[ Page 89 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Presenting reports

Workers' Compensation Board annual report. Hon. Mr. Williams –– 89

Oral questions

Free airline services during campaign. Mr. Cocke –– 89

Duties of Arthur Cameron. Mr. Cocke –– 90

Student summer employment programme. Mr. Gibson –– 90

Annual report on Human Resources ministry. Ms. Brown –– 90

B.C. Cellulose chairman. Mr. King –– 90

Constitution committee. Mr. Macdonald –– 91

Duties and salary of John Plul and Dennis Holmes. Mrs. Dailly –– 91

Number of persons receiving social assistance. Ms. Brown –– 91

North Island College. Mrs. Dailly –– 92

J. Henry Schroeder capital market study. Mr. Levi –– 92

Replacement for Keith Warnes. Mr. Macdonald –– 92

Alleged discontinuance of trophy licence fees. Mr. Nicolson –– 92

Backlog of Workers' Compensation Board review boards. Ms. Sanford –– 92

Throne speech debate

Mr. Gibson –– 93

Mr. Stephens –– 97

Mr. Strongman –– 100

Ms. Brown –– 103

On the amendment.

Mrs. Wallace –– 110

Mr. Cocke –– 112

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 114

Mrs. Jordan –– 116

Ms. Sanford –– 118

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 121

Mr. King –– 122

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KAHL: Mr. Speaker, located in your gallery is a great friend of mine and of the free-enterprise world, Mr. Willie Eng. I'd like the House to make him welcome, please.

MR. KEMPF: In the gallery with us today are two upstanding citizens from the community of Burns Lake, in my constituency, Mr. George Brown and Mr. Mike ~McKinley, and I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. D'ARCY: In the gallery today is the mayor of Trail and a vice~president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities; I would like the House to welcome Mr. Charles lakes.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I wonder if the House would welcome the return to our House of Councillor Shopland, who visited us last week, along with a delegation from Middlesborough, Britain, on the occasion of our Captain Cook Bicentennial. The councillor is here to view our session for the next two days. I know that he , as impressed with the decorum of the House, Mr. Speaker, under your direction last time and I'm sure that he will find the same this time. I'd ask the House to welcome him warmly.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to also add my welcome to Mr. Charles Shopland and inform him that he is welcome in our caucus again tomorrow. He joined the Labour Party in 1915 and has been a pioneer in the international socialist movement since that time, and we are honoured to have him as a personal guest.

Along with that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to add my welcome to Mr. George Brown, a native Indian who is responsible for the establishment of Babine Forest Products Ltd. under our administration. For those people who say that the native Indian people in this province are not industrious, or cannot be successful in their own co-operative enterprises, let me tell you that George Brown has led Babine Forest Products Ltd. to be a competitive forest products industry employing native people in northern British Columbia, and he is a standard and a measure in success of what native peoples can do on their own, once given a chance.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I am very happy today to have a group of visitors from Merritt in my constituency. They are a group of native Indians involved in their BLADE organization, which is basic literacy for adult education. They are here accompanied by their director, Mr. Richard McLeod, and I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the House give them a very warm welcome.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to give a warm welcome to some people from the royal city, from Douglas College. They are here to view the proceedings in the House and I certainly hope that we give them a warm welcome. I'm not sure that they're going to take the government back to New Westminster where it belongs, but certainly they're going to have a look at it from that standpoint.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Williams presents the 61st annual report of the- Workers' Compensation Board for the year ended December 31,1977.

Oral questions.

FREE AIRLINE SERVICES

DURING CAMPAIGN

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, you and I had a meeting last night with respect to the question period and 1 agreed with you that I would not ask the question by virtue of the fact that it was out of order in terms of asking about favours from airlines. However, I would to ask the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) , who took the liberty of discussing the question in the hall and answering the question in the hall, whether or not he will go on record as having said no in the hall yesterday to the press. There are two accounts in two papers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Beauchesne says on page 147, section 171 (2) , that speeches outside of the House are not to be referred to in question period. That's section 171, just for your reference.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, is that question out of order as well?

MR. SPEAKER: That's what the

MR. COCKE: May I ask the Minister of Economic Development therefore

Interjection.

[ Page 90 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Does the member have a new question?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, did you hear one of those ministers call me a muckraker?

MR. SPEAKER: I didn't. I'm sorry, I did not hear that.

MR. COCKE: Didn't you?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, I did not hear that.

MR. COCKE: If there is muck over there then I'm prepared to rake it, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: This is question period, hon. members, and time is fleeting.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let the muck come to surface.

DUTIES OF ARTHUR CAMERON

MR. COCKE: 1~±. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr.) Phillips) whether or not his former executive assistant, Arthur Cameron, was also a member of his campaign committee.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The records are in the report by the chief electoral officer for everybody in the house. The member for New Westminster should know that.

STUDENT SUMMER

EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMME

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour, My question is regarding the student summer employment programme. Given the statement yesterday by the director of the youth employment programme that funding for this programme will be $1 million less in the coming fiscal year, and in view of the fact that students are now facing one of the bleakest summer job markets ever, and in view of the promises of the opening speech, I want to ask the minister how he can justify this $1 million cutback in the student summer Employment programme.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think that the answer to the member's question will be clear to him when we deal with the budget.

MR. GIBSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I see that the amount going to the private sector is up this year very considerably from $2.5 million to $6 million. Is the minister aware that a great deal of this money is used to subsidize jobs that would have been in place in any case? Might these funds not have been better spent in direct job creation, new job creation, in other words, rather than in subsidization of jobs that would have existed without that?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the money is used in respect to jobs which would take place in any event, because, as a matter of fact, that's contrary to the regulations under which the programme functions.

ANNUAL REPORT

ON HUMAN RESOURCES MINISTRY

MS. BROWN: My question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources. On opening day, the Minister of Human Resources tabled the annual report for the year 1976, two years late. My question, Mr. Speaker, concerns the transmittal letter, transmitting this report to the minister, which is dated April, 1977. The transmittal letter to the Lieutenant-Governor is also dated April, 1977. I'm wondering what happened to the report on its way from the ministry to this House over the period of 12 months between the transmittal letter and the time that it was tabled in the House.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I don't have that information, I'm sorry.

MS. BROWN: A supplementary question. Mr. Speaker, I'm wondering whether this, then, is an indication that the incompetence which we have come to accept from that ministry is going to continue throughout the ensuing year and forever after. How long is the Premier going to tolerate that incompetent minister over there?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would refer the hon. member to Beauchesne at section 171: "Questions which lead to argumentation are not permitted in question period."

B.C. CELLULOSE CHAIRMAN

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Forests, Can the minister tell me what is the present salary of the B.C. Cellulose chairman, Mr. Ray Williston, who is a former Social Credit Minister of Forests? Does Mr. . Williston hold shares in B.C.

[ Page 91 ]

Cellulose? Does he receive a bonus or other fees in addition to his salary?

HON. MR. BENNETT: As B.C. Cellulose has come under the direct responsibility of the Premier, I'll take that question as notice.

CONSTITUTION COMMITTEE

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier. The Premier last November appointed a constitutional committee of five advisers: Professor Burns, Professor Cheffins, Professor Shearer, Dr. Swainson and Dean Lysyk. Can the Premier advise the House whether there is a salary attached to that appointment or a per them or fee of any kind and, if so, what it is?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, yes, there is a per them involved and I'll bring the information to the House.

DUTIES AND SALARY OF

JOHN PLUL AND DENNIS HOLMES

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) . When your political appointee Mr. John Plul's title was changed from convention co-ordinator to director of attractions and special events, did this entail an increase in his salary, and, if so, what is his present salary?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I will bring the exact details back to the House. However, although Mr. Plul has taken on added responsibilities, the job description, through our Government Employee Relations Bureau, has assessed the position at a higher classification. However, he has not been paid any different than when he was first hired, up to this point in time.

MRS. DAILLY: A supplementary to the Provincial Secretary. Has anyone replaced Mr. Plul in his former position as convention co-ordinator? If so, was this job put in for competition under the Public Service Act?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the member for asking the question, because it gives me an opportunity to explain to her that so well has Mr. Plul done his job in promoting and bringing conventions to the city of Vancouver, to the city of Victoria, to Burnaby, and to all of the areas that the members here represent, conventions have increased in British Columbia 30 per cent in 1977. So well did he do his job, that we added one other person to his position, a position that prior to his appointment was not even in place in the province of British Columbia - a convention co-ordinator. Mr. Dennis Holmes was hired to take that added burden for a three-month period on a contract basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: There's nothing wrong with a contract. You had a few of them, Mr. Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Dennis Holmes was appointed to take the extra load, and he is doing a very good job at the present time. When that position is sorted out in terms of the responsibilities of that office, that job will be advertised. Mr. Holmes will be able to apply at that time, as is usual under most circumstances when someone is put on contract in advance of an advertisement.

MRS. DAILLY: Throughout all that speech, Mr. Speaker, 1 didn' t get one thing. I'd like to ask the Provincial Secretary what the background was of this new appointment for this position. If he wasn't hired through the public service, what was his background?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Holmes was an employee of the Greater Vancouver Convention and Visitors Bureau, where he did the same job in promoting conventions for the city of Vancouver.

NUMBER OF PERSONS

RECEIVING SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to try again to get some information out of the Minister of Human Resources.

AN HON. MEMBER: In order.

MS. BROWN: In order - always in order.

I wonder if the Minister of Human Resources will tell us what the total number of persons receiving social assistance is to the latest date available. I want to know what date that is and how many of these people are classed as being employable.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'll take that as notice.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, may I just bring to

[ Page 92 ]

the minister's attention that this question has been sitting on the order paper for almost a year?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please'. Hon. member, we cannot abuse question period to make statements.

MS. BROWN: He doesn't know anything about his department.

NORTH ISLAND COLLEGE

MRS. DAILLY: With reference to North Island College, could the Minister of Education tell the House whether he is contemplating any changes in either the structure or the operation of that college?

HON. MR. MCGEER: No, Mr. Speaker.

J. HENRY SCHROEDER

CAPITAL MARKET STUDY

MR. LEVI: Can the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs tell the House if he has received the report from Mr. Thompson of J. Henry Schroeder on the capital market study, which I understand ums due at the beginning of the year?

HON. MR. MAIR: The answer is no.

REPLACEMENT FOR KEITH WARNES

MR. MACDONALD: Has the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs caused an advertisement to be placed in any publication for a replacement for the position formerly held by Mr. Keith Warnes, which is manager of the Liquor Administration Branch? If so, would he table with the House such advertise~ ments.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'll take that question as notice.

ALLEGED DISCONTINUANCE OF

TROPHY LICENCE FEES

MR. NICOLSON: I would like to ask the Minister of Recreation and Conservation if during his most recent absence from the province instructions were given for the discontinuance of trophy licence fees by any persons in his department, specifically as they pertain to Kootenay lake.

HON. MR. BAWLF: The answer is no.

BACKLOG OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

BOARDS OF REVIEW

MS. SANFORD: My question is to the Minister of Labour. I wonder if the Minister of Labour could inform us what the backlog is at this stage for persons who are [illegible] to be heard before the boards of review at Workers' Compensation.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I have asked for a full report on that aspect. I will be happy to take the question as notice and provide a copy to the member.

MR. SPEAKER: That terminates the question period, hon. members.

Hon. members, first of all I'd like to express appreciation to all of the members for their patience in dealing with the sound problem as we are experiencing it in the chamber. I have asked again today concerning progress on repairs, and I have been assured that every measure is being taken to make sure that it will be restored to a satisfactory level. I would like to thank you for your patience in the matter.

Secondly, I would like all members to be aware of the fact that it is the prerogative of no member to interrupt the proceedings of the House at any time. I can understand that occasionally an outburst may occur and I think that w can be tolerant in this regard. However, to have constant interruption of a member who has the floor is hardly tolerable, and if every member were to take the same prerogative, can you imagine what the House would be like? I would thank you in advance for your patience in this regard.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in yesterday's question period, when I had referred to a report in the B.C. Government News, you made reference to that question being out of order on the basis that it was a reference to the media. and I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you take that matter under advisement and under consideration. I do not think the B.C. Government News can be categorized as part of the media, and I would appreciate your thoughts on that very point.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I thank you for drawing it to my attention, and I would certainly take it under consideration. Also I would like to remind the member that the time to draw it to the House's attention is immediately. If the member had done it I would have been able to give you a decision on the matter at this time.

[ Page 93 ]

MR. KING: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I never noticed. I didn't really hear your ruling and I had to refer to the Blues on it.

MR. SPEAKER: Well taken.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, after my brief introductory remarks last night (laughter) I will have much briefer concluding remarks today. I said all I wanted to about the various departments; I want only now to comment on a few matters coming under the responsibility of the Premier.

The first point I would like to make to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, has to do with the status of women in this province, both within and without the government. Insofar as organizations outside of the government are concerned, I want to draw to his attention the fact that once again the annual request for funds by the Vancouver Status of Women has been cut back very severely by his government. In 1976 the request for funding was $102,000 and the amount that was conceded by the government was $75,000 - one might say a fair ratio. In 1977, as a result of inflation and increased services, the Vancouver Status of Women asked for $139,000 and again was accorded only $75,000. In 1978, again as a result of inflation the request was for $150,000. Once again, the grant has been for $75,000. The Provincial Secretary, I think, in commenting on last year's cutback, has stated that because there will be an ombudsman in this province this year, the ombudsmen functions of the Vancouver Status of Women group will become less necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I would say as a member of the committee that has some responsibility in finding an ombudsman for this province, and on the basis of our visit to Alberta, that it's fairly unlikely that a new ombudsman will be in the saddle and functioning at full rate sufficient to take over all of these duties within the next fiscal year. I think that's an unreasonable cause for holding back. Certainly I would expect the ombudsman will be chosen and that lie will be in the process of staffing up his office and looking at other jurisdictions and getting precedence, but he will not be in a position to replace, as yet, the ombudsman function that is carried on by the Vancouver Status of Women group.

They are in a sense not a Vancouver group; they're a province-wide group that is seeking to advance the role of women in this province. They have put out a very extensive 35-page document which justifies in minute detail the way in which they have expended the funds that have been given to them by the provincial government. I want to add to the many representations that have been made for an increase in that grant which has not gone up for many years.

Insofar as the inside of the government is concerned, 1 want to suggest once again to the minister that he should assign to one of his colleagues, or preferably in his own office, a person specifically responsible for the advancement of the status of women within those responsibilities that lie under the purview of the British Columbia government. Only by a centralization of responsibility will this chamber have one person and one minister to call to account in this regard, and 1 think that that is a tremendously important key to co-ordinating the effort and getting some real progress made.

The second general proposition lying under the authority of the Premier I wish to allude to is the absence in the opening speech of any reference to an Act to govern conflict of interest in provincial and local government officials. 1 am quite prepared to concede, Mr. Speaker, that there has been important progress made in this regard in the last year, particularly under the authority of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. . Curtis) and the Housing Corporation of British Columbia, but that does not go far enough. That's only one department. In the provincial government generally, and in municipal councils and in school boards and so on, this question of conflict of interest is one which is - while a difficult one, 1 admit - one that must be faced, one that the government itself admitted must be faced in the opening speech of last year and legislation ~, was never brought forward. 1 am extremely disappointed to see its omission from this year's document.

I will repeat very briefly the need for a freedom of information Act in this province. In this 1 am, as I pointed out last night, only echoing the Premier's sentiments by implication in the presentation he made to the recent First Ministers' conference in Ottawa. A freedom of information law is essential in order that the citizens of this province or any other part of Canada can acquire the government data which they have paid for to best assess how public administration is being carried out. The final authority on whether or not a given piece of information should be released must lie outside of the government in the hands of the judiciary or an independent

[ Page 94 ]

information commissioner. I am very disappointed to see, after the Premier's words to the First Ministers' conference, that once again this year that fundamental tool of the democratic process, a freedom of information law, was not included.

on the subject of national unity I will say no more than to welcome, first of all, the Premier's forecast and then action in setting down on the order paper a resolution which will enable members of this House to debate the viewpoint of British Columbia on national unity. I hope that when that debate arises we can be reasonably united in this chamber as to the approach of British Columbia to this question, and I hope that we will have reasonable unity within the western provinces on the approach to this question.

The Premier will be going to the Western Premiers' Conference, I think, in a couple of weeks from now.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Next week.

MR. GIBSON: Next week. I was very disturbed to note the approach of Premier Lougheed of Alberta at the Canada West Foundation Conference at Banff a few days ago when he, in effect, said: "I'm all right, Jack, and Alberta sees no great need for changes in the constitution."

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: It is what he said, Mr. Member. I was there and I heard his speech. The Premier of Alberta took a very negative attitude in terms of significant constitutional change which would strengthen the apparatus of the central government in terms of provincial input into that central government apparatus. I can understand the Premier of Alberta doing that because it would put some constraints on his actions, but it would be done in the national interest. So I welcome the opportunity for this debate that has been set down on the order paper.

I want to make a very brief plea, and, I appreciate, a visionary plea, for legislative reform. We had in this city an important conference last weekend which the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) attended, among others. It was called the National Conference on the Legislative Process. There was a keynote speech by Robert Stanfield who, without quoting him extensively, came basically to the conclusion that our parliamentary System no longer operates effectively to control government, either in the sense of a proper control of the executive branch or a sufficient representation in day-to-day terms of the democratic views of the population.

In my participation in that debate, on the panel which followed Mr. Stanfield's speech, I agreed that much the same could be said of the legislature of British Columbia, though in a sense some of our problems were less because the size of our public service is less. On the other hand, some of our problems are greater because we do not have in British Columbia even some of the rudimentary democratic forms within the parliamentary process that are available in other jurisdictions - Ontario and Quebec, for example - where legislation and estimates are habitually sent to committees, and experts of various kinds can be called in to give their opinion on how things are going through. I'll just cite two cases where expert opinion would have been very, very important and would have changed the law, I believe -one f from each of the two most recent administrations: the Psychologists Act in the last session and the Mineral Royalties Act in the government before that. And there are many others that could be cited. If expert opinion can be brought to bear on the legislation that we propose through this chamber and an opportunity given to point out mistakes that the government has made in the legislation they propose, we can do a better job on behalf of those we represent.

A case I made to that conference, which I think was generally agreed upon, is that under our system the legislative branch is completely under the control of the executive branch. Mere has been one mall breach in that wall in British Columbia in terms of the Crown corporations reporting committee, but that's only the Crown corporations. The departments of government remain relatively free from any genuine control by this chamber, because this chamber is controlled by the government majority, the government majority votes as a block and what the government says always passes. It amounts, as I've said before, to a four-year elected dictatorship and it's the kind of thing that some day has to change.

Unfortunately, the gatekeepers to reform, who are the 11 governments, the 11 cabinets, across this country, find that the current situation suits them very w~ll. But to the people of this country, the absence of a truly free legislature, which can truly control the government of the day, is one that makes issue democracy impossible. The only real control that people have over their government under our current system comes at election time and, as we all know, elections don't turn on issues

[ Page 95 ]

normally, they turn on personalities. They turn on party, they turn on leaders, rather than on individual issues. Individual issues are the sort of thing that have to be regulated by indirect democracy...

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: ... some control by the public over individual issues through their elected representatives - in other words, some genuine control of the legislative branch over the executive branch which, as you know, Mr. House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , we are a very long way from in this province.

The Premier asks: "Where is the rest of the opposition?" One of the interesting things about~this kind of an argument, this kind of a point, is that, typically, the official opposition tends to support the government of the day in its belief that the existing situation is the best of all possible worlds, because the opposition hopes to get into the same position soon that the government is in today. Therefore, they say: "Well, we're satisfied to have the government have complete power, complete control over the legislative branch, because we hope to have it ourselves again soon."

HON. MR. BENNETT: Why isn't he here listening to you then?

MR. GIBSON: I don't know. I'm puzzled at that. It could be they disagree. I don't know.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let the member make the speech that he's prepared.

MR. GIBSON: I don't mind it, Mr. Speaker, it helps a lot. It helps a lot to have a little comment from the other side.

The point is, and I won' t belabour it, that ways have to be found to increase the relevance of this chamber. This chamber has all the trappings, but, Mr. Speaker, we are not the ones that change laws, and make laws and make budgets. That is done in the cabinet room, and anyone that understands this situation knows it. ~ways must be found to increase the relevance of this chamber, whether it be through a strengthening of the committee system or whatever. I personally believe that the only way it's really going to be done is by some kind of semi-separation of the executive branch from the legislative branch, some kind of mutual independence through such things as a fixed term of office of the Legislature - a four-year term, let us say - and through such things as a relative independence of the government so that if a particular bill gets defeated, no matter. The government doesn't resign; it accepts that advice from the representatives of the people, carries on and finds another way of doing it.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: No. For the first time, Mr. Minister, government would become truly responsible to this Legislature instead of being responsible simply to the government caucus. Remember, there are a lot more people in this province than simply the people that support the government, and they are of the opinion that their representatives ought to have some impact upon the day-to-day business of this government. As you know, they do not, except through whatever embarrassment they can cause, questions they can ask, information they can elicit, which, without a freedom of information Act, is a bit difficult.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Look at all the work they do for their constituents.

MR. GIBSON: The question is not doing work for constituents, Mr. Premier. That's a necessary and useful function, but people also expect that members in this House should have some impact on the actions of government in the sense that if the people generally feel through their representatives that this or that law should be modified, then that can be effected. As you know, that does not happen. The government laws come in, and they're passed, and that's that.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Of course I'm not. The question is: are you relegating the problems of people to second place? Of course not. It's a different category. That's one of the jobs of members. The other job of members should be legislating, and as you know, Mr. Speaker, it's only debating. It's not legislating, and 1 say that the stature of this chamber and other chambers in the British parliamentary system must one day be enhanced.

I will not labour that point further, with one exception. We should have in British Columbia some institutions for direct democracy, some provision for an initiative and a referendum. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) may know that in the early '20s such a law was passed by this province. It was never proclaimed. It gave provision for the people to force, by the collection of a

[ Page 96 ]

certain number of signatures, a vote on a specific bill or measure and force its adoption as part of the law of the province, even over the objections of the legislature of the day.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you support a recall provision?

MR. GIBSON: I would support a recall provision very definitely, obviously on a constituency by constituency basis. But if we had had an initiative process in the province of British Columbia, can you truly believe that we would have had to wait until 1972 to have a question period in this Legislature? The people would have forced it long before. If we'd had a referendum process in this province, can you believe that Bill 31, the Mineral Royalties Act, would have been allowed to go into law? I don't believe it would have. It would have been voted down.

HON. MR. WOLFE: How about capital punishment in Ottawa?

MR. GIBSON: The same process applies, N±. Member. While 1 would regret the result - what I think would be the inevitable result - I would certainly accept it in order to have the acceptance of that democratic tool. I think that that's an important avenue of last resort for the people as against their politicians, and I need only say that it has worked exceptionally well in many of the American states.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Are you going to go to Ottawa to advocate that?

MR. GIBSON: I already have. I shall continue to advocate it.

MR. BARBER: Who should determine, and how, what issues go to referendum?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the rules of debate require that the member who has the floor address the Chair.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't mind these questions; I think they are sincere questions. The question asked by the hon. first member for Victoria was: who should decide what issues go to referendum? I would suggest, Mr. Member, they should be decided when a certain number of signatures are collected - when a certain evidence of public opinion says that this specific question should be put to the people. I think I'll discuss it with you afterwards. I'll pass on to another subject now.

I want to make my concluding point, one that I think is of some importance to British Columbia. I spoke last night about the general value of research and development to our province. I spoke about the $25 million target we would have for a central kind of government funding mechanism in addition to what we have now, if we accepted the Swedish experience which has been going on for a decade and more now. Of course Sweden is very successful company on the technological side.

If we could meet the 2 per cent of gross provincial product target that the more advanced technological countries of the world do, we would have something like over $500 million a year for research in British Columbia. That may be too far too fast, but I'm just trying to point out we have a long way to go in research and development expenditures.

I suggest that vie in British Columbia must specialize. As I said, Sweden, that small country of eight million people just three times our size, has been able through speculation to develop its own military systems, automobiles, all kinds of high technology imports.

Israel, a small country of 3.5 million people - just one million more than us - has a sufficient aerospace industry that Fortune Magazine, in its March edition, had an article entitled: "Israel's Own Military Complex." It's making extraordinarily sophisticated machinery and selling it all over the world.

We in British Columbia must specialize, I believe - obviously, not in tanks and airplanes, but in other things that will do well. I want to suggest one specialization. What should the criteria be? We are a small province. I think the criteria have to be low hardware costs. In other words, there's a limit to how many cyclotrons or whatever we can buy in British Columbia.

I think it should tend towards "think" type research rather than high-cost experiment. That's our best bet, I believe, for world leadership in any given field because we can only afford to devote so much money to it.

I think it should be useful to the world. I think it should be humanitarian, if possible, and I think there should be economic spin-offs. I think that British Columbians do want to make a contribution to the world. We are not the richest part of the world but we are well off and w- owe a certain amount to humanity. If we can find a place where we can do something special .... I think there is a place where we can. It has to do with the

[ Page 97 ]

general field of brain research. I want to say at this point that I have not consulted the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGEER) in this regard, even though that is his skill, because one then might say well, this is something he is particularly advocating. 1 haven't even discussed the subject with him for several years.

HON. MR. BENNETT: One of his many skills.

MR. GIBSON: One of his many skills, Mr. Premier.

But 1 have consulted with other brain researchers who are aware of the world competition, the world possibilities and the possibilities in British Columbia.

After some study, I have come to the personal conclusion that the next great quantum jump in human affairs is likely to come out of a better understanding of our mental capabilities and how to use them. I think it will be probably far greater than the current quantum leap we are going through with the use of artificial brains, mainly the computer. There is tantalizing evidence of the ability that every person carries around in their skull, when you see the arithmetical freaks that can multiply 14-digit numbers in their head; when you see those with photographic memory; when you see some of the unexplained psychic powers that have been document; and when you see some of the creativity and genius of particular individuals.

Available evidence indicates that we use only a small proportion of our brains and our ability. Somehow there is a way through science, through study, opening up the possibility and as well looking after the humanitarian side of the cure of brain disease and mental retardation that many suffer from.

1 believe this field of research meets every criterion that I mentioned: the hardware costs are very low compared to most types of research; it is definitely something that is manpower intensive; it is tremendously useful to the world; it is undoubtedly humanitarian; if successful, the economic spin-offs, probably particularly in the field of sophisticated pharmaceuticals, could be quite large; and it is low cost, it is affordable British Columbia.

The consultations I have made indicate that we could be absolutely No. 1 in the world for the expenditure of something in the neighbourhood of $10 million a year, which 1 do not say is not a lot of money - it is; it's a lot of money. But on the other hand, that would give us absolute world rank, absolute state of the art ahead of everyone else and put us in a position to make a tremendous contribution to humanity.

So I ask the Premier, as the person who ultimately in the cabinet must take the leadership in bold new programmes, which this would be, after consultation with expert advisers, to make this field of brain research a priority of his government. I think it could be a wonderful thing for British Columbia and a wonderful thing for the world.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I would draw to your attention that a new member is now on his feet, and 1 know that we will give this member the traditional courtesies which are afforded a new member in this House when he gives his first speech. The hon. member for Oak Bay.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. Let me join with all of the others in congratulating you on your appointment, as well as that of your deputy.

I would begin by putting at rest the anxieties that some of the members, perhaps all of you, carry at the moment, and I'll do that by saying that I have no intention whatever of trying to get my name into the Guinness Book of World Records for occupying 10 per cent of Hansard.

I would like to say that the man I follow into this House is a man for whom w- all have a tremendous respect and a man to whom I owe a great deal, not only for his help and guidance on political and social issues, but also to a very great extent for the fact that I an here today. 1 recognize that without Dr. Wallace's help my winning the Oak Bay by-election, if not impossible, would have certainly been a very great task. I think it speaks very well for the man who stepped out of this House that he came on in the Oak Bay by~election campaign with more energy and vigour and fire than I have ever seen him produce, because, frankly, he had had enough, he was weary and wanted to seek other ventures in life. That's the kind of man he is. I certainly thank him. I also should add that if I get into any difficulty in this chamber, as no doubt 1 will from time to time, I know exactly who to blame.

I would like to thank the hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) for introducing me to this House. I am told that that may have created a precedent, that the usual tradition is for the new member to be brought forward by two members of his own party and that it may have been the first time in the history of British Columbia - I'm not sure, but it may have been - that a member has

[ Page 98 ]

been introduced in this fashion. But before any of you get too carried away, the two members and I have had some ongoing discussions, and I'm still hopeful that the tradition will break down before too much longer.

My wife is not very involved in politics; she's a great supporter. She saw my presentation to this chamber on television. I phoned her afterwards and asked her if she had seen it and she said. "Yes." I said: "What did you think?" and she said: "Boy, are those two guys ever big." It never occurred to me that it may. have been planned that I be put in the middle of these two giants of the House.

I would like also to thank all of the members here, many of whom are my constituents, for the warmth and sincerity with which I have been welcomed. I am very, very impressed by the presence and the kindness that you have shown me and the help that you have given me. Mind you, I still haven't found out where the washroom is, but I'm hoping that that will be discovered before long.

I would like to say a special word of thanks to my bench-mate, the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) , a man whom I have known for some time and have learned to respect. If we should lose you, sir, to Ottawa, as has been suggested from time to time, I trust that you will take with you the speech which you have just given and that you will deliver it to the Liberal caucus down there.

Scott Wallace has given me a lot of personal information about many of you. Scott is a gentleman and always has been, and some of that information was very safe with him. It remains to be seen just how safe it's going to continue to be.

When he was talking about the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen) who sits on the other side of me, he said: "I'll give you one piece of advice: get to your seat early; otherwise Digger will have his feet on it." (Laughter.)

I must confess that I have written two speeches that I was going to give here. This is the second one. The first one was much more of an attack on the official opposition and the government. But last night I was returning to the house and as I walked up the stairs, Gordon Gibson Sr. was there. He put his arm around my shoulder and he said: "Can an oldtimer give you a few tips?"

I said: "By all means."

He said: "Well, I would certainly like to because my son never listens to me, and I'd just like to think that perhaps I might be able to help you."

MR. KING: The Premier has the same problem.

MR. STEPHENS: So he said: "When you get in there, don't be too pushy too soon. This is a forum where a lot of the members feel it's a bit of a private club and you'd be well advised to soft-pedal it in the first instance." So I sat up last night and rewrote my speech and deleted a lot of the things that perhaps we can get at later on.

I'd like also to thank all of the candidates in the Oak Bay by-election. It was an excellent campaign and I made some very good friends. I found all of the candidates to be very decent and honest and straightforward. We developed a fine rapport and it was the most enjoyable campaign, even though it was obviously very long and tiring. I'd like to single out especially Larry Tickner, who made a gallant attempt to make the NDP respectable.

Now I'd like to break tradition again, Mr. Speaker, and actually talk about the Speech from the Throne. I'm going to be fairly brief but I'd just like to touch on some of the things that have been raised.

First of all, I'd like to thank whomever is responsible for writing the speech for the recognition of Dr. Wallace and my welcome to this chamber. I'd like also to make reference to page 3 where the speech says: " My government, through the ~Ministry of Health, has introduced a new long&-term care programme. It is estimated that many thousands of British Columbians will be entitled to receive coverage under this often-promised programme."

Now my predecessor had much to say about these things and I can assure you I have been thoroughly brainwashed. I intend to carry on what Dr . Wallace had fought for for so many years - and that is the recognition from this government that there always has been, and still is, a crying need for intermediate~care beds in this province. We compliment the government on its steps toward making it financially easier on those people who now find themselves in intermediate~care institutions and hospitals, but the fact of the matter is that there is still a tremendous shortage of beds, and the financial assistance is not much help if there is no place for these people to stay.

I'd like to compliment the government as well on the homemaker programme, which I thoroughly approve of and think is an excellent step in the right direction.

The speech talks about the government having tabled in the House a document entitled "Towards an Economic Strategy for Canada, " and

[ Page 99 ]

it goes on to say: " It contains my government's solutions to the deep-rooted economic difficulties with which this country is faced."

obviously all governments must accept the responsibility for improving the economic conditions, not only of British Columbia but of the whole of Canada. But my party's concern is that in this country there is developing a failing among the citizens that they look to government to solve these problems. What is perhaps even more dangerous is the fact that governments have tended to come to believe that they have the ability and the sole ability to do just that.

The demonstration in front of this building last week is a perfect example of the kind of thinking that has overtaken this province. Before 1 proceed with that, I'll say that I and all of us, I'm sure, are greatly concerned about the unemployment situation in this province and we recognize the right of people who have these problems to demonstrate -that's part of our democratic process. But to storm this House and demand jobs from a government which is really incapable of giving jobs is not a direct or healthy approach to solving problems.

I'm concerned that the government believes that it~ through itself, can solve unemployment. I'm heartened that the speech says at the top of page 5: "My government believes that the private sector should be the engine which drives our economy towards the goal of more permanent jobs, and that government should not fall into the trap of becoming the provider of short-lived employment." My friend from North Vancouver-Capilano identifies himself with the official opposition on this position; I identify myself with the government on this position.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the government has identified itself with the conservative position, but the questions remain. How do we overcome this? How do we solve this? What does government do to allow the private sector to solve the problems which it is much more capable of solving than any government has ever been? In this respect the government has failed. The government has laid down certain proposals to solve the unemployment situation, and as I review them I see nothing in there that governments have not been doing for years - simply providing tax dollars to provide services which the private sector usually does not provide, and which the government is responsible for.

I point out particularly in favour of the government that the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications will ask to provide funds for a major provincial undertaking with respect to the upgrading of airport facilities throughout British Columbia. That is new. That is an approach that the provincial government heretofore has ignored. And in this province where communication and transportation, Mr. Speaker, are, always have been and perhaps always will be very difficult, I think that's a tremendous step forward. And it's the one point of all those points in which I see anything new.

The most disappointing aspect of the throne speech is that there is no indication of any tax relief to the people of British Columbia. It is the position of the Conservative Party -and of the Economic Council of Canada, the Bank of British Columbia and that august body, the chamber of commerce - that the best thing to get the economy going in a hurry and to create jobs, is to reduce taxation.

The sales tax in British Columbia is the obvious area to start on, because it can be done very quickly and efficiently and we can have an immediate benefit from such a reduction. I'm concerned, Mr. Speaker, that the proposal by this government to make available $20 million in low-interest loans to businesses wishing to modernize, expand or establish manufacturing or processing facilities is a waste of time. I say that because $20 million, first of all, is a very small amount of money. It amounts to less than one-fifth of 1 per cent of the sales tax. The question that we must ask is not what money can we advance to business, but why does business need it? Why does small business in this province need low-interest loans to modernize, to expand and to establish? Mr. Speaker, it's the position of the Conservative Party that there's no *reason under the present economy in this province to modernize, expand or establish. I see no point in taking $20 million out of the taxpayers' money, laundering it through the civil service, deducting the cost of administration and then turning around and giving it back to the very people you took it from, at low interest.

I suggest that a better solution is a direct reduction in sales tax and in personal income tax, to allow the small businesses and the wage earner in this province to have and retain a little bit more of what he breaks his back to get, and allow him.... Recognize your principle, Mr. Speaker - I direct this to the Premier - that the workers and the small businesses of this province are the best judges of how to spend the money that they work so hard to get. Do not presume that your government, which takes the money from them

[ Page 100 ]

and makes it difficult for them to operate, knows best where it should be placed. Give them a little more freedom. Get the engine going - the engine that you talked about. Loosen up on the taxation.

The hon. Minister of Economic Development has disappointed me since I have come to this House, because I have been reading Hansard for two years and he's hardly said a thing since I got here. I'm sure that won't continue and it's probably my last chance to stand here and say this without some comment. But he did say the other day that over 13,000 new companies had been incorporated in this province in the last year, and that's an indication of an upswing in business. If we look at the history and the pattern of incorporations in this province, we will find that there has been almost a continual increase in each successive year over the past 10 years. Yet if you compare the economy today of this province with what it was five years ago, you will have to agree that this is not an economic indicator of any kind.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the main reason that these companies are being incorporated is because people who previously carried on business in their own name or in a partnership have found and are looking for any desperate way to escape taxation. They are looking to the advantages of a corporation, incorporating to save themselves from the government that continues to take more and more tax dollars. That is the message that I get from the large number of incorporations that we see each year.

I would like to talk also, Mr. Speaker, about a reference in the throne speech - and I'm very glad to see the government espousing this very basic Conservative belief - that it is going to examine ministry by ministry the proliferation of boards, agencies, commissions and departmental structures with a view to cutting regulations which no longer serve a useful purpose. I suggest that the government should expand that, that it shouldn't do it just with a view to cutting regulations, but they should do it with a view to eliminating some of the commissions and agencies and boards mentioned in that paragraph. This is something that governments have been talking about for many years and something that we very seldom see. If it's going to be an honest attempt to reduce the influence of the government bureaucracy in the lives of business and people, then it will certainly get the support of my party.

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the members recognizing the traditions of a member's first speech. However, it is quite obvious to me that they are becoming very bored and edgy, because they want to heckle. That being the case, I am going to put an end to my maiden speech, and from now on there are no holds barred. Thank you very much.

MR. STRONGMAN: It's an honour to stand on behalf of the citizens of Vancouver South and add my support to the opening day throne speech. However, before commencing my remarks I think it's appropriate that I also lend my congratulations to you in your recent elevation to the Speaker's chair. May every ruling that you come forward with be brief, concise and accepted by every member.

To my associate and good friend, the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) , I would like to congratulate you on your recent elevation. They always said one of us would be successful; it happens to be the first member.

I also at this time %would like to welcome -I was going to say the second member for Oak Bay but 1 won't use that phrase - 1 will recognize the first member and the only member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) and hope that your stay in the House is productive for yourself and for the people of British Columbia.

Other members speak in glowing terms of their constituencies. I hear the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) describe the great constituency that he represents - hundreds of thousands of acres. I talked to the member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) , whose special wealth in timber and mineral resources is unequalled in many parts of the world. I have heard the member for Okanagan discuss the rich agricultural area and also the fact that that particular area seems to have the ability to develop great provincial leaders. My friend from Columbia talks about mountain scenery. I speak, though, for Vancouver South, not rich in minerals, timber, agriculture, mountain lakes and awesome scenery, but rich in the most valuable resource of this province: people. Vancouver South is the second most Populous constituency. It's made up of every socio-economic, ethnic, racial and religious group. In fact, my constituency is a complete cross-section of the people that make up this province.

Every single one of my constituents is affected by every part, every segment, every innuendo of the Speech from the Throne that was presented a few days ago. What better group than this to have their member rise today to support the Speech from the Throne?

1 was pleased to find that one of the first topics found in the speech was British Columbia's commitment to a united Canada. Canada has been in existence for 100 years or

[ Page 101 ]

more, and its constitution for that length of time. That constitution, though, is not cast in stone. If Canada is to prosper and to grow within the economic community and the political community that makes up our world, it is absolutely necessary that Canada make changes as well - not just changes that affect the outside visage of our country, but also changes that make basic changes within our society. One of them might be the restructuring of our constitution, the restructuring of our country.

That constitution that was, as I say, not cast in stone 100 years ago did not envision this shift in economic power from east to west. It didn't envision the growth in population that is now being experienced west of the lakehead. In the next decades, Canada, from the Lakehead west, will all but catch up with the rest of Canada in economic clout.

The province of Quebec is striving for many changes in the constitution, not the least of which is control over their economic destiny. Many, or even most, of their demands are also those demanded by our province and many other provinces who are thinking about a change in Canada, a Canada that will be more beneficial to the citizens that reside here.

Quebec is demanding change, and it is demanding that change under the flag of nationalism, a rallying symbol that gives it added enthusiasm and more impetus. But take that rallying symbol, that rallying flag, away from them and their goals are similar to those of ours. We should not prejudge Quebec's actions. The very things that they want, in most cases, are the very things that we want and have wanted for many years. We haven't had that nationalistic flag to follow. Let's make sure that we don't hit them too hard on what they're trying to do because I feel, ladies and gentlemen, that they will benefit us in the long run.

Our Premier, at the recent First Ministers' conference in Ottawa, led the way in outlining aspirations of the province. He served notice on the federal government, not by complaining, as has been done in the past, but rather by setting out a comprehensive plan of economic growth and a call for redistribution of power among the provinces.

1, my party, our government, have faith in Canada, but a new Canada where people have control over their destiny, where the 20th century regional economics are recognized, where 19th century Canada is left in our history books - a new Canada reflecting the reality of the 20th century.

Mr. Premier, you served us well, and I, as well as our citizens, was proud of you and proud to be British Columbian. Your proposals submitted at the, First Ministers' conference contained real solutions to our deep-rooted economic difficulties. One of the most significant of those positions found in the paper "Towards an Economic Strategy for Canada" was a renewed faith in the private sector. The private sector built this country, and the private sector will be its future. Without a doubt, governments and public bureaucracies that exist today only exist because the private sector made it possible. We should never forget that point.

I would like to quote page 4 of the throne speech because I think that it is very germane to my remarks today:

"All 11 First Ministers agreed that an expanding private sector would provide the major impetus for growth of the Canadian economy. All 11 governments agreed that government expenditure growth should be held on average to less than the growth of the gross provincial product and that current large deficits impede the ability of governments to provide the stimulus needed by the economy because of the interest charges against dead-weight debt carried by government. These charges are the unfair burden that future generations must carry as a result of past excesses of government."

I could not help but take note of the unanimous support of all the First Ministers. I repeated at the first of my remarks just a moment ago "11 First Ministers." Even the socialist Premiers of Saskatchewan and Quebec indicated their belief in the private sector as the only way out of our economic plight.

Our policies must be working. The gross provincial product grew at a rate of 4.3 per cent in 1977, almost double the gross national product of 2.6 per cent that is found on our federal scene. B.C. created 15 per cent of all the new jobs in Canada while our labour force makes up but 11 per cent of Canada's total. And at that very same time, it created a labour-management climate unknown for many years.

It's interesting to compare statistics. We hear the Minister of Economic Development quote them regularly, but I think they bear repeating when they illustrate just how well this province is doing, especially in the labour-management field. Last year we had a mere 138,000 man-hours lost due to management-labour conflict. It's interesting to go back a couple of years when unfortunately there was another administration in charge of our province and its destiny at that time. In 1974, 1.6 million man-hours were

[ Page 102 ]

lost; in 1975 they exceeded that again - 1.8 million. At no time have we even reached 10 per cent of the disaster that they brought to this province in that area.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: And they were disasters.

MR. STRONGMAN: One of the best methods of the economic future of any economic unit is to measure the capital investment in manufacturing. I'm proud to say that in 1977 that figure rose by 21 per cent in British Columbia under a Social Credit government.

All these promising indicators tell me that B.C., led only by Alberta, will lead the country in economic growth. 1 quote the Conference Board of Canada: "British Colombia will be one of the bright spots in Canada." Also another quotation from that august body. "The economy of British Colombia will run well ahead of the anticipated performance of the Canadian economy as a whole."

1 was extremely gratified to see our government recommitted to the private sector.

Government will set the tone for a continued return to economic growth and stability by, as mentioned in the throne speech, construction of community health centres, health units and court facilities throughout the province, and renewed highway maintenance and construction. As we well know, the previous government -that government of potholes - drove into a very large one in December, 1975. It did a great disservice to people outside the urban areas by letting our highway system fall apart. 1 congratulate our current Minister of Highways; he hasn't fallen into that pothole as had his predecessor.

The Alcan pipeline - our government will continue to promote the development of northern roads, hopefully with a cost-sharing formula to be developed with the federal government.

New mining incentives for exploration and development should, I'm sure, increase that very important industry to our province.

The apprenticeship programme and youth employment programme will provide not only a long-term but al so a short-term job opportunity for our young.

Airport development and upgrading will have a multi-faceted effect: (1) it will create jobs; (2) something that perhaps has been overlooked by many people - there are some 50,000 small aircraft within one day's flying of British Columbia. These people are pure tourists. When they arrive, they don't have cars; they don't have a place to stay; they don't bring food with them. Everything that they need when they arrive here they purchase.

The very fact that we- are going to make it easier for them to come to British Columbia and to enjoy the many fine things w- have to offer, I believe, will do a great deal to help our tourist industry.

The redevelopment and improvement of secondary airstrips throughout the province, I hope, will be a forerunner of a new system of third-level carriers throughout the province. It seems wrong to me to have our third-level system dominated by an Alberta company, PWA; a national company owned by the federal government, Air Canada; and, of course, Canadian Pacific Airlines, who do a great deal to transport people throughout the province. I believe we should be promoting opportunity for private individuals to get into the third-level carrier business. I believe that our Ministry of Transport will be involved in that, and I would urge the new minister to promote that goal. I believe it is very important to our province.

After a short slump, tourism is back stronger than ever - no thanks to the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) .

As politicians we are responsible to many people: No. 1, we are responsible to our constituency - they elect us or decide not to elect us; we are responsible to our party; we are responsible to the citizens of British Columbia. All of those responsibilities are weighted in different ways.

Going on from that, the press, radio and TV people live off news. When we give statements to those people, we have to realize that ware responsible members. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) , for slight political gain, would do absolutely anything to sabotage this government. He would do anything to sabotage the best efforts of a minister trying to bring industry and growth to British Columbia. He doesn't seem to realize that by attacking something like Captain Cook, a promotion that you may or may not agree with.... But to try and sabotage it sabotages, through you, Mr. Speaker, the merchant in New Westminster, the motel owner in New Westminster who has his heart behind that promotion, who when you w-re in government suffered badly. For slight political gain you're willing to sacrifice the very people who have elected you to office.

The retailers on Columbia Street, an area that isn't as buoyant as it ....

MR. COCKE: There aren't any anymore.

MR. STRONGMAN: Exactly. We would like to see those people improve their businesses, and you have done everything in your power to make sure that tourists try not to get there. It's

[ Page 103 ]

irresponsible, vindictive, living proof that that member suffers from terminal stupidity.

Another outstanding commitment is the government's promise to examine ministry by ministry the system of red tape, boards, agencies and commissions. The time is now. We must de-regulate our society. The government must become a referee, not a player. Every ministry of the Crown is to examine in minute detail every piece of bureaucracy, every commission that you can possibly think of.

I assure you that after careful examination and as you prepare your report, you will feel like Jonathan Swift as he carefully scrutinized Gulliver. It is a disaster. The people most affected by that red tape in bureaucracy are small businessmen. More than any other sector of our economy, they are adversely affected by government reports, reports on reports, regulations, rules, forms, tax forms .... I could go on forever. It drives the small entrepreneur to distraction. He risks more in his private enterprise than do most of us in society. In fact, he risks everything; he risks everything he has. let's stop penalizing him. He is the single largest employer in this province.

Along with private enterprise, a second equal and perhaps overpowering force built this country and this province - the family unit. The Ministry of the Attorney-General in bringing forth proposals for advancing family law into the 20th century will go far in strengthening people's resolve in the worth of the family unit.

Mr. Attorney-General, through you, MT. Speaker, I also hope that the legislation and changes in Acts that you are going to bring through will also include children's rights, one of the most contentious issues of our society. A problem that has been put in the closet too long by society has to be brought out by government, has to be regularized. Children have to have rights in our society.

MR. KING: [illegible] regulations.

MR. STRONGMAN: I heard the member for Revelstoke saying: "More regulations." Well, obviously if you're not as committed to children's rights as am I you should make that statement.

Along with the Attorney-General, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has indicated he will introduce a programme of increased financial assistance to first-time home buyers. I believe this is going to include new or used housing, condominiums, and townhouses. Almost every type of unit that is conceivable can be considered under this new programme. Every family wishes to own their own home, regardless of how modest. The physical ~x) me unit is a symbol of stability, and every responsible family should have the ability to purchase and to own. Our government is committed to that concept. 1 believe it will help us in our endeavour to strengthen the family unit along with the legislation that will be coming down in the Attorney-General's department.

The people of the lower mainland are demanding that our government get on with a system of urban transit. That does not only include rapid transit, but also high-speed arteries for automobiles and trucks. It takes half an hour to travel less than five miles in the city of Vancouver and that doesn't include rush-hour time. The increase in cost of goods and services caused by that tie-up can't be estimated. The use of fuel that is consumed in trucks and cars idling is incalculable. Vancouver will choke on its own traffic if plans are not implemented soon. I see the minister isn't here but I've made this statement before. Please - no more plans, no more studies. Let's implement some of the studies that have taken place in the past.

And finally, as a final caution, I cannot help but comment on the growing grant mentality among citizens, citizens' groups and corporations. The grant mentality, that mentality that tells us: "Can 1 get it from the government, and for free ... V' 1 believe that mentality is a cancer on our society.

Grants provided on a 50 per cent funding formula are one thing but outright gifts to people or organizations are a drain on hard-earned tax dollars provided by working Canadians. It's draining the incentive, drive and imagination of our people. Nothing is for free and the sooner we get away from it, the sooner 5p- get a~, ay from outright gifts, the better off we will be as a society.

Mr. Speaker, this province has come through a most difficult two years. The excesses, mismanagement and just plain stupidity of the former administration have cost us beyond description. This throne speech setting down the goals and aspirations of our government are proof of a bright future, and I am sure all members will welcome a return to a more prosperous time in British Columbia.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, may I also add my congratulations to the others which you've already received about assuming the chair. 1 certainly look forward to you being as good a Speaker as you were a Chairman.

[ Page 104 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MS. BROWN: Before I get into responding to the Speech from the Throne, I just want to make a couple of asides. One is that I find it really interesting that people who like to sing the praises of private enterprise and say how wonderful and great it is are always so selective in the things that they talk about. Somehow they always manage to forget when they talk about the private enterprise system some of the things that private enterprise has done for us, such as sweat shops, slavery, colonial exploitation and oppression. The only thing that shows is that where you stand depends on where you sit. Where you stand on an issue depends on where you sit.

As long as you're a recipient you can praise the private enterprise system, but when you're a Third World country, the victim of the kind of colonial exploitation that we get from the private enterprise system, you have to say a different thing about it. When you are belonging to a group of people who knew what it was to live under slavery, you have something else to say about the private enterprise system. When you are a worker who knew what it was like before the trade union thought and movement was brought into being and you had to work in sweat shops and were oppressed and exploited by the private enterprise system, you have a different perspective altogether about the private enterprise system. So I hope that next time the people who get up and sing the praises of the private enterprise system will at least give us both sides of the picture.

MR. LOEWEN: Imperialist socialism!

MS. BROWN: The other thing, Mr. Speaker, was the comment about the grant mentality. Well, who else to speak about the grant mentality than the recipients of the grants - the large corporations, the mining industries? They get more grants out of government in this country than anyone else.

It was really interesting when the member spoke that he talked about people and organizations; he didn't talk about the large corporations. They are the ones who get it for free. When they are given it's known as incentives - "incentives, " that's what it's called - but when people and organizations that serve people ask for incentives, it's called welfare. That's what it is. However, that is not part of my speech, so turn the light on again, please.

Mr. Speaker, I have some genuine criticism of the Lieutenant-Governor's Speech from the Throne. It is my hope that as it is the opening of the legislative session, maybe this time the Premier, who is sitting in his seat and listening attentively, will listen to the voice of the people through me and certainly to the some of the suggestions coming fran the opposition at this time.

Unrealistic analysis breeds false confidence in government and discouragement among the public. It is very tempting when faced with uncomfortable realities to search out and find a few facts which seem to give a different side of the story. But this is a very dangerous thing to do, dangerous because however easily one can bend the facts, people know in their wisdom and individuals know through their experience that this is not so.

It may be comforting to the Premier that British Columbia's economy grew at an annual rate of 4.3 per cent last year, but every woman and child in this province knows, and is prepared to tell the Premier, that that growth was not fast enough to touch the growing unemployment, that as a result of that growth and despite that growth, there are still more than 100,000 people in this province who are out of work. Every member of this House knows that the growth was not as good as it was the year before. Again, Mr. Speaker, we see some selective memory on the part of the Premier, and the kinds of issues raised in the throne speech.

Every member of this Legislature knows that his or her constituents are worried about unemployment, about the cost of food and about a dozen other factors which add up to the conclusion that the provincial economy is going downhill, not uphill. Saying that it's going uphill isn't going to change it, because the reality of the situation is that it is going downhill. Mr. Speaker, the province hasn't stopped going downhill since December, 1975, and it isn't going to stop until ok get rid of that government over there. The Premier is confused if he is trying to suggest that the low number of days lost as a result of strikes and lockouts is any indication of economic health, or of a good labour-management climate in this province, because every one knows that the federal government has virtually put locks on the free and collective bargaining process. Everyone knows that the employers of this province have the power to break any strike that they want to, and everyone knows that right-to-work legislation is hanging over the workers of this province like a sword ready to drop on any pretext and any excuse. It's fear and intimidation that caused the number of days lost to go down, Mr. Speaker, not a healthy

[ Page 105 ]

labour-management relationship, contrary to the Premier's statement.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You're the one who spreads the fear.

MS. BROWN: You didn't attend your own provincial convention, Mr. Member, or you would have known. Everyone knows that despite the low levels of strike last year, the pressure is building up. Everyone knows that the frustration of working people in this province is evident in the paycheque that shrinks in relation to the prices of everything going up, whether it be in the grocery stores, the department stores, for their rental accommodation, or whatever -everyone, that is, but the Premier. Everyone knows that the days lost to lockouts and strikes is infinitesimal compared to the days lost due to unemployment. There is no need to hide these facts. The only consequence of doing so is to spread discouragement. People who recognize the real fact and are not fooled by the government's statements know that the government cannot tell them otherwise. The economy of this province has been ground to a halt by this government and it is not going to get moving again until we get rid of this government.

By some calculation, whose reason and rationality is not found in the Speech from the Throne, nor in the papers presented at the First Minister's Conference, the government has decided to arbitrarily and automatically peg the government's investment to even less than the growth of this virtually no-growth provincial economy. The basic policy statement of the government found in the speech is this: this government intends to do nothing. This government may shuffle a programme here, take away a job there and place it somewhere else. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is an expert at that. But it is not going to take the responsibility; it is not going to make the investments necessary to provide new jobs - no new jobs, just the shuffling of the jobs that already exist and a wiping out of some of them.

This government seems determined to adhere to the woolly myth that public sector investment cannot be productive. Money in the pockets of a wasteful private corporation can be invested, but money in the hands of people can only be spent. That is the philosophy of that government over there. A more shocking example of ignorance, Mr. Speaker, is hard to find. It is all the more shocking in the light of the performance of the private sector upon which this government places so much hope -

the engine that's supposed to run the machine. It is all the more shocking in the face of the obvious and clearly articulated demands of the people of this province for jobs now. They are not asking for more welfare. They're not asking for more handouts and more grants. They're asking for jobs, and that is one thing that that government is not addressing itself to , because it doesn't know how, quite frankly.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

There is much that was not said in the speech. The social consequences of the economic policies of this government, for example, were not touched on, and were certainly ignored. Partly these serious omissions are understandable, because when this engine, this corporate sector that the government speaks of that he needs to run the economy, breaks down as it is inevitably doing, the immediate and most severe effects fall on ordinary people. People are laid off, small businesses go into debt, but at the same time, the large corporations reorganize and grow stronger. The pressures on government and its welfare system increase. That is precisely what is happening, Mr. Speaker.

Despite what the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) may say in his annual report, which is two years late, the pressure on the welfare system is increasing. It is increasing as a direct result of the economic! policies of this government and, of course, the bungling of the Ministry of Human Resources.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, generally speaking, at times like these attention is almost exclusively drawn to the sudden, sharp and devastating effects on people who were previously productive and employed. At these times those who have not had it good even during the good times tend to be ignored, they get lost in the transition. We can find headlines in the paper about layoffs at previously productive plants, but we forget about those who are experiencing tough times even during the good years.

I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that I believe that it is government's responsibility to never forget those people. It is government's responsibility to constantly bring to the attention of the public the needs and concerns of those who are so easily pushed to the back pages during an economic depression. Therefore I believe that a good Speech from the Throne would have included such a reminder. It would at least have made a token gesture in the direction of those people, and I am very

[ Page 106 ]

disappointed, though not surprised, to find that the speech made no reference whatsoever to groups of people who are continuing to experience, and have for a long time experienced, difficulties, and indeed special difficulties, during these very tough economic times.

I can understand the enthusiasm of the Premier and his government about the exploitation of natural gas in the Peace River sector, even though it is completely contradictory to his expressed intention of avoiding the traditional boom-and-bust development of our hinterland. Even though it is a classic example of reliance on the exploitation of raw, perishable resources for export which has plagued the economy of this province for decades, I can understand -although I do not approve of - this enthusiasm. But what about those areas of the province where today's unemployment is simply an expansion of yesterday's unemployment? What about the. northwest sector of this province, where we're told the unemployment rate in some areas has reached 30 to 40 per cent? I am sorry, and I am angry, Mr. Speaker, that no mention whatsoever was made of these people who at ter all are also residents of British Columbia .

But back to the social consequences again, and I want to talk about the UIC recipients, about unemployment insurance. Last fall, Mr. Speaker, in a rather lengthy speech, I warned this government that under current conditions one should begin to expect some buck-passing among the various levels of government. I warned specifically that the federal government would be inclined to shift as much of the financial burden for unemployment onto the provinces as it thought it could get away with. I warned that this was part of our historical experience, because in fact that's what happened during the Thirties, and what we're experiencing now is history repeating itself. I warned that it would happen again.

'Die Minister of Human Resources (hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) at that time was not interested. he complained that I was wasting the taxpayers' time by discussing these things in the Legislature. Imagine my surprise, Mr. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) , imagine my surprise when the crocodile tears started to roll down the face of the Minister of Human Resources on the front pages of the Sun and the Province concerning the fact that, indeed, the federal government was shifting the burden for unemployment onto the provinces by holding up the payment of unemployment insurance payments to people %to were actually eligible for it, thus forcing them onto the welfare rolls.

But the point is, Mr. Speaker, why is there no discussion of the delicate and dangerous matter of federal-provincial relations? The throne speech would have been a good opportunity to deal with that. The speech instead seems to indicate that the federal government is loaded with bags of money which they're willing to toss around whenever the British Columbia government begs them to, and that, of course, is not the situation at all. The real battles will have to be fought over individual issues like unemployment insurance payments and unemployment insurance benefits. Because unemployment insurance is primarily a federal programme this government seemed to think that it would not affect British Columbians and had to wait until this started to happen before they actually made any moves in that direction. Consideration of this fact is ignored in the speech. In fact, it is only by tracing a reference in the speech back to its source that one comes across something relevant.

The Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, makes quite a point of the Premier's presentation to the First Ministers' conference, and in fact we were all presented with a free package. I myself had taken the trouble to ask for it before and so I'd read them all, but it was nice to have a second copy. There is a reference to the policy papers provided to the conference, and they were made available to all of us. By referring to these papers we found exactly how this province feels about the unemployed and especially, Mr. Speaker, how it intended to deal with the question of unemployment and women.

This government believed and actually recommended that there should be a reduction of unemployment insurance payments to 1. secondary wage earners." That is from the British Columbia position, page 11, for those of you who haven't read it yet. Mr. Speaker, 11 secondary wage earner" is a sexist code for women workers. Now let us get that fact straight once and for all. That's all that you are saying, Mr. Premier, through you, ~Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Not necessarily.

MS. BROWN: That is all that the Premier is saying when he refers to "secondary wage earner.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Nonsense!

MS. BROWN: Women are accustomed to all kinds

[ Page 107 ]

of euphemisms - this is one of them. It is not nonsense. It is a fact that when the Premier talks about cutting back the unemployment insurance coverage to secondary wage earners, he is referring to the women of this province. Let us get that fact straight and not play any more games with words.

One has every reason to believe that the fulfilment of the programme before us today will have the effect of discriminating against women in reducing the basic income platform provided to unemployed women through their own insurance payments. In other words, women who make the same insurance payments as men, the Premier is suggesting to the federal government, nonetheless should receive a lower payment. That is one of the reasons it was not dealt with in the throne speech. Instead of fighting, Mr. Speaker, instead of announcing that this province would not allow the federal Liberals to deny any British Columbians, male or female, the full guarantee of basic financial assistance during a time of severe economic dislocation, this government went one better and suggested to the federal government that it embark on a programme of sex discrimination. Congratulations! Attacking the secondary wage earner - his euphemism for women.

There are other elements in the speech, Mr. Speaker, which apply an attack on women in this province. I don't know, quite frankly, why I am so surprised about it, because the government's record when it comes to women is so clear. But to blatantly include it in the throne speech, that really took a lot of gall.

For example, the government has announced its intentions to hold back on government spending programmes. It has announced that it will do everything in its power to do worse than the private sector. Whatever the private sector produces, the government will try to produce a little bit less and pay less for it. Economic policy papers state specifically that government employees should be paid "at the lowest wage cost to their employer." I an referring to the background paper, Growth of Government in Canada. I know the Premier regrets the fact that he gave us those papers, because we have read them. That is to say, the confidence in the economy expressed in the speech is premised on the negative goal of becoming the worst of all possible employers, so bad that people will not want to work in government in this province.

Mr. Speaker, guess who most of the government employees are. Government services, Mr. Speaker, remain one of the most important job markets for women in this province, as indeed for this country. When you talk about job ghettos and clerical ghettos, those work ghettos are inhabited by women and one of the largest clerical ghettos in Canada is the civil service. Such a roundabout way of dealing with the whole question of discrimination!

The attack on women, Mr. Speaker, announced in the speech, of course is not the first action that this government has taken, because, while this government will go out of its way to find means to pay an insurance executive $80,000 to run ICBC, direct services to the people and especially to women are being cut back. While this government will go out of its way to find $80,000 to print and distribute hospitality certificates, the Status of Women council of Vancouver is told that it has to make do with $75,000. 1 was really pleased that the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) mentioned the Status of Women council and the kind of work that it does.

I was very pleased that the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) mentioned the Status of Women council and the kind of work that it does. I want to talk a bit more about that. You tell me, in terms of priorities, Mr. Speaker, whether the work done by the Status of Women council is as important as that of producing and distributing hospitality certificates. Make a comparison, because the hospitality certificates got $80,000, the Status of Women council got $75,000.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Yes, probably. Now the Status of Women council received a letter from the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. ~McCarthy) on March 23, because they had written her on March 17 to say that in view of the fact that the $75,000 would force them to fire two of their workers, because it wasn't quite enough, they would appreciate it if she would reconsider the amount of money - inflation, these kinds of things. The Provincial Secretary (hon. Mrs. ~McCarthy) , in a letter of March 23, responded by saying: "If you do not want the grant there are a lot of other people around who could use the money." I'm putting what she said in my own words. But the letter is there; it's quite a long letter which said in a nutshell: "Take it or leave it, and if you don't want it there are other people that we can give the $75,000 to." I mean, that shows real concern; that's a really warm, compassionate kind of response, isn't it, to get from someone who just spent $80,000 to have printed up and distributed the hospitality certificates? That was a good

[ Page 108 ]

response to give to a group of people who are working with women in the community.

The suggestion was made that they should apply to outside funding, they should try some of the foundations, the community support. This shows that she didn't read their brief, because they were very clear in the brief about the foundations and the other community groups that they had tried to tap, including city council, Secretary of State and various other groups in terms of their funding.

She also mentioned that they should charge for their. service. The Status of Women really serves a group of people who for the most part have no money; they cannot pay for their services.

Secondly, they're an advocacy group. They fight for women, and as such they do not fit into the funding criteria of any of the foundations - not the Koerner Foundation or the Vancouver Foundation or any of the foundations which they applied to. There aren't any foundations that fund advocacy groups. The y tried, and they made it absolutely clear in their appeal to the Provincial Secretary that they had tried these other areas. They do get some money from memberships; you get to pay your membership due. They do get some money from donations, but because they address themselves to a constituency that is for the most part poor, there isn't any money out there.

That is the reason why it really irks me, Mr. Speaker, when someone gets up in this House and talks about the grant mentality. If they had the grant mentality, they would have the grant in the same way that the oil companies and the mining companies and the large corporations get the grant. But it's because they work with and for dispossessed people that they are not having at least as much money assigned to them as is assigned to the printing and distributing of hospitality certificates.

Mr. Speaker, you would imagine, for example, that the women who worked at the Vancouver Status of Women were asking for a lot of money. Do you know what they're paid? The salary, Mr. Speaker, is $850 a month. When you take into account that most of these women are heads of families, that that is the income on which they support their families, you begin to find that they actually fit into the poverty category in our society. Those women are not living high off the hog, not on $850 a month.

We can't find out what Mr. Williston makes for his job; we can't find out what a number of other contract people who do contract for the government make for their jobs, but we're pretty sure that Mr. Williston isn't making $850 a month. So there you have it in terms of the priorities of this government.

The Premier is heckling me, but that's okay.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Tell it to your leader, who's not in the House.

MS. BROWN: Listen, I'm not speaking to my leader; I'm speaking to you. You are responsible for what that government does.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bon. member, kindly address the Chair.

MS. BROWN: If everyone else left this House except the Premier, I would still say what I have to say, because I hold the Premier ultimately responsible. That's right.

HON. MR. BENNETT: And I want to hear what you are saying even though all your other members are out of the House.

MS. BROWN: And I hold him ultimately responsible for trotting off to Ottawa and talking about secondary wage earners not getting as much UIC payments as everyone else, and the public service paying the lowest possible wages, and allowing the Provincial Secretary to blow $80,000 on hospitality certificates, and not recognizing the important contribution that the Vancouver Status of Women make. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is also listening, and I really appreciate that. Because the Minister of Education showed very clearly that the reason the Vancouver Status of Women aren't getting as much money as they wanted was because they were Canadian. If they were American, like. Bobby Sherrell, they'd get more money, wouldn't they?

AN HON. MEMBER: Robert Sherrell.

MS. BROWN: No, no. If it's women, they don't get it.

Mr. Speaker, the Vancouver Status of Women have been told that when the ombudsman has been chosen for the province, the ombudsman would be able to do the job which is presently being done by the ombudservice. This shows again that the minister has not read the report. If she had read the report she would see that the kind of job carried out by the ombudservice has nothing to do with fighting bureaucracy. It deals with problems of isolation, marital stress, inflation, reduced hope for jobs, lack of education, personal problems. These are not touched by an

[ Page 109 ]

ombudsman. It is inter- preventive action. The aim is to bring women together in their own communities to share experience and to seek solutions. I quote from the report:

"The urgent need of the Vancouver Status of Women ombudservice will not diminish before discrimination based on sex is eradicated from our society. But our hope is that by sharing the skills of our collective in a constructive and organized %, ay with small groups of women in their own communities, the women will be able to take on some of the burden and reach many other women before crises develop."

Again talking about the lack of commitment to a special group of people in the throne speech, 1 want to talk about another group -the women's health collective. I'm sorry that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is not here. I know he met with them and I understand he ~, us very sympathetic to the submission which they made, but again the story was that there isn' t going to be any money to meet their request. Again, Mr. Speaker, the salary these ~, women are earning is $850 a month. Again, exactly like the Status of Women people - $850 a month. The women's health collective is in a serious situation because the Minister of Human Resources has seen fit to withdraw the salary of one person who used to %work with them. So already they are one person short.

They have long visiting lists. This is a group that trains volunteers. We are al~, ways hearing from that government about tile importance of volunteers. The women's health collective is inter-preventive medicine. They train volunteers. They are involved in education in the schools and with community groups. Again they are finding that in terms of the priorities of this government, they are not considered to be important. They have still not heard the word from the minister about whether their budget is going to be met or not. This is not a criticism of the minister. They have met with the minister; he was warm and sympathetic and understanding. They state very clearly that he understands their dilemma. The dilemma that they have is with the government that sees that it is more important to put money into things than it is to put money into people, even if it's involved in such a thing as preventive services and certainly in terms of preventive health services.

Mr. Speaker, again w find the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) talking about day care. In his report he says: "No further development of day-care services is anticipated during this fiscal year." he is killing and destroying the day-care system in this province. The day cares are going broke, again, because the subsidy is not enough. This government does not consider it a priority. At the same time, they are forcing women out of the work force. None of their job-creation programmes address themselves to the kinds of needs that women have. They are talking about apprenticeship training. They are going to be apprenticed, all right, and they are going to be trained - to do what? There aren't any jobs out there for then when they are through their apprenticeship training.

At the same time as unemployment is getting worse and everybody is looking for work, including women, the day-care subsidy is not enough to keep the day-care systems going.

I want to deal specifically with one day-care centre in my own riding: that's the Mount Pleasant day care. What Mount Pleasant day care finds is that 50 per cent of the children in the Mount Pleasant day care are referred to that day care by social workers for social and emotional reasons. They are there because they need to be there. Social workers say that these kids need that kind of environment. As you know, day care is one way of dealing with child abuse. We have discovered that that is certainly one way of dealing with child abuse. Thirty five of the children in that day care come from low income earning families. Okay. But what we find is that the day-care centre, in order to survive, has to get the full subsidy from each parent, plus charge an additional $30 per month. Yes. They can't make ends meet just on the subsidy. They have to charge an additional $30 per month over and above the subsidy in order to make ends meet, and in case you have the idea, Mr. Speaker....

Who turned on that green light?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon member, you drew attention to your own time limit.

MS. BROWN: 1 think that's terrible. Okay, I'll give another speech later.

Mr. Speaker, the day-care supervisor again makes $885 a month, so that is not going into the salaries. But in fact, because 75 per cent of the families who use the day care are single-parent families, what Mount Pleasant Day Care is finding is that it's going broke. No new equipment is being bought, no repairs are being done, and they are noticing that the quality of lunch being provided by the parents of those children is going down at a time when the centre is not able to afford decent snacks for the kids.

'Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk about the

[ Page 110 ]

whole area of poverty and the fact that the Federated Anti-Poverty have also had their funding cut off. I know I have to close and I will do this very quickly by saying that unemployment is much more than being without a job; it is much more than having to scrape by on UIC or welfare. It is a reason why people drink more, why they beat their kids more, commit more crimes, borrow more money, commit more suicides and are more inclined to seek conservative solutions to their problems. It is why we need more child-abuse teams, more transition houses, more day-care centres, more rape relief programmes, more Status of Women ombudservice and more health collectives. Unemployment, Mr. Speaker, is massive and chronic. 'The push to get people to buy up the over-produced junk that is everywhere is more intense and pointed than ever in our history.

The throne speech has not addressed itself to these factors, perhaps because this government is as uncaring of women as it is of all other persons in need in this province. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, and for these reasons which I have outlined, I find that I cannot support the motion in reply to the speech of his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. But I would like to be constructive, so, ~k. Speaker, with your permission I would like to move the following motion, seconded by the member for Cowichan--Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) .

That the motion in reply to the opening speech of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor be amended by adding the following words: "...but this House regrets that the speech of His Honour fails to outline any measures to alleviate the impact of the serious downturn in the economy on the women of this province.

On the amendment.

MRS. WALLACE: There is a premise that true freedom for women lies in the right of choice whether they will work outside the home or work within the home. 1 suggest, ~1r. Speaker, as this amendment to the throne speech suggests, that without an opportunity for employment for women, that freedom of choice is taken from a 50 per cent sector of our society. If we agree with that premise, Mr. Speaker, we will recognize that this is a battle that has been going on for many, many years. We can go back to the early 1900s, when women first obtained the franchise here in British Columbia and first elected a woman member to the Legislature. As a result of that woman's election to the Legislature, we got back in 1916 three pieces of legislation that were of benefit to women - the first pieces of legislation on the records of this House that actually related to the welfare of women.

If you consider, MT. Speaker, what happened during the First World War, you will recognize that, for the first time, women began to take their place in the work force. We had women completely running the four Imperial gas stations in Vancouver back in 1914. Bank tellers, stenographers and elevator operators previously had always been jobs that were held by men, but during the war we were very pleased as a society to have women step in and fill those jobs. Women thought that they had who n some points, that they were making progress. But what happened after the war, Mr. Speaker? Women were told they were no longer needed; they could go back to the home. That is not freedom of choice, Mr. Speaker.

It's a long, slow road of progress. We had the Second World War and again women took their rightful place not only in the workplace but beside the men of this country as comrades- in- arms. And what happened after the war? Again, women were told to go back to the home. In 1955 the then Premier of this province fired every married woman who was a civil servant and then rehired them at a lower rate. Is that freedom of choice, ~k. Speaker? Is that an equal opportunity for the women of this province? And no w we have history repeating itself in today's throne speech.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, if I may interrupt you for a moment. Hon. members, we are having difficulty with the sound system and it would be of great assistance to the Chair if you kept the conversations down on both sides of the House so we can hear the member for Cowichan-Malahat. Please continue.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in a very recent edition of the Colonist there was an interesting article on women in the trades. Why do women enter the trades, why do they want to apprentice and go into the trades? And do you know what the common answer was? Because of the pay. They are obliged to go into these trades in order to make a decent standard of living.

Let's look at what the record says across the country. In Quebec, for example, they have a programme going now - it was started in 1976 - which has the objective of integrating at least five women into each of a group of once male-dominated technical courses. They are moving in that direction in Quebec. In Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island there have been no women applying. In New Brunswick a number of women are enrolled in apprentice-training and it is growing, but the

[ Page 111 ]

numbers are miniscule. in Ontario we have the community colleges offering apprentice training programmes for women in the blue-collar trades. In Alberta, in the college there, the registrar says that 10 per cent of the 1,100 apprentices who registered for courses in January were women. "But in British Columbia there are few women in trades." So says Patrick Thang of the provincial Ministry of Labour. Don Evans of the Pacific Vocational Institute the province's largest vocational school with more than 18,000 students, says very few women are enrolled in blue-collar trades. We had figures quoted in this House last year, lists of trades one after the other where the number of women enrolling in apprenticeship training ~, as none, absolutely none. And I suggest that this government has taken no steps to encourage this kind of participation by women, to allow them to participate in the field, because they are already faced with a problem that they don't know how to handle and they are not prepared to give women a fair and equal break in these higher-paid jobs.

A woman who has made it in the mining community, who is now working for Cominco as a blaster, tells something of the problems that she had in trying to get her certification as a blaster: no help from the company; no help from the government; no free books provided; no assistance. The kind of help that was provided to male applicants was not provided to a female applicant for that particular course. This is discrimination and it cannot be done away with overnight; it's something that we have grown into.

There was a survey ~one recently by Harvard University where they took job applications and filled them out, purposely showing exactly the same qualifications for each applicant, putting male names to some, female names to the others, and when those were given to prospective employers to evaluate, the vast majority of employers who were choosing an applicant from those lists chose the male applicant for that particular managerial position rather than the female applicant even though they had exactly identical qualifications and abilities. it's a conditioning, Mr. Speaker, and it's going to take some government direction to get away from that conditioning.

Women have historically been relegated to lower-paid jobs and they have been used in many ways where they have no opportunity to fight back. I think perhaps the waitress job is the most difficult of all for women because they find that they have a very low pay cheque. They are in fact, because of their very sex, asked to exploit that particular characteristic in many instances in working as a waitress. Their appearance is something that is considered to be very important when hiring on as a waitress. Many additional duties are assigned such as cashiering, cleaning up, sharing of tips, all those things that are not really part of the ~waitress job. And yet they're hired on for low pay and asked to do those extra jobs and there is no recourse; they have no way of combating that kind of pressure from employers.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that women's problems do need some specific attention from government. This government is committed to leaving things to private enterprise and, Mr. Speaker, the aims and objectives of corporate enterprise are different from those that should be the aims and objectives of any government, because the aims and objectives of the corporate sector are one thing and one thing only - their own corporate w-11-being. I suggest that governments have a much larger responsibility than simply that corporate well-being. They have a social responsibility that reflects many more things than simply making profits. It must reflect the well-being of the entire society. In neglecting to include anything in the throne speech that will ensure that those groups in society which are less fortunate than many other groups do not have some specific assistance and guidance and some motivation and opportunities provided by government, they have neglected their duty as a government of the total population of this province.

Some of the things that have happened within the various ministries of the government have indicated the intent and direction of the government, and I think specifically of Human Resources. My colleague from Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) has talked about day-care centres and the subsidy, but I suggest there's another aspect to that, and that is the amount of allowance provided to the parents. That has been made much more difficult to obtain. You have to have a much greater degree of financial handicap in order to obtain any assistance in putting your children in day care. For example, if both parents are working in different directions it's obvious that they need two cars, particularly if they live in a rural area. But if you have two cars, then you cannot claim the expense of that second car, which is just as legitimate an expense as the first car in getting one of the breadwinners to work. That is simply not allowed.

These sorts of directions from that minister, who has said openly that day care is

[ Page 112 ]

simply a babysitting service, proves that the government does not recognize that this need for day care is something that has been going on for years and years. Back in the 1900s, in fact, the women's movement in Vancouver started day-care centres. As long ago as 1900 it was recognized by women that in order to function as full members of society there must be some provision for day care.

MS. BROWN: During the war it was a different story.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, a different story entirely during the war. But always it has been the women who have been pushed back into the kitchens and told that they did not have a right to freedom of choice. That freedom of choice is important, Mr. Speaker. Every woman has that right, or should have it. But under today's society, with today's government, that right is being denied more and more and more, and that's why, Mr. Speaker, I an very pleased to second this motion made by the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) .

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised today that having given the government two opportunities to respond to an amendment to the main motion, both the government supporters and the government remain silent. The only thing that they can do, Mr. Speaker, is sit and gossip, because they certainly don't get up on their feet and defend their lack of any kind of concern over the economy of B.C., and particularly where it affects women in this province. We hear a great deal of buzz-buzz, but we certainly don't hear any action over there.

Mr. Speaker, earlier we were listening to the great entrepreneur from Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman) . As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I take it there is some relationship between the present Deputy Speaker of the House (Mr. Rogers) and that member, in terms of sharing a constituency. Mr. Speaker, I would certainly hope that the Speaker would disown the remarks, or certainly make sure that they are not regarded as his, and make sure that the people in Vancouver South don't understand them to be his, because what he was talking about was how our province is speeding ahead, how our province is doing so well in the private sector, and, at the same time, we are looking at a third of all the bankruptcies in Canada in our own province - 30 per cent.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, if I could have your attention, please.

MR. COCKE: Yes, you , ant to remind me ....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, we are on an amendment and if I could just read you the key wording, it says: "To alleviate the impact of the serious downturn in the economy on women of this province." Perhaps if we could stay to the amendment to the motion the debate will be in order.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, when small industry, when commercial enterprises go broke, who is mainly affected? We're talking about service industry, and that's what I want to get onto in this particular situation. With a little patience, I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, you might see the path that I plan to tread. That member was talking about the great experience that we're having with this great free-enterprise government. I'm telling you, Mr. Speaker, that this great free-enterprise government is taking us down the garden path to Hades, and taking mainly women - because they're the ones who are most occupied in the service industries in terms of employment. That member probably knows that, and if he doesn't know it, he certainly should study the situation.

He went on to say: "Spreading fear." No, I think that was a remark from across the floor. We're spreading fear. We, the opposition, are charged with the responsibility of telling the truth, telling people where it's at in the province. And you've wrecked the province for all people, and particularly women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. COCKE: Why do I say particularly women? Let me tell you why I say particularly women, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You know, that smart little minister from Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) certainly has changed the whole face of this House. It won't behoove me to tell you how he's changed it, but certainly he's changed it. I hope he goes looking for that $1 million worth of booze that he lost.

Mr. Speaker, spreading fear isn't the point at all. Our obligation in the British parliamentary system is to point out the flaws in government. There are so many in this government that certainly it's fearful, and I'm fearful about where the province is going. I saw a government elected, telling women, telling all people, that they want to get this province moving again. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that if I were one of those that were last on

[ Page 113 ]

the job - and that's mainly women - who are also the first off the job when times are a little tough, then I would certainly be upset with this government. Not only have they affected their opportunity in employment situations, but they've certainly raised the cost of living for women as well.

Mr. Speaker, this economy is a disaster for the %women. Nothing that the government seems to do brings about the kind of effects that they suggest they will bring about. They thought that they would improve the economy by increasing the sales tax. All they did was reach into people's pockets, Mr. Speaker, and reduce the spending power of the women, because they are the people who are largely the shoppers in this province. When you've done that, you've reduced the jobs. Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader (Mr. Stephens) was talking about putting some money back into the economy. I find it difficult to agree with too much Conservatives say, but I don't find it difficult to agree in this particular area. This government has been a disaster. They increased every rate they could get near - increased ferry rates, increased taxation and increased car insurance rates. They thought that was all in the name of good government, all in the name of balancing the books. But really what it was, Mr. Speaker, was in the name of wrecking our economy. I can't understand why we keep quoting from time experts, some economists who are telling us just how great it is in B.C. when the facts reveal that it is not great in British Columbia at all.

Now the Premier's beginning to use that old saw about immigration into our province. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that immigration into our province is not a problem at this point. People are not coming here like they used to. They don't dare, because they'll be given a shovel and a word that really will mean hopelessness to them. No, if there's any fear being spread in this province, Mr. Speaker, that government is the culprit. They're the ones that are spreading fear. The fact that the opposition is pointing out that they're full of flaws, pointing out that they're a bungling government, pointing out that they're the least businesslike government that we've seen.... If you don't believe that, Mr. Speaker, go around and talk to the women in this province, the women who are really suffering the greatest burden of all, with the possible exception of youth. But, Mr. Speaker, we're dealing with women, and women are among the most severely affected in this province as a result of this government's direction.

What do we hear in response from this government? We hear they're very highly successful, a picture of sartorial splendour. The Minister of Travel Industry and Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) tells all the women in this province: "I made it, girls. So can you." That's kind of faint hope for most of the people, particularly, Mr. Speaker, when there are just not the jobs. One job for every 30 applicants ... and most of those 30 applicants are women.

You know, 'unfortunately in our world today, with divorces the way they are, with women being deserted the way they are, a great many of those are the first earner in the family. The first earner of the family, 46 per cent of them, Mr. Speaker, and they have been sold out. It doesn't surprise me, however.

You know, the one thing we can count on is the chatter from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) . I can only remember it's a minister of affairs of some sort. But in any event, . Speaker, no wonder! He doesn't really care, obviously he doesn't care, just makes claptrap remarks. Certainly I just hope that the women of Kamloops understand that. He happens to be in a more fortunate position than most areas in the province, because Kamloops, as it happens by virtue of a number of accidents of geography, is not doing too badly right now, but the rest of the province is doing very badly. No, no, they're not doing well, but they're certainly doing a great deal better, for an example, than Terrace.

MS. BROWN: Or Omineca.

MR. COCKE: Well, Omineca is a disaster area ever since the election. Their MLA has never worked.

MR. KEMPF: Great speech!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know that you'll be back to the amendment very shortly.

MR. COCKE: Yes, certainly. I just ~, ;ant to deal for a second with the specifics of the women's situation. When they requested a grant .... Incidentally, your grants shouldn't be allowed, according to the member from Vancouver South. That kind of government largesse is wrongly directed, he said. The grants to the women of our province, not the least of which is the Vancouver Status of Women, go to prepare them better for the kind of dog-eat-dog world that he creates - the kind of dog-eat-dog world that that great entrepreneur and his type create.

Incidentally, I wonder who he is using in

[ Page 114 ]

his advertising? The voice sounds.... Anyway, Mr. Speaker, some of the areas where the Vancouver Status of Women work and produce for this old world of ours, for this economic system of ours, is in their skill-sharing times. That's part of their work. In their paralegal counselling; that's part of their work. In their sponsorship of Canada Works programmes and in their work with Canada Manpower industrial training programmes - Mr. Speaker, these are the very areas where women require assistance. These are the very areas that we're talking about now.

Mr. Speaker, the government says that we're going to hold them down to the same level as they were in 1975 and prior. No thought in terms of inflation; no thought in terms of an increased need; no thought in terms of the fact that we're in tougher times now; they've been getting increasingly tough since this government has been in office. Mr. Speaker, one more year of this government and it's going to be like Hiroshima after the bomb. Scary? Yes, I'm scared, I'm scared of a government that has absolutely no sense at all in terms of producing direction, and they've exhibited that best by turning their backs on the women, the women who are trying their very best to help one another, to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. The largesse they get is "take it or leave it." A crumb on the edge of the table; "if you don't like it, lump it." That's pretty difficult to take, Mr. Speaker.

You know, it's not as if this is a strident mob. This isn't a bunch of screaming people; this is a very highly educated group of people doing a job in our community. We should be proud of them, we should be co-operating with them, we should be supporting them as best we can, and no, we don't. We turn our backs on them, Mr. Speaker. I suspect that that member from South was making a pitch for the cabinet - he sees an Empty chair - with that kind of attractive statement obviously attractive to this government. Mr. Speaker, it's a shame. I hope that the member goes home and thinks about what he said. And as for the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , old blubber-lungs, he has done nothing for anybody - women, men, children. All he's done is created a few jobs for his friends.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Arthur Weeks will always be grateful; Art Cameron, your old executive assistant, will always be grateful to you for your largesse. How wonderful, Mr. Speaker, this private enterprise system!

If the government can do nothing more, let them take a second look at the funding of this particular programme. Let them take a look at a very significant and important area in our world, particularly significant now when probably the most greatly affected group is having the toughest time of all. I think that's the time when you get in there and you work shoulder to shoulder with the people who are trying to help. Once you've sorted out your 370 bankruptcies, once you've sorted out the situation up there in Kelowna where they're selling out practically every business in town ....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Ha, ha, ha!

MR. COCKE: "Ha, ha, ha!" he says. One real estate company has dozens and dozens and dozens of businesses for sale - Kelowna is Disasterville. Since they elected that new young apprentice Premier, he's gone away and deserted them and their economy looks like he's got the same feeling for them as for the rest of the province.

Mr. Speaker, the women need some help in this province. The government better wake up because there are 51 or more per cent women in this province, and I'm sure they have something to say to this government which has absolutely deserted them.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak very briefly. Because I've heard so much negativism in the last little while, perhaps we ought to again remind the members of the opposition that we've introduced many great programmes which are of tremendous benefit to women particularly. I am encouraged to speak as well because I am still receiving - and I would suggest to the opposition that they inform the sender that there has been a change in British Columbia - a magazine entitled Soviet Life, and the leading article in the magazine Soviet Life is "Women Equality Raises New Problems."

AN HON. MEMBER: Send it over to Rosemary.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That apparently is the problem in the Soviet Union. I think perhaps what we- ought to do is make this magazine available to the members of the opposition so that they may be better aware. I'll make a copy of the page for the hon. member for Burrard.

But, Mr. Speaker, I believe it was the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) who mentioned yesterday, among other things, that it might be difficult to resolve

The unemployment in British Columbia

[ Page 115 ]

considering that we are receiving a great influx of people f rom other provinces. Certainly in a country where we have free movement, when people live in other provinces, particularly back east, and they look at the west as the land of promise, there is that inclination and that tendency to move, and it's happening.

I'm receiving reports from various offices which find it very difficult to cope with the problems that exist. Only this morning I received a delegation, the one referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, from Burns Lake, where apparently in the last month alone they received somewhere near 400 people from out-of-province who arrived in that small community. In Prince George in January they had something like 1,000 people from out-of-province at the Human Resources office who made application for one service or another. We find this in a good many areas of British Columbia because of the influx from those areas. So in migration, people moving from other provinces do present a problem and we do have a considerable turnover in that percentage of unemployed. Within my ministry the PREP programme has been working very actively to try and particularly provide assistance to women who find it very difficult to find jobs, particularly if they are caring for a family or attempting to provide for a family. But if it's socially of benefit to them to become involved in the work force we, though PREP, make all assistance available to try and help them out. For that we receive many complimentary letters, many letters of thanks from people who have been assisted through the programme and are grateful for it. These are positive people; they're not negative people. They're people seeking a place in the community through a job, through employment, and we're providing them with the help.

We've also, for the first time in the history of British (Columbia, provided ongoing health benefits to single-parent families where again the mother found it socially desirable to become involved in the work force but was afraid of losing that health benefit, herself and her family. Through the Ministry of Human Resources we now make it possible for those health benefits to be ongoing, a help for woman particularly.

We provided additional assistance through the changing of the regulations that apply to day care. We have now found that day care is available to more than double the number that it previously served. By changing the regulations, the asset requirements and the income testing and. by upping the minimum level, we~ ~e made all these helps available to people where it didn't previously assist - a more liberal day-care programme.

We've expanded the transition-house programme. Again, the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) made reference to the transition-house programme. That particular programme has doubled in the last several years and it will continue to improve and to increase in size as the needs are made known to us. We are assessing those needs and responding to those needs. Wt are making those changes as required because, again, they are of particular help to women and to women with families.

The homemaker programme.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Okay, before I made any comment on that, the member for Vancouver-Burrard said: "Hey, that's just a domestic job. Simply domestics."

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There's nothing wrong with domestic jobs. They need to be done. If there are women prepared to provide a service to the community through the homemaker programme, then I say more credit to them; let these people become involved in helping other families.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I must ask the member for Vancouver~Burrard to withdraw the words: "You are a liar."

MS. BROWN: I withdraw the words, even though he lied. You designated them domestic. I didn't. 1 did not say that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. hon. member, you know the rules of the House. You cannot say something by one method which you have tried to say by another method. Would you just, please, withdraw the statement?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to withdraw the statement, but that minister said ....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: ~4o, without qualification. Hon. member, I'm sure you will have a chance in the future to make your point of view known. Would you please continue?

AN HON. MEMBER: Rosemary needs a headline.

[ Page 116 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The homemaker programme will employ, certainly, a good many women who will want to become involved in the homemaker programme. But also it will provide a tremendous assist to families, particularly those who will be aided through the family-support programme. The family-support programme is an innovation of this government, which is a first in Canada and which is being watched by all governments across North America.

We have also considerably expanded the various family-service programmes. Certainly the member for Burrard (Ms. Brown) should be aware of this, because we do have the programme not only in Vancouver, Burnaby, Surrey and other outlying municipalities but vie have it as well in many northern communities. The family-service programme is a programme administered through a society. It has provided a good service and is being expanded once more to provide particularly help to women who are left with children and no man to care or help.

The Pharmacare programme has been expanded to include benefits that are of special benefit to women and children.

But, Mr. Speaker, I think the most telling is the Speech from the Throne. Those members in the opposition had the opportunity to provide something that particularly women have long called for. And for the time they were in office, they never made any moves in that regard at all. Now, for the first time, we see that there is to be a new Family Relations Act enshrining the principles of fairness and equity in family relations and family property.

There is also a proposal to introduce a programme designed to assist in the collection procedures for those who are entitled to family maintenance and support. I would suggest that if those members vote against this particular throne speech, if they will not recognize that very needed change which has been long talked about but which this government took action on, then certainly they will be required to account to all of the women all over the province.

I speak against the amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Vancouver-Burrard for what purpose are you on your feet?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, it's a point of order. I would like to correct a statement made by the Minister of Human Resources, and this is the earliest possible time I have had to do that.

The Minister of Human Resource said that he heard me say that homemakers were just domestics.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not interested in what they heard. I'm trying to correct on the basis of what I said.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's what you meant, not what you said.

MS. BROWN: Well, you are such a great mind-reader, mister, you know what I say. However, may I say what I said?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please continue.

MS. BROWN: In heckling the minister across the floor I said: "you designated them domestics."The Minister of Human Resources designated that the homemakers were domestics and he heard me say that, but he chose to say that I called them domestics. Twisted!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I am now going to have to ask you to withdraw the word .1 twisted." I do happen to have the list from Hansard of the words that are.... It was left by the Speaker and it just happens to be in front of me, and I must ask you to withdraw that word.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word "twisted." I don't know how we're going to debate from now on if we can't use the word twisted." But I withdraw the word.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will give you the appropriate Hansard reference if you like.

MRS. JORDAN: At the risk of raising the ire again of the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) and having listened to the exchange across the floor, I would ask that hon. member, through you, to recall an incident that took place in Kelowna, I believe in 1973, at the time the Health, Welfare and Education committee was traveling under the auspices of the NDP government, that member previously having been a great champion of this same cause and the wages that the homemakers were receiving. Mr. Speaker, at that time the homemakers' service for the Okanagan made a presentation to the committee, the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard being the chairperson of that committee. They were concerned that their wages at that time

[ Page 117 ]

were under $2 an hour and they were seeking an increase to anywhere between $3 and $4 an hour, which seemed reasonable. At that point the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, and chairperson of the committee, threw up her hands and said: "Good heavens, we can't pay that sort of money for that sort of work." At this point, Mr. Speaker, one of the visiting delegation pointed out to the hon. chairperson at the time that she in fact had been advocating greater remuneration...

MS. BROWN: What a fantasy!

MRS. JORDAN: ... and fringe benefits for these particular people when she sat in opposition. And her comment, Mr. Speaker, her reply, which, I might add, nearly sent me under the table, was: "But, madam, there's a great difference between the time when you're in opposition and when you're in government and you have the power and responsibility to provide that money."

We know, Mr. Speaker, exactly where the true feelings of the hon. first member for Vancouver- Burrard lie. That causes me to comment during this debate on my concern at the apparent distortions of truth, the exaggerations that were presented by the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard, calling the civil service area for women ghettos ....

MS. BROWN: It is a ghetto.

MRS. JORDAN: ... and suggesting that volunteer service pay of $850 a month is poverty. Mr. Speaker, I would advise you that there are many people in the civil service, in what that member wishes to call a ghetto, who have said to many of us that they are well paid and they appreciate their pay, and it's not to suggest that they don't look forward to genuine increments. I would also suggest that there are many people around this province who are working very hard, who get up early in the morning, drive many miles for work and do not get more than $850 a month, and to describe that, for volunteer service, as being ghetto pay simply isn't acceptable.

But what concerns me more, Mr. Speaker - and I would like to point out very clearly that every member on this side of the House and every member, I would think, of the public is genuinely concerned - is the plight of the unemployed and our efforts to try and improve the job opportunities. They are sensitive to some of the very special concerns that do relate to women. I won't go over some of the programmes that have been outlined by the Minister of Human Resources (Bon. Mr. Vander Zalm) , good programmes, programmes that are designed to help these people in need, but to help them develop independence.

The dangers of that member's presentation are twofold. First, this type of extremism, which makes great headlines, does little to help the very genuine concerns and the genuine needs of those women. It's more inclined to create a backlash, both within terms of public thinking and within terms of the business community, and that is a detriment to the needs of women, not a help. I suggest that what we have to do is sit down and be positive and develop positive programmes as we are.

The second problem with that type of approach is that it alienates many of the co-women, the peers of these women in need. That type of extremism makes them hesitate to step forth and offer assistance. It also adds to a serious problem that exists for any group of people who have been in difficulty and who have personal problems, because through that type of an experience one often develops a lack of self-confidence; one loses one's feelings of self-worth. They lose their confidence to step out, sometimes even to shop, let alone to enter the work force or to seek a job. In a subliminal sense, that member is catering to that type of thinking. What we have done and what we must do in our programmes which are designed to offer assistance and to help women in difficulties and in need of employment is to approach them with confidence to help them gain their confidence and to help them have the avenues that they need to develop their feelings of self-worth and the training that they need.

In this context, Mr. Speaker, I would just suggest that the one area that we need to place more emphasis is in the area of retraining and training for older women. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , in co-operation with the federal government, have developed some excellent programmes in British Columbia in terms of retraining people, in terms of developing vocational training through our college, and in terms of youth employment, but there is still a group of women in this province who grew up in an era when it was quite acceptable and it was their desire to be in a partnership rather than to enter the work force or to advance their training. For one reason or another they are now in a position where they have to support families. They are in a position where they're going to have to enter the work force, and they do traditionally, because of their lack of confidence, because of their lack of contact with the business world over a period

[ Page 118 ]

of time, and because of their lack of training, have to accept the lower-paid jobs, and their opportunities for advancement are minimal.

During this debate I'd like to leave with you, Mr. Speaker - through you to the Minister of Labour and Minister of Education - the very real need to spearhead more programmes to help retrain this perhaps hesitant, untrained, older woman who has difficulty in the way I described, but also in coping with the new social attitudes that have developed today. I think we could then, along with the emphasis that has been placed on new programmes in the Speech from the Throne and other programmes that were underway, be of great assistance in a positive way towards helping women gain independence in this province. And independence, Mr. Speaker, is the key - not subservience, and not the put-down that the hon. First Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) likes to perpetrate, but independence as individuals along with men, women and youth in this province.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, this seems to be my day to be misquoted and misrepresented by the opposition, but that's fine. Whenever I talk about women in this House the government gets very jittery, so I understand that. ~but the member from North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) quoted a verbatim report of 1973 - phenomenal memory that she has - and I'm asking that she table in this House the verbatim statement of me throwing up my hand s in the air, et cetera, et cetera. First of all, I'm sure she's got the committee wrong, but that's okay. I want that statement tabled in the House because I am not aware of that conversation, I'm not aware of having made that response, and unless she can table in the House the complete transcript showing that I said that, she should resign. She should resign, Mr. Speaker, because North Okanagan is being represented by someone who has a fantasy life, who lives in a dream world ...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Order, please.

MS. BROWN: ... who bears no relationship to reality, and instead of standing up and supporting my statement on behalf of women she writes fairy tales and makes up mysterious little things. Table the statement or resign!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you are abusing the rules of the House when you use a point of order to make a speech. Your point of order was questionable. I will peruse the Blues with the Speaker, and w- will....

On a point of order, the hon. member for Nelson-Creston. Please state your point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: It arises from the remarks which have been made. We realize that under the rules of this House an attack on an hon. member is an attack on all hon. members of this House. The member for North Okanagan was giving her report of proceedings which occurred before Hansard, I believe at that time, if it was before a standing committee, so there should be a transcript. It is not frivolous for this member to ask for a transcript of these proceedings. It is very serious, there is a transcript, and if what she has said cannot be backed up by that transcript that member should resign.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, once again I must inform you that's not a point of order.

The member for North Okanagan on a point of order.

MRS. JORDAN: In the real world throwing up your hands is a gesture, not a statement -again, all mixed up.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a point of order either, by the way.

MS. SANFORD: I was very interested, MT. Speaker, to notice that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) jumped into this debate. He talked about all of the people that were coming from other parts of Canada and applying for assistance through the Human Resources department.

I think that the ministers, who have been doing a fair amount of traveling to various conferences across the country, have been telling the people outside this province the same kind of thing %E've been hearing from people like the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . They are coming here to get those jobs that are available, to see what a fine province this is, to see how well we are faring, according to those ministers, only to find that it ain't so, Mr. Speaker. What they do is come then to the Minister of Human Resources' office and say: "What we've been hearing from these cabinet ministers just isn't so and as a result we have to come and apply for assistance through your department." I think that's what's been happening.

MR. BARRETT: The Pied Piper of Poverty!

[ Page 119 ]

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, we got some more information again today from the Minister of Human Resources about that PREP programme. What a marvellous job that PREP programme is doing for those 109,000-plus officially unemployed in this province!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, I have just reviewed the amendment ....

MS. SANFORD: Yes, as far as women .... P m only responding to the minister's comments on this same amendment, Mr. Speaker, so if you would allow me the same latitude to refer to the points that the minister made on this amendment, I would appreciate it.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I have only the authorities to go by. I must remind you that amendment to the motion has a rule of strict relevance, and I must hold you to that.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, let me say this about some women who were employed by the PREP programme in Courtenay. These women were on the incentive programme and went to work one day a week in the PREP office in Courtenay. Finally, after months of sitting behind a desk doing nothing because, as one of the women said who blew the whistle on this programme, there are no jobs .... As a result, we had in the local papers in Courtenay blazing headlines which indicated that the whistle had been blown on the PREP programme and as a result that programme has been virtually shut down in the Courtenay area because there is nothing for those people to do there.

Now let's hear some more about this PREP programme. The minister keeps coming back and coming back about his PREP programme. Maybe I should send a copy of that press clipping to the minister who wants to jump to his feet now to tell us more about the PREP programme.

MR. BARRETT: He thinks he's Phil Gaglardi!

MS. SANFORD: Mr. . Speaker, in difficult economic times when you have a government that is not concerned about people, and the welfare of those at the bottom of the scale particularly, what you have is a situation where women are the ones at the bottom of the heap. The Minister of Human Resources went through all these programmes that he talks about that are doing such great things for the people of this province, and particularly those who need the help of government. Mr. Speaker, I have here a copy of a letter which was written to Premier Bennett from the First United Church staff team in Vancouver, dated April, in which they indicate to the Premier that the Minister of Human Resources' programme in terms of providing even just the basic needs for people is completely inadequate. It's not the members of this opposition who are saying this at this time, it is people who are out there who are working with people day after day who are saying it.

Mr. Speaker, let's have a look at ~, hat happens to women under that Human Resources programme that the minister bragged about when he was up on his feet speaking against this amendment. Let's have a look at a mother with six children. She receives a total of $885 a month. In a typical case she would pay about $415 in rent, $51 in heat, $10 for telephone, $8 for 'IV, allowing $8 a month for entertainment for the entire family. Le t' s just have a look at what that works out to in terms of what kind of food that mother can provide her six children: $1.87 per day per person for food in that family. I would like to know how many of the millionaires sitting on that side of the House can feed themselves on $1.87 a day. And here's this minister up talking this afternoon about what great things he's doing for the women of the province through his department.

Mr. Speaker, it just doesn't bear out. All you have to do is look at those kinds of figures and those kinds of stories to realize that it's the women - in this case it's a single woman with six children - trying to survive under what that government is prepared to do for them.

Women, we've already been told several times this afternoon, are the ones who are at the bottom of the pay scale. I have just a few figures to verify that.

Even at the university level - university professors who are full professors, lets say, in the health profession - women would be paid about $27,000 as full professors, men $30,000; as associate professors, $19,000 for women compared to $23,000 for men. Even at the level of a university professor that distinction still exists where women are at the bottom of the scale. Of course, when she is a women who is not a skilled person, she must then accept a salary which is completely inadequate in terms of meeting her needs in today's society.

Mr. Speaker, I was talking to some women within Comox constituency who were employed at various banks. We've heard some publicity about attempts to organize workers in the banks. The working conditions that those women have to put up with should not be allowed in this day and age in this province or in this country. They are underpaid, overworked, very often have overtime without any recognition,

[ Page 120 ]

and accept all kinds of additional responsibilities without any sort of recognition f rom the employer for their efforts. One of the women who I talked to who works in a bank within my constituency said that she is the breadwinner in that family. She has children to provide for and she is paid at such a low level that she is unable to purchase the kind of clothes that the manager of that bank thinks she should be wearing when she serves the public. I ask, Mr. Speaker, on the kind of salary that women make in those jobs, how can Employers possibly expect the women in the latest Vogue fashions? They can barely pay the rent and pay for the food for their kids.

When economic times are difficult it becomes increasingly difficult for them to organize, to have a union structure where they can get some of their grievances dealt with. When jobs are scarce and when we have a government that's not prepared to do anything about this situation, people cling to their jobs. They are worried that if they even mention the word 11 union" in a non--union place, they will lose their jobs.

The Minister of Labour is shaking his head. T, et me assure you, based on the conversations that I have with women in my constituency, they are not prepared at this stage to run the risk of losing the job even though the job is inadequate and inadequately paid. They are afraid, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister of Labour doesn't seem to accept that. I don't think the Minister of Labour realizes what it's like to have to be without work, to search month after month for a job, to finally land a job - inadequate though it is - to cling to that job for fear that if they make one move or say one word, the employer will in fact fire them. There are over 109,000 other people out there looking for that job and they don't feel that they can give it up.

This government is not even interested enough in the plight of women to do anything about the Human Rights Commission, which is non-existent at this time. Most of the appeals that appear before the Human Rights deal with sex discrimination and at the moment we have no chairman of the Human Rights Commission. The minister is yawning; he's not even interested in appointing a new chairman of the Human Rights Commission. Just let it go, let it go. Never mind about the people who may have problems, who may be suffering discrimination under the Human Rights Code. When are we going to get a chairman for the Human Rights Commission so that some of the difficulties we are facing in terms of job discrimination can be dealt with? What about the promotional work that the Human Rights Commission is supposed to be doing in this province with respect to ending discrimination? It's not being done because that minister has not chosen to appoint a chairman of the Human Rights Commission.

There ~was a study done recently by some women who are in single~industry towns in this province. The three communities that were included include Kitimat, Mackenzie and Fraser Lake. Those women looked into the problems that affect women in these single-resource towns. They found that health care ~AU S inadequate, day-care facilities were inadequate and that to land a job that paid any kind of a salary was virtually impossible.

They found that the development of the single-industry town centred entirely around the economics of extraction, either in mining or in forestry. It did not centre around the needs of those people, particularly women, in the community. Shopping facilities were inadequate, transportation was inadequate. Virtually no consideration was given to planning for the lives of women in those communities, as far as their day-to-day existence wa s concerned. The only consideration was the profit that might come out of whatever resource was being extracted.

The same applies within my own constituency. 1 have spoken on this in the House before. In communities like Port Alice and the northern part of Comox, the rate at which the women, particularly, in those communities consume Valium, just to be able to face the day-to-day problems that they do have to face, is greater than in most parts of the province. There are few mental health facilities up there. There is virtually no interest for those women, and there is certainly no hope of getting any sort of employment within communities like that.

What do we have in the throne speech in order to resolve some of these problems? Well, we have His Honour telling us that the private sector should be the engine which drives our economy toward the goal of more permanent jobs. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have had the private sector doing this for over 100 years in this country. And what do we have? We have inequality, we have women who are still looking for work all over the place and when they do find a job it is inadequately paid, and w have the women of the country being blamed for it.

Again, within my riding, people are saying: "Oh, if only the women would stay home, then there would be more jobs available for the men." It's regrettable that they didn't look at the performance of governments that say: "The engine which drives our economy should be the

[ Page 121 ]

private sector." Mr. Speaker, it hasn't worked for men and it especially hasn't worked for women.

MR. BARRETT: Only one woman is in the cabinet. How come the other one didn't get in?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MS. SANFORD: The government is telling us that the private sector is what must resolve all of these problems. Mr. Speaker, the private sector has failed utterly to solve the problems which have been outlined today under this amendment.

It doesn't matter which area you look at. It's the women that are getting it in the neck. Even the Unemployment Insurance Commission is penalizing women within my own constituency because they are women who happen to work on their husband's fish boats. They are not eligible for unemployment insurance. They are not eligible, even though they work as deckhands and do the work of the other employees. They're cut out; they're not eligible.

I think that what we must recognize, Mr Speaker, is that the women who do go to work in this province do so for economic reasons. In Canada, 47 per cent of the families where both the man and woman are working have a combined income of less than $15,000 per annum. In other words, the women who work in 45 per cent of those families are working because they have to. Less than $15,000 per annum as a combined income for both the husband and the wife ....

Women are competing for jobs, we're being told, in various parts of the province, and if those women would stay home then there would be a better opportunity for men to work. But women have not been competing for the jobs that are normally available to men. Women traditionally have done those jobs that the men have not wanted to do, and have been completely inadequately paid for their efforts.

I support this amendment. The government has not even mentioned once in the throne speech the problems that women face, as a result of their lack of economic policies and as a result of the extremely high unemployment, largely due to the inactivity of that government.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks presented to you by the mover and the seconder and those other members of the opposition who took it upon themselves to address this particular problem. I don't understand, Mr. Speaker, why it is that an opposition which is equipped with as many research staff as the opposition in this House is cannot take the time in the development of these arguments to do a little research into the background of the material that they bring to this house. It i s my recollection that the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) suggested that the throne speech was hopeless, and I think he said yesterday or the day before yesterday when he spoke that it was the worst ever. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the first amendment, expressing a lack of confidence in this government; I have listened to the debates in the second amendment expressing lack of confidence in this government, and I would suggest that it shows one thing and one thing only: the official opposition in this House is the- worst that we have ever seen. It has been suggested that we have 109,000 unemployed people in the province of British Columbia this month.

MR. LEVI: No, it isn't, it's 150,000.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: 109,000 is what the statistics show - statistics developed not by this ministry, not by this government but by Statistics Canada in a process which has gained in expertise and accuracy over the past three years. The figure is 109,000, Mr. . Speaker. If the opposition would take the time to look at those statistics back over the years, they would find that in the first month in which we became government after the disaster of the NDP, the total unemployed in this province was 108,000. So after all of the problems that have beset this province and this nation since December, 1975, the number of persons unemployed in this province has decreased by 1,000. If the members of the opposition would also look at the statistics they would see another one which is much more interesting, and one which they carefully ignore. That is that in the first month that we became government the number of persons employed in this province was 973,000. But you know, in the month of February, 1978, the number of persons employed in this province was 1,062, 000, an increase of 89,000 employed.

And if they would look at those same statistics, they would find that they are not only growth statistics but they are broken down between men and women. In the first month we became government there were 358,000 women employed in this province and in February of

1978 there were 405,000 women employed, an

[ Page 122 ]

increase of 47,000 women employed now as compared with the first month we became government. If we would look at the statistics for men we would find that the number of men employed is also up. There were 42,000 more women employed now over the period than men, and of course that's all the fault, Mr. Speaker, of the private sector and this government.

1 suggest to you that if the opposition wishes to heap blame on this government and on the private sector for producing these kinds of results, then 1'm prepared to take all the blame they want to cast for that kind of performance.

MR. COCKE: And you'll get it, too.

MS. BROWN: He's earned it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: But you know, 1 really hate to give this statistic. When I first became minister and was introduced to these reports that are produced by the Ministry of

Labour -officials of the ministry who served the member for Revel stoke-Slocan (Mr. King) in this ministry - 1 was shocked to find that for the first month that we became government it was disclosed that on a net basis, from the month in which the NDP was government, there were 23,000 fewer women with jobs. Now that's the impact of that government.

AN HON. MEMBER: 0h, shame!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if you look at the statistics, they will show that the number of persons employed - men and ~, women -have never been lower than they were in December, 1975. Since that time, the number of persons employed ~ men and women - has gone steadily upwards.

Mr. Speaker, it is with the assistance, the assistance only, of the policies of this government and the programmes that were outlined by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) that this performance has been achieved. It is the promise in the throne speech, the clear promise, that the policies which have produced this result will continue and will be followed by this government through this year and in years to come.

In remarks in the throne speech and by members of this government it has been made perfectly clear that vie do not consider these results adequate. It is our purpose, it is our intention to ensure that \a.- continue this record and improve upon it. That is our commitment.

Mention has been made of remarks in the throne speech about apprenticeship, and I will deal more fully with this subject when I address you, Mr. Speaker, some time later in this session. But 1 would wish you to recognize that one of the reasons that the women in this province cannot achieve the higher-paying positions is because the training has not been made available to them. We recognize this on this side of the House. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) recognizes it and, insofar as I have responsibility in training, I recognize it. But those members, when they were government, never recognized it. There was not one positive programme to increase the opportunities for skilled training for the women in this province. Through the legislation that was passed in this assembly last year by the Minister of Education and the Minister of Labour, with greater emphasis on the apprenticeship programme and on the facilities which will be provided by the College Institutes Act, we will make greater opportunities for skilled training for women available and they will take their place, commanding higher-paying jobs in this province.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Fuzzy thinking.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, fuzzy thinking. Yes, my colleague the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is right. Fuzzy thinking.

This amendment is obviously an attempt on the part of the official opposition to gain political support from the women of this province, but the women of this province will recognize that their future and their opportunities rest with the kind of programmes which have been introduced by this government and which will be carried out in this assembly this year. We will achieve in this province records greater than have been achieved nationally in this past month.

If you would like to have one further statistic, 1 really wish that the opposition would take the time to examine the material which is available to them which shows that during the month of February, national employment increased by 99,000 persons, of whom 60,000 were women and 39,000 were men. That is the kind of goal that w seek in this province. With the defeat of this amendment, we can get on with the task. It will deliver that to the people of this province.

MR KING: 1 am rather intrigued by listening to the comments of the Minister of Labour, Mr.

[ Page 123 ]

Speaker. He is one of the ministers charged with the responsibility for employment of all people in this province, not only women but men too. What is so intriguing is to hear the Minister of Labour stand and indicate that because there is a growth in the labour force and the number of people working in this province, all is well and rosy with the economy, all is well and rosy, despite the fact that we have the highest number of unemployed people, both men and women, in this province since the 1930s. That is an insult to this Legislature. It's a complete abdication of the responsibility that that minister holds. We know, Mr. Speaker, that he abdicated principles when he left the Liberal Party and joined the Socreds. But to now see him abdicate any responsibility to the people whom he represents through his portfolio is a bit much. He stands up and quotes statistics that the labour force has grown and there are more people employed now. Of course there are. Is the minister revealing something new and startling to the House? This province, Mr. Speaker, has experienced a growth rate in immigration and population of 3 per cent ever since the war - in all post-war years - a growth rate which is twice the national average.

Therefore we have had in this province to produce more jobs to accommodate the ever-increasing work force. The problem today, Mr. Speaker, is that the rate of job creation has slowed down and ground to such a slow pace that we are not nearly keeping pace with the number of people coming on the work force, and therefore the women of this province do face very serious consequences because they have difficulty competing on the labour market -even when the economy is strong - with the males of the province. When there is a surplus of workers in the province and when there is a stagnant economy created by Social Credit, then it's criminal. It's vicious for women to try to find jobs that they need to sustain their families, and that is the case in many, many instances in this province.

The minister said that the NDP government did not do one positive thing for women in the province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, shame!

MR. KING: That's what the minister said. He said we did not do one positive thing. Now I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that during our tenure we, for the first time in the history of British Columbia, insisted that women be hired in the liquor stores - the government's own enterprise throughout the province. the minister said training wasn't available to women. Mr. Speaker, training , ;as available to women in the province of British Columbia. There were licensed practical nurses and registered nurses, and do you know what happened to those qualified people Linder the old, dark, Social Credit days?

MR. BARRETT: Oh, no, don't tell me they....

MR. KING: They came out of that training equipped to man an important service in this province, namely the health service, at what rate of pay, Mr. Speaker? A discriminatory rate of pay way below the male orderly who was performing the same service. They had the same qualifications, trained by a government programme, but were paid much less, because the Socreds sat on their hands and allowed this discrimination to go on.

We remedied that, Mr. Speaker, with the Human Rights Act in this province which gave women the right to equal pay for equal work for the first time in the history of British Columbia. If the minister can't even remember that, he's a disgrace to his office, never mind a disgrace to the Ministry of Labour.

MR. BARRETT: lie was a Liberal then. It all changes now.

MR. KING: Talk about doing your research. The minister is either incompetent or has a selective memory. We know he has selective principles.

Mr. Speaker, we recognized the problems that women faced in the labour force. I would further remind the Minister of Labour that during, the NDP tenure in the province of British Columbia, the first female apprentices went through the trades schools in the city of Vancouver for the painting trade and many of the other trades. The very first female apprentices were put through the system during the NDP tenure of office. Does the minister forget that, or doesn't he talk to his departmental officials any more? That's not the kind of news he likes to hear and remember, undoubtedly. But for him to stand up in pompous high dudgeon and say to us: "Do your research, " when he comes on with this kind of selective diatribe, is a bit much even for us, even for a former pompous Liberal. Take heed, my friend, or you'll be shuffled down the back bench along with the others. Take heed.

We are talking in this amendment about the obligation of the current government to provide jobs and to provide opportunities for women in the province of British Columbia. It's not good enough to come on with the kind

[ Page 124 ]

of tirade the minister has and shrug off responsibility and talk about what happened even under the NDP administration. They went to the electorate, Mr. Speaker, on the basis that they had the answers. This ~, us the businessman's government. This was the gang of free enterprise that w-re going to provide economic stimulus and imaginative programmes. Imagine the programmes, Mr. Speaker.

The only positive industrial development that's been held forward under this regime is one that was destined to failure before it got off the ground - thank goodness - under the terms they proposed. That was the northeast coal development with Denison Mines, with the public of British Columbia, the taxpayers' of British Columbia providing sustenance and welfare to Denison Mines, that poor little struggling free enterpriser that the member for Vancouver South defends. Not even $450 million could entice that firm to come and take a chance in British Columbia under this outfit, Mr. Speaker.

I want to adjourn this debate because I'm going to have more to say after. I'm just getting warmed up.

Mr. King moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.