtracted from it to add to a

larger constituency. In 1975 Cowichan-Malahat had 28,347 registered

voters. In the 1979 election, on the basis of the Eckardt report, there

were 25,032, down approximately 3,000. At the same time the Nanaimo

electoral district increased from 32,000 to 40,000, an increase of

8,000 votes. There was no justification for that change except a

political one. The report itself made no justification; it simply said

that's what it did. In every other instance it gave some explanation,

or attempted to give some explanation, of why the change was made.

In the case of Cowichan-Malahat it made no explanation whatsoever.

I suggest that the fact we now have before us, that a political

report was prepared by the researchers in the Social Credit caucus

which made the recommendation to drop Ladysmith and Cassidy from

Cowichan-Malahat, is quite evidently the reason that that was done. It

was done for political purposes only. I said that at the time the

report came in, and I say it again now. That is just one of the reasons

why this government is under the cloud it is under.

We've had the so-called Lettergate scandal. You know, that has been

called Lettergate; it has been called dirty tricks. What that really

should have been called, Mr. Speaker, was forgery, because that's what

it was. A letter appeared in one of the local papers in Cowichan taking

all kinds of swipes at me as MLA for some of my stands, signed by my

good friend — theoretically — Gordon Townsend. That was nothing short

of forgery.

When the now Attorney-General presented his statement to the public

on the findings of the investigation, he used some pretty strong words

about what he thought about people who would do that kind of thing. He

talked about forgery in the report. He said that the investigation was

over but that investigations would go on. As far as you were concerned

it was over. The investigation may go on; it may never be ended.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: I've got it right here, Mr. Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's never closed.

MRS. WALLACE: It's never closed, that's right. But you were

giving the impression that as far as the government was concerned this

was the final report, and that as far as any access to any of the

findings or any information as to who has been investigated or what had

been found, that was a closed book. It was interesting that the day

after you made your statement there were news releases about the RCMP

still investigating, still around the parliament buildings and right in

the offices of the Premier, in fact. Still there has been nothing

coming forth from the government in any way that would move to make

this information public and clear the cloud that hangs over your head.

There is a cloud over your head. There's a cloud over all the members

who sit on the government bench.

I think that cloud probably comes from the fact that they have been

so busy trying to put out all the political fires around them —

attempting to do this with very little success. I think they have

probably been trying to smother those fires with very soggy blankets,

and the result of the escaping smoke is making a very heavy cloud over

that government bench. As long as that government is under that cloud

of suspicion, they are not able to do a job for this province.

That has been demonstrated over and over during the past six or

eight months with bungling, orders-in-council that have to be rescinded

and rewritten, the whole thing with the Gloucester property — taking it

out and putting it in; not knowing what the legislation even says as to

how they can get it out or in or what they can do. Bungling, bungling,

bungling! Lack of attention to the needs of a responsible government.

[ Page 1307 ]

People are out in areas waiting for cabinet decisions and waiting to

know whether they are going to be eligible for this, that or the other

thing. I'm thinking particularly of the lack of cabinet decision

relative to youth groups applying for lottery funds. They wanted to get

an overall policy so they would all be treated the same way. No cabinet

decision. It's the same for voluntary firefighters, no cabinet

decision. Those groups are waiting out there. Those are just minor

things, but they're examples of the kinds of things that are facing the

province of British Columbia because that government is not able to

make decisions, is not able to function in their true job of doing a

leadership job in this province and providing the kind of leadership

and the kind of government they should be concentrating on.

Their philosophies are different from ours, that's true. But they

have a job to do: to provide government based on the things in which

they believe. We have a job as opposition to present our alternate

suggestions, but we can't do that as long as they're not governing and

as long as they have that cloud of suspicion hanging over them. For

that reason, Mr. Speaker, I am opposing the whole attitude of that

government, and the only way I can do it is by supporting the amendment

that is now on the floor.

MR. KEMPF: I rise today on a very positive note, as positive

notes have been a little deficient of late from the opposite side of

the floor. Of course, I speak against this ridiculous time-consuming

amendment.

Before doing so, I would like to take this opportunity to extend my

best wishes to the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) on his election to

the office of Deputy Speaker. I also wish to congratulate the four

members of cabinet elevated to their new positions since the last time

we sat in this chamber: the member for Oak Bay (Hon. Mr. Smith), as

Minister of Education; the member for Prince George North (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich), as Minister of Labour; the first member for Vancouver South

(Hon. Mr. Rogers), as Minister of Environment; and last, but not least,

the member for North Okanagan (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), as our very own, one

and only Minister of Tourism. I wish them all well and the very best.

I'm confident they will do an admirable job to the service of all

British Columbians.

I rise once again in my place to speak in this House. I am reminded

of the reason for which I'm here and of the privilege it is to be in

this Legislature, the honour of having been given the confidence of my

constituents, the people of Omineca — those genuine, enthusiastic,

north-central British Columbians, ever mindful of the need to retain a

system which will allow them the freedom of individual initiative and

ever cognizant of the fact of the importance of the individual

enterprise system. It is for them that I rise to speak in opposing this

amendment brought in by those who do not wish to understand, those who

have failed in their doom-and-gloom attitudes to think in terms of all

British Columbians rather than merely their own selfish self-interests.

We in the north know we have good leadership in this Premier. We are

not so naive or selfish as to believe that everything must be handed to

us on a silver platter. We wish only to be given the chance, the

opportunity, the initiative by government to make it on our own.

We saw these initiatives put forward in the first session of the

thirty-second parliament by this government under the Premier's

leadership: the 50 percent reduction in the assessment on farm and

agricultural reserve land; the free distribution of shares to all

British Columbians through the British Columbia Resources Investment

Corporation; the $100 increase in the homeowner grant and the $50

increase in the renter tax credit; the reduction in the provincial

sales tax from 5 to 4 percent; the reduction in the provincial income

tax from 46 percent to 44 percent, making it the lowest in Canada.

The exemption level for the corporate capital tax was raised to free

16,000 small businesses from its burden. That was a good move, gave

some initiative to small business, although in my mind this totally

unfair and absolutely regressive way of taxation, brought in by the

socialists and perpetuated by our administration, must go completely,

and I am sure it will. The FAIR program ending automobile-insurance

discrimination among our citizens, be they young or old, male or

female, in the north or south, was a good move — good leadership.

As we have seen in previous throne speeches and budgets of this

administration under this leadership, the greatest initiative of all,

the greatest incentive that government can give its people, is

accountability, accountability which sets the limit on government

spending, accountability which results in surpluses, not deficits — as

we saw very prevalently during the former administration, the only NDP

administration that ever was or ever will be in this province. Do you

know why they will never again be government in this province, Mr.

Speaker? I will tell you why that bunch of socialists over there will

never again form a government in this province. Yesterday the member

for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) talked in glowing terms of the

socialist acquisition, as he called it, of Can-Cel, and how great it

was that this administration had something to put into BCRIC, something

that they had acquired.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Remember Plateau?

MR. KEMPF: Ah, yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

The member for New Westminster spoke in glowing terms of how much

this operation earned as a Crown corporation. Nonsense and garbage! If

that member truly believes what he said, he not only doesn't know how

to read a profit and loss statement, but he also doesn't know what they

did as government — and he was a cabinet minister at that time.

When they acquired Can-Cel — I could go into that. There is the

little matter of the back stumpage having been written off. Fifty-two

million dollars' worth of back stumpage was written off — a very

lucrative business.

But, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to talk about that, I want to talk

about that which the member did not talk about. I want to talk about

that for a while, in relation to leadership in this province, and how,

under their great leadership and under that dictatorial Bob Williams,

they stole Plateau Mills.

It's all here in this story, and I'll read it. It's all documented.

The members opposite like to use newspapers; in fact, all they use in

their speeches are newspapers. But I have a few clippings here that go

back, clippings that I've had for quite some time, and a clipping from

June 26, 1973 — it's written by Allan Fotheringham, someone whom we've

all heard of — which reads as follows:

"The tree industry, which is extremely nervous of

Lands and Forests Minister Bob Williams, is with some good reason

further nervous of Mr. Williams with the news that Victoria is about to

buy Plateau

[ Page 1308 ]

Mills of Vanderhoof. It is not just that the B.C. government

is going to intrude further in the forest marketplace. There is an added factor.

"Last fall a bid was made for Plateau Mills by

International Telephone and Telegraph — those wonderful people who

brought you an abortive overthrow of Allende's Chile through its

subsidiary, Rayonier. If there is anything that is an evil ogre to a

good socialist government, it is ITT. The NDP squelched the ITT bid,

because Victoria controlled the timber rights."

Intimidation, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: Shame!

MR. KEMPF: They stole Plateau Mills, Mr. Member for New Westminster, and you remember that; you were in cabinet at that time.

And I could go on and on. It's all documented here. You know the quote by the

then mayor of Vanderhoof: "They stole it."

MS. SANFORD: Who stole it?

MR. KEMPF: The government of the time stole Plateau Mills.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, ask Alfie, wherever he is.

And they said the reason they were buying Plateau Mills was to save

the Mennonite population, to save the Mennonites in Vanderhoof. And

I'll read what Mayor Everett Stevens of Vanderhoof had to say at that

time. Mayor Everett Stevens of Vanderhoof said Williams' justification

for buying the mill was "totally invalid" and that the minister was

speaking out of both sides of his mouth. "I'm concerned that the

government feels it can justify this thing by saying it wants to save

the Mennonites. There is no validity to that at all. The Mennonites are

the most stable people in our town and they would have starved

regardless of who purchased Plateau Mills."

AN HON. MEMBER: Starved?

MR. KEMPF: Stayed. Pardon me, Mr. Speaker. These are a little

hard to read; they're very old clippings. But they're the truth, Mr.

Member. They're documented proof of what happened at that time.

But I think the thing that puts the whole cap on it is when they did

in fact steal Plateau Mills for $7.4 million. And the story is here —

this is a clipping of June 29, 1973, from the Vancouver Sun . The headline is: "Barrett Asked to Re-study Decision to Purchase Mill." It reads:

"Synco Holdings Ltd. president Gerald Phillips asked

Premier Dave Barrett today to review the government's decision to

acquire Plateau Mills because of alleged unjust treatment of Synco by

Resources minister Bob Williams."

They had great leadership in those days.

"In a telegram to the Premier, Phillips accused Williams

of using the intimidation of government power to acquire the sawmill firm. It

asked Barrett for a 60-day pause to allow Synco to purchase Plateau. Phillips'

partner, David Beach, said he hopes public pressure will force the government

to re-sell Plateau. Beach charged earlier that the government had used 'terror

tactics' to force Plateau shareholders to accept its offer of $7.4 million rather

than a $10 million offer from Synco."

And they say they didn't steal it. They intimidated Plateau into selling it

to them for $2.4 million less than they were offered for it. And if that isn't

stealing, Mr. Speaker, what is?

AN HON. MEMBER: Dirty tricks. Shame!

MR. KEMPF: Plateau Mills. Yes, we've got the whole story.

Leadership, Mr. Speaker. And they have the audacity to stand over there

and challenge the leadership on this side of the floor.

Then there is the "Yankee go home" story, Mr. Member for New

Westminster, and I'll tell you about that too. That former Minister of

Highways, under the leadership of the day, who knew only to say:

"Yankee go home.... " They didn't want those dirty Yankee dollars,

dollars from what is soon to be British Columbia's primary

industry-tourism under proper leadership.

I could read you all the clippings, but I won't do that; it's all

documented. When our Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr.

Fraser), under the leadership of our Premier, has a congestion problem,

he doesn't tell the tourists to stay home; he builds more highways.

When he sees that roadside parks are congested, he builds more parks.

That's what I call good leadership, and we have the dollars to do that.

We have the dollars, hon. member, through you, Mr. Speaker, to build

those highways and build those parks and bridges, and, yes, B.C. Place

and the rest. Under good leadership, we have the dollars to do that.

We never will, Mr. Member for New Westminster, have to call an

election in this province because we're broke, because we bankrupted

the province like you did, and had to do in 1975. Yes, that was some

leadership. The only reason you called an election was because you were

bankrupt, because you broke the province. Mr. Speaker, they broke the

province. They were broke and they had to call an election.

We saw again that kind of leadership from that side of the floor in

this very House, when that entire bunch, not wishing to face the

independent school issue, walked out of this House.

MR. RITCHIE: But then they decided to change their minds if they were allowed back in.

MR. KEMPF: Oh, well, that's the kind of flip-flop leadership

they have over there, Mr. Member. They ran from this chamber on what

was an important issue to many hundreds, possibly thousands, of people

in this province, and they challenge our leadership.

Hon. members, through you, Mr. Speaker, we've all heard many times,

and know very well, of the fiscal mismanagement of that bunch of

socialists under their- what did the ads say in the 1975 campaign? —

"good leadership; let's keep it that way." Well, I guess the people of

British Columbia showed them what they thought of that kind of

leadership.

Let me tell you another story. This may not seem like a big thing,

and it may not involve a large number of dollars, as we talk in very

large sums in this Legislature, but let me tell

[ Page 1309 ]

you, it's a big thing where I come from, Mr. Speaker. It's a very

large amount of money to the people of Omineca. I'd just like to tell

you this story, and the story came to light just yesterday when it was

announced by the British Columbia Buildings Corporation that they were

going to build not only one courthouse, but three courthouses in my

constituency of Omineca. We have the money for that, too, through good

leadership and proper management.

I just want to tell the House this story. Apparently the British

Columbia Buildings Corporation, when finally making the decision to

build that courthouse in Burns Lake, thought to themselves: "Ah, yes,

we remember." Back in 1972, just before the W.A.C. Bennett

administration left office, they'd let a contract in Burns Lake to pour

the foundations for a new courthouse, which they were go