[ Page 63 ]

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

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

MR. P. L. McGEER: (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to tell the House that today we have some students from Prince of Wales High School — 35 of them. With their teachers Mrs. Gross, Mrs. Campbell and Mr. Frizell.

The motto of the Prince of Wales for the Members' attention is Ich Dien, "I serve" and I hope the Members will give them a warm welcome.

Introduction of bills

MR. N. R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to withdraw bill number one standing on the order paper in my name because of a misprint in its title.

AN HON. MEMBER: What? Bill No. 1? Oh, I'm sorry — on the order paper today.

AN HON. MEMBER: We won't withdraw Bill No. l, it was hard work.

MR. SPEAKER: I understand the Hon. Member wants leave to remove item one on the order paper for today. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

AN ACT TO REPEAL THE PROBATE FEES ACT

Mr. Morrison moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 14 intituled An Act to Repeal the Probate Fees Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 14 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

AN ACT TO REPEAL THE SUCCESSION DUTY ACT

Mr. Morrison moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 15 intituled An Act to Repeal the Succession Duty Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 15 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

AN ACT TO REPEAL THE GIFT TAX ACT

Mr. Morrison moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 16 intituled An Act to Repeal the Gift Tax Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 16 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

[ Page 64 ]

BRITISH COLUMBIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ACT

Mr. Phillips moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 17 intituled British Columbia Development Corporation Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 17 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've had better bills in opposition than you have in government.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're getting better all the time.

THE OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION ACT

Mr. McClelland moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 18 intituled The Open Space Preservation Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 18 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MUNICIPALITIES AID ACT

Mr. A. V. Fraser moves introduction and first reading of Bill 19 intituled An Act to Amend the Municipalities Aid Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 19 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

AN ACT RESPECTING MOBILE HOMES

Mr. Smith moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 20 intituled An Act Respecting Mobile Homes.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 20 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE GUARANTEE BY THE PROVINCE OF LOANS
FOR FEEDING CATTLE FOR MARKET

Mr. Schroeder moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 21 intituled An Act to Provide for the Guarantee by the Province of Loans for Feeding Cattle for Market.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 21 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

ON THE JOB TRAINING ACT

Mrs. Jordan moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 22 intituled On the Job Training Act.

[ Page 65 ]

Motion approved.

Bill No. 22 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY OF BRITISH
COLUMBIA ACT

Mrs. Jordan moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 23 intituled An Act to Amend the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 23 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

MRS. JORDAN: That's the beginning of our legislative programme, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the day.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, traditionally upon first speaking at the opening of a new session one indulges in a few frivolities but I wish to pass this by today in light of the fact that I am speaking to the amendment to the motion. But I would take this opportunity to welcome all the young people and the visitors in the gallery and I'm sure they will appreciate the seriousness and the consequences of this debate. Because it should now be obvious to all the people of British Columbia that financially we are in Barrett's Wonderland.

Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, your claim to financial expertise is preposterous when you base it on your experience as a social worker and suggest that this gives you a financial genius.

In just 35 days you have demonstrated to the people of this province that you understand very little about what makes the economy of this great province run. Your admission in the Speech from the Throne that this wealthy province has the funds available for your programmes, and your pride in standing on the basis of the economic movement now makes it very clear that your basic approach to driving the economy of this province is in finding yourself plugged in to no greater a financial expert than Santa Claus.

The record of failure on your part and your government's part to act decisively in listing out the job creating potential of this province is there and here for all in this province to see.

The investor, the small businessman, is given the cold comfort of a shrug — a half a billion dollar shrug. Unfortunately since you, through you, Mr. Speaker, took office and your government took office, nearly half a billion dollars has gone down the drain. The trend of the Vancouver Stock Exchange alone, and while it is true that there is a slight dip in the stock markets across North America the facts are there and the drop in the Vancouver exchange is 9 per cent more than anywhere else. For a total of $300 million. And $165 million of that total represents the reactions of the marketplace to you, Mr. Premier, and to your government. To your foolish statements of Thursday last. And Friday last was Friday 13th. And it was indeed a dark day for the little people as well as the large people in this province.

[ Page 66 ]

And when we hear the moans and groans from the other side of the House saying, "Oh," it proves and reinforces our contention that the Socialists have no concept that the investment of the economy is made up of little investments as well as large investments. These investors little and small who have taken this drop and lost this money had willingly placed their life savings in this province — which was recognized around the world as having had financial management second to none.

The double A credit rating which again gets the sports jacket shrug, and which this province has enjoyed with the credit rating agencies of the world was not an accident Mr. Speaker, and the $300 million shrug of the Premier was not an accident either. It represents his deep rooted sentiment that all private profit is evil and that investments in the private sector are to be discouraged in this province.

And it may come as a shock to you Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker that it takes over $200 billion a day to drive the British Columbia economy forward — private capital, and private investment. And at the very worse time of the year, namely now when the investment decisions for 1973 are being made by little companies and big companies, by little investors, and by big investors, you deliberately and irresponsibly, bring forth your ideological nonsense. You have already admitted a personal, and I'm sorry to say an emotional, hang-up with respect to nuclear power. Further decisions of such consequence are not and should not be made on an emotional hang up of a boy Premier. (Laughter)

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Personal allusion should not be made in the House, and I would ask the Hon. Member not to do that.

MRS. JORDAN: No. He said he was 41 last night, and he told us how young he was — but I'll bow to your decision.

But what is important is not whether he's a boy Premier, a man Premier, a child Premier, or an irresponsible Premier. The important thing is that this type of decision is not good enough and he should hang his head and blush with shame, that he can so lightly shrug off the loss of this major investment. And the confidence of the investment sector in the Province of British Columbia. Mr. Premier, your decision with respect to the British Columbia Telephone Company is even more shocking and it could almost be called devious and immoral. Are you deliberately attempting to drive the value of these share…

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Madame Member would you kindly be seated.

In this House we don't call people deceitful, nor devious. And we don't use the expressions that the Hon. Member has used. And if she continues to ignore the Chair on this I will ask her to withdraw.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but what I want to know is, is the Premier deliberately trying to drive the value of these shares down so that he can make the take-over price cheaper? Are you saying to these Members, are you saying to the people of British Columbia "don't worry boys and girls, Barrett can get the B.C. Telephone Company for you wholesale."? How financially immature and irresponsible can you be? Where is your regard as a Premier, through you Mr. Speaker, and for your Government for the private rights, for property rights of individuals, the other rights of individuals? The sanctity of contracts? Your loose attitude on contracts between government and the investor is already destructive and destroying a free society.

Your ill-timed, your heavy-handed jack-booted approach to the individual rights of people, small investor in this province, to the sanctity of contracts is alarming and it's amazing that it isn't more alarming to the Ministers that sit around you.

You cannot help but spread a cloud of concern over the investment sector of this province. The sector in which jobs are created, the markets through which jobs are created. And again you are displaying a welfare

[ Page 67 ]

ideological approach which can do nothing more than to destroy the confidence in this province.

You're acting as if capital and labour are enemies, and they are not enemies of one another — the philosophy that Marxian socialists have espoused for so long a time. They are natural partners and by working together here, in British Columbia they have brought about and produced one of the highest standards of living in the world. Certainly there have been abuses, in capital and in labour too. But when they work together as a team the benefits to our society are very clear and have enjoyed by the people in this province.

You would not only disturb the natural and the effective relationship of these two areas, but would be willing to accept a job loss that's involved in this disruption — to the people, jobs to people in all parts of this province and you would do this in the name of an emotional hang-up. Even with the B.C. Telephone Company, Mr. Speaker, the Premier of this province should get in touch with his national leader who has been bouncing around Canada rightly naming corporate welfare burns. But even he was gracious enough to single out those corporations who were responsible.

He had an award of merit, and what was one of the companies that he awarded his award of merit to? The British Columbia Telephone Company. David Lewis singled out the British Columbia Telephone Company as an example of a good corporate citizen — paying, Mr. Premier, its fair share of taxation. All of which you wish to drive out and flush away. And the job creating potential of the money that you require to take over that company will be lost.

I suggest in speaking to this amendment with respect to natural gas for Vancouver Island that you are equally incredible. Surely, the citizens of this island who make up 1/5th of the population of British Columbia deserve to be brought in to the natural gas distribution of this province. If we can ship gas to California surely the residents of this island have the rights to the jobs that would be created by the bringing of natural gas to this area.

The previous government had advised Dr. Shrum that it was government policy, our policy, to bring natural gas to this island, and to see the people benefit from this job-producing input. And again, Mr. Premier, through you Mr. Speaker, you have permitted your Ministers to issue confusing, wooly, and unfounded statements, perhaps forgetting about natural gas over 1/5th of the population of this province. And you have offered no alternative.

The incredible part of this, and all these other statements, is that they seem to be made with almost a deliberate sense of malice. If you watch the Minister of Lands, Forests, Water Resources, Conservation and almost near empire-builder on the television it's shocking to the people of British Columbia to see him gleefully announce policies which are going to lead to unemployment in this province.

Your government seems not to understand that such actions precipitate an immediate reaction in the business community. Ana in the case of your government the people of this province, the little people of this province, the little people of this province, the small investors, the small businesses, as well as the large businesses have had a reaction which is all bad.

If you don't believe just walk down the street, any street in the ridings of some of your own Members and talk to some of the every day people, talk to the small business people, the grocery clerk, the small window screen manufacturers — those who have all their money tied up in their land and the working man in this province, the man who draws and hopes to draw a steady pay cheque, the man or woman who wants to have an alternative in his job and an opportunity to better himself in his job and receive greater remunerations to enjoy more benefits in life.

Talk to him, Mr. Premier, and you'll find that there is a stream, a river of uneasiness and concern in this province in these people. Thirty-five days and you have a river of uncertainty running in a province

[ Page 68 ]

that enjoyed the greatest economic confidence, the greatest people confidence in the history of the free world. And your Minister of Lands and Forests says now "the public will believe what we said in the opposition, we will do what we said we would do in the opposition."

But no responsible second look. None whatsoever. No careful examinations by this cabinet, by this Premier, of these policies. No examinations of future policies based on reality and no communication with the business community — only to the media.

Your party has always been great for manifestos, Mr. Premier. You had the Regina Manifesto, the Premier himself, Mr. Speaker, happily signed the Waffle Manifesto. Why doesn't the Premier come clean now? Come clean now, Mr. Premier, and unveil the Barrett Victoria Manifesto.

Get you secretary to fill out your appointment book. Meet with some of these people — you're not too busy, there is nothing in the legislation here that requires this Legislature to meet that is going to benefit the general public of this province. You have already said that your Ministers give adequate explanation for their unimaginative legislation that they have introduced. You laugh, you don't even know what you're doing.

Important pieces of legislation in the Speech from the Throne that we are amending are the increase to pensioners which should be higher — which should be $225 a month, the increase to the handicapped. You didn't need this Legislature, you didn't need this spending of taxpayers' money to do that, you could have done it by order in council. They needn't wait until December for Christmas from Santa Claus, the Santa Claus finance here for their cheques. They could have had them at the end of this month, if you had acted, as there was the money and the policy to help these people.

MR. SPEAKER: Madam Member, would you kindly in future address the Chair, rather than some other person in the assembly?

MRS. JORDAN: Surely, Mr. Speaker, indeed. You have already said that the Ministers will give good explanation of this legislation that you have introduced, but you wouldn't allow the House if it was an emergency legislation to go into it immediately.

We will go along with all these pension increases, after all it was our government that put them forward in the Kelowna Charter. (Laughter). Mr. Premier, through you Mr. Speaker, yes it does, because I am proud of the record of our government and it was, and I will say it again. It was the Social Credit government and in the Kelowna Charter, that the people were guaranteed a minimum income, old age pensioner of $225 per month and we had it figured out so that it could have been cost shared.

It just was the recycling of money through the provincial government and the provincial taxpayer into the federal coffers. I want to get on to the fact of Barrett's Victoria Charter and that I think you should call the business people over here, little ones as well, and bring them to your office and outline for them here and now item by item, detail by detail, method by method and tell them what you are doing and where you are going and what you are going to do with this province.

Bring the Barrett-Victoria manifesto out into the open and lay it on the table and let the people see it. You have pledged an open government, through you, Mr. Speaker. Now act on it. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, the Premier to stop using his office as a shooting gallery, not for meeting with people but for press conferences, media conferences where he takes pot shots at various sectors of this economy. That's what a Premier's office is for…

MR. SPEAKER: Will the Hon. Member please confine herself to the amendments before the House and not the Premier's office?

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the Premier's office isn't to be used for the creation of jobs in this province what is it to be used for? Perhaps if you object to this you will speak on behalf of the Premier.

[ Page 69 ]

The Premier's office, the power in this province, is to be used for the creation of jobs for people and that is the purpose of our amendment. Surely, there could be no question about the orderliness of that. I would call upon the Premier in this amendment to accept our suggestion and to bring out into the open the one job creation programme that he has used, and that is a job creation programme within his own political sphere of extremely high salaries in relation to what the average person and the working people in this province are earning — $16,000 a year to $40,000 a year to an unknown quantity. I would call in this work projects programme, to bring that programme before this Legislature, and to indicate in the Speech from the Throne that you would, so that these appointments could be debated, so that these appointments could have been put out for public bid.

It's just possible there are some people in this province who didn't work on the N.D.P. campaign. Who didn't write the programme for the Province of Manitoba, who would be very competent to carry out and help you carry out some of the programmes which I'm sure you most sincerely desire to do.

When you examine what has happened in the last 35 days, you can say no more than the fact that this government, this cabinet, and this Premier are acting like a bunch of kids in the cookie jar. You are operating a "cookie jar" government. You say it, you lifted the lid, and there was money and you went gleefully diving in without any thoughts or consequences of your action, and Mr. Premier, that is not good enough for fostering investment in this Province, and for strengthening the investment climate.

It's going to come home, Mr. Premier, to all levels of government and while you sit here laughing about the cookies, and the largesse that you are passing out in political realms you won't listen to the fact that other levels of government are going to suffer and I refer to the municipal level.

Your actions will affect them in a very direct way. The municipal financing authority in this province has enabled these governments to borrow money at a very low rate of interest, an even lower rate of interest than other provinces were allowed to do, and these municipalities could borrow money to create jobs, to put in sewer systems, to build buildings, to better the life in their communities and create jobs for everyone — jobs that were open for public bid, not just for a favoured few, and they had this rating because of the sound management of their own organization and the sound management of this province, and they are going to feel the pinch of this irresponsible cookie jar action.

I would suggest that this government is undoing the very foundation on which the record of financing in this province was built and in the municipalities, in the school boards and in other areas.

Mr. Premier start please, through you Mr. Speaker, being a prudent manager. Get your hands out of the cookie jar. You said you wanted to be a prudent leader, do so. Don't be intoxicated with the crumbs from these cookies, get on with the job and start coordinating your present financial commitments with revue expectations.

It may be hilarious to the cabinet, but you know you can only spend what you've got in spite of your airy fairy theories, and your expenditures as they are outlined now are not in relation to the expected revenues of this province and do not take into light inflation, nor do they take into light the bureaucracy that you are building up which will increase your expected expenditures.

Yes, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, I admit that this will take a year or two to show up, but it will show up unless you change your policy. If you change your policies, Mr. Premier, through you Mr. Speaker, this part of the House will support you. If you pull on the reins to maintain stability in the economic sector of province, if you pull on the reins to curb wasteful government spending that has been started under your administration, we will support you and we will help you. But we don't think you are doing that, Mr. Premier.

[ Page 70 ]

We think, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier doesn't understand the fiscal policy of government itself and he doesn't understand that it is a prime factor in producing the kind of economy that will produce jobs for people in all parts of this province, and so, Mr. Speaker, we ask through you the new members of this government to take a look at your cabinet, to honour your commitment to the people of this province, to be concerned about the expansion of jobs and secondary industry in this province through the actions of your government, to see that the money that this government is spending now is not being doled out to a few, but will benefit the many, to see that agriculture gets its opportunity to provide the jobs that it can and to ensure its longevity and its part in our economy by having a fair return for their province.

Join with us on this side of the House and vote for this amendment. See that British Columbia does move ahead. See that you can carry out your responsibilities to those people who elected you by supporting this amendment.

If you go home, and you haven't been home for a few days, and you talk to the people through you, Mr. Speaker, in your constituency you will find that they have but a simple question. "I need a job, where am I going to get it, what are you doing about creating a job for me, for my family, and for my children?" Let the Premier know, through you Mr. Speaker, that you want him to fill his appointment book, that you want him to call the business people to Victoria to discuss this very, very serious situation, that you want him as leader of your party, as leader of your philosophy, as leader who helped get you elected, if you want him to get his hands out of the cookie jar and get on with the business of helping the majority of people in this province.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that when that bell rings every member of this House has a responsibility to let their conscience be their guide. We, as I said before Mr. Speaker, as Members of this House, as opposition who are deeply concerned about the consequences of the Premier's action both inside this House and outside this House will be pleased to support. We have taken the initiative and we have introduced legislation which is compatible with this amendment which shows him how he can create jobs.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon, Member, please, I would remind the Hon. lady that she herself put a bill on the order paper that makes it impossible for her to debate the subject at this time. Would she kindly refrain from discussing municipal aid as she has been doing.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, at this moment I was talking about jobs for people, but I will bow to your decision and I will close by again suggesting without any reference to the bills that this side of the House is prepared to offer every help it can. This side of the House is prepared to give you our offer of confidence if you will merit it in your action and that until you do this ask all members of this House to support this amendment and try and bring this government to some sense of rational thinking and some effort to undo the most serious errors that it has already made.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney-General.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General & Minister of Industrial Development, Trade, & Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I'm rising to debate the amendment. It's the first occasion I've had in this session to address you, Mr. Speaker. You've changed, Mr. Speaker, but life is change and I want to deal in speaking to this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I want to deal first with irrelevant matters and then touch upon relevant matters.

Touching lightly upon some of the relevant matters, under the first heading I want to say that the Member for Vancouver Centre and I, I'm hopeful will try to arrange a game of tennis with a couple of South Africans. I'm trying that but it's still just love-all.

[ Page 71 ]

I want to say that in speaking to the amendment that we've had very good speeches although I've had the impression that Liberal Leader, mark one, and for that matter Liberal Leader, mark two, didn't really know what they thought until they heard what they said.

On the other hand, I like to speak of the House leader — not the Member for South Okanagan, but, his two House leaders, one on each side. But, I like the speech for the Member from Similkameen (Mr. Richter) better than I like the speech on the amendment of the Hon. Member from Columbia, (Mr. Chabot) because the first member's speech was short, that's why I liked it. But I want to say the Member for Columbia talked about employment and secondary industry, and a development corporation. He is a great admirer of this government. He expects us to do in four weeks what they failed to do in 20 years. Now we're good Mr. Member, but we're not that good. The member for North Okanagan asks how they can assist the government, Mr. Speaker, and I say that they might assist us best by quitting while they're behind. After all, Mr. Speaker, we did just get here. Here today, gone tomorrow. (Laughter). Would you believe 20 years?

AN HON. MEMBER: No way, no way. Twenty-six!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: And it is a special session or an emergency session, I don't care what you call it, Mr. Speaker, and its purpose has to do with employment and it has to do with putting purchasing dollars in the pockets of our senior citizens to help the economy, and begin the correction of the monumental injustice to some in our society who have deserved the best and have received the worst.

Now the Opposition says, "let's have aid to secondary industry," after fighting the idea tooth and nail for 20 years. Talk about political tergiversity. Mr. Speaker. But I say amen to the idea. But, I sound this note, call it caution if you will — that I want our economic programme to be sound, responsible, effective, and community based.

Anyone can incorporate a corporation and a legislature can vote money, but, if we say, Mr. Speaker, that it should be slow and easy it is because we want it to be worthwhile. I've already talked in that four-week period, that short four-week period, with leaders in the industrial field and people from the universities and people from labour, one of them I have no hesitation in saying is the most honourable Eric Kierans, a most distinguished Canadian.

You know what he told me, Mr. Speaker? He said that you should do your research and planning first and not rush into the mistakes other provinces and countries have made. I don't want to be like the fellow who's speeding and was stopped by a policeman and he offered the excuse that he was hurrying home to get there before he had an accident.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the former Minister.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: So here are some of the things we must know as we discuss employment and secondary industry. I have no hesitation in mentioning some of the things that should be explored because, in spite of what's been said opposite, this is an open government. We do want discussion, constructive discussion, in this legislature and we want it in the whole community of British Columbia and some of the things that have to be considered in terms of the employment referred to in this amendment — the aims of an industrial corporation or assistance programmeme. The extent to which it should be a profit maker, the extent to which it should be a subsidized in any way or both.

Now, we have in the federal field a vast alphabet soup of assistance programmes. It's simply amazing the number of letters that they have. It seems to be something in excess of anything contemplated in the Roosevelt New Deal, but, they have rushed into some of their corporations without any certainty as to the objectives they sought to attain.

Not surprisingly, they have piled up in part — and I say in part only — a record of waste, regional discrimination and failure. There have

[ Page 72 ]

been too many grants of get-away money. We want to know the kind of help to B.C. industry that will be available from land assembly, to loans, to equity participation.

We want to know the kinds of industry that should be helped. Small exiting British Columbia industries can be helped, for example, to expand and compete in the wide world. Or, new industries can be sparked.

The first is probably the most promising but both have to be considered We have to consider the appraisal procedure to handle applications for assistance, we have to examine the success and failure records of other provinces of Canada. And, finally I think we must have participation and consultation with leaders in business, labour, and the universities along with government — not only in setting up our industrial assistance programme but also in its operation.

Perhaps, this may point, Mr. Speaker, to an economic advisory council outside of government, with the leaders in the economic segments sharing with us the exciting and rewarding task of charting British Columbia into the proud future she ought to have. As I say, I suggest these things, Mr. Speaker, not because they are government policy but because we welcome the exchange of positive ideas and suggestions from among our fellow citizens. We are an open government. Pride of authorship does not concern me, Mr. Speaker. I'm not worried about looseing my face. And, where the ideas come from are not the important thing. But let me say this; we do want constructive ideas, we do not want, and this province does not need, the strident voices of panic-mongers, too many of which we heard, Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon in this Legislature. On October 12, 1972, the Premier of British Columbia revealed a secret that had been well know for years. Yes, we believe the B.C. Tel should be owned by the people of British Columbia and we intend to achieve that proud social objective. And at once the panic-mongers pressed the button. Newspapers reported that paper profits had been wiped out. As a matter of fact, the newspapers wiped out those paper profits, by their sensational and extravagant reporting of a non-event.

But, even the papers, let alone the Premier of British Columbia, didn't drag down the Dow Jones industrial index. Or drag down the Toronto Stock Exchange index, all of which have gone down. But I don't thing the Hon. Members friends, Mr. Speaker, should blame the newspapers for that, and I don't think they should blame the Premier of British Columbia. There has been a stock decline which had had nothing to do with what has happened in this province, and I am quite confident that when the strident voices of the panic-mongers have died down there will be the normal expanding business activity in British Columbia that we expect and we expect right through the coming year. Once again our policy, Mr. Speaker, is easy does it. No rush, no rush, no panic.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We should and will, of course, enlist the aid and services of those thousands of B.C. Tel employees who have so much to offer this province.

We will, of course, see that security holders receive fair market value for their investments. And I stress fair, and not of value artificially depressed by sensational stories or by government. We will, of course, sit down with Ottawa in due course, and resolve constitutional problems.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sounds like the B.C. Electric…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: After all, a national objective of Canada is an extension of Canadian ownership and equity in our economy.

But why should a B.C. utility be paying tribute to a vast multinational corporation fat beyond our borders?

The Liberal leader says that he has been reading the Wall Street Journal and he says that he was shocked to find that the only B.C. news in the Wall Street Journal was that we planned to own our own telephone

[ Page 73 ]

systems. How they must have felt on Wall Street. The peasants were getting restless again. First it was the Dominican Republic, now it was British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mexico?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: But they know, Mr. Speaker, that we are a businesslike government and that we mean business. I wish that the Liberal leader would read the B.C. papers and have faith in this province. Don't knock it. We can march forward into a glad, confident future, and that's just what we intend to do.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad that someone from the government benches saw fit to rise in this debate. The silence from that side of the House was becoming deafening.

I must say, however, that the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), or maybe he was speaking as the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce presented me today with the same problems that I had with him when he sat on this side of the House. Having described his remarks as partly relevant and partly irrelevant I wasn't able to tell which was which. However, he always gives a humorous speech and we indebted to him for that.

He made some interesting remarks, saying that we want to have constructive discussions about the problems which are confronting the economy of this province. And we want to have open government so those things can be discussed. He's always been in favour of open government. He was going to present a sunshine bill at one time but the fog seems to have descended on Victoria, at least these last couple of days.

Ali HON. MEMBER: All over the province! All over the province!

MR. WILLIAMS: But this, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what this amendment is all about. It is expressing regret that this throne speech has not given us the opportunity of having a constructive discussion on the matters to which the Hon. Minister has just referred.

That's the problem. It's no good to say "we have only been here four weeks." Although I must say that having listened to the Hon. the lady member from North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) I chuckled when thought what a difference 35 days could make in one's attitudes towards the economy of this province and the action that government should take.

But that's not the problem. If we're going to have constructive discussion of this very important subject, it should be discussed in this Legislature or in a committee of this Legislature. I too would like to be constructive and make a suggestion.

I'm surprised that the Hon. Minister has not already realized the mistake that was made and corrected it. We should have had, Mr. Speaker, indications in the Speech from the Throne that this government would ask this assembly to establish special committee for the purpose of carrying on the very kind of constructive discussion that the Hon. minister raised today.

If you're going to have open government, Mr. Speaker, you're not to carry on these discussions in the closed circle of the cabinet and those consultants that they may see fit to employ.

It is the members of this assembly sitting in committees who should be meeting with representatives of industry, of labour, of our universities, the economists, the people who can really come before us and tell us what the next years must hold for British Columbia if we are to realize the success that is properly ours. That's open government. That's why we're saying "where is it in the throne speech?" This is what this amendment is all about.

[ Page 74 ]

As I listened to the Hon. Minister I thought that perhaps he would be voting in favour of the amendment. I agree with him that we don't need to have any more emotional strident voices. Although I noticed that his voice towards the end became just a little bit strident. I'll keep mine down.

Our complaint and the complaint that is made on this side of the House is that the Premier, the first Minister of this government has himself been strident, careless and incautious in his remarks. Remarks which were acceptable when he sat on this side of the House, even as the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. But remarks which emanating from the Premier's office have a far different effect.

I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that far from being a blunder on the part of the Premier, I am concerned that those remarks were not a blunder but made on purpose. And the effect that it has had on our economy is obvious. He is now suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that anyone can come in and do business with British Columbia. "Be partners with us," he says. Reminds me of that popular song "Mac the Knife." You know, about them shiny white teeth what flash, you know. "Come and be partners with us." The sharks bite. This is not the way, Mr. Speaker, in which to encourage new industries to come to this province to produce the job that we require. Not that kind of talk will produce the partnerships that the government hopes will result from discussions. Indeed, if we're to believe what the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) has said this afternoon, the Premier is speaking previous to the decision on policy. Because we haven't got any policy yet. We're going to have these constructive discussions and yet the Premier seems to have some very specific ideas as to the kind of industrial development that he is prepared to accept.

One aspect of the amendment before us has received scant attention. And that is the suggestion that the government should be giving its attention to the encouragement of industries for the processing of agricultural products in this province. This is a matter which was of very great concern to me and should be of very great concern to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) although he hasn't seen fit to make himself available in this chamber much during the past two days.

But, Mr. Speaker, processing of agricultural products in this province is an essential to the continuation, to the very survival, of agriculture as a viable segment of our economy in the Province of British Columbia.

Not only in this province, but elsewhere there is no question that the agricultural community is the least served by government programmes. It is the most depressed area of our economy. The return at the producer's level bear no relationship whatsoever to the cost that the consumer pays. Food processing is only one of the ways in which this can be improved. But it should be part of a study. And it is the lack of this kind of consideration in the Speech from the Throne that gives me the gravest concern as to the serious approach that this government is prepared to take to the problems of agriculture and the allied industries.

I don't wish to pursue this matter at length but, it's quite clear the government doesn't know where it's going. I accept that. In 35 days there's a lot of things to be looked at. First of all, the Ministers have to decide which side of the desk is the front and which is the back. Well, you could have found that in 35 days. At least with an executive assistant to help you. But, when you come into this House at the first session of the 30th Parliament of this province you should at least be ready to allow the Members of this assembly to join with the government in open government and discuss the most significant job that faces government today — production of jobs in our economy, the employment of our citizens and the avoidance of the tragedy that unemployment can bring.

I wish I didn't have to support this amendment. I wish it had been in the throne speech but it wasn't and you're to be criticized.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. lady Member, the first Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain.

[ Page 75 ]

MS. P.F. YOUNG (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members, I see here a repetition of what we have seen in the past 20 years. And particularly in the past six years in this province. Old thinking, old ideas. We are in a new decade, totally new world, and have to look at the bigger expanding labour force due to an increase in the world population. We have to look at such things as the diminishing job market due to automation. Particularly in primary extractive industries — our principal industries in this province. We're reminded that in the mining industry what it takes to extract 100 times now, it takes the same labour force as it did 20 years ago. There has been no increase in the labour force but 100 times increase in productivity in that industry.

We are also seeing the dimensions of our natural resources and we find they are not infinite as we had been led to believe. We're seeing the boundaries and we're beginning to learn that we cannot expand beyond those boundaries, that we must utilize them carefully, judiciously and with a great degree of skill. Therefore, we must re-examine our total picture of what is a job. Must it always produce a profit for somebody else? Must a job be a profit-making proposition? Cannot a job have something other than a dollars and cents value to it? Does not a job have social or spiritual profit also? Is there not value in a person teaching a retarded child to dress itself? How can you put a dollars and cents value on something like that? You cannot.

We are told that the solution to all our problems is to introduce and to stimulate industry. This is true, particularly secondary, tertiary and related industries. But it would remind you that you do not necessarily do it with capital investment because capital investment frequently is spent on labour-saving devices. The magic word I understand is "productivity." The more productivity per man hour or per machine hour the better it is. However, some people tend to forget that the producer is also the consumer. If the consumer hasn't anything to spend to consume with, he's in no position to produce — and vice versa.

A study was done two years ago by two national American magazines that showed the rate of cases on welfare always rose during a recession. They did not go down after the recession went away and the recovery began. They remained the same. In succeeding recessions the welfare rolls rose again. And so it went on and on. The welfare rolls never decrease after a recession. For the simple reason that automation in industry, the expanding labour force, is actually taking away jobs from those marginal workers, the semi-skilled, the unskilled and those particularly between the ages of 45 and 65. Once out of a job and onto welfare rolls they stay there. They don't get off, and all the Manpower job-training, O.F.Y., L.I.P., ad-hoc off-the-top-of-the-head programmes in the world are not going to help them.

That is why I believe we need a total new look at the entire job creation situation in the province — a thorough well-researched study of this problem. And it cannot be done in 35 days. And anybody who thinks it can, Mr. Speaker, I really worry about their degree of intelligence, Sir, with all due respect.

We were asked as backbenchers if we could support the government in their proposition of studying this programme in the future. I know I speak for all of the backbenchers. We support the government 100 per cent. Because they will be the first to know when we don't.

AN HON. MEMBER: Forgive us, which one is….?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In speaking to the amendment I first would like to just offer my congratulations to you on your appointment since I have not had the opportunity to do that before during the short time that this House has been in session.

I do want to speak on some specific matters which I feel, had they been part of the throne speech or had there been some indication from the

[ Page 76 ]

Premier and from the government that these measures would have been in effect or considered, would have had a great deal to do with the employment of more people in this province. And while the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and the lady speaker who just took her place made quite a bit about the fact that you've only had 35 days in office and how could you be expected as government to bring about all these plans in a short period of 35 days, I would like to say to the government, Mr. Speaker, through you that you have had 20 years on this side of the House as Opposition and many of you have been members…

AN HON. MEMBER: He has all the answers. All the answers.

MR. SMITH: …and you had all the answers…

AN HON. MEMBER: All those years.

MR. SMITH: …you had all the answers all those years you were sitting in opposition to all the problems of the Province of British Columbia. What's the matter? Have you forgotten what all the answers are?

AN HON. MEMBER: They never really had any. Never had any.

MR. SMITH: Where are you now with these answers? It's not a valid point to suggest that you've only had 35 days. This government has men on that side of the House on the government benches now and in cabinet portfolios who are senior in years of service in this legislative assembly. You've got the experience to draw on. Why don't you use it to benefit the people who this winter will soon be without jobs?

You've got the best financial position at your disposal of any government taking over anywhere in the free world. There was never a time that any province or any other part of the world that I know of where there was a change of government. There was never a time when a government came in such fortunate circumstances with the dollars there to help you and assist you in promoting programmes which would employ people.

I'd like to refer now specifically to a programme which is certainly not new. But it is a programme that would have helped our agricultural industry and believe me, Mr. Speaker, the agricultural industry in the areas that I represent is in very serious trouble this year, very serious trouble this year, and we'll be very fortunate if a number of the farmers who presently farm in the Peace River country will still be able to say that they are farmers a year from now unless this government does something to help them.

They are growers of wheat, grain and alfalfa. They are people who have been employed in the basic economy of agriculture for 30 years. They're presently asking the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Finance, for assistance from the Disaster Fund.

The money is there, the money is there, Mr. Premier, and Mr. Minister of Finance, and what has your answer been to the people of the Peace River country? To their plea for help. The answer has been to turn the wire that I sent you over to your Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) who says the matter is being looked into.

How long does the problem have to be looked into — for another six months, six days, six weeks, 35 days? How long before some of these people find themselves in such a position that they can't make their financial commitments and we'll have more unemployed people on our hands, not less? But there has been prepared by this government a study on the manufacturing of alfalfa cubes within the province. It was prepared by the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce under the previous government.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 77 ]

MRS. JORDAN: You saw what happened to him.

MR. SMITH: I agree, the previous M.L.A. from South Peace River was interested in it mainly because he wanted to put his own personal farm into agricultural production.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh, oh.

MR. SMITH: Now, that is one thing…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SMITH: You don't believe that's a fact? Maybe you should ask him.

Certainly he shouldn't be criticized for looking into a programme which would benefit him personally as well as other people who are in the farming industry.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SMITH: I can see nothing wrong with the fact that a farmer is looking for something to return to him a fair return from his farm land. We can get into alfalfa production in three areas of British Columbia in a large-scale way — in the Creston area, in the Okanagan area, and in the Peace River Country. But before that can be done the people who would be mostly concerned, the farmers themselves, have to find development capital. And even one plant would run to a cost factor between $500,000 and $750,000 to process effectively alfalfa cubes. Which incidentally could be then transported to the market by containerized traffic on the British Columbia Railway.

But they don't have the capital available to them and the farmers would like to think that the government of this province would give them some assistance — not in the terms of a handout, simply in the terms of low-interest loans over a long period, long-term low-interest loans to help them collectively build the type of plants that would be necessary to process alfalfa. As a matter of fact we could carry it one step further in the same fields that produce alfalfa and adjoining them we can get the other coarse grains so they can make a complete supplement which would be highly acceptable not only to our own market in British Columbia but to the export market as well.

We have a meat packing plant in the Peace River country. As a matter of fact we have two of them up there, they're not large plants but they do need capital. Mr. Speaker, they cannot operate today even with the assistance of I.D.B. if they have to look at interest rates of 10 and 12 per cent.

The Federal I.D.B. is prepared to lend them money at 10 and 12 per cent, but any accountant will tell you that it's not possible for them to be successful in the packing plant industry, which has a very, very close margin of profit, if they have to pay 10 to 12 per cent interest for their money.

The packing plant that I know particularly well in my part of the country serves the large and increasing — we hope at least it will continue to increase — increasing oil industry in that party of British Columbia. The poor man who built this new plant invested every cent of his life savings and he still had to borrow about $150,000 from I.D.B. as well. But there is no way that he'll ever make that plant a success when he's had to pay between 10 and 12 per cent interest on the loan from the I.D.B. They should have told him, if they were experts in the field of finance, that he could not make it with interest rates of that range on such a narrow margin.

AN. HON. MEMBER: That's usury.

[ Page 78 ]

MR. SMITH: It's usury. He's invested all his money and he'll probably go down the drain and take with him between 15 and 20 employees that depend upon his packing plant for their job. It's unfortunate because if he was able to borrow money at a reasonable interest rate he would be able to expand his operation and continue with a profitable business, not only for himself but for every farmer in that part of the country who is engaged presently in raising cattle for the market.

And while we're talking about cattle, why should we have to export all our feeders to Alberta and then buy them back as finished beef products? Certainly we should be able to supply money to the people that are in that industry to purchase cattle from the range land in the fall and feed them out on the understanding that the money would be short term loan. These are the things, Mr. Speaker, that we regret the throne speech did not deal with because there was ample opportunity to include within the throne speech provisions which would, when they were implemented, provide people with employment in this province.

I'd like to refer also to another matter which would have provided employment for people not in the Peace River part of British Columbia, but in the lower area of the province. And I'm sorry that the Honourable the Minister without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Calder) whose affair it seems to be now to investigate the welfare of the Indian people of this province is not in the House. But a short time ago before the election a group of people wanted to start a cannery at Port Simpson. Native people, people who had an idea and working together co-operatively wanted to start a business which they would run and they would control. But they needed finance, Mr. Speaker, they needed financial support.

The government at that time promised them financial support and I'd to read from and quote from a copy of the Native Voice;

The first citizens' fund of B.C. will finance a $2 million Indian owned and operated co-operative fish cannery at Port Simpson to the tune of $1 million, with the other funds coming in a form of loans from the $50 million incentive fund the current government has promised to establish. The announcement of the Minister of Municipal Affairs this month has aroused a spat of charges by Opposition candidates of political motivation in the decisions, but the general reaction has been favourable. M.L.A. Frank Calder has welcomed the move as a means of helping develop the northern area and provide jobs otherwise unavailable to the Indians in the area. N.D.P. Leader, Dave Barrett said he would finance the entire project…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SMITH: Where is the Minister with Portfolio now? And what is he saying about the proposed cannery in Port Simpson? That was going to employ native people in an area that they know something about. In jobs that would take them off of welfare rolls. Where is the $1 million that was promised them from the first citizens' fund? The money is in the first citizens fund. What happened?

Is the present government so callous that they won't even talk to these people? Because I'd like to quote you from another letter, Mr. Speaker, and this one is dated October 16, 1972. It's from a Mr. S. M. Thomas who's very well known in the group that are proposing this cannery. He's the consultant and adviser and has been very closely related to the work that's going on by this group to try and get this cannery going. The letter is addressed to Mr. Dan Campbell.

For your further information, all applications submitted by non-status and other organizations to first citizens fund have been actioned. It looks like we are being discriminated against. I believe this is because we completely supported the Social Credit Government who have supported us for the last four years. It is a shame to think that the Indian people who tried to create employment and an industry that will take them off the welfare rolls and also for the first time in history give them the opportunity to compete with their fellow

[ Page 79 ]

Canadians. The future of the Pacific North Coast Native Co-operative looks bleak, and without these funds that were approved by yourself and other ministers of the first citizen fund this office and this project will come to an end.

What is the government doing for these people besides hiding behind a smoke screen that there has been no study done properly before you get involved in it? What are you doing for them?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We're starting a trust fund.

AN HON. MEMBER: Studying them.

MR. SMITH: What are you doing? Studying it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Delay!

MR. SMITH: Are you doing the same thing, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Premier, with the farmers in the Peace River country who desperately need some assistance from the disaster fund? Delay it, delay it, delay it! Until such a time it's of no benefit to them. Or are you hopefully thinking that they'll forget about it?

We had a chance of having a copper smelter in British Columbia and I hope we still have a chance for that.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: No, I wasn't here in 1963. Perhaps you were.

AN HON. MEMBER: He wasn't either. He wasn't either.

MR. SMITH: We had a chance of having a copper smelter and I would hope.

AN HON. MEMBER: 1964 was your first session.

MR. SMITH: ….and I would hope that we will still have a chance of a copper smelter in the Province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Lots of luck!

MR. SMITH: But I'll tell you this, Mr. Speaker, that if we don't want it in British Columbia, the Hon. Arthur Laing, retiring Minister of Northern Development, says they would be quite happy to have it in the Yukon.

We have no guarantee in this province or anywhere else that business will automatically flock to British Columbia to invest dollars. Unless we give them a fair break, a political climate which doesn't scare them half to death, the chances of making a fair return on their investments over a long period of time, and an atmosphere within the province that will create certainty in their minds that the investment will not be wiped out by misleading or unthoughtful statements — statements by Members who now occupy the seats of government and should know better than to make those kind of statements without first thinking of the consequences they will have on the whole economic process within the Province of British Columbia.

We want to create an atmosphere here where people will be prepared to buy back British Columbia from whoever may presently hold the shares. We want to create an atmosphere where they will come in and build new industry. But we can't do it by shaking the confidence of every investor, not only in British Columbia but throughout all of Canada.

There's been a disruption in the business climate because of statements made and while I'm not going to prolong on that point of view I do say this — that the government has a responsibility as government to every citizen in this province to protect their interests, to provide wherever

[ Page 80 ]

possible a genuine atmosphere of goodwill towards business communities, so that people will be interested in investing money in British Columbia, they will be interested in providing new jobs.

It doesn't take large industries with billions of dollars of capitalization to create new jobs. Mainly, Mr. Speaker, what it takes quite often is a man with ability, with ideas, with a small amount of capital available at reliable interest rates, not usury rates — putting the idea into effect in the many areas of British Columbia where development will take place. Putting the idea into effect and by so doing employing anywhere from five to 12 people — but multiplied hundreds of times over in all parts of British Columbia it would certainly do a great deal to remove the problems of unemployment in this province.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that other members of the government will state their point of view and tell us why they will not accept the amendment as proposed. They've been silenced apparently by their leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: His heavy hand.

MR. SMITH: They haven't said anything about their views on the matter. We would hope that after I take my place that other members on the government side of the House will get up and speak in support of this amendment. Because certainly it is the type of thing that we should be discussing at this time, if we are concerned about what is happening in the field of unemployment and run away inflation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to speak briefly on the amendment, which this party will support. I mentioned and I will try to avoid repetition of what I said yesterday since much of the content of that speech dealt with the government's failure to fulfil what it considered pledges to solve the two main problems of unemployment and inflation. And I also mentioned yesterday that I had to really take a good look around here to realize what a reversal of political fortunes had occurred.

Today I am even more aware of this tremendous change because here, Mr. Speaker, I almost, as I say, have to shake my head to know if I'm really hearing what I'm hearing. Because first of all the former government was asked — certainly the three years that I've been in the House — time and time and time again to give assistance for creation of secondary industry in the province to create jobs. Time and time and time again, I heard this from the Opposition of that day which is now the government.

Today that former government now sitting in the Opposition is asking the very thing of the socialist party which it itself refused to do over many years. So that this is a little puzzling — the sudden change of heart. And when we consider that the government of today has announced certain plans which will involve the spending of large sums of money we hear crowing from the Socred Party that the dollars of course are available. Obviously the question in anyone's mind is that if the dollars are so readily available and if secondary industry is such a good idea why didn't the Socred government do it themselves?

I know, Mr. Speaker, this isn't being as positive and as constructive as I would like to be in this House, but nevertheless I think certain points should be put on the record and made absolutely clear. The apparent change of heart of the Socred Party in this House is quite unbelievable to me. That they now clearly admit that there was this large surplus of funds and that although they did nothing about secondary industry while they were in power, now it seems to be very politically suitable and advisable and the very best thing for them to shout about and dance up and down criticising the new government because it is not immediately doing something they refused to do while they were in power.

And I, Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect would have to take issue with the Member from North Peace River (Mr. Smith) not only because

[ Page 81 ]

he made a completely unjustified insult in this House — an insult I might say, Mr. Speaker, against a man who is not here to answer the charge. I want it put very plainly on this record for those who have not been here over the past three years. One of my friends across the way is wondering why I'm looking so serious today when I was so humorous yesterday but the answer is very simple, Mr. Speaker.

The fact of the matter is that in discussing the amendment, the speaker from North Peace River referred to plans to process alfalfa, a plan I may say which this party strongly supports and included as part of its election platform as policy on agriculture — strongly supported government assistance in the processing of alfalfa to provide jobs and to provide income for this province since there was already a market in Japan.

All I want to make clear, Mr. Speaker, and put on the record, is that not only is that the policy of the Conservative Party but it was over a period of three years a specific project which the former Member for South Peace River attempted to persuade the government of the day to follow.

So, once again, while I am speaking in favour of the amendment, I feel it's very important that this House and the public in the province should know the sudden switch around, a complete and total 180 degree turn which the Social Credit Party have done on these two particular points I have mentioned.

However, to be a little constructive, we agree that 35 days is a short time. I think the lady Member, the First Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Ms. Young) gave an excellent outline of what the problem basically is in unemployment. That it is not just a simple matter to create jobs, that there's a whole change in our environment. Whoever reads "Future Shock" well knows so many changes in our total society are occurring so rapidly that what was suitable today certainly may be anything but suitable tomorrow and may be even obsolete. So I accept that.

What does distress me about the fact that the government has not put something positive in the throne speech is the fact that while some further study be what they wish, many, many studies have been done. There is a tremendous amount of information available and once again — to return to the theme of yesterday — if this emergency session is really necessary I still feel that the greatest emergency in the province right now is unemployment. And for us to come here and enter into debate — or at least it seems to have been the government's intention, Mr. Speaker, that we should not debate anything other than the subject matter of the bills. I stand to be corrected by the Premier, Mr. Speaker, if this was not his intention. But it has certainly appeared to us on this side of the House that we were called into emergency session purely to deal with specific measures selected by the government.

I feel, and it's obvious that every Member in the Opposition who has spoken feels the same way, that it is not the prerogative of government to tell us what we shall or shall not debate. Because in our opinion unemployment and inflation are undoubtedly the two major problems and some of these measures that are to be proposed really will not help the people they are intended to help to any measurable degree until we have dealt with the two major problems of providing jobs and trying to cope with inflation.

And so, while I enjoyed very much the speech from the first Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain I think she outlined the problem without offering any solution. And this is our feeling on this side of the House — that it's all very well to spell out the problem but to come to this House with no specific measures in the throne speech to deal with them we feel is unrealistic and means that the government is falling short in the responsibility it has assumed.

In a more specific manner I would like to know for example, Mr. Speaker, in the problem of creating jobs where the Toyota car situation rests at the present time. The Premier when he was Leader of the Opposition took the initiative of approaching the car industry in Japan and we needn't go into the details — the House and the province well knows this. And I would have thought that since they seemed to offer a tremendous possibility in terms of jobs and sine he keenly favoured it personally, surely the House

[ Page 82 ]

should be made aware of where that situation stands at the present time.

I think also that the theme has been put abroad in this debate by the, government side of the House that there seems to be something wrong in profit, and why should we create jobs just so that somebody can make a profit. At that part in her speech the lady Member also quite correctly said that there are many functions of government and society as a whole where certainly profit is not the primary motive. But I think that anyone who considers they can treat or look upon the profit factor in our existence as being something of not much significance is really ignoring a very basic part of human nature. Worse than that, ignoring a very basic element in a thriving economy or in any economy which must succeed.

I feel that if there is any intention by the government to suggest that the profit motive is unimportant or can be overlooked then indeed no wonder the business sector of our society is shaking in its shoes and wondering just what specific plans the government has in mind.

But of course, my learned friend reminds me on my right that this is one of the elements of socialism and this is one of the reasons that they're on that side of the House and I'm on this side of the House. I, feel, Mr. Speaker, that in these general ways although I accept that 35 days cannot give the government the chance to provide all the answers, surely it should have come forward with the answers to the most pressing needs in our society and for that reason we will be voting in favour of the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Rossland-Trail.

MR. C.A.C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members, I'm disturbed and amazed to hear spokesmen for the Liberal Party speak in the House on the alleged serious state of the B.C. economy with regard to unemployment and retail sales. These Opposition Members should know full well that under the constitution of Canada, the main power to remedy such a situation lies with the Federal Government.

During that time we have had a Liberal government in office in Ottawa, they have done everything in their power, in my opinion, to prevent the kind of atmosphere being created in this country or in this province that will create jobs and provide incentives for businessmen and shareholders who wish to invest in B.C. and in Canada in job-producing industries.

Oh, they've done everything they can to make it easy for those poor shareholders who live in New York or the Bahamas or Lichtenstein or some other place outside the country to invest large amounts of capital removing our raw materials from B.C. and from Canada so they can enrich some other part of the world. But I assure you, Mr. Speaker, they have not followed policies that allow us to enrich ourselves by the reasonable use of out own raw materials in Canada or in British Columbia.

And the attitude of the former government of British Columbia was to say: "Me too. Whatever they do back there in terms of hurting the economy of Canada we can do better — we can do better," they said — and they did, and they did. British Columbia has one of the most rich, most precious stores of non-renewable resources in the world. Not just in Canada or in North America but in the world. It is criminal, Mr. Speaker, that we have an unemployment rate of over 7 per cent. I don't know whether that's seasonally adjusted, I don't know. But when you're unemployed it doesn't really matter whether you're seasonally adjusted or not. It's criminal that we have this in such a rich province as British Columbia.

I want to say something about the copper smelter situation in the Province of British Columbia. For 40 years this party and its predecessors the C.C.F., have been trying to get a copper smelter in British Columbia. we find now that maybe we're going to get one. The. Government of British Columbia said through its Minister of Mines, the Hon. Member for Kootenay (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) that we would be glad to have a copper smelter or possibly two, but there are certain conditions — environmental pollution conditions — that must be followed. And I might

[ Page 83 ]

say that some of his statements were even more bland than those policies that the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Davis, federally has been paying lip service to for years.

And I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and Hon. Members, what was the reaction of the federal Liberal establishment? Though Senator Laing they said; "If it isn't done the way we think it should be done maybe it will go to the Yukon Territory." That is the attitude of the government in Ottawa and that was the attitude of the former Government of British Columbia — "We don't care what the people want. We don't care what we pay lip service to. We're going to do it the way the developer thinks is most profitable to him." I don't think that is good enough, Mr. Speaker.

I'm a citizen of this province. I was born here. I believe in this province. I believe in the people of this province. Whether they're small businessmen or workers or investors or self-employed professionals or pensioners. I believe in their ability to develop this province in ways that are beneficial to all British Columbians.

One of the spokesmen from the official Opposition stated earlier that we were doing-in the small businessmen in this province. Well, look around you, Mr. Speaker. Look at the government benches. There are a number of us who are in small business and we know all about the former government.

That election campaign that I went through was not very long ago. And how many people — many came into my office, stopped me on the street and said: "Look, we are getting it in the ear by policies that are allowed by the government. We are getting it in the ear we're being hurt. We're being hurt by the corporate giants that control wholesale prices that are squeezing those of us with retail outlets." They said: "You know, we don't want any favours, we don't want any favours from you. We just want a fair deal. We want the ability to stand or fall on our own merchandising ability." And for a party that once prided itself on being based on Main Street I think you should go back to your ridings and go back to those people on Main Street because I know how a great many of them voted and that's why there's 38 Members on this side of the House today.

Finally, I wish to state that I think it's very important that this government allow access to the decision-making process of all persons.

I don't want to see anyone discriminated against. Not the leaders of the corporate industries of B.C. or wherever they are. I do know that I want to see a tax structure and an incentive structure laid down and I'm not addressing myself to the question, Mr. Speaker, of whether the corporate sector pays too much or too little in the way of taxes. But, I do know that the more responsible a corporate citizen is in this country today, the more money they pay, and the more labour-intensive their enterprises are the more taxes they pay, and the more capital-intensive the less they pay. I think that we should work very hard to put an end to that.

Finally, I want to talk about what, it has occurred to me, is a decided lack of economic expertise across the floor.

You know, two prominent socialist economists in Europe, Mr. Murdoll and Mr. Shiller have stated many, many times, that any intemperate, ill-considered, ill-conceived, he's the entry of the government into the marketplace in a capitalist economy, is going to set that economy back two steps for every one they might go forward.

This sentiment has been echoed by Mr. Freemon and Mr. Galbraith, in the United States and I don't propose to be an economic expert, but that, Mr. Speaker, precisely this intemperate entry into the marketplace, is precisely what the Members on the other side of the House are suggesting we do right now.

I was very happy to see the Minister for Industrial Development and Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) rise and speak on this item, and say: "Yes, we are going to act and we're going to act with all deliberate speed. But we're not going to make the economy worse, as perhaps some people on the other side would like us to do, by jumping in before all the information is at hand."

One last thing. These completely unsubstantiated statements about how the economy is about to go down to rack and ruin, if it hasn't done so already in the Province of British Columbia — the reasons given by at least

[ Page 84 ]

two successive Ministers of Finance, federally, Mr. Turner, and Mr. Benson, for the failure of the monetary and fiscal policy has been that we didn't have adequate information and what we had was always three months late.

Is that so? Well, maybe it is. That means the information we're perhaps working on, if we have any information about the economy of B.C., relates to last July and not October. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question on the amendment?

Motion negatived on the following division.

YEAS – 16

NAYS – 37

MR. SPEAKER: Now on the main motion before the House, on the throne address, the Hon. Second Member for Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, Mr. Speaker, they survived this afternoon. You know, Mr. Speaker, I can certainly say one thing, I thought the former government was bad (Laughter,). But, I'll tell you this, Mr. Speaker, this doesn't really look like the old court of Cecil the 1st. There are no "Dans" or "Cams" or "Bills" dancing under the sugar plums now, but I do see some very great smiles coming from the sides over there, particularly those of the cabinet Ministers and I think if you'll note very carefully, Mr. Speaker, that the size of their smiles are in direct proportion to the size of their pocket books at the present time. I notice one of them even, Mr. Speaker, has taken to dark glasses. Old cash-register eyes over there. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I would normally call you to order, but not in this case. (Laughter).

MR. GARDOM: I suppose every party has its Farouk of new Members here and I would like to express my warmest sentiments to all of them. Even though they may find times in here, indeed, frustrating, I'm certainly sure of one thing and that is they'll consider this to be one of the most stimulating and fulfilling experiences that they will ever encounter. However, I would offer a couple of words of advice, if I may be so bold.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: Sometimes you wonder, eh? But, I think that although we'll find within this House people with very dissimilar ideology and very different philosophies, I think you'll find one thing very, very consistent. That every individual in this House is attempting to do his level best for the people of British Columbia. Secondly, do whatever you can to retain your sense of humour. Because sometimes it may be the last thing that you'll have to rest upon.

Now, of course, Mr. Speaker, it's a joy for me to see you there with

[ Page 85 ]

your new hat, and I wish to express to you my most sincere congratulations. I know that over the past few months, Mr. Speaker, you've spent a considerable amount of time with the works of Coke — otherwise pronounced Coke — and Erskine May and I think with your very unique knowledge of the processes of departure the House is certainly going to be enriched with your experience.

But, that's the gain side, Mr. Speaker, and on the loss side we also have to think of another thing. Who in the former House could ever forget the keen eye, and the quick turns and the sharp circles of that great, gray bird of the sea, the former Member for Burnaby-Edmonds. He used to soar through the chamber, Mr. Speaker, soar through the chamber ready to feast on any speech. (Laughter).

But I indeed congratulate you, Sir, in all seriousness. I wish you great success with your deliberations and you have a marvelous opportunity to bring about a democratization of the processes within these four walls with the bill before the House, and which I'm not going to discuss, and unfortunately the processes which were not permitted under the former regime.

To our new Member and the new leader of our group, we are very mighty proud of him and I envisage for him a very fine future in the House. I would also, Mr. Speaker, to say hello to the tandem twosome and I indeed wish them well. I am very glad, Mr. Speaker, if I may say, that one of them's a doctor because already they are starting to show signs of altitude sickness from their many trips to the gallery. (Laughter).

Now being in such close proximity in this session to the "social debits" is an experience very difficult to put into words, very difficult indeed Mr. Speaker. But I cannot pass without a couple of comments and I wish the Hon. Member was in his seat, and I'm referring to the Hon. gladiator from South Okanagan. He has broken pretty well every record that there was to break in this province and he dedicated the best years of his life to public service, and I would say that he very fearlessly and unstintingly performed and for that he's a man and a man indeed.

I have no intention, Mr. Speaker, of advocating in British Columbia a senate, although the idea might have come to the mind of the Premier looking around at the size of his majority. But if we ever did happen to have one here, surely to goodness the Hon. Member for South Okanagan would be the first choice and I would rather hope, Mr. Speaker, that Ottawa does not turn its back on him even though he sometimes did on them.

But the group that he represents and has represented — and I've avoided using the name "party" with every respect to them because I think that would be considered a misnomer because a party it isn't, it wasn't, and it never ever will be, it's not an ideology, it's not a philosophy but it's just been, Mr. Speaker, a consistent method of operation — really brought about by one degree of homogeneity and that's by its leader.

Today, Mr. Speaker as an organization it has gone "put" and as a political organization it has also gone "phut", and I intend, Mr. Speaker, and I think the people of British Columbia intend to see that it will continue to remain "phut".

"P-H-U-T" Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of Hansard, phut! (Laughter).

Because, Mr. Speaker, I cannot see that either personalities, or dollars for that matter, will ever put this "Humpty Dumpty" back onto the rails. I would suggest the very best thing that the chancellor of the exchequer, Einar the Gatherer, could do with the $750,000 he still has in the till is give it to the Salvation Army. Because, you know, I would rather see it do some good in the province than be flacked out all over British Columbia in the next provincial election, trying to pump a little bit of straw into Mr. Galardi, or Mr. Peterson, or Flat-earth John, or whoever they may pick. I thank them though, Mr. Speaker, very much for the good that they did and indeed hope that the bad can be rectified. My present sentiments for them, Mr. Speaker, is that it's just a question of picking up their tent and silently drifting away into the night.

Now, I have not yet, Mr. Speaker, personally congratulated the Premier and I wish to do that. I think that the Premier of this province ran a very good campaign. He only made one serious boob, and he reiterated what the former premier said and just turned the circle on it, but fortunately

[ Page 86 ]

that was rather early in the campaign and it didn't come home to haunt him too very badly. I would like to say a couple of words to the hordes. "Hi hordes!" (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you please spell it? (Laughter).

MR. GARDOM: H-O-R-D-E-S. But, Mr. Speaker, we've been slightly deceived and I'm using the word very advisedly, because they are not at the gate, they are right smack in the temple, and they are already, Mr. Speaker, starting to sack the economy, and they are sending business confidence in this province right up in smoke.

Now, I would like to give a word of advice, if I may be so impudent as to do so, and that is don't start scaring people to death. You know I liked the cuddly image of the Premier, I really did. Jovial, warm-hearted, family-minded, the minority defender. But in the second day of this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, he became "dangerous dave". We have been Jekylled and Hyde-ed. We have been Jekylled and Hyde-ed, Mr. Speaker, and as the Hon. Member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound said earlier today, the fog of uncertainty and to a degree the blanket of fear has settled in British Columbia. Now there is place for a capricious statement — there is place for fun, but there is no place for capricious statement about the economy from the one individual whose solemn and sole responsibility is to lead the economy and I think we have here something that was not a capricious statement, but something well-designed.

You know there is nothing to fear, but fear. But fear can become a reality very, very quickly. B.C. Telephone, we have heard a lot about it. One time he said it's a low priority. I think its awfully low, awfully low, and I agreed with him then, it was the lowest of low priorities. But how low is low? This is what I would like to know. How long should its shareholders, people who are from every walk of life, how long should they have to sit and learn of their fate? When is the fiscal firing squad? What form is the execution going to take, and in what forum will it be announced? For the public and British Columbia Telephone employees and British Columbia Telephone shareholders have the right to know and they don't have the duty or responsibility to keep their television sets on 24 hours a day, like the mediation commissioners had to do to determine government policy.

That is not the correct way for government to govern and even worse I think, Mr. Speaker, than the manifest evidence of no direction — what indeed has happened to the Premier's sense of priority? You know we had a peculiar sense of priority in the last session, when the former Attorney General, instead of waging a first-class war against crime, became preoccupied with the geometrics of topless dancing, and "Dangerous Dave" I'm afraid you might be dong the same kind of a thing. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker — the Hon. the Premier.

Because we cannot have the Premier of the province gandy-dancing around with B.C. Telephone. It is a monopoly, it is completely subject to public direction. It is completely subject to public control. But, I would say, for some overhead wires, it is a clean electric and non-polluting operation. It hires thousands of people. It pays taxes, it works not without the law, but within the framework of the law and it is a good corporate citizen in this province.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Premier gets steamed up about it. He gets steamed up about B.C. Telephone when we have the worst per-capita drug and crime rate in Canada.

He gets steamed up about the B.C. Telephone when our major city without the provincial government becoming a full partner in transit is on a suicide course today to urban chaos. Yet he gets steamed up about the B.C. Telephone. He has inherited from the former government a policy of cut it, dig it, catch it and ship it out, instead of making the label of B.C. "Made in B.C.", and there's something for the Hon. the Premier to direct his attention to over B.C. Telephone. Those I say, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Hon. Premier should be his priorities, and kill this heroin killer — start a first-class war against it. A $160 million stinking business in the Province of British Columbia and you get concerned about

[ Page 87 ]

B.C. Telephone. Bad priority, Mr. Premier. Put the dollars into fighting that now, and into transit and I would say into encouraging and doing every reasonable, practical thing you can to have as much B.C.-owned and B.C.-controlled secondary industry which we have been woefully lacking, woefully lacking under the former administration.

I can remember some of the better speeches of the Hon. Premier when he was in Opposition about that particular point. He should be concentrating, Mr. Speaker, not on B.C. Telephone but concentrating on the priority of doing something to cure the muck of pollution and the back-up in our hospitals and the log jams of traffic, and the continuing plight of our aged and our disabled. I'm delighted to see the two bills which you have on the order paper and congratulations for those, and for bettering our processes of education, by shoring up our recreation needs and also for creating a healthy labour management climate and full services — full services, not studies — to our Indian community.

But don't go ahead and change your priorities from something along these lines that I've been talking about rather than getting steamed-up about B.C. Telephone and starting the scare war with industry and B.C. Telephone and starting the scare war with industry and B.C. Telephone in particular.

Now, I am a little concerned about this pancake Waffle business. In fact, I'm quite concerned about it. When I read a little about it, Mr. Speaker, it certainly seems to be pretty sour dough kind of stuff for Canada. Here's one quotation: "…a socialist society must be one in which there is democratic control of all institutions which have a major effect in men's lives".

Then they continue on and they talk about instruments for bringing the Canadian economy under Canadian ownership and control but they go further than that. They say this — "They include extensive public control over investments". Extensive public control over investment. This is one of the things that is being signed. "And nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy such as the key resource industries, finance and credit, and industries strategic planning our economy".

Now what are you going to take over in B.C. when you sign this and you subscribe to this extensive public control over investment, and nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy such as the key resource industries — remember the life blood of B.C. comes from forestry, it comes from mining, it comes from fishing and agriculture. And I suppose there's no reason why we couldn't include tourism as a resource industry in line with these other things. It certainly is when it comes to dollars and cents.

Are you going to go all the way, boys? This is what I want to know. This is what the public want to know. This is the one main thing that the throne speech lacks. A statement of philosophy. And this was the one main thing that you sat in Opposition and bitterly complained about for 20 years. The lack of a statement of philosophy — but you've done the same thing.

Do you subscribe to this, Mr. Minister? Do you subscribe to the full Waffle situation? Yes or no? Yes or no? Just nod your head because you're giving the Province of B.C. today the heebee jeebies. You are. People are starting to become scared. Of course they're becoming scared — because if a fellow is in mining or if a person is in forestry or if a person is in agriculture or in fishing, and they read this "extensive public control over investments and nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy". What are we going to be left with here? Nothing but one big, single, gelatinous mass of government.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: I think the very best thing the government — indeed, I look pale and so do the people in this province look pale. But you enjoy this. You like the cat-and-mouse game, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker. But the public aren't finding this as much fun as you are. I tell you one thing — if you follow through with all of this Waffle stuff no one is going to need dark glasses because there's not going to be any light.

[ Page 88 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: I say this, Mr. Speaker. I say this to the government just as the Hon. Member said that everyone would have a tin cup. I say this to the government — bring in social reform. Open up the books. Report the people's business and cut some of the froth and prune some of the tinsel. Fine and dandy! But please don't over-govern. And don't over-control. And don't over-burden the people in B.C. with a stifling bureaucracy.

Because, you know, people have an inalienable right to shape their own destiny. Every person in this room has taken this step or you wouldn't be here. But for that, if you hadn't made that decision yourself, you wouldn't be here. No one else made it for you.

People do not want, Mr. Speaker, to be regulated and controlled from cradle to grave. The good Lord gave people initiative and desire and different work styles, and the spirit of competition. We're not all out of one pod. We'd be as dull as dishwater if we were. That spirit of competition is best evidenced again by yourselves and in the electoral process in which you have come out so handsomely. I say, nurture the philosophy that I've been speaking about. Don't try to destroy it. Because one shoe cannot fit everybody. Foster improvement. Please do that and you can rest assured you'll have our support for that.

But, if you're going to go ahead and say we're going to have complete dull, domineering, inflexible stateism here, B.C.'s going to be in for some very, very woeful years.

I would really ask the Hon. Premier, and perhaps the Ministers here would convey it to him, to please stop playing around with these economics. Because these socialistic theories of economics which some of the new Members — who I must say all of whom spoke exceptionally well — these theories of socialistic economics they're not new. They're antiquated, and they're out of step with any contemporary resource-based, industrially growing, reform-oriented society which B.C. is.

You can control. Government's job, Mr. Speaker — to the Hon. Member there — in my view is not to be in the business. Not to be in the business. I think we are grossly over-governed not only in this province but in this country. I think more things should be done in the private sector. I would like to see government set the guidelines — fine! Set the guidelines. Also be a beacon at the front and to a lesser degree perhaps a cattle prod at the rear. But don't get into the business, because you muck it up. Every government that ever has, has mucked it up and it's impossible to get rid of a government structure of any size once it gets going. And people just inherit another burden. I certainly don't want to find that we've got 2 million civil servants in the Province of B.C. No way!

I say, Mr. Speaker, that if you continue to fiddle around with the economics of the province as has been done in these couple of mischievous days, irreparable harm and irreparable damage could happen in B.C.

You know, you talk a lot about the robber barons and the ripper-offers of yesteryear. I say, Mr. Speaker, if those people exist here — maybe some do and maybe some don't — but they could be subject to control. Policy control and tax control. But to the lunch-bucket man and the hard hats and the soft hats and the collar workers — whatever collar they may have or none — and to the corner store proprietor without a healthy flow of capital they — and not the ripper-offers, not the robber barons, but those people — will be the ones to first feel the pinch and they will suffer most the squeeze.

I'm most fearful, Mr. Speaker, of that in British Columbia today. There's time to stop it because you can be a little introspective. Change your priorities. Come in as a new government with a little more excitement than you have done. Excitement for the economic future of B.C. Because I am fearful at the present time we're facing the substitution of one democracy by another.

We had the monolithic autocracy of the former regime and that has been replaced by the take-over bureaucracy of this one. I think we may be moving

[ Page 89 ]

in this province from one malaise to another and it's very, very difficult to call that progress, Mr. Speaker.

In closing, I'd like to say just a couple of words. And I do hope this, Mr. Speaker, which is not in line with the remarks that I have been giving so far this afternoon. I do hope that these election lawsuits that have been carried on in this province are settled or withdrawn or dismissed for want of prosecution or are brought very quickly to trial. Because in my view anything else is an abuse of the process of the courts.

Our courts should not be abused by political whims. If it's principle that's involved, fine and dandy, then it's up to the individuals to wage their principles. I would suggest this would be a very good step for all of them. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and before I sit down I would also like to compliment you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, and Honourable Members, it is of course appropriate for me to add my congratulations to the new government of this province and to express the hope that the Premier, his cabinet and the other members of his party will bring good government to the people of British Columbia during the term of this legislative assembly.

May I also offer congratulations to the Speaker, and to the Deputy Speaker, and wish you both well in your important roles in this legislative assembly.

Along with others sitting here for the first time this week I recognize that it is an honour to be a Member of this assembly and to represent the people, in my case of a very interesting constituency called Saanich and the Islands — if I may say a part of British Columbia which contains virtually all types of development, ranging from typically urban to rural and remote and which most importantly includes our very beautiful and fragile Gulf Islands.

Also with others I earnestly look forward to working in a Legislature in which all British Columbians may truly take very real pride. With the greatest of respect to those who have served in this House previously and are here again, as well as to those who are no longer sitting here, there have been many occasions in the past two decades in particular when the level of debate, and the style of activity in this House has been nothing more than a very real source of acute embarrassment to the citizens of British Columbia.

We look to this House, the citizens of British Columbia look to this House, for leadership by example. Surely in this assembly now there must be no room for arrogance, for bombast and for discourtesy. Unfortunately in the first half hour this afternoon we heard faint reminders of that discourteous behavior which typified previous Legislatures.

It is with earnest concern, Mr. Speaker, that I wish to support the remarks made here yesterday by my colleague the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) with reference to this shot-gun policy approach being employed by the Premier and his principal ministers thus far in their term of office. And incidentally, if I may digress, while my colleague the Member for Oak Bay may be very pleased to be sitting in the front ranks, I can ensure all Hon. Members that I'm sitting behind him in order to keep a close eye on him. I've been told that that is necessary.

There's no question that several irresponsible statements, Mr. Speaker given in off-the-cuff and hastily-arranged interviews in recent days, have caused very grave concern throughout this province. People of British Columbia are saying, what is going on? And this concern is being expressed not only by the so-called big boys, the leaders of business and industry, but also — and far more importantly, Mr. Speaker — by individual citizens, by those still in the work force, and by those who have retired and have small savings.

It may be true that as the Premier has stated that the previous government repeatedly flipped-flopped through elections, but surely it is much worse to get elected and then 35 days later to flop so badly.

[ Page 90 ]

Mr. Speaker, this is an intermediate phase in the transmission of government in British Columbia from a Social Credit to a Conservative administration. And therefore all of us, the government, the Members of the opposition, every Member of this House must take the greatest possible care and move with very thoughtful caution in order to avoid creating further uncertainty and lack of confidence concerning both the short-term and long-term future of this province.

It is tragically ironic in my view that many of those persons who enthusiastically turned away from the previous government to support socialism, for this interim period, are now the first to be disillusioned and feel most keenly the results of out-of-control inflation and the spectre of increased unemployment.

There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that government's proposal as outlined in the throne speech must inevitably aggravate those two crucial, and distressing issues in our society today. To this new member, the throne speech was a keen disappointment. And I wonder with others, as other speakers have said, if we are not here prematurely and before the government has had truly a full opportunity to review the state of the province and its policies and then to work on those key statements which we were all lead to believe were so vital as to bring us together today. Another few weeks might, Mr. Speaker, have made a world of difference. The Speech from the Throne was disappointingly brief and incomplete.

In conclusion may I express my concern for the future. Concerns which have arisen from the contents of the throne speech and the contents of interviews given and policy statements made and answers given to questions by the Press. First, taxation. I am concerned that there will be an even greater tax burden placed on the people of this province, by this new government — a burden which will stifle initiative and cause very real difficulties among those persons that this government states it wants to help.

Secondly, fiscal responsibility. I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that there is a lack of financial understanding on the part of key members of this government and an inability to set priorities and think them through carefully and with caution — again before bring them to the House.

Thirdly, growth of government. We are concerned, Mr. Speaker, that we shall be exposed in British Columbia to an unnecessary expansion of the bureaucracy, preventing the ordinary citizen from ready access to his elected representatives.

Fourthly, and finally, responsibility of government. We are concerned that the Ministers of the Crown do not yet fully appreciate the heavy responsibility of government which has been placed upon them — the responsibility which at times places a restricting obstacle on their desire to make pronouncements on the future direction of the province. I congratulate the government, but I urge the government in these critical weeks and months to be careful, to be cautious.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. First of all I would like to join the others who have congratulated you, Sir, and the Speaker of the House on his election. It is an honourable, and an onerous task and I am sure that the confidence that this House has placed in you will be well born out in the years ahead.

A new experience for me, Sir, to have to turn left to look at the Speaker. But it is the kind of experience that any worthwhile socialist adopts readily and happily to.

I just didn't want to upset you too much. I think, Mr. Speaker, I have to make a comment about the change that has taken place in the House since last we sat here.

I can't remember any time in my few years in this House that there was ever a group of backbenchers on the government side of the House with such tremendous ability and who I know will make a great contribution to the debates in this legislative assembly.

[ Page 91 ]

I have no intention to rehash the election. I just want to say how pleased and happy I was with the results.

I won't spend any time commenting on the confusion that's obvious across the way. It's obvious that they're hurt, they're bewildered, they're divided, they're lost and they still think they're the government. (Laughter).

There were times when they were government they were bewildered and lost, and they've carried that with them into opposition.

You know, during the campaign they talked about their 20 years of experience. And one would assume that they did have 20 years of experience. But that was the tragedy of the last 20 years in British Columbia. We did not have a government with 20 years experience. We had a government with one year's experience repeated 20 times.

That's why they were unable to let their minds soar into the kind of visions that are required to meet the needs of this province in the 1970's and 1980's and through on beyond that. This was the measure of their failure. They were still thinking of things as it were in 1952 instead of as they are in 1972.

I want to say, too, that every speech that has been made from the Opposition side of the House is an even greater expression of confidence in this government than the people themselves gave us on August 30. Because every Member on that side of the House has been asking us to do in 35 days what the previous administration failed to do in 20 years.

I have listened to their comments and as I listened to their comments I was reminded of what the designated House leader of the official Opposition said after the election, when he was asked what he was going to do. He said: "Oh, I'll sit in the House. I'll take my wrecking bar and my sledge-hammer. That's all we need in Opposition".

"That's all we need in opposition," he said. And that's what they came in here with — a sledge-hammer and a wrecking bar. Here they are creeping tippy-toe all over the House trying to spread doom and gloom all over the Province of British Columbia.

I ask the former Premier to cast his mind back. I ask the former Premier to cast his mind back to 1961 when there was an attack on the financial stability of this province by certain groups in this province. I ask him to remember what the Leader of the Opposition at that time did. He said: "I refuse to participate in any action, for very good reasons, that was going to hurt this province".

I regret very much that this new official Opposition failed to display that kind of responsibility in their new role. It's obvious that there are people in the political life of this province today who have set out on deliberate policy of undermining the faith of the people in the future of British Columbia. For political reasons. And they don't care what it does…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm talking about all the speeches that you people made over there.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You people talked about the stock market. You people talk about the stock market. It's obvious that you have absolutely no idea what the stock market is and how it operates.

Every stock that's listed in that stock market is of money that's already part of the input into the production of our province. And once that input has taken place, from then on whatever that stock is listed at in the market it no longer affects the productability of the nation or the province.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just a minute. Just a minute. Just a minute.

[ Page 92 ]

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: From then on, from then on it becomes a betting game…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: …from then on it becomes a betting game.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just a minute. Just a minute.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: From then on it becomes a betting game.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: …and the stock market is betting. The stock market is betting, Mr. Speaker, that this government is no longer going to allow $138 million of copper to be exported in the raw state without one penny coming to this province.

That's what the stock market's betting and the stock market's right. The stock market's right. And the people out there, we told them that during the election campaign. And they said it's wrong for the raw resources of this province to export $138 million of copper ore out of the province, out of the country and not one penny of royalty. We said right along we'd put a stop to it and we're continuing with that policy. And the people out there supported us in that policy.

I can understand the Liberals being a little upset. They've seen the latest public opinion polls on the up-coming federal election. It shows that the N.D.P. are ahead of the Liberals — we're going to clobber the Tories and the Socreds are nowhere in sight. You know…

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't win the give-away game.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, but I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I regret very much that the official Opposition forgot their responsibility as British Columbians and embarked on this irresponsible attitude towards the future of the province.

Now, I wanted to refer to some of the other things that were said also. I wanted to refer to some of the other things that were said, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich)…the Member from Peace River (Mr. Smith) referred to the Minister of Agriculture. He said that the Minister hadn't answered the telegram he had sent. Well., perhaps he didn't know it — he didn't send the telegram to the Minister he sent it to the Premier. And the Premier gave it to the Minister. And you didn't refer to the letter the Minister sent you. Did you? Did you? You didn't refer to the letter the Minister sent you. And then we find that the Minister has been up there.

He talked with Mr. Framps, the chairman of the Peace River Liard Regional District who telegraphed the minister direct, and the Minister replied. Mr. Butler from the National Farmers Union visited the Minister's office — have you been to the Minister's office? No, of course not — regarding the Peace River problem and followed up his visit with a telegram. In addition to the above, he's engaged in several telephone conversations with people in the area. So there you are. Then he goes on to talk about what he's done and the people up there and they're all going to…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You didn't even tell the House you'd got the letter.

[ Page 93 ]

MR. SMITH: Didn't I?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Now what sort of playing games is that? What sort of playing games is that? Come on! You know, Mr. Speaker, we heard them talking about producing jobs. We heard them talking about producing jobs, and why haven't we got in a job producing thing in this session? What was their record? According to an answer on the order paper in 1971, there are 25,000 employable persons on social assistance. Only 148 were placed in on-the-job training and 450 completed vocational training or retraining during 1971.

That was the sorry record of the previous administration. And 35 days after we were in power they say: "Why didn't you do this?" "Why didn't you do that?" "Why don't you do something else?" You know, Mr. Speaker, I said it the day after the election when my phone began to ring. I said it's obvious that the people have voted us in. They expect great things and I promised them this — the impossible we'll do immediately and the miraculous will take a little longer.

I heard them raise the question about natural gas to Vancouver Island. How terrible it was that we're shipping natural gas to California. And we haven't got to Vancouver Island. Who's been the government for 20 years? Who produced a hodge-podge of absolute nonsense that deliberately befouled the whole thing and made it almost impossible to get a rational natural gas scheme to Vancouver Island? The former administration.

Who talked about looking after little industry? Small industry? Their own records show that in the last 10 years 1,000 small sawmills in the Province of British Columbia closed down. One thousand little sawmills.

Well, we parceled the province up to the big boys. They weren't even B.C. companies. They weren't even Canadian companies. Consortiums from across the water. How many of these new pulp operations put a share on the market when that new pulp operation was going ahead? How many of them? They wouldn't let the small shareholder in. They had it. They had the lands. They had the timber. Little shareholders in British Columbia that had faith in this province weren't given an opportunity to buy these shares.

We've come through a period with a government, when they saw a valley — dam it! When they saw a tree — cut it down! Some ore in the ground — dig it out and get rid of it for nothing! Their own figures told it. And you can examine the reports of the Department of Trade and Industry. And you'll find that in 1969 they were telling that government that by 1980 only 8 per cent of our population would be able to find employment in the primary industries of this province.

They knew that. But they continued to adopt the same exploitation of natural resource policy. They continued to encourage capital-intensive industry and not labour-intensive industry. They continually refused to set up a development corporation that would help bring secondary and tertiary industry to this province.

Now that they're defeated they say: "Why isn't it here? Why isn't it here?" What a shoddy, shameful, two-bit, two-faced exhibition this has been for the last two days. People playing games with the whole future of this province when they had 20 years to do something about it. Twenty years! Then, Mr. Speaker, they bequeathed us some problems. We can all agree on that. And incidentally, I want to thank the Conservatives and the Liberals for their good wishes for this government. I want to thank them for it. We want the good wishes and we want the help of everyone, in this House.

We are determined to set this province in direction, 'til, in 20 years from now, people will realize what we were doing. We are setting out the greater society with new and better standards, new and better values. Something that has been required for a long time.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let's put the blame for the present situation in this province where it rightfully belongs. The slide into the present situation didn't happen this last 35 days. I give you the finance report in the Vancouver Sun, August 23. August 23, when everyone expected the same old crew would be back on this side of the House. What did the Sun say on that day? The Vancouver Sun, August 23, 1972.

[ Page 94 ]

It says: "Revised 1972 Capital Expenditures for British Columbia are down from last year and are below the 2 per cent increase reported for all of Canada — a government study indicated".

In August, already, the figures were in, in July, and in June, that the capital investment in British Columbia was on the skids, because of the policies of this government. That government, at that time. That's why a week before the election, there was the evidence. It wasn't this government that was responsible for it, it was the previous administration, and their complete lack of foresight and of thought for the future.

I had reference to the fact that the legislation…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You talk about money. The first thing I did when I got into office was to ask my controller to tell me how much money was left in the Department of Highways for the current year. What did I find? I found that it not only spent every single penny the Legislature gave the department last spring, but it committed the department to an additional $35 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: We never voted on that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: An additional $35 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does the public know?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's what you'd call reasonable responsible government of the peoples affairs? Three months after this House had sat, discussed and debated the highways of this province for several days, allocated a certain amount of money, because there was an election on you commit every single penny and then go $35 million beyond that. That's what we found when we got in to my department.

They talk about the amount of money for the senior citizens. Last spring there was the Vancouver Province headline, "Socreds killed $200 dollar vote". There was the headline — that's on record. When your Speaker of that day ruled it in order you stood up and appealed the ruling of the Speaker and defeated and reversed the Speaker's ruling.

Now you're saying it's not enough. It's not enough. After all the time you had, after all the opportunity you had, you decided that rather than stand up and vote yes or no you would defeat the ruling of the Speaker.

I've heard suggestions and criticisms from across the way about the Speech from the Throne. Some of you had questioned the necessity of this session, and here again I refer to the official Opposition. Their designated House Leader said, he spoke for about three minutes and sat down and said: "Let's call the question now and get on with the business". Then their other undesignated House Leader, he says: "Oh, none of that, none of that, none of that," he gets up and moves an amendment you see. And there they went on, they are spread one, two, three, four, five, six, seven ways…

Let me tell you, the day after the election the school boards started to phone and try and find out what was going to happen with regard to the school districts and school budgeting and negotiations with teachers and the future of education in this province that required legislation.

We told you that we were unhappy about the labour management climate in this province. It's obvious that over the last 20 years that the legislation was part of the problem, and was not part of the solution. We're told that under the former administration food prices in British Columbia were the highest in North America. Now you come here bleeding hearts for the little people. Under your administration for 20 years we finish up with the highest food costs in North America, that's part of what you've increased. Then after having allowed these inflations to take place through the control of the food industry in the way in which you allowed it to be handled so senior citizens were getting robbed blind you voted against $200 last spring.

[ Page 95 ]

We've listened to the talk about reforming the legislative procedures, it took 20 years to do it. That was one of the reasons for having the session, to get that in there too so that the work can go ahead. As I say, the miraculous takes a little longer.

I want to remind you, every Member of this House, what the Speech from the Throne said, what His Honour said, and I'll just remind you. He brought in a bill for guaranteed minimum income assistance. He was sending us a message for guaranteed minimum income assistance. These people who suffered the most from the inflation that you helped create need help, and they need it now, and that's why the session's on right now!

And if you vote against this motion, you're sending the people out there a message. You're telling them that you don't want them to get that additional assistance, that's what you're telling them. If you vote against this motion you're telling the people of British Columbia that you don't want the old age pensioners to get this money, that's what you're telling them.

What else, what other message did we get from His Honour?

The Handicapped Persons Income Assistance Act. You vote against that message from His Honour and you're sending a message to the people out there that you don't want the handicapped people to get assistance.

His Honour sends a message to amend the Mediation Commission Act. If you vote against this motion you are sending the people out there, the workers, and the employers of this province a message that you want more labour strife, not less.

Male Minimum Wage Act. His Honour brought a message into us with a piece of legislation — I'm not discussing legislation. I'm talking about this motion. I'm talking about what's in the Speech from the Throne. If you vote against this motion you are telling the workers of this province that you're in favour of low wages in industry in British Columbia. That's what you're telling them.

And finally His Honour sends a message that affected the public schools of this province. And if you're voting against this motion, you're telling the people of this province that you don't want a rationale brought into education in the Province of British Columbia. You'll be sending the message out there when the vote is taken, and I suggest to you in what time you have left you ponder well your decision. Because the people out there are waiting to hear the message from this House on this motion. Remember what His Honour said, the legislation that he listed. You're saying that you don't want that, you're against it — you want the old people to continue to go short of money, you don't want a rational education system, you don't want decent labour legislation, you don't want the handicapped helped, and I suggest that it's on your conscience if you do decide to vote against this legislation which is in the benefit of all the people of British Columbia. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The question has been called. The motion before the House is 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.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS-46

[ Page 96 ]

YEAS

(continued).

NAYS-6

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Provincial Secretary that on Thursday, October 19, 1972 and all following days of the session there will be two sittings — one from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and one from 8:00 p.m. until adjournment, unless otherwise ordered. Mr. Speaker, speaking to the motion, it is a matter of form. There is no intention on the part of the government if we have a night sitting to go beyond 11:00 p.m. I do not anticipate a night sitting tonight.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the comments of the Hon. Premier in moving this motion. It is a traditional motion. Traditionally there is also an amendment, as the Hon. Premier will recall, and accordingly I would move that this motion be amended by deleting the word "adjournment" from the third line thereof and substituting therefore "11:00 p.m." Mr. Speaker, speaking to the amendment, it's all very well for the Premier to tell us what will be done in the event that we do have night sittings. We used to hear this from the previous government and at the same time from the Opposition of that day, the official Opposition, we heard speeches in this House, particularly by the present Hon. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) about legislation by exhaustion etc., etc., I'm really startled to find that the Premier would have brought in the traditional motion instead of one which would call for the adjournment in this House at 11:00 p.m., because, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The original motion is now to be worded "until 11:00 p.m." instead of "until adjournment, unless otherwise ordered." Is the Hon. Member rising to speak on the main motion before the House?

MRS. JORDAN: I'm speaking on the amendment to the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Well I'm sorry, that's now been adopted by the mover and the seconder of the amendment.

MRS. JORDAN: The motion as amended, then.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MRS. JORDAN: In speaking to the motion as amended, I can't help but express my surprise, perhaps my shock, that the Speaker of the House with all due respect would have recognized the member of minor Opposition party instead of a member of the official Opposition party, especially when that member was on their feet. But in speaking to the motion…

MR. SPEAKER: Will the Hon. Member permit me? That Member has been on his feet previously. He sat down and stood up the second occasion as you did, and I therefore recognized him because he had been ahead of you originally.

[ Page 97 ]

MRS. JORDAN: It is, I think by tradition of the House that the official Opposition is recognized when they are on their feet in an introduction of an important motion like this.

MR. SPEAKER: I shall attempt to remember that.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. But in speaking to the amendment of this important motion I must say that I too was somewhat surprised when the Premier of this province brought in his motion as it is on orders of the day and this seems somewhat inconsistent in speaking to the amendment with the Premier's previous position when he was in the Opposition. He often pointed out that he was rather tired, he didn't wish to…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! If you are opposed to this amended motion would you please say so?

MRS. JORDAN: I'm supporting it, Mr. Speaker. I'm telling you why I am supporting it, because I think that the Member of the Liberal Party has along with the members of this party tried to point out this oversight to the Premier. He has acted in his motion in an inconsistent manner with his pre-election statement and an inconsistent manner with his position in this House. In light of that, and in recognizing that he has indicated that this emergency session is, in fact, not an emergency session and he has no desire to expedite the business of the people of this province, we will support the amendment and would like to see it adopted so that adjournments will not take place later than 11:00 p.m.

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

MR. WALLACE: In our party we appreciate this move to hold sittings no later than 11:00. It is something that I think the whole House will benefit from — and the people of British Columbia, I hope, will benefit by better…and after all that's what we are here for basically, in spite of some of the confusing thoughts that are cast around this chamber. We are here to help the people of British Columbia and I think some of the mistakes are made when we're all tired. I think it's a delight to think that one of the first measures of this government is to bring this enlightened form of debating within reasonable hours and I most heartily approve of the motion as amended.

MR. SPEAKER: The Premier ends the debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the amendment that was framed by us as Members of the opposition and never accepted before. I humbly accept that amendment and I look forward to this being a practice of the House from here on in.

In terms of the motion itself, there are many things that one can say, after years of experience dealing with this particular motion, I'll be very brief.

This motion is evidence that there is a new era in this province. I welcome the support of all the Members of this House to this more rational way of doing business. Perhaps, as we all reflect on the past, we should with some bitter memory remember the acrimony that existed because an amendment like this would not have been accepted. I look forward to more peace and tranquility in this House because of this co-operation.

MR. SPEAKER: You heard the motion as amended. Are you ready for the question?

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move that we proceed to public bills and orders.

[ Page 98 ]

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): On a point of order. You said that this was a motion as amended. I understood that the amendment that was made was accepted and incorporated into the motion. It's not amended then.

MR. SPEAKER: That's correct. It's an amended motion. It's amended by consent and seconded and agreed to by the House.

Second reading of Bill No. 1.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAND REGISTRY ACT

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 1 is a simple little bill that may be described as the people's bill which is introduced in a formal way so that the House may assert its prerogative in respect to the Crown.

But, secreted in that bill there is a fairly important principle and that principle is simply this; that, in our land registry system and in many other fields of endeavour it is necessary at the present time to have that diploma or that certificate of professional status in order to move to the top even though the person concerned may be experienced, dedicated and able.

This little bill will provide that a person who is not a barrister or solicitor will be able to become a registrar in the land registry offices of British Columbia. That has not been the case today, that has not been the case before, and it provides that through graduating in terms of experience and through graduating in terms of moving through the office of the deputy registrar there is for ordinary people who are, as I say able, dedicated, and experienced, room at the top.

I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): We too will support this amendment. It's a very good one. I'm a little bit surprised however, to hear the Hon. Attorney General suggest that heretofore, as now, the law presently precludes any person who is not a barrister or solicitor from achieving the post of registrar of a land registration district.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, for the record let it be shown that one of the most distinguished land registrars that we have in the Province of British Columbia is in fact not a member of the legal profession, and I speak of the registrar who was in Prince George and is now presently in New Westminster. Actually in Prince George he was the Registrar of Titles.

However, this is an improvement over the law that presently stands and it makes some distinction between the length of service that one must have in order to be a registrar and that required to be a deputy registrar. It does certainly insure that the person who comes to the office of registrar through the elaborate system must have served an appropriate apprenticeship as deputy registrar.

These men, Mr. Speaker, perform a very valuable and highly responsible function in the Province of British Columbia. Too often it is not realized the extent of the power of responsibility and obligation which the registrars of titles have in this province.

Indeed, I think it has often been said in debate in this House that the previous government certainly did not take the care that they should take of the land registry system and the functioning of the office of the registrar.

If I have any criticism to the bill, it is that it did not indicate that there would be appropriate change in the emolument paid to the registrars commensurate with the services they perform in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of second reading of Bill No. 1, say Aye.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

[ Page 99 ]

Bill No. 1 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, because of a breakdown amongst the whips and I hope that's restored very quickly, I'd like to…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's good. I'm glad to hear that. I'd like to give the House the following order of business as we proceed with bills. No. 8 is next, then Nos. 8, 5, 6, 7, 2, 12, 9 and 10, 11, 3, and 4.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

The House adjourned at 5:20 p.m.