[ Page 17 ]

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1972

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: In this House we are all Members.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, I have been asked by the Premier to introduce two distinguished guests who are seated on the floor of the House. The first is Mr. Arthur Turner who served in this legislative assembly for 25 years as the Member for Vancouver-East, who sat on my right hand, my good right hand, during 10 of my years as Leader of the Opposition and he's visiting us today. He's an outstanding British Columbian and gave good service to the people of this Province in this Legislature.

The next is Mr. Arnold Webster who for more than 20 years served Vancouver on the Parks Board, from 1953 to 1956 was the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and then later went to Ottawa as an M.P. and served his constituency, the province, and the country well. Another outstanding British Columbian who has made a great contribution and I would ask the House to welcome him also.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker I would like to have the House welcome Mayor Marks of 100 Mile House who is the President of the Union of B.C. Municipalities for this next year. And Mr. McKelvie, the Executive Director.

MR. SPEAKER: The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, yesterday when the House was about to adjourn I drew your attention to the fact that Standing Order No. 68 requires that at the commencement of each session there be appointed a committee to establish the Select Standing Committees of the House. I waited until the motion to adjourn was presented because it seems to me the motion was out of order at that time and as we sit today we cannot be properly constituted according to the House rules. Mr. Speaker, if I could finish my point of order here…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: One point of order at a time, thank you.

MR. McGEER: But with due respect, Sir, I think it should have been your responsibility not to entertain that motion to adjourn until we had been properly constituted by putting forward the motion that's required to commence the session. And if you would give instruction now I would be prepared to move the motion in order that we can be properly constituted if the government is not prepared to do so.

MR. SPEAKER: For the Hon. Member's information, unfortunately he did not disclose the standing order to which he was referring when he adjourned yesterday when the question was being taken so we weren't aware until the Hon. Member approached me this morning on this question. And naturally I was concerned with it because the same thing happened in August of 1961 with the previous government. Where they had neglected to do the same thing.

This was raised then in the House at that time and the Speaker of the House at that time, Mr. Shantz, pointed out that it would be proper prac-

[ Page 18 ]

tice that the government of the day proceed, either to appoint the Standing Committees or alternatively ask the House to suspend the standing order 68. And that was done. For that reason I would invite the government to take what position they should take in this matter since it is a matter for the House Leader.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I was going to wait for the proper time and the orders of the day to introduce the motion to establish the committees.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I would invite the Hon. Leader to do so at this time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I move, seconded by the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) that the Select Standing Committee to this House for the present session be appointed for the following purposes…

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, I'm sorry. My clerk advises me, and I apologize to the Honourable Leader of the Government, that the introduction of bills must be called first and then this matter can be dealt with.

Introduction of bills.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker I move, seconded by the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) and with the full support of the House — I assume — the Select Standing Committees of this House for the present session be appointed the following purposes:

1. On Standing Orders and Private Bills

2. On Public Accounts and Printings

3. On Mining and Railways

4. On Agriculture

5. On Municipal Matters

6. On Forestry and Fisheries

7. On Labour

8. On Social Welfare and Education

Which said committees shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things that shall be referred to them by this House, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon with power to send for persons, papers and records and a special committee be appointed to prepare and record with all convenient speed lists of members to compose the above Select Standing Committees of this House under standing order No. 68, section 1. Said committee to be composed of the Hon. A.B. Macdonald, the Hon. R.M. Strachan, the Hon. D.G. Cocke and Messrs. Richter and Anderson.

Motion approved.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in presenting the following motion, seconded by the Hon. Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea):

That the following address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor. We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the legislative assembly of British Columbia in session assembled beg leave to thank your Honour for the gracious speech which your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a great sense of pride and profound humility that I today have the honour in moving the Speech from the Throne. I am personally very proud to have been elected to represent the constituency of Vancouver South in this Legislature and proud that the New Democratic Party for the first time in the history of British Columbia has been chosen by the people to form the Government of the Province.

[ Page 19 ]

The principles of democratic socialism in British Columbia pioneered long before the New Democratic Party was formed or the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation before it.

To appreciate the New Democratic Party today, and its potential for increasing strength, one must understand the history of the movement and its reasons for coming into existence. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the history of democratic socialism in British Columbia dates back to the beginning of the century. It's the history of the successes and the defeats of the pioneers of this movement. There were also conflicts within the movement among members who with strong determination reflected the way in which they thought the party should go and did not always agree with each other. Some of these inner struggles were damaging indeed, but the party survived because all concerned basically believed in and worked for the same policies towards the advancement of reform for the working people.

The early socialist and labour representatives in the legislative assembly were loggers and miners who concerned themselves with working conditions in the woods and in the mines of British Columbia. Men like John McInnis, James Hawthornthwaite and Parker Williams who stood as giants. Undeterred in their fight for the principles of justice and improved conditions of the miners in the early days of the century.

Parker Williams, that Welsh coal miner, who had fought for decent working conditions in the collieries in Wales and continued the struggle when he came to Canada.

He sat in the Legislature from 1903 to 1917, and when he and John McInnis, Member for Grand Forks from 1907 to 1909 supported James Hawthornthwaite in a bill to introduce the eight-hour day, they were ridiculed and defeated because it was considered too radical. Hawthornthwaite, first elected in 1901 spent most of his time during his period in office, planning and promoting labour legislation. He provided bills for mine safety and to prevent unskilled miners from working on the "face" of the mine. He vigorously opposed the exploitation of cheap oriental labour. He pioneered the Workmen's Compensation Act, and when the government finally passed this Act, it was the first of its kind in Canada.

These are all the realities now, but they came about because of the courage and persistence of these prominent socialists.

As early as 1906 Hawthornthwaite proposed legislation to extend the franchise to women. He fight was continued by Jack Place elected in 1912, but it was not realized until the women themselves organized and marched as suffragettes around 1917. One of the leaders at that time was Laura Jamieson who many years later sat as a C.C.F. M.L.A.

In the 1920's other pieces of legislation were introduced by Sam Guthrie, member for Newcastle. He promoted the use of safety lamps for miners, and regulations within the mines regarding the dangers of gas leakages. He also asked for Labour Representatives on coroner's juries in the event of industrial accidents.

Sam Guthrie was one of the men who went to jail for two years in 1913 as a result of a bitter strike, to prevent illiterate Chinese who were being used as slave labour from being given certificates of competence to work in the mines as strike breakers, and to lower the wages. His work in later years also included bills to improve the working conditions of the loggers in the woods.

The history of the movement also includes the story of Wallis Lefeaux who was defeated 10 times before being elected in 1941, but he went on undeterred, looking upon the campaign platform as a place from which to preach the message of democratic socialism. In the Winnipeg strike of 1919 he travelled to that city to act as counsel for the strikers and it's the story of Angus McInnis, that tall angular Scotsman who was a B.C. Electric motorman in Vancouver. From 1922 on he was in turn a member of the school board of the Vancouver City Council, until in 1930 when he was elected to the House of Commons where he served British Columbia for 27 years. He married into a pioneer family of socialists, the Woodsworths. His wife, Grace, served as a member of this assembly from 1941 until 1945 and is the only woman from B.C. ever elected to the House of Commons.

[ Page 20 ]

The birth of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation came about in 1933 when the C.C.F. clubs organized by Bill Pritchard joined with the Socialist Party, lead by Wallis Lefeaux. Others instrumental in the formation of the C.C.F. included that great father-and-son team of Ernie and Harold Winch, a long-time member Arthur Turner, who served B.C. as a M.L.A. for 25 years, and Dorothy Steeves, the first C.C.F. woman M.L.A.

As a result of the election of 1933, seven socialist members under the leadership of Rev. Connell of Victoria found themselves as the official opposition. The C.C.F., and the N.D.P. after it, continued to press for progressive legislation under a parade of outstanding leaders. Following Rev. Connell were Harold Winch, Arnold Webster, Robert Strachan, Tom Berger and now our present leader the Hon. Dave Barrett.

The first woman in the new C.C.F. party to be elected was Dorothy Steeves in 1934, a brilliant debater and a decoration in any legislative assembly. She was a match for any and all the male members. By the way, she was here yesterday and appreciated very much being able to sit near the government benches.

Although she did not expect special privileges as a woman, many of her battles were for women's rights, such as mothers' allowances, and a minimum wage for domestic servants. She also promoted holidays with pay and special allowances for the disabled and the handicapped. She was later joined by Laura Jamieson in 1939 who pressed for an amendment to the Old Age Pension Act, so that parents could be independent from their children in their later years. And with Grace MacInnis in 1941, who dedicated her whole life to socialism. Now sitting in the House of Commons since 1965, Grace is recognized as one of the 50 outstanding women in the world today. As a group of three, Dorothy, Laura and Grace added pressure for women's rights, strengthened their cause.

During the war years the C.C.F. fought discrimination directed at the Canadian Japanese who were deported from the west coast. The leaders of this struggle were Grant MacNeil, Angus MacInnis and Harold Winch. This eventually lead to pressure for extension of the franchise to the Orientals and to our own Canadian Indians.

In 1949, shortly after that piece of legislation was brought into being Frank Calder, our only Indian M.L.A., was elected under the C.C.F. banner.

In his years in the legislature, Frank has concerned himself primarily with the rights of his own people. He has also pioneered such causes as air ambulance service for the north and has petitioned Ottawa for a Canadian Coast Guard.

Rupert Haggen, M.L.A. for Grand Forks from 1949 to 1956, a B.C. land surveyor and engineer, pressed for planned resource development under public ownership.

And George Hobbs who represented Revelstoke from 1960 to 1962 — many of you will remember him — is well known in his advocacy of the development of public Power.

Both of their wives served as M.L.A.'s after them, promoting an expansion of free educational services.

In the field of agriculture Len Shepherd advocated more efficient marketing of farm and dairy produce and the establishment of co-operatives.

No field has been left untouched.

Mr. Speaker, the entire fabric of our society has been altered as a result of the pressure on governments by these early pioneers for social reform. This same dedication to social reform has carried on with the formation of the New Democratic Party in 1961 which came into existence as a result of the affiliation of the C.C.F. with labour.

The C.C.F. and the N.D.P. have pioneered such innovations as old age pensions, unemployment insurance, hospital insurance and Medicare. Ernest Winch, that great humanitarian, worked for years to obtain subsidized housing for the elderly and the destitute. The principles for which he stood were carried on by his son, Harold, who served this province as an M.L.A. and an M.P. for nearly 40 years from 1933 until 1972.

[ Page 21 ]

Mr. Speaker, it is significant to note that since the beginning of the century just over 100 socialist M.L.A.'s and M.P.'s have been elected in this province. But there are many, many more men and women who have worked and struggled with their leaders for this new day. It is a privilege to speak in this House today to pay tribute to the many who have pioneered social laws to benefit people. Only a few have been mentioned. Today, many of the reforms formerly looked upon as too radical are now considered as necessities and part of our way of life. They have all come about through pressure in one form or another.

It is a well-known fact that power is never relinquished voluntarily. So the progress of social reform is slow. The form of pressure has differed with different circumstances. It has come about as a result of being the balance of power in parliament as J.S. Woodsworth, the first national leader of the C.C.F. found himself to be, in 1926 when he forced the hand of Mackenzie King to enact the first old age pension legislation.

The "ginger group" method was a means of pressure used by the early C.C.F. in Ottawa to needle government. Probably the strike, the election platform, the rally or the parades are most commonly used by ordinary citizens. Today the strike is slowly becoming outmoded. But newer means are being invented through the use of our plastic media. The promotion of social change through the use of radio hotline has become one of the most popular.

We're experiencing a tremendous growth in resource development at present in B.C. It is evident in the lower mainland, in the interior, in the north and on Vancouver Island. This has resulted in a rapid increase in the population of the province. The support of our party has come from all these areas and from all age groups from all ethnic backgrounds.

As early as the 1920's when three socialists were elected as M.L.A.'s — Harry Neelands, Sam Guthrie, Frank Browne — the popular vote was 12.5 per cent. This has steadily risen, increasing the solid core of people who believe in and vote for the principles of democratic socialism to well over 30 per cent. In the recent election the popular vote was 40 per cent.

These voters have expressed through the ballot box their confidence in Premier Barrett and his fellow members. He has chosen a cabinet of experienced and respected politicians who are willing to accept the burden of responsibility that the public has placed in them.

As we move into the 1970's we're faced with a whole new set of problems. Advancing into a technological era in this resource-rich province makes us realize the importance of services to people and not merely a policy of growth for growth's sake. It is of utmost importance to place a greater emphasis on equal opportunities of education for all. We look forward also to a more efficient plan of operation of our medical services and health services and it is our responsibility now to carry on the work of improved social legislation that was started by these imaginative thinkers over the years.

Above all, we must remember the work of our pioneers in the building of this country. With the rapid changes in urban living and high inflation these same pioneers who have spent their lives improving the conditions of working men and women now find their savings dwindling and their living conditions precarious. They need to be allowed to live their lives out in dignity without fear of poverty, a lack of proper housing or lack of care. But in that same spirit of independence that fashioned their lives in the past the older people are now rallying to championing their last cause — a better old age pension for themselves so that they may have a basic minimum income with which they can live in dignity.

Before and during the recent election they rallied by the thousands in B.C. under the leadership of Tom Albury and Vincent Yates. Today we are happy to pay tribute to our pioneers. Our election on August 30 was their victory. For the first time in the history of this province a socialist government is in a position where it has the power to grant the senior citizens a basic minimum income which will make it possible for them to live their lives out in dignity in their declining years. Thank you for your attention.

[ Page 22 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Prince Rupert.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members. I'd first of all like to express the pride that I feel by being in this Legislature, voted in by the constituents of Prince Rupert.

I also feel proud and doubly honoured to be able to second the throne speech in this Legislature. I think for new members when they arrive here at first it's like serving an apprenticeship and we're all going through that — a great many of us at least. One of the greatest surprises I've had since arriving in Victoria is to find out that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) started a job he hasn't completed. He started tearing down signs and I drive down the capital's streets to find that I can't turn left. I'm a socialist member and I think we should do something about that Mr. Minister. (Laughter).

I would like to call on all British Columbians to not prejudge the democratic socialist government you have in British Columbia today. I would like you to wait, to observe, and to make up your minds on how we are acting by the deeds that we do. I realize that sometimes because we've been programmed from childhood into a certain way of life and a certain way of thinking, from our parental instructions to our schoolrooms, to the media, to the books that are available to us, all of these items train us to be myopic in our thinking and in our outlook. I think that what we should do in this province is start to train our people to look wider, to inform themselves. We are the ones that have to lead the way in this fight to inform people so that they can much better make decisions.

One of the other areas that has impressed me since arriving here as a new member are the number of people who lobby in Victoria — I think it's good, but at the same time I would like to offer a bit of advice — advice that I feel may be worthwhile, that people when they are getting together in groups should be very careful that they don't become so partisan in their thinking that they can't see the needs and the wants of other people. I think that we should always look to unite, rather than divide, because it's only together and working together that we can build a better society in British Columbia.

I am from the north, from Prince Rupert constituency, and I would like to bring you a message from the north that we are alive and well, and I know that will come as a surprise to a great many people.

I would like to express to you today some of the advantages that I feel there are to living in the north and some of the disadvantages. I would also hasten to point out that the advantages far override and overshadow the disadvantages.

I suppose one of the things that we all face today is the high cost of living, but we in the north feel it a little more so. I'll compare Vancouver to Prince Rupert where we pay 14 per cent more for food and shelter. Which is rather high. At the same time I point out to you that two progressive city councils in the north, Kitimat and Prince Rupert, commissioned the B.C. research people to do a study and find out why we paid more for our goods in Prince Rupert. I believe that other cities could follow the example many times of our cities in the north.

B.C. research, while doing their studies felt that two reasons were responsible for the high cost of living in the north. One, transportation costs and the other the lack of competition. I think that as we develop the north the competition will come, if there is indeed competition. We'd like to think so. But transportation is the key to much of our problems in regard to high costs.

I feel that we need expansion in both our rail and road systems throughout the north, but I believe we must do this with caution. I don't believe that we should develop only to develop, we should do it by an orderly and planned method. I believe that we have to get together with Ottawa, no matter which party is voted in the upcoming election.

I believe in the past there has been too much name calling. I believe that we will have to get together with these people and work out some cost sharing system where we can build in British Columbia.

[ Page 23 ]

The other form of transit rather than land transportation I'd like to refer to now is water transport. When I was going to school I was always taught that it was the most economical method of shipping. If you live in the north you'll wonder if that was true, what you were taught in school, because the people of the north pay heavily to have their goods brought in by water transport. I would like to mention that we also pay twice in the north because we pay heavy subsidies to the carriers that bring the goods to the north. So, in the north we not only pay for the transport in our taxes, we pay for it again in high cost of goods.

When we're doing that, I think it's rather silly. It would seem to me that in this province where we have the resources, we have the money, and we have the know-how that we could expand our ferry system to include a B.C. shipping system to the betterment of the people of the north and all of British Columbia.

The slogan that the New Democratic Party used while campaigning in the north during the last election was "northern development for people" and I believe that it's a slogan that not one of us can disagree with here today. We want expansion, we want development, but we don't want to do it if it's going to cost us in economical damage. We don't want to unnecessarily deplete our natural resources and again the ticket in my opinion is to see our development is orderly and planned and for the good of people.

One of the areas that I believe we have to look at is port development in the north. Only by putting in good ports — and there has been a good start in Prince Rupert by the Harbours Board, but, I feel that we have to pressure government to do more — the federal government that is.

Also, once we get the rail system and the port working together this will tend to bring down the price of even food, because railroads when they get a back haul can do it much more economically. We can only do that if we have goods coming in and out of British Columbia through our ports.

Another advantage I can see if we push for rail development in the north is that we can make it much more economical for our pulp mills in the north. We can get chips into our pulp mills and make the operations much more viable, and I believe that we have to do this sort of thing if we're going to survive in British Columbia, in the world markets.

I'm sure that I speak for the majority of northerners when I ask Hon. members to consider and think upon these requests that I bring to you from my people in the north.

We feel that in this province we should create a department of northern affairs. It's a big province. It's a long way from Victoria, and we feel that we do have special problems and we would like to have a special portfolio to look after the special problems.

We would also like to see a provincial department of fisheries. It's one of the largest resource industries in this province and we don't have any expertise up until now to look after this large industry, and to act as a buffer zone between the fishermen of this province and the Federal Department of Fisheries.

I believe it's a must not only for people in the north but for people in urban areas and people in the interior that we have a consumer affairs department, and not a corporate and consumer affairs. I don't think the two really go together.

I would say that after pointing out to you some of the disadvantages of living in the north that I would like to repeat again that the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.

It's a big beautiful land in the north. Recreationally, it's paradise in fishing, boating, hunting, hiking, and I would like to invite everyone to come up and meet with us. But, the most beautiful thing about the north are the people because there's a special kind of person that goes north. It's the more adventurous kind of person usually, to go and to stay. I would like to invite you all to come up and meet with most adventurous people left in North America, the last frontiersmen.

In closing I would like to read to you a paragraph I received two days ago. Before reading the paragraph I would like to explain about the person who wrote the letter. He thinks he's about ninety, because in the days

[ Page 24 ]

that he was born on an Indian reservation there weren't proper records kept sometimes and there wasn't in his case. Talking with other people, they also feel that he is about 90, but, no one is really sure. He's blind and he's been a supporter of our party for some time but I believe when he wrote this paragraph that he meant it for all of us here today.

He says: "May the session of the new government be crowned by success that would turn the tide and give a better destiny to the people of this great and wealthy province, and may the Great Spirit be with you, granting you guidance and much wisdom as you are doing your work for the good of others. I beg to be yours truly, William Freeman, pensioner". He sends that message to us all, I'm sure.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, speaking as the first speaker of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition may I congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on the elevation of your new and important duties in this House. I'm sure you will have no problems with the members of the official Opposition and I hope that the members of the government would take their example from this side of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bring his mike up and put it into action because I want everyone to hear what he just said.

MR. F.X. RICHTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know if you're going to get a repeat of that performance. I think that once is enough. But, I do want to say that I extend to you the congratulations of this group which I have the honour of speaking for at this time. And I want to particularly compliment the mover and seconder of the speech of His Honour and say that I think they did very well in their maiden speeches and we look forward to hearing more from them as time goes on.

I want to welcome one and all, all the new Members, and say to you I hope that you will be as fortunate as I was in the few years that I have been here since 1953 and be able to enjoy the experiences that you will find in this House which certainly enriches one's life — maybe not monetarily, but certainly as far as experience and the becoming well-acquainted with the various personalities that you will be acquainted with during your course, whether it's short or long, in this Legislature. I certainly have been very fortunate in this respect and I'm sure that others will be the same.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in a spirit of co-operation and assistance to the government, to expedite the work of the Legislature, I attempted to convey to this House the views of the official Opposition. Apparently, I believe, they were misunderstood to some degree or the full impact was not conveyed. And the position that the official Opposition are taking is, we feel, an experience earlier in this House in 1961 where the period of time for a throne debate was very substantially reduced.

We did have His Honour here and we respect him for that. Because I think this has the recognition now of the shortest throne speech in the history of Canada, probably within the Commonwealth as far as that's concerned. However, regardless of that matter — that is neither here nor there — but still in a spirit of co-operation, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that with unanimous consent of the House, that the matter, the question presently before the House at this time, be now voted on. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding, I don't want you to lose your seat in the debate. I would like to ask again as something happened yesterday that concerns me. Is the Hon. Member who just took his seat asking for leave?

[ Page 25 ]

Because no one has so far to my knowledge, asked me for leave. You're not asking me for leave?

MR. RICHTER: Not in the form of motion. I've asked leave of the House for it to be considered at this point.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, there's no point then. Would you proceed. I'm sorry, Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I, in my turn, congratulate you on your election to the position which you hold and wish you well in it. It is certainly, perhaps, one of the most difficult tasks of the House and we certainly appreciate the problems that you face, will face no doubt, from ourselves as well as other Members elsewhere in all corners of the House. May I extend my congratulations formally at this time to the leader of the government, the Premier, and congratulate him and his cabinet of Ministers on a good start, I feel, in their task of leading this province in the few years ahead.

While still on the question of congratulations, I believe the first two speakers of the day deserve my congratulations as well, for fine speeches from both of them. I'm sure, in particular with the first speaker, we will have many more speeches from ladies present here today. Or should I say "Ms.'s" present here today? I'm not sure what the correct term is at this stage, but it is "ladies" I am assured. And I wish her well, because I'm sure she'll do well.

Mr. Speaker, the subject of debate is the throne speech, and it is, as mentioned earlier, a speech which is difficult to comment on directly, in that very little was contained in it except a list of bills and the first paragraph was kind words of His Honour saying that it might be his last time before us and saying that he wished that we be kind to his successor.

The second paragraph dealt with the most unfortunate and regrettable death of two former Members of this House.

Firstly, I say that I am delighted we have the opportunity to raise pensions for senior citizens as was reported in an article in the Vancouver Sun newspaper, an article devoted to the Premier of the province. This was first proposed by the Hon. Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), the former leader of the Liberal Party and we are very happy that it has been taken up by the government.

However, in discussing the throne speech debate, I have no wish of course to go to the list of bills which we will be debating later, because most of these, I think, will be debated to some length. I would like, however, to say that we are disappointed that it does not contain more substance at this time. I say this, realizing the problem of a lack of time, realizing the special nature of this session, but it is true and it was stated many times by the now Premier of this province in criticism of the then Premier of the province that a session was not necessary to achieve this.

I think he was right then and I'm surprised that he has taken the time of the House, expense of the public, and delay, of course, to the senior citizens of this province, by adopting this method. It did not seem necessary to him prior to the recent election for a session to be called. I'm surprised that he regards it as necessary now. In which case, as there is no emergency session at this House — and indeed as the government itself has changed its tone and has ceased to call this an emergency session, and now calls it a special session, whatever precisely that is and whatever the special circumstances are, I'm not sure, nor do they define them — in which case, I feel it's correct and right for us at this time as representatives of the Opposition, the 60 per cent of the electorate who did not support the government, that we point out a number of things which we feel might well have been included within that bill.

Generally speaking, this party, myself and my colleagues here, agree that there are many items of social legislation which we can probably deal with and the sooner the better.

[ Page 26 ]

We feel that it is necessary for many changes to be made. Generally speaking we find it unfortunate that in the bills presented to us within that throne speech and the list of bills there is so much which is, Mr. Speaker, within the power of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, in other words, within the power of the cabinet and Premier.

We are disappointed, in that we thought, from the previous statements of the government, that there would be a new departure, that the Legislature would be used to put down and define what will be done and that enabling legislation simply giving power to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, in other words the Premier and his cabinet colleagues, would be,no longer the practice of the Province of British Columbia.

We regret that the previous practice has not only been followed but apparently has been followed with even more enthusiasm by this government than its predecessor.

We feel that at the same time in the first session of a legislative assembly, following the election of a new government, and I might add that it is the first session of a new government in 20 years, there's no need to repeat that. We've all heard that often enough. We are very disappointed that there is nothing within the throne speech which outlines the general thrust and trend of this government.

Now we realize in this day of electronic media and newspapers, television, radio, a Press conference is a fine way of getting one's views across. But we are here as elected representatives of the province of the people of British Columbia as has been stated by the first speaker this afternoon. I feel that as we are here on their behalf to discuss the public issues of the day, it was incumbent upon the government to list in much more detail what its intentions are and where it is going.

In other words, we have no criticism with the bills that are brought forward. We feel it's fine for them to be brought forward, but we feel it is wrong for the Premier and his government to make statements outside the House which affect the well-being or the economic climate of this province which may increase or reduce employment opportunity for British Columbians and then not within a reasonable time — in other words at the first opportunity within this House — give us all here an opportunity to debate what his intentions are, where he is going, and what he intends to do.

I would like for example, returning to the throne speech, and the question of pensions, to point out that, when first raised, the subject was raised in terms of a rapidly rising cost of living, rapidly increasing food costs in particular, and therefore it was necessary to raise pensions. An argument to which we can all subscribe.

After all, all parties in this House have recommended raising the pensions. Nevertheless, there are many areas dealing with food costs within the provincial jurisdiction which might well be considered by us at this time.

I'll give you a few examples. We have been told that the B.C. Hydro rates are to be increased for industrial consumers. We know full well that the net result of this, those of us who are realistic, will be that this will be passed on to the consumers who purchase British Columbia manufactured products, or anything of that nature. In other words the government by its statement has already indicated that it intends to have an increase in the cost of living forced upon the people of British Columbia by the government itself.

That, I feel, is something that we might well debate here in this session. If we are concerned with the cost of living of people in British Columbia.

Once again, I don't want to labour the point, but this province owns a railway and the new president of the railway I understand is with us today and we all, I am sure, were amused to read the news story that he started in a much more lowly capacity in that railway, and now winds up as the president.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 27 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Rapid promotion, right. Well I hope he has more luck in keeping his train on the rail than his predecessor did… (Laughter).

Nevertheless, the railway is owned by the people of British Columbia and in his capacity as the leader of the people, my good friend opposite me is president of that railway. And yet the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, the grain growers in the Peace River, have long complained about what they feel is the discriminatory and indeed the far too high rate for shipping grain from the Peace River down to the areas where the animals of the province are fattened up and then in turn sold to consumers in Victoria and Vancouver and other Lower Mainland centres.

Let me give you some examples of current rail rates in effect at the present time. Calgary to Abbotsford — now that's across the provincial boundary and it's Canadian Pacific — its 67¢. Dawson Creek to Abbotsford — the British Columbia Railroad — is 90¢; a substantial increase.

Now, this obviously means that on the one hand our farmers in the Peace River area are not receiving what they might otherwise receive. It means also that the cost of raising cattle and other animals in the Lower Mainland is greater than it otherwise would be. This indeed is a real boost to the cost of food in British Columbia, well within the provincial jurisdiction which we might well consider.

Now once again, those are just two examples which I can give.

We have the proposal of the Premier to raise the rate of taxation on corporations in this province from 10 to 13 per cent. And yet the Carter Commission Report, which is perhaps the world's most exhaustive study of tax rates, has pointed out that raising taxes of that nature on corporations will be passed on to the consumer. And so we can expect again British Columbia products, British Columbia industry, British Columbia consumers to pay a substantial extra burden of taxation and have their cost of living substantially increased as a direct result of the intentions of the Premier as expressed outside this House and which apparently we will have no opportunity of debating other than in this debate within this House.

I say it is unfortunate that in the general concern that we all share on cost of living, the government of the day has seen fit to so restrict discussion in this first "emergency", now "special", I hope regular, session of the House.

The final point I would like to mention is that marketing boards, most of which are within the competence of the provincial government, can have real effect upon the food costs for the housewife in this province. Many of the major increases in costs of food products are the result of marketing boards under provincial jurisdictions — egg marketing in particular. Not that I begrudge the chicken farmer, or the fellow selling eggs, the extra cost that he might get, but I do feel that if we are to discuss intelligently the cost of living for the nine out of 10 people who are not on pension we should have some legislation, some motion, or some opportunity from the government to debate these things.

That they have not done so it is a cause of considerable regret for me because, as I said, the purpose of calling us here together is unnecessary. We do not need to have a session of the Legislature to raise pensions, we do not need to be here for that purpose, it could have been done by the Premier quite some time ago, and yet it hasn't been.

The suggestion from next door is Order in Council, and it's my unfortunate belief this is the basis not only on which the previous but also the present government intends to operate. And it's an unfortunate thing because I don't think it's the way it should be done.

I brought up the question of cost. But there are other questions which I feel we should be discussing in this session, which are important ones. And that is the economy generally.

The rate of unemployment in the Province of British Columbia is not low. It's one of the highest in the country. I think it is something that we should remember when statements are made again outside the House and where opportunity for debate within the House is limited, that it is here — not at a press conference, not in front of a television camera, not in

[ Page 28 ]

the relaxed atmosphere of the Empress Hotel, or the Premier's office — that such statements should be examined, and examined carefully. They should be done by way, I think, of regular debate and not necessarily the device that we are attempting to use at this time — the throne speech debate.

There is no question that a careless, ill-thought-out statement by the Premier of the Province of British Columbia regarding nationalization of corporations which can be completely regulated by public utilities legislation is having a serious affect upon confidence in B.C.

I say "confidence", of course some people think of the money markets of New York and all that. Well, that's a bit irrelevant — what I'm thinking about are the employees of these corporations. We have had changes, changes of personnel in the province in the last two months which would indicate to some perhaps in a company threatened with nationalization that perhaps if they defend the companies' interest too strongly they'll be fired when the company is taken over. In other words, we've lead to uncertainty among the personnel of certain corporations in this province — uncertainty which I feel will only result in some of their better personnel taking jobs elsewhere and the efficiency of the corporation declining accordingly.

Similarly when it comes to raising money for major capital programmes, and some of these companies named by the Premier have major capital programmes in hand at this time, it's a bit difficult to think, or it's naive to assume, that their ability to raise money at the lowest possible rate of interest will not be affected by his statements. Indeed the only news about British Columbia in recent months in the Wall Street Journal happened to be those careless and ill-considered remarks that the Premier made regarding nationalization.

Not that I deny his right to talk about nationalization, he has won the majority of seats in this House, his party supports him. He has every right to talk about it and proceed about nationalization. We do not deny that, but what we do object to, and most strenuously, is carelessness, and in my view ignorance, when discussing economic matters which lead to the situation that I have described — in other words companies losing good personnel, companies forced to pay higher rates of interest because the risk capital is now more risky than it was before. In turn the cost to the consumers of British Columbia is being increased. In turn of course the efficiency of the company to give good service is declining.

So, we have a situation that exists there and I'm sure that it was not the Premier's intention. But if he continues in this way he will quickly find, of course that he will be depressing the value of the corporations that he ultimately intends to nationalize — depressing their value to the point where perhaps he can nationalize them for considerably less then they are worth, considerably less than they will be able to get them for if he proceeded directly with nationalization.

The situation might be different if we were talking about companies, of which there are far too many in British Columbia, promoting questionable mining stock on moose pastures in the interior. But we are not talking about that, we are talking about companies which are relatively blue-chip. So I think that it is regrettable that we have not seen in this session, we are not seeing in the material brought forward by the government, an opportunity for a full-scale debate upon the economy, for a full-scale debate upon the damaging effects to companies, to the small people who buy common shares as a hedge against inflation which has resulted from the Premier's remarks.

Continuing on the question of the economy. Let me finally on this state again we are not denying the right of the Premier to discuss this, we are not denying him the right of bringing in legislation. That obviously is his privilege. But we are saying that this is where it should be done and there are certain forms to be adopted, and there are certain ground rules to go through and the way he has proceeded so far has done nothing for the confidence of British Columbia, and has done nothing to create jobs for British Columbians now out of work, and has done nothing for the many

[ Page 29 ]

people of British Columbia who have bought common stocks in companies as a hedge against inflation which is hurting so many of us.

My Hon. friend from Prince Rupert listed earlier a number of things that he thought should be done by the government. Many of these of course are policies of our party as well. The Minister of Northern Affairs for example and things of that nature — more concerned with respect to northern transportation.

I am sure that despite his kindness and despite the honour that he felt in speaking on behalf of the government there was also the nagging feeling in his mind as well that it is a pity that many of the things that he has talked about to his constituents will not be discussed in this Legislature, at this session, nor indeed for a good number of months to come.

The enthusiasm or the desire to have a quick session dealing with very few bills — bills many of which are either not of an emergency nature, not of a special nature, or bills designed to achieve objectives which can be done in another manner — has again, I feel, deprived us of the opportunity of far more wide-ranging debates on the type of thing which he raised.

I would like to suggest, following again his comments about the need for a more co-operative government in this province — a need which an empty chair to my right persuades me I'm safe to talk about — there is definitely such a need and it might well have been a good idea for the Premier to have brought in at this session a government reorganizational bill which would not only have created those magic four extra places for the unfortunate new members of the New Democratic Party deprived of the opportunity of being considered for cabinet posts, but might in more real sense have created the opportunity of a Minister of intergovernmental affairs such as there is in Alberta or in Quebec which would have allowed for the type of co-operation which would have created the vehicle and the focal point for the type of co-operation that he talked about.

I do feel that the rush that we have gone into with this session — the unnecessary rush — has prevented that type of discussion and that type of legislation being prepared. No doubt it will come in due course. But in due course is often far too far in the future.

Similarly, I am disappointed that we are not going to get the opportunity. Despite years of talk by members of the government and indeed members of our own party as well and the Premier in particular, there is going to be no opportunity for consideration of rule changes of the House, some of which indeed have been promised to the people as party policy.

There is a bill for investigation and inquiry of the Speaker and we'll discuss the bill in due course. What I am talking about now is the fact that that bill might take a very long time to result in anything of real value.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Attorney General, I'm informed is out of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: He's always out of order. Always out of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Nevertheless, responding to his comment, it is I feel an unfortunate device to set up so many discussion groups, so many inquiries, so many studies by not only ministers but by departments as well and special outside consultants that there is no opportunity in the next few months for substantial changes in the form of government and the style of government this province has become used to.

AN HON. MEMBER: Short visit.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, any time the Attorney General wishes to comment I'm always delighted to hear it. They're not always to the point but they're always amusing. One other thing, one other area, where I feel I might suggest to the government that changes might be made — and here again I'm sure I'm going to receive unanimous applause from the back-

[ Page 30 ]

bench of the New Democratic caucus — is in the question of appointing so many assistants and executive assistants and people of that nature, of whom all ministers apparently need one — even Ministers without Portfolio.

It seems to me we have a certain amount of talent. I have no wish to exaggerate it of course, but it looks like fairly decent talent in the backbenches of the New Democratic Party. I would suggest to the Premier that instead of hiring a large group of outsiders — whether or not there are any political debts involved or not of course, is irrelevant — but instead of hiring such a large number of outsiders he might consider the proposal that I will put forward now and that is to name some of these gentlemen and ladies as parliamentary or legislative secretaries to the various Ministers that are sitting in front of me now.

Now I realize that there's always the prospect of these legislative secretaries showing up their bosses and that would be unfortunate. But if the old guard…

AN HON. MEMBER: Anticipation!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But if the old guard of the New Democratic Party can stand a little competition from some of their newer lights I suggest that the Province of British Columbia might save a great deal of money by such a practice. Hiring people at $13,000 or $16,000 is all well and good, but perhaps there are people here being paid substantial amounts as Members of the Legislative assembly who feel their talents are under-utilized sitting perhaps somewhere down there — I'll point to no one in particular — or somewhere behind me here. They might feel that they could be of considerable assistance to, for example, the Minister of Education who sits opposite me now.

There are people within your own ranks, people with experience and education. There are within your own ranks people with experience in your own field of social work. Why not use these people? Allow them some opportunity to take part in the activities of the department and cut back on this excessive hiring of outside people to assist the Ministers.

Again, I repeat, I warn you that it's a double-edged sword and it might be that some of the old guard will find themselves in difficulty with their subordinates. But that's a risk which we're quite prepared to take on this side of the House and I'm sure that the cabinet itself won't find it too difficult.

Well, Sir, I have been speaking at some length about what we would like to see done and why we feel that the Speech from the Throne is inadequate. It's a honeymoon session of the House for this government. We don't wish to come down hard on them. We realize that many of the mistakes that I have outlined to the Premier are the mistakes of a man who has only been in the job two months, less than two months.

AN HON. MEMBER: One month.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: One month, yes it did take far too long to hand over power.

Nevertheless, we do feel there is an opportunity here for them to rectify their mistakes, to come forward with not only social legislation to which all parties in the House are more or less in agreement.

But there is an opportunity for them to radically change the style of government in the Province of British Columbia. And unfortunately, from what we have seen so far and from a quick reading of the bills presented yesterday, the government seems unwilling to do this.

There is far too much reliance upon regulations drawn up by civil servants and approved by cabinet without the opportunity of this Legislature having its comments recorded or this Legislature perhaps suggesting good modifications. Naturally, of course, the Premier has as he said he admired his predecessor very much and has learned a great deal from him but I fear perhaps he's learned too much. I fear perhaps he's learned too much of the style of government, which is not what I must say I expected from the campaign waged by the New Democratic Party at the last election.

[ Page 31 ]

I feel there is an opportunity for some fairly quick changes. I feel there is an opportunity for him to take steps to create the open government that he has talked about. I think there is an opportunity for him to change the conduct of this House substantially. But so far and I'm disappointed, we have seen none of this. We have seen only legislation which contains some very questionable things which we will be discussing later in this session. We have seen a failure of the government to bring forward its intentions in terms of the economy. We have seen a failure of the government to bring forward solid, reliable information which might effect the opportunity of people in this province to earn their living by way of employment in the regular way.

We have found in fact the government has let a climate of uncertainty develop which we find most unfortunate. Therefore, before I resume my seat with my comments on this Speech from the Throne, may I simply call upon the Premier and call upon his cabinet to cease and desist from issuing pronouncements by way of Press conferences and start using this Legislature as it should be used — as the forum of debate and the forum for the people of the province to discuss what he actually has in mind. To do this, of course, he will have to define what he does have in mind and perhaps the sooner he does that the better.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to have the honour of being re-elected to this House, particularly since there were certain authorities in the province who had strong convictions that this would never happen. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened to your colleague.

MR. WALLACE: The score, Mr. Speaker, is still somewhere around 36-12 but there seems to have been some fairly drastic reversal of positions. And while my party has not increased its numbers at least I've got a seat at the front which I didn't have before.

Mr. Speaker, I do wish to extend congratulations to the Premier on his victory. I do wish sincerely that he has tremendous success. I always admired the Premier as a member of the Opposition for his strong defence of democratic ideas. I'm not saying socialist democratic ideas — I'm just saying democratic ideas — in that he regarded this forum in much the light that the Leader of the Liberal Party has obviously outlined. And he was always promising that if elected he would give an open style of government where the individual would have readier and most consistent access to the elected members and to the Ministers and indeed to the Premier. He who promised to reply to letters — which I'm sure he's been doing, but I have not written any yet. And look forward to the Premier implementing these much-needed reforms.

I think I would also add my respects and welcome to the official leader of the Opposition, and here it gets confusing. I don't know if I'm talking about the house leader or the party leader, but I refer to the Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett). He is looking fit and rested and I look forward to his promise of playing a constructive role in this chamber. He indeed was right down the slot, as the slang expression has it, when he said that the Socialist hordes were at the gate. I feel gratified, Mr. Speaker, despite their obvious strength they did fail to pierce the tweed curtain. (Laughter).

I'm really pleased that the faithful in Oak Bay will not be exposed to all the perils of ranting socialism. (Laughter). Oh, don't make me choke when I'm trying to think.

I'm also very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the hordes didn't get through the gate in Saanich and the Islands and I would welcome with warmest of feelings my colleague from Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis). I feel certain that he will contribute wisely and in great measure to this chamber and indeed to the province as a whole.

[ Page 32 ]

I would also like to welcome the new leader of the Liberal Party and to say that although he is probably commenting on the small size of the chamber compared to Ottawa, I think we do try very hard to make up in quality what we lack in quantity. With respect I wish him well despite the fact that his party did lose 3 per cent of their popular vote.

I do feel that on August 30 the people of this province spoke very clearly and I respect their opinions, but certainly they have no taste for Liberal politics, and somehow or other, I feel convinced that we will get even more definitive evidence on October 30.

I would also like to welcome all the new members to the House. I think that after sitting in a House with the original disciples of the N.D.P., I find it exciting to see so many new eager faces around me and for those who are seated on this side of the House, I hope they won't get that lost feeling which I used to have at times when I sat in the rather uncomfortable chair now occupied by the Hon. Member for Delta (Mr. Liden).

AN HON. MEMBER: Hope he won't make the same mistakes you made.

MR. WALLACE: Well we all make mistakes, my friend. You made your share. (Laughter).

I would wish to add my personal expression at the passing of Harold Merilees and Dudley Little. These were men who believed in their cause and I feel that they contributed greatly to this House and they are men whose courage we must try to emulate. I've already said that the people of the province spoke on August 30, and we as an opposition party, as I have said many times, respect the same kind of democratic ideas and the system of government that the Premier has often spoken of in this House. We are not here, Mr. Speaker, to oppose simply for the sake of opposing. Where the legislation brought forward is sound and sensible and is a genuine attempt to meet the needs of society today, such legislation will have our ready support.

With the largest increase in the popular vote and at last getting into this House legally as a Conservative by election, I would like to outline some of the basic concepts which will guide our actions and our policies during the proceedings in the House.

We believe very strongly, Mr. Speaker, in the wisdom and strength of the independent sector — that is, the segment of our society which is free from government control or influence.

In the commercial area we believe in a free market economy and in the profit motive, and for this we make no apology. In the non-commercial area we believe in a lot of individuals and their voluntary associations, the freedom to determine their destiny, providing only that their actions or inactions do not injure the freedom of others. Based upon our belief in the independent, it naturally follows that government must be restricted in its growth, allowing it to intrude only in those areas where individual action or group action is obviously deficient.

Legislation by order in council or regulation is as abhorrent to us in a democratic system as it is to the other parties which have spoken in the House. In the hastily-prepared bills presented to this assembly we will find an unnecessary allotment of jurisdiction to the government which truly usurps the traditional jurisdiction to the House.

Thirdly, the role of government should not be as master but as servant. A government must direct its efforts to creating opportunities which allow individuals and their groups fulfilment through their own efforts.

We unashamedly endorse the philosophy of incentives, that is the creation of circumstances by government which encourages the individual or the groups to better themselves by their own personal efforts.

Fourthly we believe very strongly in direct government assistance to those who cannot help themselves. The handicapped, senior citizens, and the unemployed have a right to expect our communities as represented by government, to provide meaningful assistance.

It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that in this session and at other times we will come in direct conflict with the philosophies of the government. We

[ Page 33 ]

will, however, strive to offer constructive criticism and to keep our discussions and debate on a plane of dignity and courtesy and it certainly has been my hope since the election results that this indeed would be one of the major forms of progress in the legislative process in this province.

This is when I get to my "however", if the Hon. Member from Peace River (Mr. Smith) would wake up. Oop…sorry!

The new government has been in power just over a month, Mr. Speaker, and already we would have to comment on some of the mistakes which have been made. There has been quite a flow of statements, some of them official, some of them unofficial and some of them in-between, but, the Premier despite, his strong belief in the concept that the Premier should not also be Minister of Finance, has done exactly that which he criticized of the former premier. I'm well aware that the Constitution Act allows only for 14 Ministers, but…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Well, we may get around to that too…

You're all the way ahead of me today, if you'd just let me…

AN HON. MEMBER: What's new?

MR. WALLACE: …but by his own example he has created double portfolios and therefore it really is not valid to suggest that he had no choice, as it were, but to take on the portfolio of the Minister of Finance.

He himself frequently said that this meant the concentration of too much power in the hands of one man in a democratic system. We would feel that it is our obligation as an opposition party to point out this particular action of the Premier.

Now that action is unsettling in itself, but we are deeply concerned about some of the public pronouncements made at Press conferences regarding the take-over of major business enterprises at an unspecified date. This creates serious unrest in the business community, but it also does very considerable harm to investors and many of them are people of modest means who have attempted to invest wisely and have savings in the later years so that they will not in fact be dependent on government assistance, in one form or another.

The results of these premature announcements regarding takeover are not dissimilar from the results of the activity of the B.C. Power Commission in the late 40's when it endeavoured to reduce the price of the Nanaimo-Duncan Utilities Company.

Mr. Justice Wilson, I would like to quote, in the B.C. Court of Appeals stated "Thus the intention to expropriate is to be used as a weapon to lower the cost to the expropriator". I repeat this is unconscionable and as we well know, to take B.C. Telephone as an example, the statement has resulted in the drop in price or something like 65 or 55 — or within these ball park figures anyway.

Many of the measures, Mr. Speaker, which the government is to bring forward at this session we will support. We would agree with some of the comments already made, but others have obviously been prepared in haste and are somewhat inadequate for their intention.

I would also have to echo comments already made that the more one looks at the throne speech, the more one has to wonder why there was a need for a so-called emergency session. We would certainly like to hope that we are not here essentially for the political advantage of the socialist party nationally.

I would like to look, Mr. Speaker, a little more closely at the reasons given by the Government for this emergency session. The party that now constitutes the Government ran for election on several very basic issues which were repeated time and time again. These issues were unemployment, inflation, and the needs of the senior citizens and the handicapped persons. It was my understanding, again from the various statements publicly in the Press, that this session was called primarily to pass legislation that would implement election promises.

[ Page 34 ]

Yet what do we find? If we think of unemployment, it is not mentioned in the throne speech and there are no recommendations whatever dealing with the creation of jobs.

As recently as a week ago, the newspaper of October 10, it was revealed that in September of this year we had 61,000 unemployed in British Columbia, which is 6.6 per cent of the labour force compared with 5.5 one year previously, and I would think that such a tragic jump in unemployment with all its attendant human misery and suffering would indeed justify an emergency session of this legislature. But if you look at the throne speech there is not a word mentioning unemployment or jobs, despite the fact that the government ran for power and was elected, making that one of the primary issues.

Again, about a week ago, on the same date or October 11, the newspapers reported that the cost-of-living index had continued to spiral with the price of food up 10.2 per cent over September of 1971 and a substantial increase in the price of clothing.

There can be few items in the cost-of-living picture that are more important than food and clothing, and I wonder what use there is in providing increased supplements to citizens, if the increases are to be rapidly swallowed up by the effects of inflation.

I think we are all agreed that the fundamentals of the cost of living are indeed food, clothing and shelter. Again, to look at the throne speech closely, there is nothing which will deal with these problems to any measurable or adequate degree. In fact, if you look at the throne speech — while we cannot debate the bills at this time — one could really conclude that the intended actions of the Government will be in the opposite direction.

There is a real possibility that there will be unemployment for unskilled persons and that the price of consumer goods will continue to rise.

As for the cost of shelter the throne speech completely ignores this aspect of the cost of living, and I would think that any serious attempt to deal with this constructively should have meant a revised landlord and tenant Act, so that any increase in income supplements provided by this government will not immediately be taken up by rent increases.

I am very pleased to see the Premier nodding and hope that this means we can look forward to this kind of legislation, but I must return to the question of the senior citizens which was also a big issue. I think the most tragic irony of the whole throne speech lies in the fact that the Government fails completely to give any assistance to the large segments of senior citizens who perhaps are the most deserving of any senior citizen, and I'm talking about the patients in private nursing homes and private hospitals, and those receiving chronic care who presently do not qualify under the acute care, or extended care legislation.

We have somewhere in round figures 5,000 such persons and there is every reason, as I know from direct experience, to be sure that there are perhaps another 5,000 that should be receiving this kind of care but cannot do so for reasons of lack of facilities, and lack of money.

The throne speech offers no help in this regard and yet the reason I use the strong phrase "tragic irony", is I find that in the throne speech while it doesn't say very much about senior citizens it certainly says something very clearly in this sentence: "Without their energy, dedication and commitment to the province in its early days none of us would be in a position to enjoy a great province as much as we do today."

With this, I agree entirely, but what about these 5,000 people? The picture, if I have to make it more plain, I think is some of the most pitiful misery that I see in my whole practice as a physician. The elderly couples — finally one of them has to go into a nursing home, so first of all they parted in terms of their marriage. The next thing that happens is that the spouse who is well, or relatively well, has to sell the family home to pay for the care of his wife and finally he has to go on welfare to cope with the costs which is certainly no exaggeration to say average $400 to $500 a month.

[ Page 35 ]

As my friend on my right says, they often both end up on welfare, and pitifully too often separate facilities, not even able to spend their last days in the same residence, or the same building.

I would appeal, Mr. Speaker, to the government that perhaps this was an oversight — I am prepared to be charitable and consider that in the haste in preparing the legislation and the speed with so many things have had to be done. I would hope that this is a matter which will still be attended to during this present session of the House.

Other statutes that are to be brought in this session — which again we cannot debate at this point — and I am thinking particularly of the discussion on tobacco and liquor advertising, I really see nothing urgent in this kind of legislation. Particularly when a regular session is only three months away, I feel that the Government might have shown some more temperance and judicial consideration after the first flush of victory without rushing into such a so-called session where much of the legislation really does not justify the calling of a session and indeed the expense — which must be a public item of some amount which we will know later on.

I am also dismayed by some of the proceedings of this House yesterday, when a serious attempt was made to obtain some of the reforms now which I think we are all agreed upon. I'm not nitpicking or splitting hairs. I'm just saying, Mr. Speaker, that there are certain reforms which I think in large measure this whole House must be in favour of, and when we are all early in the session I think we are in a co-operative mood. I am certainly speaking for the small Conservative Party, when I say we are in a co-operative mood.

Such matters as the setting up of a question period surely in my reading of the situation could easily have been done by unanimous leave of the House, just changing the rules by unanimous consent of the House.

I'm no student of the rules but it seems to me that this is something we could have done.

There are other issues, I think it is ridiculous in this day and age that we have the farce of the public not even being able to put their arms on the front row around the galleries and their not being able to take notes, and their not being able to do some of the simplest reasonable things which I think we could change very quickly.

AN HON. MEMBER: How are you going to change over?

MR. WALLACE: By Order in Council.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Well, if you can change that, Mr. Speaker, how come it's so difficult to get a question period? There are some things that are apparently very easy to change by the whim of the man in power, and there are other things which take the most complicated procedural angles in this House.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I think that something as simple as the question period which was raised yesterday — perhaps if they're so keen to interject, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Premier could tell me if indeed it could have been done in the method I am suggesting.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It could have been.

MR. WALLACE: It could have been? Well that's fine — you've answered the question. But anyway I don't want you to become acrimonious. I just feel that if this is an emergency session and there are so many reforms which we are all in favour of and we're all eager to get at it. I don't know that we need such a detailed bill to spell out a whole lot of proposed research before we do some of the simpler things such as the question period

[ Page 36 ]

and the unedited Hansard I would assume, and the creation of an auditor general. Does this require a tremendous amount of research? I don't know, I'm just expressing an opinion.

But at any rate, Mr. Speaker, no one wants long speeches today. And in closing I just wanted to say that where the socialists are negligent in meeting urgent needs such as the ones I've outlined in terms of the elderly citizens in nursing homes, we will never cease to criticize and we will never cease to bring the matter to the House.

And above all we plan to oppose the intrusion of government into the affairs of individuals where we deem it quite unnecessary. We plan at all times to uphold and reinforce the rights and freedoms of the individual in the face of any attempt at dictation and domination by the state.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there any further debate on the motion? I recognize the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I rise. I wonder if the Premier would consider an adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House so we can get on with some legislation this afternoon? I'd be prepared to move that adjournment if the Premier would accept it.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the Honourable Member taking the floor in this debate?

MR. McGEER: It was really a question by leave of the House if I may, Mr. Speaker, enquire what the Premier's…

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order that I can recognize on this particular question, Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Well, I thought that the government having so little to say might be prepared to carry on with legislation this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, we have ahead of us now a debate that has priority over all other business, except introduction of bills…

MR. McGEER: I am asking the Premier if he would accept an adjournment if I made it. As a matter of faith between Members of the House, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I must call the Honourable Member to order. Would he kindly take his seat or would he continue on the motion before the House?

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I've not been left much choice by the Premier and I will carry on with this particular debate. I'm disappointed, may I say, Mr. Speaker, at the manner in which the new Premier is conducting the House because he commenced with the good will of Members on all sides. We are anxious to bring about reform, we were anxious to get on with the business of the House, and it's rather disappointing that we don't get open co-operation from the Premier in rather simple matters such as I've raised this afternoon.

The reason why I proposed an adjournment, of course, was to give the Government an opportunity to introduce the legislation in a fuller way this afternoon by bringing bills forward and having the Ministers announce their intention to…

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! order please! Is the Honourable Member speaking on the motion before the House? You are taking your part in the debate on the throne speech?

MR. McGEER: That's correct Mr. Speaker, that's what I said…

[ Page 37 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Would you kindly confine yourself to that debate.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, could we bring that Member to order please?

MR. SPEAKER: You know, Hon. Members, that the Chair is always at the disposal of the Whips and I have no lists in front of me. I must recognize the Members as they take their place in this debate. I hope that the Whips will get together in the future.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, getting more directly to the motion before us may I first congratulate you, Sir, on your election to the chair. And I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that a matter of relief to you will be the fact that you will not have to face the former member from Burnaby-Edmonds who took that post in the last Session of Parliament. But we certainly wish you well, we look forward to reforms in the House if and when they come.

I next would like to congratulate the mover and the seconder today, as new Members, but people who obviously know a great deal about the life of British Columbia — particularly the Second Member from Vancouver-South (Mrs. Webster) whose husband once sat as Leader of the opposition in our Legislature. Her remarks were a very warming reminder of the valiant struggle of the socialists in this province before the time of power. And now of course a completely new chapter is going to be written and it's up to the Premier and his new Government to let us know whether that promise will be fulfilled, or will be a great disappointment.

The seconder again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate for a very worthwhile description for us of the problems of northern British Columbia. And I suppose if there were one caution to put forward with regard to his remarks it's that the north of British Columbia requires development. That means boldness and initiative. Not just on the part of government, but on the part of the private sector. And as far as the northern part of British Columbia is concerned it has really been private development that has done so much to further it, with government in most ways being the junior partner in those ventures.

I would have hoped, Mr. Speaker, that many of the Members today would have been anxious when the opportunity arose to take their place in this debate. Because life in the Legislature is short and we have a record number of 28 new Members in our Legislature now.

I've been very fortunate, Mr. Speaker, in having served for 10 sessions in our Legislature. And as I look around me today I recognize only seven faces who were here when I first entered the Legislature. I think that that's testimony that life is short, particularly in the Legislature, and that Members must seize every opportunity to make their ideas known, and to present them as forcefully as possible.

And of course Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party, and before them the C.C.F., were noted for having private Members with a great deal of initiative. There was never any party discipline there. And so, if you are to carry on with the tradition of your party, of course you won't be bound in any way by the discipline that characterized a former government that now sits in the Opposition. So feel free to vote with us on this side of the House and remember that that has been your party tradition.

Mr. Speaker, on a rather sad note two of the private Members of this House who did distinguish themselves by rugged independence and by outstanding contributions, have passed away in the last few weeks. I refer of course to Mr. Harold Merilees, and Mr. Dudley Little who not only were valuable politicians but great and courageous men. And I think it should go on the record what they did for this province and for our new Members even though they didn't sit here and watch them in action.

They were backbenchers to emulate and there was never any hesitation on the part of those members of standing up and speaking their minds and voting accordingly.

[ Page 38 ]

Mr. Speaker I disagree with the view presented by the House Leader for the Opposition (Mr. Richter) because as the Leader of the Liberal Party has pointed out there really was no need for this special session as far as the legislation itself is concerned. The legislation is really light, it's minor. Most of it could have been done by regulation. Therefore the reason why we are here today must be so that each of you as new Members of the Legislature can have the opportunity of putting forward your views. Let the cabinet Ministers know in public what you think. You know, if you have the caucus sessions behind closed doors you're not supposed to say what happens. But here you can put on record for your constituents, and for the people of British Columbia the kind of stuff that the members that have been elected as socialists here in British Columbia, the kind of stuff they're made of. And so this is your opportunity, and that's really why the session is here. For you to speak in this throne debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Four vacancies are coming up in the cabinet. They won't.

MR. McGEER: Now, Mr. Speaker, there's another important reason too. And that's for some of the cabinet Ministers…

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are they?

MR. McGEER: …to let the public know what they intend to do, and it's rather strange, Mr. Speaker, that the cabinet has left the chamber. They've had to have a little caucus meeting to figure out what they're going to do this afternoon. And that really isn't the way to prepare for a session. Each of the cabinet Ministers, Mr. Speaker, individually should be standing up and taking part in this debate, and letting the backbenchers know, the Opposition know, and the public of British Columbia know in a formal way where we're going to be going in the next few weeks. The fact that they sit so silently, not even wanting to discuss their own legislation is testimony to extremely poor preparation.

The Premier, Mr. Speaker, could easily have said he would grant an adjournment, instruct the cabinet Ministers to bring forward their legislation and for each of these bills we could have been given the intent of the legislation. An adjournment could have been taken by the Opposition to bring back the criticisms and the recommendations for improvement. But we really haven't had that. What we've had is some confusion and a little bit of vindictiveness I might say, Mr. Speaker, that very much disappoints me.

But the cabinet Ministers still have their opportunity, Mr. Speaker. I hope tomorrow that they will seize that opportunity. Not to discuss the rather trivial legislation that they've brought before us but to give us in a major way what their intentions are in the coming months and therefore what kind of direction we may expect from the government over all.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as far as the Opposition is concerned, and I really think the public of British Columbia as well is a very major issue during this session must be the conduct of the new Premier himself. Again, I'm disappointed that he's not in the chamber. Just as I'm disappointed that the Leader of the opposition is not in the chamber. I would like to tell the backbenchers that this is unusual — unfortunately it isn't. And I only hope that when you have your opportunity to speak in this debate you'll have the careful attention of the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition. I know the Premier is new in his job…

AN HON. MEMBER: Used to spend all the time on the hot line…you know…

MR. McGEER: I know the Premier is new in his job…

AN HON. MEMBER: Be honest now, tell the truth. Tell all the truth.

[ Page 39 ]

MR. McGEER: Could you please bring that Member to order, Mr. Speaker? You did it very well yesterday afternoon and if you could continue on in that tradition I'd be grateful.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Several times, Mr. Speaker, the Premier has referred to the Leader of the Opposition as "the Premier". He's had difficulty getting it straight that he is the Premier himself.

One of the characteristics of the man who must assume the most important job in British Columbia is that he speak with care, with intelligence and deliberation. And perhaps, it is difficult, Mr. Speaker, for someone who has spoken carelessly for so many years as Leader of the Opposition to become accustomed in just a few weeks time to the heavy responsibilities of office.

But, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that a considerable amount of damage has already been done during this learning period. And I would recommend to the Premier that he conduct himself with a great deal more care in the weeks that lie ahead. But I'm not sure, Mr. Speaker, that what's required here is just to get used to being in the saddle. Because there are some philosophical problems underlying many of the new Premier's statements and which could lead to difficulties and conflicts in the Province of British Columbia in the days and years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind some of those who are here today what some of those statements were and why they caused problems. No one could have entered the Premier's chair with more good will than the present leader of the government. He received a resounding mandate from the voters. It was felt that after 20 years a breath of fresh air would blow through government. But the first thing, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier said was that he didn't believe in booms. Well and good. Booms are bad but only because they lead to depressions. But the Premier didn't quite put it in that context.

The second statement was that he believed in going slow on growth. Mr. Speaker, I'd like the Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) to consider very carefully the implications of that remark and the same for the Member from Omineca (Mr. Kelly) and the Member from Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler). "Go slow on growth, " said the Premier. Fine. Except that the unemployment in this province is up several thousand from last year. The heritage of the party that is now the opposition was an unemployment rate that was double what it was when they took office. By the time you get to 70 or 80,000 unemployed, Mr. Speaker, you're carrying a heavy economic burden. But the unemployed simply are not statistics. Everyone is a human tragedy. And so

[ Page 40 ]

when you say "go slow on growth" what you're really doing is encouraging the total of human tragedy in the province.

Next, Mr. Speaker, the Premier promised higher taxes. Not because there were any statements from him as Minister of Finance that the treasury was depleted. Indeed as Minister of Finance the Premier said there was lots of money. The throne speech says we're a wealthy province. So the higher taxes weren't due to a shortage of money. Mr. Speaker, the higher taxes smacked of vengeance taxation. Mr. Speaker, that's why I think there should be an unqualified withdrawal from the Premier because we neither need nor want vengeance taxation in British Columbia. It will be too hurtful to the provisions of jobs. And, Mr. Speaker, no one should know more clearly than the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) the problems that develop when unemployment is high and is rising.

We're going to have higher unemployment in British Columbia this winter. And even if the Premier does all the right things, makes all the right statements, it's hard enough in times like this to give anywhere near an adequate total measure of employment in the province.

Then he urged the province to conserve electricity. Throwing us in the dark. Which is alright if there really is an electricity shortage. But since there isn't, but only a need for the Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. Mr. Williams) to lay down a clear energy policy. This statement could hardly have been intended to encourage employment and development in the province.

And lastly, Mr. Speaker, he made it quite clear that the government intends at some undefined time in the future to take over private industry in the province.

It did depress the market. I don't totally agree with my colleagues on the Opposition side in saying that the consequences of that were most important as far as harming little investors are concerned. That isn't the real problem. The real problem, Mr. Speaker, is that the stock market is an indicator of the degree of confidence that people have in the growth and potential of this province. And when destructive statements are made by the leader of a government and they are reflected in this way the danger does not lie in the value of the stock. It indicates the underlined psychology of development in the province.

What that drop in the stock market said, and everybody should understand it, is that the people who have been responsible for building growth in this province and who must be the ones to take the initiative for development and employment in the future are saying: "We don't wait to play the game in British Columbia because of the government that is in power". It's going to hurt the working man of the province because he doesn't create the jobs — he only works at them when they're available. And you take away the development and you take away the working man's job.

I think that there are some words that need to be said not just about the conduct of the Premier, who has really been like a small boy sent in to a big job and discovering for the first time in his life that there's a tremendous amount of money available and the best thing to do is to spend it first and think about where it came from second. But there are some things that other cabinet Ministers have had to say already that have had a rather damaging effect.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: No, on the problem of jobs, Mr. Attorney General I'm addressing you as the Attorney General and not as the Minister of Industrial Development because there has been no programme of industrial development in this session nor will there be one. Mr. Speaker, for practical purposes we are without a Minister of Industrial Development in British Columbia. I refer to the Minister of Social Rehabilitation, because the former one — and, Mr. Speaker, we all know his faults.

[ Page 41 ]

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: I'm talking about social rehabilitation; we'll get to the Minister of Industrial Development later.

But one of the things you know that the former Minister did was to work…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: No, no. I'm not talking about him. I can't find words of praise there. (Laughter).

Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen did provide jobs in British Columbia, it did provide jobs. And when the new minister took office his first act was to can it…

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Welfare): My second act…

MR. McGEER: His second act, he says. Well I won't make inquiries about the first one then. But he canned it. Mr. Speaker, I think it was the Premier who was the one most vociferously to call for getting rid of that particular alliance. But not even did this Minister visit the premises nor did he ask for any kind of report, nor did he give to the public of British Columbia any indication of how many jobs had been provided by that organization. All he did was get rid of it and leave the unemployed with a little less to help them in the way of getting ahead in British Columbia.

Again, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Social Rehabilitation has closed down the Willingdon School. In doing so he asked that it not become a matter of public debate. But surely it must become a matter of public debate, because the Minister has given no indication at the time he closed that institution down how we are to care for these people. And everyone knows — and the present Premier was one of the first to draw attention to this in the Legislature — that every facility of an alternative kind in British Columbia has a long waiting list.

Some of these are two and three times the length of people that can be looked after. And those who are trying to place delinquents and people with mental illness in that age group in British Columbia are finding that there is no place at all to send them. And all the Minister has done is to make that problem more acute.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, I don't have too much praise for the previous Minister of Industrial Development. He was the one — I forget which member of the then opposition stood up and said that…was it the present Attorney General? — he said the Minister didn't understand what was in the report he just presented to the Speaker. And the Minister of Industrial Development yelled across the floor and said: "You wouldn't understand it either".

They were both right and that's a difficulty, Mr. Speaker. Because we have no industrial development programme, at least the man who's presently Leader of the Opposition began to understand after we had hammered away for 10 straight sessions on the need for industrial incentives in British Columbia to provide jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. McGEER: His death bed repentance was to say he would hold a special session of the Legislature to introduce legislation for incentives for secondary industry in British Columbia. And when we have 61,000 unemployed in this province nothing could have higher priority than that.

Nothing is being done by the present Minister who is the Attorney General, but who is not the Minister of Industrial Development because he has no programme. Once more that key portfolio in British Columbia remains leaderless.

[ Page 42 ]

Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed too in the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) because she was the one who stood up every single year and asked for the Perry Report to be released. We all agreed and so what happened; the Minister took office, read the Perry Report and decided she wouldn't release it either.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: Well what's the trouble with the Perry Report? What's in it that would make every government want to hide it away on the shelf? I suggest the trouble with it, Mr. Speaker, was that it suggested that we ought to have a decent programme of higher education in British Columbia and maybe that isn't one of the priority items of the present Minister of Education.

The Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. Mr. Williams), Mr. Speaker, has done a little bit of wrecking in British Columbia too. He dissolved the Energy Board.

HON. R. A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): They dissolved themselves.

MR. McGEER: But it was your responsibility, Mr. Minister, to appoint brilliant new people to that Energy Board and give them terms of reference. Instead you let it go and probably went along with what the Premier said in saying he had a personal hang-up about nuclear power. Well I think that's too bad, Mr. Speaker, because one of the characteristics of the former government was that it had hang-ups about energy and kept inserting politics into what should have been straight commonsense decision making.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you read the…?

MR. McGEER: You didn't send me a copy. I understand that and the truth of it is that I have not read the 10 volumes but I have taken a fair perusal of it and will be having a great deal more to say about energy in the future.

For the moment, Mr. Speaker, I only want to make it very clear that the Minister of Lands and Forests has not had a positive policy like many of the other Ministers. His policies to date have been negative. You see what we have with this new government. Consistently, everywhere we look we have good social legislation, and we expected that. Because the Opposition, the official Opposition had talked about that for years and years.

But they weren't the only opposition in the House. And there were some people, and they were on the Liberal benches, who were talking about the need for good social legislation but the need for good economic policy too. And what we've done is to bring forward the social legislation but to give every indication that a wrecking bar is being taken to the economy.

I say with the greatest seriousness, Mr. Speaker, that the greatest contribution that the backbenchers of this government could make, would be to bring forward at this session the kind of common sense that so far has been lacking on the part of a good many Ministers.

I'm sorry that the Minister of Labour has left, because again we expected from him some common sense, some restraint. He is a veteran Member of the House, a union man, a good speaker as I recall, although he hasn't had much to say in the present session.

Yesterday, he introduced a bill, or it was introduced for him as a message from the Lieutenant-Governor, dissolving the mediation commission. I don't intend, Mr. Speaker, to discuss that bill, because we will have an opportunity to do so, but what was done was done with no prior consultation of the people who were affected by having their jobs cut off. They learned about it by watching television, which was discourteous and bad judgment. But secondly something of this kind should never have been done without at least getting reports and advice from the mediation commissioners themselves on what might be the best course of action.

[ Page 43 ]

I'm not discussing the bill itself, Mr. Speaker, with due respect I know that you have been hearing some chatter on the far side of the House. I'm not discussing the content of the bill itself. I'm merely discussing the wisdom of the way the Minister of Labour introduced it, because there are certain things that you do before you bring legislation down on the floor of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member must not discuss matters which will be coming up under the bill.

MR. McGEER: I was trying to make clear that that's what I won't do, Mr. Speaker. I'm very careful to observe the rules. The Members on the other side of the House may laugh, but they will know that I am the most orderly member.

AN HON. MEMBER.: He's never been named (Laughter).

MR. McGEER: I've never been named, and I don't intend to start.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier gave one indication of the poor preparation he has made for this session by placing us in violation of the rules, intending not to establish committees at all during this session of the Legislature, and that after all of the speeches we heard, not just from the present Premier, but all the cabinet Ministers. Surely, you remember those speeches about how the committees never worked, and how important it was to have committees. Then you call us all together for a session and don't even go through the motions of setting up a committee to establish committees.

That's a very acute disappointment to me, Mr. Speaker, that we would have to force the government to establish committees of the House. It shows how quickly things change when you move from this side of the House. I don't know what happens when people move across this aisle. You seem to suffer total amnesia.

Oh, make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, the day will come when both sides of the House will be filled with Liberals. I can remember the story of a former government, Mr. Speaker, when everyone in the House belonged to one party, it wasn't a socialist party, and there was just one socialist member in the House. No, there was one. This socialist member had to leave the chambers and go to the gentlemen's room and he made the comment to the Press when he went: "Every time I leave this room those guys are in caucus".

That day is coming, Mr. Speaker, and fortunately we have got a great deal of patience, although I think the present Premier by his actions is making that day seem a great deal closer.

One of the most valuable ways in which a legislature can flower, and where the people — and there are so many in this back bench group — will have the opportunity to make an important contribution, not just stand there wheedling a Minister or the Premier to please do something for your constituency, but to make an important and substantive contribution, is to be a member of a committee that has a mission in the province. Because as legislators, we can't know everything about everything, and if you believe the Press, we don't know anything about anything.

The advantage of a committee is that it gives the opportunity for those who are not elected to come into the public forum and give testimony regarding their special knowledge and in that way to educate the educators. I know there are some members of this House, and I think particularly of the Hon. the lady Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) who would have welcomed that opportunity in years past. Perhaps many of the others of you would have too, but here this opportunity is laid before the new government — and remember that the backbenchers make up a majority of each of these committees.

This is your real opportunity to contribute, and how disappointed I am that these people who sit on the cabinet benches and made all these speeches for committees to be established, then they get into the cabinet

[ Page 44 ]

benches where it doesn't really matter for them anymore, but where the committee work is just as important as it ever was, and where the backbenchers that they weren't even thinking about at that time would have their opportunity to make a contribution.

And what do they do? Just brush it all aside with an arrogant dismissal of the House. I would like to see an adjournment but it was a summary dismissal yesterday afternoon, without even going through the motions of seeing those committees established. And I hope now that the Premier has reluctantly made that motion, that when you have your caucus meetings — and I know unlike the Leader of the Opposition, that the Premier attends those caucus meetings and he is going to continue to attend them, probably right through the first year — when you get him in the caucus you will be able to insist that these committees function and that it get on with the job of letting the people of British Columbia who have special knowledge, but have not had the privilege of being elected as members to come and give their testimony.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, this is what we have needed more than anything else in the labour field in this province. This is what should have been done before any new labour legislation was brought down — to have the labour leaders and I suppose the commissioners who are now deposed and some of the industrial leaders appear before committees of this House and let us know what the score really is out there in the real world beyond the legislative chamber. Undoubtedly, Mr. Speaker, the most important of all the committees which sits in this House, although I must confess its importance has been very much diminished in recent years is the Committee on Public Accounts. We need to know this session, Mr. Speaker, since there will evidently be no budget, the amount of money that is available for the increased benefits that are planned.

We have had from the Premier a fantastic variety of statements. He is on record in Hansard, and I am sorry that I don't have my copy with me, as giving an indication of something of the order of $16 million per month for a programme.

Clearly, we don't have that kind of leeway in our budget. On another occasion he said $40 million, on another 60. But these are large amounts of money and if we are going to look at revisions of this magnitude in the budget then of course we need to know exactly where we stand and the public accounts committee of this session should be looking into interim receipts, should be doing the work that the Finance Minister obviously hasn't done to date and should be preparing the ground work for a very much expanded spring activity.

Because I am certain, Mr. Speaker, that for the first time ever the accounts of the B.C. Hydro will be opened up for public perusal. For the first time that the accounts of the B.C. Railway will be opened up. For the first time the accounts of the Liquor Control Board will be opened up. All these Crown corporations have worked in the shadows with no questions being asked because no questions were permitted. That's to be the function of the public accounts committee. And so we might as well prepare the ground work now and be ready to get on with the future.

I want to make one small comment before concluding, about what is left over as one of the largest projects in British Columbia and one of the greatest bungles that has ever been made. I refer to the Columbia River Treaty — the fact that we are short probably of the order of $400 million. We are committed to store water for a period of over 100 years from today and it looks like all the money that we'll ever get has been obtained. Unless the present government takes active and aggressive steps to have that Columbia River Treaty renegotiated. The great errors, Mr. Speaker, that were made by the former Premier and his government were in not putting a cost of living clause into the advance payments that were made. That was the reason we were left $400 million and some short.

But the second error in negotiation — and this was the principle reason why the present head of the B.C. Hydro was thrown off the negotiating team — was because he believed that peaking power needed to be taken into consideration. Those who negotiated the treaty made the stupid blunder of ignoring it completely.

[ Page 45 ]

I first became aware of the magnitude of our error when I visited the Grand Coulee Dam this past summer. The size of that dam is being quadrupled to over 9 million kilowatts. And what it's being used for is peaking power which is enormously valuable to the Americans but for which we Canadians get not one cent.

What the Americans are going to be able to do as soon as that giant installation is completed — and once the Columbia River Treaty was signed the American Congress made huge amounts of money available immediately to expand those facilities — is simply this. At four o'clock every afternoon when the housewives come back from their jobs and turn on the stove and the television set and the lights, there haven't been any appeals in the State of Washington to turn off the lights. Then it becomes necessary to supply power. You have to hold a tremendous amount of power in reserve to meet that peak demand. And so what will happen in the State of Washington is that when the lights get switched on late in the afternoon those extra generators will be turned on to supply the energy. And because the water is stored in Canada behind places like the Duncan Dam which have been absolutely ravished by the flooding for which we're getting no compensation because that water has been held in Canada, the Americans will be able to do this every single day of the year.

Had there been no storage and had the Americans put the same amount of power on the Columbia River Treaty they would have got it all in June and July. Sure, the power would have come on and they could have shut down all the other thermal plants that they're building. But the point is they wouldn't have had the power when they needed it and there was no way they could have stored it. Because we've spaced it out and we allow them to do it from four until midnight every day of the year they're able to gain a tremendous benefit from us and yet still claim that we're entitled to nothing because if we let the water go they'd be able to use it all with the energy that they put in. The generators that will be put in the Grand Coulee dam are such that they would be able to take care of all the flood waters coming down for the peak run-off over the past 50 years.

So, Mr. Speaker, we've been badly skinned on the Columbia River Treaty. It's been a major disaster and I'm glad the government agrees because it's up to them now to take the initiative. You've got to do it. You've got to reopen those negotiations. Otherwise that great opportunity is going to be lost, and we'll be left holding the water but they'll be left having the power.

The Premier is the one that asked many penetrating questions about the Columbia. O.K., that was when he was in opposition. Now one of the great challenges that he faces as Premier is to bring about some restitution of the one-sidedness of that treaty.

And along the way, just as a footnote, I'm sure that the Skagit Valley could be renegotiated with no difficulty at all. But I know that the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) who has carried so to speak the burden of the Skagit Valley for all the Members of this House will be speaking on that subject.

I hope now that we have a new government he'll get just a little bit of support in his crusade.

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party has outlined what our policy will be — to be constructive in criticism. He gave a splendid example of that this afternoon and I know that all the members of our party will be pursuing that policy to the best of our ability. We want to wish the new government better success in the days ahead than they've had up until this time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. J. R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed again a pleasure for me to take my place in this legislative assembly to represent the people from Columbia River.

I want first of all to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Speech from the Throne. I know they were brief and they're following the

[ Page 46 ]

precedent that was established by the Speech from the Throne — it's so brief it's almost impossible to find it.

Is this an emergency session — or a special session. Make up your mind which it is. It missed many of the crucial issues that are facing the people of this province.

I want to congratulate you as well, Mr. Speaker, on being appointed Speaker of this Legislature. Nevertheless, when I nominated someone to oppose you yesterday afternoon at the opening of this session, it was in an attempt for you people to be consistent in your policies and in your directions and in your words. Because it was in 1970, I remember very well, in which you nominated the Member from Vancouver–Point Grey, the second member from Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom).

MR. G. B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): 1969.

MR. CHABOT: 1970. The election was in 1969. The first session after the election was in 1970.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: You're right. You're right.

MR. CHABOT: And I'll never forget just a few days ago the Minister of Lands, Forests, Water Resources, Recreation, Conservation (Hon. Mr. Williams) et cetera, et cetera had this to say about their position, their statements while in opposition. He said this: "…Now maybe some people will begin believing we meant what we said in opposition".

In 1970 you said that the Second Member from Vancouver–Point Grey should be the Speaker of this legislative assembly. You've reneged on your commitment to this Member that you made to him in 1970 and all I was attempting to do yesterday was to make you people realize that there's a need for consistency in statements in this Legislature.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Why didn't you vote for him? That's what we want to know. He'd have made a great speaker.

MRS. P. J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): He didn't know him that well then.

MR. CHABOT: You know, I think that it's important. I was speaking to the Speaker not too long ago and I found it rather difficult to have the opportunity of meeting with the government Whip, being the Whip of the official Opposition in British Columbia, or this session of the Legislature I should say. I found it rather difficult to meet the Whip. I don't know who your Whip is really. And nevertheless, I was told by the Speaker really that the Whip should convey what should take place. I talked to the Speaker this afternoon and he agreed with the procedure that should take place in this legislative assembly. However, not too many minutes later this agreement which we had didn't take place. Didn't take place. I want to assure the Speaker of this legislative assembly that I'll be most cautious in the future in taking certain people's word relative to speaking procedures in this assembly.

But since the new government, and I want to congratulate them for their election to office to lead the affairs of the people of the Province of British Columbia, but I do want to say that since you've come to office you've certainly shocked the business community of this province. Maybe that's what you intend doing. But, I don't think that's good economic policy that you've announced over the last two or three weeks. Because, you've made in my opinion what are some very wild and irresponsible statements relative to the economic policies and direction of your government. There has been a comment not too long ago by Mr. McConnell, who is a very able reporter, one who was a Press representative to this assembly, representing the Vancouver Province and now he's the editor of that newspaper. He had this to say about the new Minister of Finance in the province. He said that "it is now six weeks since he came to office and he doesn't show any sign of knowing much more about government finance than he did in opposition. To put it charitably that wasn't very much".

[ Page 47 ]

Now this is the attitude that the business community has in British Columbia relative to your government because of the statements that you have made, these statements of retrenchment that you have made in the last two to three weeks. It's already been said today that millions of dollars have been lost by investors and there are small investors as well — people who invest in secure stocks such as B.C. Telephone. They look at it as a means of earning more income and not becoming a ward of the government in their older years.

There's been millions lost by these statements of take over. I want to say this to that government that if they're going to take over the B.C. Telephone, I do want to say this, that they're going to find it far more difficult than they realize to take over a federally-charted corporation in this province.

But, if they do have intentions of taking them over, take them over now. Take the cloud away from this industry and from industry in this province, so that people can expand their industries.

I want to say that the B.C. Telephone does have an expansion programme, a project expansion programme, in which they project to spend something in the neighbourhood of $136 million. They're going to find it difficult indeed to raise this money and if they are successful in raising these dollars they're going to be costly dollars.

All you're doing by these wild and irresponsible statements is slowing up the creating of future jobs in the Province of British Columbia. For this I say that you should hold your head in shame. What does the Minister of Finance say regarding the take-over and the loss that people have suffered on the stock market? "Oh, you win some, you lose some, it's like playing the ponies. You can't win them all".

I want to tell him that's a pretty irresponsible statement for the Minister of Finance and the Premier of this province to be making. Because there are people in this province that have their life savings in the B.C. Telephone, and other secure corporations, hoping to increase their income in later years. I think it's a shocking example of what we're looking forward to in the Province of British Columbia under a socialist government.

It's quite obvious to me that the new Finance Minister does not understand economics. It's quite obvious to me that there is a definite need and a need now for a new Minister of Finance in the Province of British Columbia. Certainly in the backbenches there must be someone with the ability to serve in this important portfolio, there must be someone I'm sure. I met some of those people on the backbench, not all of them unfortunately, and I will as time goes on. But, I'm sure there are some that are ready and willing to assume this role, and I'm sure they would do a much better job than has been displayed by the present Minister of Finance.

HON. W. L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): The Minister of Labour's a great improvement, anyway. (Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: My friend, my friend.

MRS. JORDAN: He hasn't got a very good record so far.

MR. CHABOT: What do you have an executive assistant for? To open the doors for you? You must go to work every morning and scratch your head and wonder what you've got to do.

I want to assure you that those kind of policies that you've made and statements that have been made in the last two to three weeks in this province are not going to create jobs in British Columbia. They're going to create more unemployment in this province. I wish that you would retract and withdraw what you have to say relative to the industry in this province. Relative to your tax policies. Because if you've indicated that you're interested in jobs you haven't displayed it in your words. You

[ Page 48 ]

should be busy creating jobs and programmes that will create jobs in this province. You should be setting up a development corporation such as projected by the former government in this province. One, to use the surplus funds which have been turned over to this government as an incentive, not as a give-away programme which you're so opposed to but, as cheap loans to attract secondary industry in the Province of British Columbia.

There are ample funds available to do this very thing if you are genuinely sincere in creating secondary industry jobs in British Columbia, you will set up a corporation to make dollars available so that these jobs will materialize. So that those unemployed will have an opportunity to work in the Province of British Columbia.

You should make it attractive, the interest rates attractive, such as has been projected by the former government in British Columbia, so that jobs can be created, not to make wild and irresponsible statements such as have been made by the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) where he's being extremely inconsistent in the priorities of his particular government — in which he has said "we're going to tax the export of copper concentrate from British Columbia substantially greater than they're presently being taxed because we do not believe in the export of our raw materials. We believe in the maximum processing of these materials within the Province of British Columbia for the purpose of creating jobs for British Columbia".

Is that not what he's said, Mr. Speaker? I'm sure he's said that. Now, in the first opportunity he has when there is a projected copper smelter in the Province of British Columbia in the lower part of the Cariboo, he said "we're going to stop it".

They'd better clarify their position, whether they are in favor of smelters in the Province of British Columbia or in mining in fact.

Also, he's thrown some doubts over the possibility of the establishment of a copper smelter in the East Kootenays. I don't say he's thrown some doubts, Mr. Speaker, but I'm sure his colleague the leader of this party has thrown some doubts over whether, there will be the establishment of a copper smelter in the Kootenay area.

I think that they should get together some time and I'm sure they must go to cabinet, they must speak to each other. When they get there they should formulate a consistent policy as to the direction they are going relative to the processing of our raw materials in British Columbia., Because, from the way you're talking today you're projecting inconsistent policy to the people of British Columbia. You could do that and you've done that over the years in opposition, but, you're now government. You must be more responsible today than you were when you were in opposition.

In opposition you could spout out of both sides of your mouth and I want to show you that as long as I'm in opposition, Mr. Speaker, that I will be consistent in what I have to say and that I'll be constructive as well, as I have always been in the past.

I'll tell you that if you keep playing along with the establishment of the copper smelter, with the policy of your government on taxation of concentrates, and turn down the projected smelters in the Province of British Columbia, that a copper smelter will be established in this part of the country but it won't come to British Columbia.

It will go to the Yukon and you'll have yourselves to blame. You'll have yourselves to blame because of your inconsistent policy relative to the mining processing in the Province of British Columbia.

We've also seen the policy of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) relative to the North Shore crossing. He said that "we're going to stop the North Shore crossing. We're not going to proceed, we're going to go into rapid transit instead".

Did he consult with the municipalities of the North Shore prior to making that statement? Did he consult with them? Because, in effect he said that the North Shore from now on will have population growth zero and economic growth nil as well. That it must stay the way it is today. He

[ Page 49 ]

said that no more people than presently travel to Whistler should have the right of access to that particular part of the world.

He's indicated very clearly that he does not favor any further recreational developments in that part of the province.

I think there should have been consultation with the municipalities of the North Shore before making that statement. And I think also that if the government had been on its toes they could have got a commitment from the national government. It was very difficult and it's difficult in the Province of British Columbia, I want to assure you, to get financial commitments from that Liberal Federal Government. It's very difficult indeed and I'm sure as the new government proceeds with their mandate they will readily see how difficult it is to get these financial commitments from the Ottawa Government.

There was a commitment on the third crossing. Why did they not seize the opportunity to get the national government to commit those dollars to rapid transit? There was an opportunity for a commitment which they should have carried through. We've seen what the lack of economic policies of this government has done relative to unemployment just in the short period of time in which they've been in office I'm glad to see you're back, Mr. Speaker.

There's been an increase in unemployment in British Columbia of 48,000 people in the last month — 6.6 per cent, that has been said by another Member of the Opposition in one of the minor parties here. He said that as compared to the previous year, which was 5.5 per cent, that it's increased to 6.6 per cent at the moment.

Forty-eight thousand more people unemployed in September of 1972 as in the previous month — August. I know it's quite obvious to me that these people are frightening away the type of capital that is necessary to create jobs in the Province of British Columbia. In order to create jobs you need risk capital and I want to assure you with the retrenchment statements that have been made by that government jobs are not going to come into British Columbia. Unemployment will continue to grow in the Province of British Columbia.

I think one has to look back on the record of job creation that has taken place in British Columbia over the last few years. Because there's been an average increase in job creation in the Province of British Columbia and I want to say this — that government's do not necessarily create jobs. They set the economic climate for private industry to create jobs.

You might think because you have appointed a bunch of executive assistants you have created jobs — but that isn't sufficient. That isn't sufficient jobs to meet the growing needs of British Columbians. That isn't sufficient.

But over the last 10 years in this province there's been an average creation of 4.3 per cent new jobs each and every year. Unequalled in any other part of the free world. Just can't be equalled — 4.3 per cent.

When one looks, if that same type of job creation was to take place across this nation unemployment would not be at "an acceptable level" but unemployment would be practically nil. Because in this country we have a labour force growth of 2.8 per cent and that's been the problem. It is that we've been able to create only 2.6 per cent more jobs on an annual basis on an average across the country.

That's been the problem — that's why there's been a growing unemployment across this country. Because there's been a failure on the part of the national government as well as the new government in the Province of British Columbia to project some form of policy that is consistent with attracting the type of capital that creates jobs. There has been a desperate failure on the part of the national government, which is being repeated in the Province of British Columbia today. I'm certainly saddened by the type of direction my province, the Province of British Columbia, is heading under this new government.

You know, they set up the appointment of the Minister without Portfolio to look into a new policy for the native people of this province.

[ Page 50 ]

I'm not opposed to that and I'm certainly not opposed to the choice of the Minister without Portfolio that was chosen for this particular task.

But I do take exception to the fact that over the last 40 years the socialist politicians of this province have said they have the answers to the plight of the native people in this province. You've indicated time and time again on the election circuit that you have the answers to the economic plight of these people.

Why don't you fulfil your responsibilities at this time? Because not too long ago in the last election you set out your programme for the native people and this appeared in the Member for Delta's newspaper The Fisherman. It said: "N.D.P. advances programme to assist the native people". It says: "A seven-point programme designed to improve living conditions of native Indians is being advanced by the New Democratic Party. Proposed by Gordon Dowding, sitting member for Burnaby-Edmonds, the programme would provide great financial assistance, special educational programmes, strict observation of legal rights and participation by native Indians in all matters affecting them. Dowding's proposals were placed before the N.D.P. Provincial Council at its recent meeting after Len Maracle, Executive Director of the B.C. Association of Non-Status Indians and Mercy Robinson of Atlin outlined native demands.

"The seven points of the programme are:

1. Low interest loans to native Indians for economic development.
2. Assistance in obtaining land for housing.
3. Educational programmes designed for native needs.
4. Respect for native civil rights and programmes to ensure natives of legal aid and councilling.
5. Native children from broken homes to be placed with native not-white foster parents.
6. Strengthening of the Human Rights Act to protect the rights of natives.
7. Involvement of natives to a greater degree in matters affecting them, accompanied by measures to encourage native staff members in all government departments.

"N.D.P. Provincial Leader Dave Barrett said the way the B.C. Court system treats native Indians is almost inhuman".

There is the seven point programme of the N. D. P. And I'm not objecting to the programme. But why don't you implement it now so that these people will have an opportunity to benefit from what you have indicated is your policy format? And then carry on. Carry on after to look at other avenues in which these people can be helped.

But at least at this time why don't you implement these seven points, why don't you present legislation at this particular session? Show your concern, show your sincerity to these people and stop waffling and delaying for one year before implementing what you've said is your policy for the native people of this province. They are waiting. They're asking, they're looking to you to fulfil these seven points at this particular time. They're waiting for you right now. You've indicated these policies.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the Speech from the Throne is extremely brief. It says absolutely nothing. It has failed to outline the priorities of the day — inflation and unemployment in this province — and for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I move an amendment to the motion seconded incidentally by the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips): That the motion be amended by adding the word "but this House regrets the speech fails to disclose any proposals for maximizing the job-producing capacity of our provincial economy, in either the public or private sector, and in particular provides no incentive programme for the encouragement of secondary industry, or for the processing of agricultural products within the Province of British Columbia".

MR. SPEAKER: We have the amendment. It has been read to you. Is there any further debate on the amendment? I accept the amendment. I am prepared to hear any debate.

[ Page 51 ]

MR. D. M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the opportunity to second the amendment, with your kind permission.

MR. SPEAKER: Do you wish to speak on that now?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I do Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Then I recognize the Honourable Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention to the Honourable Speaker that I am very pleased to once again take my position in the House. However, I would like to advise all Members who decide to stay home for three years that they'd better be careful because somebody has been playing musical chairs while I was gone.

Another thing that I noticed, and it is certainly a great improvement and I would like to congratulate the previous Minister of Public Works, is for a great improvement certainly in the Members' quarters. However, I realized that these quarters were occupied by the previous opposition and they're certainly very posh, certainly a great improvement over what we had when I was in this House before.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss in my duties if I didn't congratulate you on your appointment to the chair and I hope that the fact that I was a seconder of a motion yesterday that you will not hold this against me in this House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your assurance.

I would also like to congratulate the new Premier. I know that I sued to sit over on the other side of the House and watch him and I knew that he was looking forward to that day when he would occupy this position he now holds. And I would like to congratulate him. And I would also like to take this opportunity to wish him success.

I'd also like to assure the other Members of the House on this side and on that side that I am really glad to be here in spite of what you might have read in the Press. I'm glad to be here to represent those wonderful people in the South Peace River once again and I look forward to giving them the same type of representation that they had from 1966 to 1969.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Who are you taking your views from? The gallery? Or did you think that up all by yourself, Mr. Member? Because I want to make sure, and I'm going to watch you, so that I can take the message back to the previous Member to make sure that you do what you're instructed to do from the galleries.

I would also like to congratulate all of the cabinet in obtaining their high positions and remind them of the tremendous responsibility that now rests on their shoulders. And to all of the cabinet hopefuls I would like to wish you success. I would like you to take heed to where you are sitting in this Legislature. Now, I don't know whether the seating arrangement has any bearing on cabinet appointments that are taking place. It's been a precedent in this House for quite some time that the seating of the backbenchers was done in alphabetical order, but I noticed that this time it's done in some other order. I'm just wondering, and maybe you could question the Premier next time there's a caucus, you know. How did he pick out the seating arrangement? Is it a bearing on the future cabinet appointments?

And, I'd like to congratulate the future Minister of Finance, whoever he should be…

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's it likely to be?

MR. PHILLIPS: Who's it going to be? Tell us now.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Or she.

[ Page 52 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Or she? Oh, well I haven't got to know the rest of the lady Members yet. But I'm looking forward to meeting them and to meeting also the male members of the back bench. And maybe after I have the opportunity to meet them all I could maybe come up with a recommendation which I'm sure the Premier would not take to heart. However, on the other hand he might.

I would also like to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the throne speech. I had the opportunity to move the throne speech one time myself, and I considered it a great honour, and a great honour to the constituency that I represented.

However, I would like to point out to the Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) that he needs a lesson in geography because he is not from the north. He is from basically the central part of the province. Central and to the west. And that these great people that he says are the special kind of people that we have in the north, that those kind of people from the constituency that is really in the north is represented by Social Credit Members. They're all free enterprisers up in the true north.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's in the centre of the north. Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign the Premier was in the north and he spoke of great things he was going to do. Great things to help the farmer processing agricultural products at home. Processing them in the north. Of creating jobs.

There's nothing in the throne speech. Nothing in the throne speech that will help the north part of the province. There's nothing in the throne speech that will help the centre part of the province and there's nothing in the throne speech that'll help the south part of the province. There's nothing in the throne speech that is going to create any jobs. And the previous speaker outlined what has happened to the employment situation in the months since your government has gained power.

Jobs are needed desperately in this province. And you don't have to have pollution that you people seem to think on that side of the House to have jobs.

Secondary industry, food processing, smaller plants that employ people not in great numbers does not create pollution. It doesn't take a great deal of money to create these jobs. You have the money to set it up now at this session. You have the money to establish a corporation which will create secondary industry and will create jobs in this province.

I urge you to take action immediately, Mr. Premier. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to ask your Premier to take immediate action. Because, Mr. Speaker, if this money is not employed in this method at the present time, by the time the spring session rolls around and by the time the Premier lays out his proposed job creating legislation the money will be gone. And this throne speech goes quite a way to spending it.

There has been nothing, there is nothing in any of the Acts before this House or in the throne speech which is going to do anything for the little man — the man who is employed to make his living. There is nothing in this to help him and he can't help himself unless he is given the economic climate to do it in.

All we've heard about has been backsliding. Going to increase the power rate. That will hit business and industry — slow it up — and that will not help create employment. Unemployment is at an all-time high. And one of the reasons it's at an all-time high is because the so-called free enterprise party that we have in Ottawa is basically a socialist party, and their policies have not worked for the Dominion of Canada and the same policies that you are trying to employ here in this province will not work either to create jobs.

You as the government have an opportunity to create incentives. You as the government can do something now to keep the tax dollars rolling in. You as the government must do this because you're certainly going to spend them as witnessed by the legislation that is before us in this House at this time.

[ Page 53 ]

When you came to power, your Premier told the people of this province not to panic. He said "don't panic — we're not going to do anything to upset the apple cart at the present time". And then you went right out and did the entire opposite. Reminded me of a cub grizzly bear in a herd of cattle saying "now don't panic, don't panic".

AN HON. MEMBER: They're consistent.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think it's a disaster, what has happened to the business and economic climate of this province in the last months since your government came to power. It's a disaster. And I think if you're as wise as I think you are, Mr. Premier, that you will do something about it and do something about it immediately.

You, Mr. Premier, have said that you are for the little man. And what have you done? You've created a climate in this province that has cost the little man — the little man who invested his money at home — you have cost him millions of dollars. As I look at these Acts with your opening speech there is not one Act in the crowd that is going to create employment.

As a matter of fact, if you look at the Acts independently, you will find that every one of them is going to spend money. It's going to cost the taxpayers of this province a lot of money.

If, Mr. Speaker, the economic climate in this province is not such that the taxes can come in to the coffers and if you keep spending it by the way you're doing it in these Acts, the coffers are soon going to be dry. They're soon going to be dry. There's going to be no money.

Then how will you enact all your social legislation that you were planning on enacting? Doing the things for the little people that you wanted to do? Mr. Speaker, I urge them on the other side of the House to take a second look.

We on this side of the House want to be co-operative. We still want to work for the people of this great province even though we're in opposition. We will supply the ideas to you. We will supply the business knowledge. All you've got to do is take it. We will help you. We have the experience here. We have the business know-how. If you would just listen to us: You take some of the legislation that we put forward and pass this amendment, then it will do something for the people who put you in power.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Why are you in opposition?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm in opposition because I would like to help you even though I'm in opposition. I would like to help you.

AN HON. MEMBER: He meant that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, one of the areas of greatest concern in Canada today is inflation. I think this government must be aware that it is one of the problems facing all of the free world. But by what has happened in the first month that this government has been in power it is adding kerosene to the fire of inflation. It has depressed the business community.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ghastly!

MR. PHILLIPS: Ghastly! It has depressed the business community and brought in legislation that is going to spend more of the taxpayers' dollars. It just doesn't add up. It just doesn't add up, Mr. Speaker.

I think that those on the other side of the House who stop and look at what they are doing will realize the grave mistake they had made and they will pass this amendment. I'm sure they will because they're all learned gentlemen over there and they want to do what is best for the province, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 54 ]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that on the other side of the House they will take an honest, realistic look. They used to ask us to do this and I know that they will when this amendment comes to a vote, that they will sit and realize and stop and think what they have done since they came to power. They will realize that this amendment is a good amendment. They will realize that this amendment is meant to help the little people of this province, to help employment, and when there is business and industry and employment they will have more tax dollars to carry out their legislation, their social legislation which they so desperately want to bring in.

If they don't, if they don't and if they do nothing at this session to help create employment, August 30, Mr. Speaker, will go down in the history of British Columbia as one of the darkest days that it has ever seen. Now, they have the opportunity to remove this cloud. To remove this climate of depression that is over the province at this present time. They have the opportunity to remove this history-making black day in the Province of British Columbia.

That opportunity is before them right now, Mr. Speaker. And I urge them, I urge them with all my heart and with all my soul to do something right here today to change this drastic, deadly, appalling atmosphere that they have created.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you yourself are depressed. I know that you yourself, Mr. Speaker, or that the Premier, Mr. Speaker, realizes that the weight of the office that he now holds is too great for him. And he has the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, and all of his colleagues, to go back to the people. If he finds the job too big he can go back to the people and tell them "I've taken on a job, we've taken on a job that we can't handle". And they'll put it back in the hands of people who've done such a wonderful job for the last 20 years.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if he is so inclined, and I know he is because I've watched the expressions on his face this afternoon — the job is too big. He can resign and go back to the people and they will remove it from him. They'll remove this great burden. They will also remove this shadow, this cloud of depression that has come over this province since August 30.

He could remove all that. He could so away with his history-making day that's going to go down, as I say, if they don't pass this motion, if they don't do something at this sitting of the Legislature to create employment and to fight inflation, then it will continue to be the darkest day. And unfortunately, unfortunately for us on this side of the House, unfortunately for all the people in the Province of British Columbia, they will not be able to undo, they will not be able to retract the mistake that they made on August 30.

Therefore, I take pleasure in seconding this motion and I urge, Mr. Speaker, that it be passed forthwith.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please. The Hon. the Premier. I would remind Hon. Members that all those who now take their place in the debate on the amendment must confine their remarks to the terms of the amendment.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your advice if you may allow me just a few moments to express my appreciation at your wonderful electoral victory yesterday, and also express my appreciation for the very kind remarks of everybody who has participated in the debate to this point.

I want to respond to members of the opposition who have introduced this amendment which frankly, I'm sure not to their surprise, we will reject completely.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: But it is a matter of some confusion to the House to contemplate this amendment from the official Opposition when what we thought was the statement from the official opposition that they did not wish to speak but they wanted to get on with the business of the House.

[ Page 55 ]

So, perhaps there are two groups in the House, in the official Opposition, and we will see when the vote comes which group is voting on the amendment in the opposition and which one is opposed to it. And as to my friend's remarks about the weight being heavy in office I do not find it heavy enough that I need to absent myself from the House while I listen to opposition members all afternoon.

I want to express within the context of that amendment some appreciation for the "lack of jobs" statements made by one of the Liberal leaders. I want to say to that one Liberal leader that the Columbia Treaty was a disaster that has created the crisis of jobs in this province.

The amendment that we're dealing with today was touched on by that Member from Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) accurately. And one of the reasons we face a shortage of jobs in this province today is because the previous government blundered into giving away our chief power to the United States. $400 million worth of our tax money because of that previous government's so-called expertise in the economy, has caused a desperate job shortage in this province.

I want to commend the Member for Point Grey as a great British Columbian for a while in his speech, saying that the treaty should be renegotiated. I want to show you that there is a different day in British Columbia. I intend to take Opposition suggestions — and his suggestion is a valid one. I say that the only one who can reopen that treaty is the Federal liberal government and if they do it we'll stand with them all the way.

We want jobs in British Columbia. I will go to Ottawa with my friend. If he can get the Prime Minister to say: "Yes the government made a mistake and we need to renegotiate that treaty" that will be a great day on behalf of all Canadians — and politics aside, please accompany me when the Prime Minister says he will renegotiate that treaty.

You know, I want to respond if I may to some of the charges about the atmosphere — the atmosphere of creating jobs. The amendment mentioned some of my statements and my friend used a disastrous word — the word "depression". Let everyone understand that regardless of the destructive policies of the previous administration in squandering away our power resources through the Columbia Treaty there was no depression in this province. Our economy has never been stronger. Never been stronger.

You talk about job-producing efforts and he says in reference to the amendment, he has the nerve — I'll say cheek because of a three year absence — to echo the words of the mover of that amendment that statements were made to frighten industry. Do you agree with this?

New industries are welcome in British Columbia. But on our terms. Do you agree with that?

This is what we believe. New industries are welcome in British Columbia on our terms. We want and need new industries in British Columbia, but to avoid any misconceptions we believe in stating our position clearly right from the start. Our belief is that the industry should pay its own way, if it wishes to enjoy the many advantages offered by our province.

This was published in the Financial Times. Do you believe this statement? Because we do, and we're proud of this statement. I'm pleased to read it. It says: "Our belief is that industry should pay its own way if it wishes to enjoy the many advantages offered by our province. Furthermore we demand that industry conform to a rigid set of pollution-control standards. These two factors bear directly on the cost of establishing and operating an industry in British Columbia, so you might as well ask if it's worth it while you're considering such a move. We think it is, when you consider the many benefits we do offer to industry. These benefits include: access to one of the continents richest reserves of natural resources; an almost unlimited choice of prime and industrial sites; a reliable labour pool; a first-rate shipping link with major markets and western North American Pacific rim nations, plus the benefit of Canada's lowest tax structure for industries and individuals".

The exact statement that I made in my Press conference on financial matters is what I have quoted from an ad placed by the previous adminis-

[ Page 56 ]

tration — in the Financial Times of August 21, 1972. And if my friend says the repetition of the previous government's policy is disastrous to British Columbia then he wasn't even aware of what his own government was advertising.

It was the Social Credit Party that placed this ad, the Social Credit Government of the Province of British Columbia, the Department of Industrial Development Trade and Commerce, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, British Columbia, the Honourable Waldo M. Skillings, Minister — and we all remember Waldo well. There it is and I will send it over to the Member so that he will understand…

AN HON. MEMBER: With golden gloves.

HON. MR. BARRETT: …so he understands clearly that we have reiterated publicly that this province is rich in natural reserves, and resources, that this province has an abundance of labour, that his province is a great place to live and we say — as that ad says — there will be no handouts or incentives to come to British Columbia. The riches are here, and we'll develop them here in British Columbia.

Now, if that statement depressed the market, as my friend said, then obviously people who are buying on the market weren't even paying attention to the previous government. But if that's the case I don't blame them, because when it comes to job producing, paying attention to the previous government would be a mistake.

He talks about scaring the market and chasing away jobs. Guess what I said. I said that this government would take over the B.C. Telephone Company operating as a monopoly in the Province of British Columbia. And no free enterpriser is in favour of monopoly.

Now, unlike the previous administration I am being admonished. I am being attacked. They are saying: "By gosh! That Barrett — he really means what he says in the election campaigns". And they are attacking me for keeping my promise. Well, I'll tell you this — it has been the party policy of my party that public ownership of the B.C. Telephone Company will take place in this province. And it has been our policy for years and it will take place.

It was our prime policy that the former B.C. Electric be taken over to create more jobs. The previous government attacked that policy and then they brought in midnight legislation changing their policy and smacking the business community right in the head, through what I call midnight legislation. I want everybody to understand when I debate this amendment that no more as long as we are in power — no more will there be midnight legislation in this province. Everybody will know exactly where we're going, and exactly how we intend to get there with fair warning.

And I want people to understand that the former method of government is over. When we say we're going to produce jobs, that doesn't mean there will be more unemployment. Because when they said they were going to produce jobs they had more unemployment. When they said there would be no public ownership they took over the B.C. Electric.

When we say it, let them understand out there we say exactly what we mean and we mean what we say. And that's on the record.

You know, the pipelines are a matter of discussion and they should know that. You think that we should rattle around in some corner and not tell people that we're considering it — it's in our policy? Do you not read our policy? Do you think that we are like the Liberal Party that says "we are going to bring old age pensions" and "we're going to bring in Medicare" in 1919 and it took them 35 years to do it? Thirty-five years to do it! You know…you talk about job producing…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: My friend, the first people who will be consulted will be the people who own it. That's who we'll go to, that's who we'll go to. And that's the first ones. You know I enjoy the little debate

[ Page 57 ]

between the two liberal leaders… (Laughter) One comes in with caution, because he's now in that role. One comes in with abandon because he's been through that grinder. (Laughter)

You talk about creating jobs. Don't anybody tell me that the expenditure of funds doesn't create jobs, and don't anyone tell me that giving the old age pensioners money to buy things doesn't create jobs in this province.

You believe in the trickle-down theory, you so-called free enterprise capitalists who are living in an era that is long gone — and thank goodness the people of British Columbia said on August 30 good riddance. Good riddance!

We don't believe in jungle capitalism to create jobs. We believe in sharing the wealth of this great province in a prudent and responsible manner and that's why we are going to bring in, and have brought in the legislation. Then to have the nerve, to have this Member stand up and say that that won't create jobs. He should support the amendment — his leader who is absent today and someone else is filling the role, said yesterday "$200 isn't enough it should be $225". Make up your mind over there, make up your mind. You don't know what you're talking about.

You have the nerve, you have the unmitigated gall to come in here with that pretence of emotion to say that you could have created jobs when your party flipped-flopped right through the campaign and said you were going to give low-interest loans after you told industry for years there wouldn't be any help available.

Then you have the gall to come here today and suggest what policy we should take. Well I'll tell you this — and I'll tell you this clearly. There will be jobs in British Columbia. They will be on our terms. We will have a smelter that is non-polluting. We will not give anyone any money, we will not allow the wholesale sell-out of British Columbia of our resources that has been going on for 102 years. I say, and let them understand clearly on Howe Street, Bay Street, Wall Street, everywhere else, we're not a welfare office. We're not giving anything away to anybody. We'll talk business with responsible businessmen. We'll be fair, we expect them to be fair. And that's how we'll have jobs in British Columbia — on our terms.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D. A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The reason I rise on this amendment is to comment basically on the remarks made a moment ago. Excellent theatre although they may be, Mr. Speaker, they are poor politics and poor economics for the province at this time. No one is suggesting we go back to the days of 102 years ago of sell-out of resources.

No one is suggesting that. No one. If you have to quote advertisements from previous government and say you went no further than that, well perhaps indeed you have been badly misquoted and you have right of action against a number of newspapers in this province, also television, also radio.

The point we are trying to make in this discussion today, the point that we don't have an opportunity to discuss in the bills that have been brought forward by the government, is that the economy of this province is important to the people who try and get jobs in this province. And we do not feel on this side of the House that your government is addressing itself in the correct way to this particular province.

We are not arguing with you in terms of 102 years of rip-off capitalism. We are not talking about the bad old days — of something that perhaps might have been done by McBride or in years previous to that. We are talking about today in 1972. You state that it has been made perfectly clear that by your party policies for years. Yet you went on television during the campaign and you refused point blank to answer questions put to you in the "Hourglass" programme by members of the audience as well as by the spokesman — that is, the moderator — to the effect of what you intended to do with the B.C. Tel.

[ Page 58 ]

You stated only that it was not one of your priorities and we only ask you to come here and tell us in this House what priority it has for you, when you intend to do it, how you intend to do it — whether you intend to deliberately depress the value of shares of that company by outrageous and improper statements to the point where it can be taken over at a much lower rate than would be the case if you attempted to do that today.

We suggest to you, Mr. Premier — and my party will support the amendment, although nothing really could have made us feel less in favour of it than the speech of the member whom you counted upon, the Member from Peace River (Mr. Smith), nevertheless, we intend to support that amendment — because you have failed to come up with a sensible realistic economic policy or proposal or statement in this House.

You have instead given us a list of excellent slogans for applause of your back benches and they responded as the trained seals they apparently intend to be.

You've stated that the economic policy, that the party policy has been laid down. Well, there are many other party policies laid down and signed by other members of your cabinet. The Waffle Manifesto is another of those things laid down and signed by members of your cabinet. A manifesto signed, and I might quote you one or two words from it about taking over, "nationalizing the high ground of the economy". Which of course in this province means the forest industry.

When do you intend to make that policy clear? It is the policy of you — you've signed that manifesto. It's a policy of other members of your cabinet, who have signed that manifesto. When is it that you intend to make so perfectly clear what precisely you'll take over and when you intend to take it over?

We intend to support this amendment, not that we like the amendment, not that we think the previous administration was particularly successful in many of its efforts. But, only because you yourself, in your first occasion before this House, in your first occasion after being elected to serve the people of British Columbia as Premier, have failed dismally to do anything in the economic field except to create uncertainty and disorder.

MRS,. P. J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, in light of the hour and the full knowledge of the House that His Honour will be awaiting the members of this House and the lateness I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion negatived.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker…

MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker…

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you arguing about?

MRS. JORDAN: I was on my feet and I allowed the Hon. Leader of the Liberal Party to speak and again I moved adjournment of this debate in the best interests of the House and respect of his Honour. This was refused by the government and I would now ask to take my place in this debate on the amendment to the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, the Hon. Lady Member is in error. She sat down after moving the adjournment of the debate and has thereby exhausted her right to speak in this debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh.

MR. SPEAKER: No…please. I try to adhere by the rules, Hon. Members. If I'm in error at any time, I know you'll tell me. But I point

[ Page 59 ]

out to you that that is the rule and the answer to it is I ask leave of the House that the Lady Member give her speech on the amendment. Is it granted?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In speaking to the amendment to the motion of the Speech from the Throne, I must first comment just as a result of the last minute or two in this House, my deep concern that is growing as I sit in this House nearly a matter of six hours now, under the new administration.

When we are debating a matter of extreme concern to the people of British Columbia — the creation of job security and the actions of the government in power — that consistently the leader of that government in his anxiety and his nervousness which is becoming characteristic of his platform and his actions in and outside the House is trying to stifle Members.

I suggest that we are in a position as Members of this House that the leader of this government is not showing sound leadership in the House, as he is not showing sound leadership in the province.

The resulting effect which has been described by many Members both in the previous debate and on this amendment to the motion, is to create an aura in British Columbia of uncertainty, perhaps even an aura of suspicion. The previous speaker said the people are now beginning to wonder who is going to be next. Which of his long-proclaimed platforms is he going to bring in, which is going to disregard?

In light of this I feel that our amendment is pointing out very strongly the lack of any positive action on the part of this government to create jobs for people — not just big people.

They seemed to be all wrapped up in discussions about big corporations. But, the everyday Joe has to get a job. The everyday women have to get a job. In doing this, in creating this aura of uncertainty and investment in our province, he has added one more nail to this board, and that is the question in the minds of British Columbians as to whether or not we are truly a democratic province. And I think this, and I'm going to speak to this in relationship to the creation of jobs, because when a country or a province loses its credibility financially and it loses its credibility morally and the government itself loses its credibility there won't be jobs even for those now employed.

I call upon, again, in relationship to those statements and the motion before this House, the amendment before this House, for the leader of the government of British Columbia to apologize to the two athletes from South Africa who are quests in our country.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Would the Hon. Member, confine herself to the amendment before the House?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I am. I said that when a country or provinces loses its credibility economically and morally and internationally, that it is not a desirable place in which to invest. Investments create jobs, it is not a desirable place in which to travel and the travel industry is the third largest industry in this province and the actions that this Premier has not taken and the shrug of the shoulder in this deplorable set of circumstances is destroying the credibility of the Province of British Columbia in one more way.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member…

MRS. JORDAN: …I insist that I do have the right to speak about this…

[ Page 60 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I wish you would confine yourself to the aspect of the amendment and not the general conduct of the…

MRS. JORDAN: Which is the creating of jobs in British Columbia and the actions of the government in the Speech from the Throne in not outlining any positive policies.

MR. SPEAKER: You're not here to discuss the Speech from the Throne. You're here to discuss the amendment.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I'll bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. So I shall then come back to the point, which I still think is irrelevant. But, along with the shrugs of the shoulders, and the lack of credibility of this man as a leader, and the lack of any positive programme to create jobs, that his action in the sport area, which is certainly of a discriminating nature, is being reflected in his actions in job opportunities because the first people to suffer, when there is a correction in the economy or when there is a lack of increase in jobs are the women of the province.

Mr. Speaker, women in British Columbia are now emerging on their own merits, not by special legislation but by ability and by their willingness to stand up and speak, to take responsibility and to take jobs. In British Columbia where we've seen no effort being made to create more jobs the women are going to be the first to suffer.

In not taking steps, positive steps, to stimulate industrial growth, to stimulate job opportunities within other areas, such as recreation or in health areas, again the women will be the first to suffer.

The figures that we have for the last month or two show that in British Columbia there has been a marked increase in unemployment and my colleagues read these out to you, as far as they related to the overall picture. But, I would like to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that in July there were 313,000 women working in British Columbia, and today — the latter part of September and the early part of October — there are only 278,000 women employed in British Columbia.

This is a decrease of 35,000 women who no longer have jobs and are no longer employed in British Columbia, and yet this is at a time in British Columbia's economy when part-time jobs should be almost at their highest.

We still have a thriving tourist month, we have seasonal employment through agriculture both on the farm in the orchards and in the packing houses. We have peak employment in the processing plants of agricultural products in British Columbia at this time of the year. We also have an increase in economy which the Premier so proudly alludes to because of "back to school" spending.

People have been on holidays, they are buying winter clothes, they are buying books and are now entering into the area of winter-time entertainment. Yet in spite of this, and in spite of the Premier's proud record that was the Social Credit record we have a decrease in employment of women in British Columbia.

It is women who suffer most when there is a correction in the economy and I'm sure that the lady Members on the government side of the House would very much like to have had an opportunity in this debate to speak about it, because I'm sure they are concerned as I am. None of us have an monopoly on concern for women or family, or British Columbia.

Just the same, Mr. Speaker, when there is a correction, it is the women who have to contend with the shopping problems of the family. It is the women who have to contend with the no-income situation or an unemployment situation. It is the women who have to contend with the emotional problems that come about when a husband is unemployed — and it is the women who are laid off first if there is a problem in the employment picture.

In failing to recognize this and in failing to take positive steps to create jobs in industry — and I would say at this point that I have been amazed, but perhaps not surprisingly so, that the Liberals have traditionally concerned themselves with big business and that the N.D.P. and the

[ Page 61 ]

Premier, the government, are talking about big businesses. The Premier of this province has said in the Vancouver Province two days ago: "We don't care, I don't care about 20 jobs or 30 jobs". I say to you, Mr. Speaker, we have to care about 20 jobs or 30 jobs and in not providing a platform, there are many small business people in this province who are deeply concerned about the current situation, the current aura of uncertainty and the lack of a positive platform by this government to help create jobs now.

These people don't have a great capital reserve, like the larger companies. These people often run from month to month and the people are unemployed. It is the small butcher himself who has to carry the bill of the unemployed family, and it is the small grocer who has to carry the bill of the unemployed family, and if the Minister of Labour (Mr. King) is shaking his head I would suggest that he shake it and hang it in shame.

The small businessman, the small farmer — and most of the farms in British Columbia are small farms — don't have the opportunity to use large acres of money. They are penalized with the high cost of money.

If you have a small business in the Peace River, your opportunity to borrow is less than if you have a small business in Vancouver, everybody knows this. You have to pay a higher interest rate, so these small people with their lack of capital reserves and a very strong moral sense to their neighbour are the ones that are suffering in the business world today, because of the policies of this government.

Mrs. Jordan moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:00 p.m.