1972 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 30th

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 17 ]

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1972

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

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

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

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

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, I

have been asked by the Premier to introduce two distinguished guests

who are seated on the floor of the House. The first is Mr. Arthur

Turner who served in this legislative assembly for 25 years as the

Member for Vancouver-East, who sat on my right hand, my good right

hand, during 10 of my years as Leader of the Opposition and he's

visiting us today. He's an outstanding British Columbian and gave good

service to the people of this Province in this Legislature.

The next is Mr. Arnold Webster who for more than 20 years served

Vancouver on the Parks Board, from 1953 to 1956 was the Leader of Her

Majesty's Loyal Opposition and then later went to Ottawa as an M.P. and

served his constituency, the province, and the country well. Another

outstanding British Columbian who has made a great contribution and I

would ask the House to welcome him also.

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

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr.

Speaker I would like to have the House welcome Mayor Marks of 100 Mile

House who is the President of the Union of B.C. Municipalities for this

next year. And Mr. McKelvie, the Executive Director.

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

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

yesterday when the House was about to adjourn I drew your attention to

the fact that Standing Order No. 68 requires that at the commencement

of each session there be appointed a committee to establish the Select

Standing Committees of the House. I waited until the motion to adjourn

was presented because it seems to me the motion was out of order at

that time and as we sit today we cannot be properly constituted

according to the House rules. Mr. Speaker, if I could finish my point

of order here…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

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

MR. McGEER: But with due respect, Sir, I think it should have

been your responsibility not to entertain that motion to adjourn until

we had been properly constituted by putting forward the motion that's

required to commence the session. And if you would give instruction now

I would be prepared to move the motion in order that we can be properly

constituted if the government is not prepared to do so.

MR. SPEAKER: For the Hon. Member's information, unfortunately

he did not disclose the standing order to which he was referring when

he adjourned yesterday when the question was being taken so we weren't

aware until the Hon. Member approached me this morning on this

question. And naturally I was concerned with it because the same thing

happened in August of 1961 with the previous government. Where they had

neglected to do the same thing.

This was raised then in the House at that time and the Speaker of

the House at that time, Mr. Shantz, pointed out that it would be proper

prac-

[ Page 18 ]

tice that the government of the day proceed, either

to appoint the Standing Committees or alternatively ask the House to

suspend the standing order 68. And that was done. For that reason I

would invite the government to take what position they should take in

this matter since it is a matter for the House Leader.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I was going to wait

for the proper time and the orders of the day to introduce the motion

to establish the committees.

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

this time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I move, seconded by the Hon. Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) that the Select Standing Committee to this

House for the present session be appointed for the following purposes…

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, I'm sorry. My clerk advises me, and I

apologize to the Honourable Leader of the Government, that the

introduction of bills must be called first and then this matter can be

dealt with.

Introduction of bills.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker I move, seconded by the Hon.

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) and with the full support of the

House — I assume — the Select Standing Committees of this House for the

present session be appointed the following purposes:

1. On Standing Orders and Private Bills

2. On Public Accounts and Printings

3. On Mining and Railways

4. On Agriculture

5. On Municipal Matters

6. On Forestry and Fisheries

7. On Labour

8. On Social Welfare and Education

Which said committees shall severally be empowered to examine and

inquire into all such matters and things that shall be referred to them

by this House, and to report from time to time their observations and

opinions thereon with power to send for persons, papers and records and

a special committee be appointed to prepare and record with all

convenient speed lists of members to compose the above Select Standing

Committees of this House under standing order No. 68,

section 1. Said

committee to be composed of the Hon. A.B. Macdonald, the Hon. R.M.

Strachan, the Hon. D.G. Cocke and Messrs. Richter and Anderson.

Motion approved.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I take great

pleasure in presenting the following motion, seconded by the Hon.

Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea):

That the following address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant

Governor. We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the

legislative assembly of British Columbia in session assembled beg leave

to thank your Honour for the gracious speech which your Honour has

addressed to us at the opening of the present session.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a great sense of pride and profound humility

that I today have the honour in moving the Speech from the Throne. I am

personally very proud to have been elected to represent the

constituency of Vancouver South in this Legislature and proud that the

New Democratic Party for the first time in the history of British

Columbia has been chosen by the people to form the Government of the

Province.

[ Page 19 ]

The principles of democratic socialism in British Columbia pioneered

long before the New Democratic Party was formed or the Co-operative

Commonwealth Federation before it.

To appreciate the New Democratic Party today, and its potential for

increasing strength, one must understand the history of the movement

and its reasons for coming into existence. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the

history of democratic socialism in British Columbia dates back to the

beginning of the century. It's the history of the successes and the

defeats of the pioneers of this movement. There were also conflicts

within the movement among members who with strong determination

reflected the way in which they thought the party should go and did not

always agree with each other. Some of these inner struggles were

damaging indeed, but the party survived because all concerned basically

believed in and worked for the same policies towards the advancement of

reform for the working people.

The early socialist and labour representatives in the legislative

assembly were loggers and miners who concerned themselves with working

conditions in the woods and in the mines of British Columbia. Men like

John McInnis, James Hawthornthwaite and Parker Williams who stood as

giants. Undeterred in their fight for the principles of justice and

improved conditions of the miners in the early days of the century.

Parker Williams, that Welsh coal miner, who had fought for decent

working conditions in the collieries in Wales and continued the

struggle when he came to Canada.

He sat in the Legislature from 1903 to 1917, and when he and John

McInnis, Member for Grand Forks from 1907 to 1909 supported James

Hawthornthwaite in a bill to introduce the eight-hour day, they were

ridiculed and defeated because it was considered too radical.

Hawthornthwaite, first elected in 1901 spent most of his time during

his period in office, planning and promoting labour legislation. He

provided bills for mine safety and to prevent unskilled miners from

working on the "face" of the mine. He vigorously opposed the

exploitation of cheap oriental labour. He pioneered the Workmen's

Compensation Act, and when the government finally passed this Act, it

was the first of its kind in Canada.

These are all the realities now, but they came about because of the

courage and persistence of these prominent socialists.

As early as 1906 Hawthornthwaite proposed legislation to extend the

franchise to women. He fight was continued by Jack Place elected in

1912, but it was not realized until the women themselves organized and

marched as suffragettes around 1917. One of the leaders at that time

was Laura Jamieson who many years later sat as a C.C.F. M.L.A.

In the 1920's other pieces of legislation were introduced by Sam

Guthrie, member for Newcastle. He promoted the use of safety lamps for

miners, and regulations within the mines regarding the dangers of gas

leakages. He also asked for Labour Representatives on coroner's juries

in the event of industrial accidents.

Sam Guthrie was one of the men who went to jail for two years in

1913 as a result of a bitter strike, to prevent illiterate Chinese who

were being used as slave labour from being given certificates of

competence to work in the mines as strike breakers, and to lower the

wages. His work in later years also included bills to improve the

working conditions of the loggers in the woods.

The history of the movement also includes the story of Wallis

Lefeaux who was defeated 10 times before being elected in 1941, but he

went on undeterred, looking upon the campaign platform as a place from

which to preach the message of democratic socialism. In the Winnipeg

strike of 1919 he travelled to that city to act as counsel for the

strikers and it's the story of Angus McInnis, that tall angular

Scotsman who was a B.C. Electric motorman in Vancouver. From 1922 on he

was in turn a member of the school board of the Vancouver City Council,

until in 1930 when he was elected to the House of Commons where he

served British Columbia for 27 years. He married into a pioneer family

of socialists, the Woodsworths. His wife, Grace, served as a member of

this assembly from 1941 until 1945 and is the only woman from B.C. ever

elected to the House of Commons.

[ Page 20 ]

The birth of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation came about in

1933 when the C.C.F. clubs organized by Bill Pritchard joined with the

Socialist Party, lead by Wallis Lefeaux. Others instrumental in the

formation of the C.C.F. included that great father-and-son team of

Ernie and Harold Winch, a long-time member Arthur Turner, who served

B.C. as a M.L.A. for 25 years, and Dorothy Steeves, the first C.C.F.

woman M.L.A.

As a result of the election of 1933, seven socialist members under

the leadership of Rev. Connell of Victoria found themselves as the

official opposition. The C.C.F., and the N.D.P. after it, continued to

press for progressive legislation under a parade of outstanding

leaders. Following Rev. Connell were Harold Winch, Arnold Webster,

Robert Strachan, Tom Berger and now our present leader the Hon. Dave

Barrett.

The first woman in the new C.C.F. party to be elected was Dorothy

Steeves in 1934, a brilliant debater and a decoration in any

legislative assembly. She was a match for any and all the male members.

By the way, she was here yesterday and appreciated very much being able

to sit near the government benches.

Although she did not expect special privileges as a woman, many of

her battles were for women's rights, such as mothers' allowances, and a

minimum wage for domestic servants. She also promoted holidays with pay

and special allowances for the disabled and the handicapped. She was

later joined by Laura Jamieson in 1939 who pressed for an amendment to

the Old Age Pension Act, so that parents could be independent from

their children in their later years. And with Grace MacInnis in 1941,

who dedicated her whole life to socialism. Now sitting in the House of

Commons since 1965, Grace is recognized as one of the 50 outstanding

women in the world today. As a group of three, Dorothy, Laura and Grace

added pressure for women's rights, strengthened their cause.

During the war years the C.C.F. fought discrimination directed at

the Canadian Japanese who were deported from the west coast. The

leaders of this struggle were Grant MacNeil, Angus MacInnis and Harold

Winch. This eventually lead to pressure for extension of the franchise

to the Orientals and to our own Canadian Indians.

In 1949, shortly after that piece of legislation was brought into

being Frank Calder, our only Indian M.L.A., was elected under the

C.C.F. banner.

In his years in the legislature, Frank has concerned himself

primarily with the rights of his own people. He has also pioneered such

causes as air ambulance service for the north and has petitioned Ottawa

for a Canadian Coast Guard.

Rupert Haggen, M.L.A. for Grand Forks from 1949 to 1956, a B.C. land

surveyor and engineer, pressed for planned resource development under

public ownership.

And George Hobbs who represented Revelstoke from 1960 to 1962 — many

of you will remember him — is well known in his advocacy of the

development of public Power.

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

expansion of free educational services.

In the field of agriculture Len Shepherd advocated more efficient

marketing of farm and dairy produce and the establishment of

co-operatives.

No field has been left untouched.

Mr. Speaker, the entire fabric of our society has been altered as a

result of the pressure on governments by these early pioneers for

social reform. This same dedication to social reform has carried on

with the formation of the New Democratic Party in 1961 which came into

existence as a result of the affiliation of the C.C.F. with labour.

The C.C.F. and the N.D.P. have pioneered such innovations as old age

pensions, unemployment insurance, hospital insurance and Medicare.

Ernest Winch, that great humanitarian, worked for years to obtain

subsidized housing for the elderly and the destitute. The principles

for which he stood were carried on by his son, Harold, who served this

province as an M.L.A. and an M.P. for nearly 40 years from 1933 until

[ Page 21 ]

Mr. Speaker, it is significant to note that since the beginning of

the century just over 100 socialist M.L.A.'s and M.P.'s have been

elected in this province. But there are many, many more men and women

who have worked and struggled with their leaders for this new day. It

is a privilege to speak in this House today to pay tribute to the many

who have pioneered social laws to benefit people. Only a few have been

mentioned. Today, many of the reforms formerly looked upon as too

radical are now considered as necessities and part of our way of life.

They have all come about through pressure in one form or another.

It is a well-known fact that power is never relinquished

voluntarily. So the progress of social reform is slow. The form of

pressure has differed with different circumstances. It has come about

as a result of being the balance of power in parliament as J.S.

Woodsworth, the first national leader of the C.C.F. found himself to

be, in 1926 when he forced the hand of Mackenzie King to enact the

first old age pension legislation.

The "ginger group" method was a means of pressure used by the early

C.C.F. in Ottawa to needle government. Probably the strike, the

election platform, the rally or the parades are most commonly used by

ordinary citizens. Today the strike is slowly becoming outmoded. But

newer means are being invented through the use of our plastic media.

The promotion of social change through the use of radio hotline has

become one of the most popular.

We're experiencing a tremendous growth in resource development at

present in B.C. It is evident in the lower mainland, in the interior,

in the north and on Vancouver Island. This has resulted in a rapid

increase in the population of the province. The support of our party

has come from all these areas and from all age groups from all ethnic

backgrounds.

As early as the 1920's when three socialists were elected as

M.L.A.'s — Harry Neelands, Sam Guthrie, Frank Browne — the popular vote

was 12.5 per cent. This has steadily risen, increasing the solid core

of people who believe in and vote for the principles of democratic

socialism to well over 30 per cent. In the recent election the popular

vote was 40 per cent.

These voters have expressed through the ballot box their confidence

in Premier Barrett and his fellow members. He has chosen a cabinet of

experienced and respected politicians who are willing to accept the

burden of responsibility that the public has placed in them.

As we move into the 1970's we're faced with a whole new set of

problems. Advancing into a technological era in this resource-rich

province makes us realize the importance of services to people and not

merely a policy of growth for growth's sake. It is of utmost importance

to place a greater emphasis on equal opportunities of education for

all. We look forward also to a more efficient plan of operation of our

medical services and health services and it is our responsibility now

to carry on the work of improved social legislation that was started by

these imaginative thinkers over the years.

Above all, we must remember the work of our pioneers in the building

of this country. With the rapid changes in urban living and high

inflation these same pioneers who have spent their lives improving the

conditions of working men and women now find their savings dwindling

and their living conditions precarious. They need to be allowed to live

their lives out in dignity without fear of poverty, a lack of proper

housing or lack of care. But in that same spirit of independence that

fashioned their lives in the past the older people are now rallying to

championing their last cause — a better old age pension for themselves

so that they may have a basic minimum income with which they can live

in dignity.

Before and during the recent election they rallied by the thousands

in B.C. under the leadership of Tom Albury and Vincent Yates. Today we

are happy to pay tribute to our pioneers. Our election on August 30 was

their victory. For the first time in the history of this province a

socialist government is in a position where it has the power to grant

the senior citizens a basic minimum income which will make it possible

for them to live their lives out in dignity in their declining years.

Thank you for your attention.

[ Page 22 ]

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

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members. I'd

first of all like to express the pride that I feel by being in this

Legislature, voted in by the constituents of Prince Rupert.

I also feel proud and doubly honoured to be able to second the

throne speech in this Legislature. I think for new members when they

arrive here at first it's like serving an apprenticeship and we're all

going through that — a great many of us at least. One of the greatest

surprises I've had since arriving in Victoria is to find out that the

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) started a job he hasn't

completed. He started tearing down signs and I drive down the capital's

streets to find that I can't turn left. I'm a socialist member and I

think we should do something about that Mr. Minister. (Laughter).

I would like to call on all British Columbians to not prejudge the

democratic socialist government you have in British Columbia today. I

would like you to wait, to observe, and to make up your minds on how we

are acting by the deeds that we do. I realize that sometimes because

we've been programmed from childhood into a certain way of life and a

certain way of thinking, from our parental instructions to our

schoolrooms, to the media, to the books that are available to us, all

of these items train us to be myopic in our thinking and in our

outlook. I think that what we should do in this province is start to

train our people to look wider, to inform themselves. We are the ones

that have to lead the way in this fight to inform people so that they

can much better make decisions.

One of the other areas that has impressed me since arriving here as

a new member are the number of people who lobby in Victoria — I think

it's good, but at the same time I would like to offer a bit of advice — advice that I feel may be worthwhile, that people when they are getting

together in groups should be very careful that they don't become so

partisan in their thinking that they can't see the needs and the wants

of other people. I think that we should always look to unite, rather

than divide, because it's only together and working together that we

can build a better society in British Columbia.

I am from the north, from Prince Rupert constituency, and I would

like to bring you a message from the north that we are alive and well,

and I know that will come as a surprise to a great many people.

I would like to express to you today some of the advantages that I

feel there are to living in the north and some of the disadvantages. I

would also hasten to point out that the advantages far override and

overshadow the disadvantages.

I suppose one of the things that we all face today is the high cost

of living, but we in the north feel it a little more so. I'll compare

Vancouver to Prince Rupert where we pay 14 per cent more for food and

shelter. Which is rather high. At the same time I point out to you that

two progressive city councils in the north, Kitimat and Prince Rupert,

commissioned the B.C. research people to do a study and find out why we

paid more for our goods in Prince Rupert. I believe that other cities

could follow the example many times of our cities in the north.

B.C. research, while doing their studies felt that two reasons were

responsible for the high cost of living in the north. One,

transportation costs and the other the lack of competition. I think

that as we develop the north the competition will come, if there is

indeed competition. We'd like to think so. But transportation is the

key to much of our problems in regard to high costs.

I feel that we need expansion in both our rail and road systems

throughout the north, but I believe we must do this with caution. I

don't believe that we should develop only to develop, we should do it

by an orderly and planned method. I believe that we have to get

together with Ottawa, no matter which party is voted in the upcoming

election.

I believe in the past there has been too much name calling. I

believe that we will have to get together with these people and work

out some cost sharing system where we can build in British Columbia.

[ Page 23 ]

The other form of transit rather than land transportation I'd like

to refer to now is water transport. When I was going to school I was

always taught that it was the most economical method of shipping. If

you live in the north you'll wonder if that was true, what you were

taught in school, because the people of the north pay heavily to have

their goods brought in by water transport. I would like to mention that

we also pay twice in the north because we pay heavy subsidies to the

carriers that bring the goods to the north. So, in the north we not

only pay for the transport in our taxes, we pay for it again in high

cost of goods.

When we're doing that, I think it's rather silly. It would seem to

me that in this province where we have the resources, we have the

money, and we have the know-how that we could expand our ferry system

to include a B.C. shipping system to the betterment of the people of

the north and all of British Columbia.

The slogan that the New Democratic Party used while campaigning in

the north during the last election was "northern development for

people" and I believe that it's a slogan that not one of us can

disagree with here today. We want expansion, we want development, but

we don't want to do it if it's going to cost us in economical damage.

We don't want to unnecessarily deplete our natural resources and again

the ticket in my opinion is to see our development is orderly and

planned and for the good of people.

One of the areas that I believe we have to look at is port

development in the north. Only by putting in good ports — and there has

been a good start in Prince Rupert by the Harbours Board, but, I feel

that we have to pressure government to do more — the federal government

that is.

Also, once we get the rail system and the port working together this

will tend to bring down the price of even food, because railroads when

they get a back haul can do it much more economically. We can only do

that if we have goods coming in and out of British Columbia through our

ports.

Another advantage I can see if we push for rail development in the

north is that we can make it much more economical for our pulp mills in

the north. We can get chips into our pulp mills and make the operations

much more viable, and I believe that we have to do this sort of thing

if we're going to survive in British Columbia, in the world markets.

I'm sure that I speak for the majority of northerners when I ask

Hon. members to consider and think upon these requests that I bring to

you from my people in the north.

We feel that in this province we should create a department of

northern affairs. It's a big province. It's a long way from Victoria,

and we feel that we do have special problems and we would like to have

a special portfolio to look after the special problems.

We would also like to see a provincial department of fisheries. It's

one of the largest resource industries in this province and we don't

have any expertise up until now to look after this large industry, and

to act as a buffer zone between the fishermen of this province and the

Federal Department of Fisheries.

I believe it's a must not only for people in the north but for

people in urban areas and people in the interior that we have a

consumer affairs department, and not a corporate and consumer affairs.

I don't think the two really go together .

I would say that after pointing out to you some of the disadvantages

of living in the north that I would like to repeat again that the

advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.

It's a big beautiful land in the north. Recreationally, it's

paradise in fishing, boating, hunting, hiking, and I would like to

invite everyone to come up and meet with us. But, the most beautiful

thing about the north are the people because there's a special kind of

person that goes north. It's the more adventurous kind of person

usually, to go and to stay. I would like to invite you all to come up

and meet with most adventurous people left in North America, the last

frontiersmen.

In closing I would like to read to you a paragraph I received two

days ago. Before reading the paragraph I would like to explain about

the person who wrote the letter. He thinks he's about ninety, because

in the days

[ Page 24 ]

that he was born on an Indian reservation there

weren't proper records kept sometimes and there wasn't in his case.

Talking with other people, they also feel that he is about 90, but, no

one is really sure. He's blind and he's been a supporter of our party

for some time but I believe when he wrote this paragraph that he meant

it for all of us here today.

He says: "May the session of the new government be crowned by

success that would turn the tide and give a better destiny to the

people of this great and wealthy province, and may the Great Spirit be

with you, granting you guidance and much wisdom as you are doing your

work for the good of others. I beg to be yours truly, William Freeman,

pensioner". He sends that message to us all, I'm sure.

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

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker,

speaking as the first speaker of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition may I

congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on the elevation of your new and

important duties in this House. I'm sure you will have no problems with

the members of the official Opposition and I hope that the members of

the government would take their example from this side of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bring his mike up and put it into action

because I want everyone to hear what he just said.

MR. F.X. RICHTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know if

you're going to get a repeat of that performance. I think that once is

enough. But, I do want to say that I extend to you the congratulations

of this group which I have the honour of speaking for at this time. And

I want to particularly compliment the mover and seconder of the speech

of His Honour and say that I think they did very well in their maiden

speeches and we look forward to hearing more from them as time goes on.

I want to welcome one and all, all the new Members, and say to you I

hope that you will be as fortunate as I was in the few years that I

have been here since 1953 and be able to enjoy the experiences that you

will find in this House which certainly enriches one's life — maybe not

monetarily, but certainly as far as experience and the becoming

well-acquainted with the various personalities that you will be

acquainted with during your course, whether it's short or long, in this

Legislature. I certainly have been very fortunate in this respect and

I'm sure that others will be the same.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in a spirit of co-operation and assistance

to the government, to expedite the work of the Legislature, I attempted

to convey to this House the views of the official Opposition.

Apparently, I believe, they were misunderstood to some degree or the

full impact was not conveyed. And the position that the official

Opposition are taking is, we feel, an experience earlier in this House

in 1961 where the period of time for a throne debate was very

substantially reduced.

We did have His Honour here and we respect him for that. Because I

think this has the recognition now of the shortest throne speech in the

history of Canada, probably within the Commonwealth as far as that's

concerned. However, regardless of that matter — that is neither here

nor there — but still in a spirit of co-operation, Mr. Speaker, I would

suggest that with unanimous consent of the House, that the matter, the

question presently before the House at this time, be now voted on.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding, I don't want you to lose your

seat in the debate. I would like to ask again as something happened

yesterday that concerns me. Is the Hon. Member who just took his seat

asking for leave?

[ Page 25 ]

Because no one has so far to my knowledge, asked me

for leave. You're not asking me for leave?

MR. RICHTER: Not in the form of motion. I've asked leave of

the House for it to be considered at this point.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, there's no point then. Would you proceed.

I'm sorry, Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I, in my turn,

congratulate you on your election to the position which you hold and

wish you well in it. It is certainly, perhaps, one of the most

difficult tasks of the House and we certainly appreciate the problems

that you face, will face no doubt, from ourselves as well as other

Members elsewhere in all corners of the House. May I extend my

congratulations formally at this time to the leader of the government,

the Premier, and congratulate him and his cabinet of Ministers on a

good start, I feel, in their task of leading this province in the few

years ahead.

While still on the question of congratulations, I believe the first

two speakers of the day deserve my congratulations as well, for fine

speeches from both of them. I'm sure, in particular with the first

speaker, we will have many more speeches from ladies present here

today. Or should I say "Ms.'s" present here today? I'm not sure what

the correct term is at this stage, but it is "ladies" I am assured. And

I wish her well, because I'm sure she'll do well.

Mr. Speaker, the subject of debate is the throne speech, and it is,

as mentioned earlier, a speech which is difficult to comment on

directly, in that very little was contained in it except a list of

bills and the first paragraph was kind words of His Honour saying that

it might be his last time before us and saying that he wished that we

be kind to his successor.

The second paragraph dealt with the most unfortunate and regrettable

death of two former Members of this House.

Firstly, I say that I am delighted we have the opportunity to raise

pensions for senior citizens as was reported in an

article in the

Vancouver Sun newspaper, an

article devoted to the Premier of

the province. This was first proposed by the Hon. Member for Point Grey

(Mr. McGeer), the former leader of the Liberal Party and we are very

happy that it has been taken up by the government.

However, in discussing the throne speech debate, I have no wish of

course to go to the list of bills which we will be debating later,

because most of these, I think, will be debated to some length. I would

like, however, to say that we are disappointed that it does not contain

more substance at this time. I say this, realizing the problem of a

lack of time, realizing the special nature of this session, but it is

true and it was stated many times by the now Premier of this province

in criticism of the then Premier of the province that a session was not

necessary to achieve this.

I think he was right then and I'm surprised that he has taken the

time of the House, expense of the public, and delay, of course, to the

senior citizens of this province, by adopting this method. It did not

seem necessary to him prior to the recent election for a session to be

called. I'm surprised that he regards it as necessary now. In which

case, as there is no emergency session at this House — and indeed as

the government itself has changed its tone and has ceased to call this

an emergency session, and now calls it a special session, whatever

precisely that is and whatever the special circumstances are, I'm not

sure, nor do they define them — in which case, I feel it's correct and

right for us at this time as representatives of the Opposition, the 60

per cent of the electorate who did not support the government, that we

point out a number of things which we feel might well have been

included within that bill.

Generally speaking, this party, myself and my colleagues here, agree

that there are many items of social legislation which we can probably

deal with and the sooner the better.

[ Page 26 ]

We feel that it is necessary for many changes to be made. Generally

speaking we find it unfortunate that in the bills presented to us

within that throne speech and the list of bills there is so much which

is, Mr. Speaker, within the power of the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council, in other words, within the power of the cabinet and Premier.

We are disappointed, in that we thought, from the previous

statements of the government, that there would be a new departure, that

the Legislature would be used to put down and define what will be done

and that enabling legislation simply giving power to the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council, in other words the Premier and his

cabinet colleagues, would be,no longer the practice of the Province of

British Columbia.

We regret that the previous practice has not only been followed but

apparently has been followed with even more enthusiasm by this

government than its predecessor.

We feel that at the same time in the first session of a legislative

assembly, following the election of a new government, and I might add

that it is the first session of a new government in 20 years, there's

no need to repeat that. We've all heard that often enough. We are very

disappointed that there is nothing within the throne speech which

outlines the general thrust and trend of this government.

Now we realize in this day of electronic media and newspapers,

television, radio, a Press conference is a fine way of getting one's

views across. But we are here as elected representatives of the

province of the people of British Columbia as has been stated by the

first speaker this afternoon. I feel that as we are here on their

behalf to discuss the public issues of the day, it was incumbent upon

the government to list in much more detail what its intentions are and

where it is going.

In other words, we have no criticism with the bills that are brought

forward. We feel it's fine for them to be brought forward, but we feel

it is wrong for the Premier and his government to make statements

outside the House which affect the well-being or the economic climate

of this province which may increase or reduce employment opportunity

for British Columbians and then not within a reasonable time — in other

words at the first opportunity within this House — give us all here an

opportunity to debate what his intentions are, where he is going, and

what he intends to do.

I would like for example, returning to the throne speech, and the

question of pensions, to point out that, when first raised, the subject

was raised in terms of a rapidly rising cost of living, rapidly

increasing food costs in particular, and therefore it was necessary to

raise pensions. An argument to which we can all subscribe.

After all, all parties in this House have recommended raising the

pensions. Nevertheless, there are many areas dealing with food costs

within the provincial jurisdiction which might well be considered by us

at this time.

I'll give you a few examples. We have been told that the B.C. Hydro

rates are to be increased for industrial consumers. We know full well

that the net result of this, those of us who are realistic, will be

that this will be passed on to the consumers who purchase British

Columbia manufactured products, or anything of that nature. In other

words the government by its statement has already indicated that it

intends to have an increase in the cost of living forced upon the

people of British Columbia by the government itself.

That, I feel, is something that we might well debate here in this

session. If we are concerned with the cost of living of people in

British Columbia.

Once again, I don't want to labour the point, but this province owns

a railway and the new president of the railway I understand is with us

today and we all, I am sure, were amused to read the news story that he

started in a much more lowly capacity in that railway, and now winds up

as the president.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 27 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Rapid promotion, right. Well I hope he has

more luck in keeping his train on the rail than his predecessor did…

(Laughter).

Nevertheless, the railway is owned by the people of British Columbia

and in his capacity as the leader of the people, my good friend

opposite me is president of that railway. And yet the B.C. Federation

of Agriculture, the grain growers in the Peace River, have long

complained about what they feel is the discriminatory and indeed the

far too high rate for shipping grain from the Peace River down to the

areas where the animals of the province are fattened up and then in

turn sold to consumers in Victoria and Vancouver and other Lower

Mainland centres.

Let me give you some examples of current rail rates in effect at the

present time. Calgary to Abbotsford — now that's across the provincial

boundary and it's Canadian Pacific — its 67¢. Dawson Creek to

Abbotsford — the British Columbia Railroad — is 90¢; a substantial

increase.

Now, this obviously means that on the one hand our farmers in the

Peace River area are not receiving what they might otherwise receive.

It means also that the cost of raising cattle and other animals in the

Lower Mainland is greater than it otherwise would be. This indeed is a

real boost to the cost of food in British Columbia, well within the

provincial jurisdiction which we might well consider.

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

We have the proposal of the Premier to raise the rate of taxation on

corporations in this province from 10 to 13 per cent. And yet the

Carter Commission Report, which is perhaps the world's most exhaustive

study of tax rates, has pointed out that raising taxes of that nature

on corporations will be passed on to the consumer. And so we can expect

again British Columbia products, British Columbia industry, British

Columbia consumers to pay a substantial extra burden of taxation and

have their cost of living substantially increased as a direct result of

the intentions of the Premier as expressed outside this House and which

apparently we will have no opportunity of debating other than in this

debate within this House.

I say it is unfortunate that in the general concern that we all

share on cost of living, the government of the day has seen fit to so

restrict discussion in this first "emergency", now "special", I hope

regular, session of the House.

The final point I would like to mention is that marketing boards,

most of which are within the competence of the provincial government,

can have real effect upon the food costs for the housewife in this

province. Many of the major increases in costs of food products are the

result of marketing boards under provincial jurisdictions — egg

marketing in particular. Not that I begrudge the chicken farmer, or the

fellow selling eggs, the extra cost that he might get, but I do feel

that if we are to discuss intelligently the cost of living for the nine

out of 10 people who are not on pension we should have some

legislation, some motion, or some opportunity from the government to

debate these things.

That they have not done so it is a cause of considerable regret for

me because, as I said, the purpose of calling us here together is

unnecessary. We do not need to have a session of the Legislature to

raise pensions, we do not need to be here for that purpose, it could

have been done by the Premier quite some time ago, and yet it hasn't

been.

The suggestion from next door is Order in Council, and it's my

unfortunate belief this is the basis not only on which the previous but

also the present government intends to operate. And it's an unfortunate

thing because I don't think it's the way it should be done.

I brought up the question of cost. But there are other questions

which I feel we should be discussing in this session, which are

important ones. And that is the economy generally.

The rate of unemployment in the Province of British Columbia is not

low. It's one of the highest in the country. I think it is something

that we should remember when statements are made again outside the

House and where opportunity for debate within the House is limited,

that it is here — not at a press conference, not in front of a

television camera, not in

[ Page 28 ]

the relaxed atmosphere of the Empress Hotel, or the

Premier's office — that such statements should be examined, and

examined carefully. They should be done by way, I think, of regular

debate and not necessarily the device that we are attempting to use at

this time — the throne speech debate.

There is no question that a careless, ill-thought-out statement by

the Premier of the Province of British Columbia regarding

nationalization of corporations which can be completely regulated by

public utilities legislation is having a serious affect upon confidence

in B.C.

I say "confidence", of course some people think of the money markets

of New York and all that. Well, that's a bit irrelevant — what I'm

thinking about are the employees of these corporations. We have had

changes, changes of personnel in the province in the last two months

which would indicate to some perhaps in a company threatened with

nationalization that perhaps if they defend the companies' interest too

strongly they'll be fired when the company is taken over. In other

words, we've lead to uncertainty among the personnel of certain

corporations in this province — uncertainty which I feel will only

result in some of their better personnel taking jobs elsewhere and the

efficiency of the corporation declining accordingly.

Similarly when it comes to raising money for major capital

programmes, and some of these companies named by the Premier have major

capital programmes in hand at this time, it's a bit difficult to think,

or it's naive to assume, that their ability to raise money at the

lowest possible rate of interest will not be affected by his

statements. Indeed the only news about British Columbia in recent

months in the Wall Street Journal happened to be those careless

and ill-considered remarks that the Premier made regarding

nationalization.

Not that I deny his right to talk about nationalization, he has won

the majority of seats in this House, his party supports him. He has

every right to talk about it and proceed about nationalization. We do

not deny that, but what we do object to, and most strenuously, is

carelessness, and in my view ignorance, when discussing economic

matters which lead to the situation that I have described — in other

words companies losing good personnel, companies forced to pay higher

rates of interest because the risk capital is now more risky than it

was before. In turn the cost to the consumers of British Columbia is

being increased. In turn of course the efficiency of the company to

give good service is declining.

So, we have a situation that exists there and I'm sure that it was

not the Premier's intention. But if he continues in this way he will

quickly find, of course that he will be depressing the value of the

corporations that he ultimately intends to nationalize — depressing

their value to the point where perhaps he can nationalize them for

considerably less then they are worth, considerably less than they will

be able to get them for if he proceeded directly with nationalization.

The situation might be

different if we were talking about companies , of which there are

far too many in British Columbia, promoting questionable mining stock

on moose pastures in the interior. But we are not talking about that,

we are talking about companies which are relatively blue-chip. So I

think that it is regrettable that we have not seen in this session, we

are not seeing in the material brought forward by the government, an

opportunity for a full-scale debate upon the economy, for a full-scale

debate upon the damaging effects to companies, to the small people who

buy common shares as a hedge against inflation which has resulted from

the Premier's remarks.

Continuing on the question of the economy. Let me finally on this

state again we are not denying the right of the Premier to discuss

this, we are not denying him the right of bringing in legislation. That

obviously is his privilege. But we are saying that this is where it

should be done and there are certain forms to be adopted, and there are

certain ground rules to go through and the way he has proceeded so far

has done nothing for the confidence of British Columbia, and has done

nothing to create jobs for British Columbians now out of work, and has

done nothing for the many

[ Page 29 ]

people of British Columbia who have bought common

stocks in companies as a hedge against inflation which is hurting so

many of us.

My Hon. friend from Prince Rupert listed earlier a number of things

that he thought should be done by the government. Many of these of

course are policies of our party as well. The Minister of Northern

Affairs for example and things of that nature — more concerned with

respect to northern transportation.

I am sure that despite his kindness and despite the honour that he

felt in speaking on behalf of the government there was also the nagging

feeling in his mind as well that it is a pity that many of the things

that he has talked about to his constituents will not be discussed in

this Legislature, at this session, nor indeed for a good number of

months to come.

The enthusiasm or the desire to have a quick session dealing with

very few bills — bills many of which are either not of an emergency

nature, not of a special nature, or bills designed to achieve

objectives which can be done in another manner — has again, I feel,

deprived us of the opportunity of far more wide-ranging debates on the

type of thing which he raised.

I would like to suggest, following again his comments about the need

for a more co-operative government in this province — a need which an

empty chair to my right persuades me I'm safe to talk about — there is

definitely such a need and it might well have been a good idea for the

Premier to have brought in at this session a government

reorganizational bill which would not only have created those magic

four extra places for the unfortunate new members of the New Democratic

Party deprived of the opportunity of being considered for cabinet

posts, but might in more real sense have created the opportunity of a

Minister of intergovernmental affairs such as there is in Alberta or in

Quebec which would have allowed for the type of co-operation which

would have created the vehicle and the focal point for the type of

co-operation that he talked about.

I do feel that the rush that we have gone into with this session — the unnecessary rush — has prevented that type of discussion and that

type of legislation being prepared. No doubt it will come in due

course. But in due course is often far too far in the future.

Similarly, I am disappointed that we are not going to get the

opportunity. Despite years of talk by members of the government and

indeed members of our own party as well and the Premier in particular,

there is going to be no opportunity for consideration of rule changes

of the House, some of which indeed have been promised to the people as

party policy.

There is a bill for investigation and inquiry of the Speaker and

we'll discuss the bill in due course. What I am talking about now is

the fact that that bill might take a very long time to result in

anything of real value.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

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

of order.

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

order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Nevertheless, responding to his comment,

it is I feel an unfortunate device to set up so many discussion groups,

so many inquiries, so many studies by not only ministers but by

departments as well and special outside consultants that there is no

opportunity in the next few months for substantial changes in the form

of government and the style of government this province has become used

to.

AN HON. MEMBER: Short visit.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, any time the Attorney General

wishes to comment I'm always delighted to hear it. They're not always

to the point but they're always amusing. One other thing, one other

area, where I feel I might suggest to the government that changes might

be made — and here again I'm sure I'm going to receive unanimous

applause from the back-

[ Page 30 ]

bench of the New Democratic caucus — is in the

question of appointing so many assistants and executive assistants and

people of that nature, of whom all ministers apparently need one — even

Ministers without Portfolio.

It seems to me we have a certain amount of talent. I have no wish to

exaggerate it of course, but it looks like fairly decent talent in the

backbenches of the New Democratic Party. I would suggest to the Premier

that instead of hiring a large group of outsiders — whether or not

there are any political debts involved or not of course, is irrelevant

— but instead of hiring such a large number of outsiders he might

consider the proposal that I will put forward now and that is to name

some of these gentlemen and ladies as parliamentary or legislative

secretaries to the various Ministers that are sitting in front of me

now.

Now I realize that there's always the prospect of these legislative

secretaries showing up their bosses and that would be unfortunate. But

if the old guard…

AN HON. MEMBER: Anticipation!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But if the old guard of the New Democratic

Party can stand a little competition from some of their newer lights I

suggest that the Province of British Columbia might save a great deal

of money by such a practice. Hiring people at $13,000 or $16,000 is all

well and good, but perhaps there are people here being paid substantial

amounts as Members of the Legislative assembly who feel their talents

are under-utilized sitting perhaps somewhere down there — I'll point to

no one in particular — or somewhere behind me here. They might feel

that they could be of considerable assistance to, for example, the

Minister of Education who sits opposite me now.

There are people within your own ranks, people with experience and

education. There are within your own ranks people with experience in

your own field of social work. Why not use these people? Allow them

some opportunity to take

part in the activities of the department and

cut back on this excessive hiring of outside people to assist the

Ministers.

Again, I repeat, I warn you that it's a double-edged sword and it

might be that some of the old guard will find themselves in difficulty

with their subordinates. But that's a risk which we're quite prepared

to take on this side of the House and I'm sure that the cabinet itself

won't find it too difficult.

Well, Sir, I have been speaking at some length about what we would

like to see done and why we feel that the Speech from the Throne is

inadequate. It's a honeymoon session of the House for this government.

We don't wish to come down hard on them. We realize that many of the

mistakes that I have outlined to the Premier are the mistakes of a man

who has only been in the job two months, less than two months.

AN HON. MEMBER: One month.

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

hand over power.

Nevertheless, we do feel there is an opportunity here for them to

rectify their mistakes, to come forward with not only social

legislation to which all parties in the House are more or less in

agreement.

But there is an opportunity for them to radically change the style

of government in the Province of British Columbia. And unfortunately,

from what we have seen so far and from a quick reading of the bills

presented yesterday, the government seems unwilling to do this.

There is far too much reliance upon regulations drawn up by civil

servants and approved by cabinet without the opportunity of this

Legislature having its comments recorded or this Legislature perhaps

suggesting good modifications. Naturally, of course, the Premier has as

he said he admired his predecessor very much and has learned a great

deal from him but I fear perhaps he's learned too much. I fear perhaps

he's learned too much of the style of government, which is not what I

must say I expected from the campaign waged by the New Democratic Party

at the last election.

[ Page 31 ]

I feel there is an opportunity for some fairly quick changes. I feel

there is an opportunity for him to take steps to create the open

government that he has talked about. I think there is an opportunity

for him to change the conduct of this House substantially. But so far

and I'm disappointed, we have seen none of this. We have seen only

legislation which contains some very questionable things which we will

be discussing later in this session. We have seen a failure of the

government to bring forward its intentions in terms of the economy. We

have seen a failure of the government to bring forward solid, reliable

information which might effect the opportunity of people in this

province to earn their living by way of employment in the regular way.

We have found in fact the government has let a climate of

uncertainty develop which we find most unfortunate. Therefore, before I

resume my seat with my comments on this Speech from the Throne, may I

simply call upon the Premier and call upon his cabinet to cease and

desist from issuing pronouncements by way of Press conferences and

start using this Legislature as it should be used — as the forum of

debate and the forum for the people of the province to discuss what he

actually has in mind. To do this, of course, he will have to define

what he does have in mind and perhaps the sooner he does that the

better.

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

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to have

the honour of being re-elected to this House, particularly since there

were certain authorities in the province who had strong convictions

that this would never happen. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened to your colleague.

MR. WALLACE: The score, Mr. Speaker, is still somewhere

around 36-12 but there seems to have been some fairly drastic reversal

of positions. And while my party has not increased its numbers at least

I've got a seat at the front which I didn't have before.

Mr. Speaker, I do wish to extend congratulations to the Premier on

his victory. I do wish sincerely that he has tremendous success. I

always admired the Premier as a member of the Opposition for his strong

defence of democratic ideas. I'm not saying socialist democratic ideas

— I'm just saying democratic ideas — in that he regarded this forum in

much the light that the Leader of the Liberal Party has obviously

outlined. And he was always promising that if elected he would give an

open style of government where the individual would have readier and

most consistent access to the elected members and to the Ministers and

indeed to the Premier. He who promised to reply to letters — which I'm

sure he's been doing, but I have not written any yet. And look forward

to the Premier implementing these much-needed reforms.

I think I would also add my respects and welcome to the official

leader of the Opposition, and here it gets confusing. I don't know if

I'm talking about the house leader or the party leader, but I refer to

the Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett). He is looking fit and

rested and I look forward to his promise of playing a constructive role

in this chamber. He indeed was right down the slot, as the slang

expression has it, when he said that the Socialist hordes were at the

gate. I feel gratified, Mr. Speaker, despite their obvious strength

they did fail to pierce the tweed curtain. (Laughter).

I'm really pleased that the faithful in Oak Bay will not be exposed

to all the perils of ranting socialism. (Laughter). Oh, don't make me

choke when I'm trying to think.

I'm also very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the hordes didn't get

through the gate in Saanich and the Islands and I would welcome with

warmest of feelings my colleague from Saanich and the Islands (Mr.

Curtis). I feel certain that he will contribute wisely and in great

measure to this chamber and indeed to the province as a whole.

[ Page 32 ]

I would also like to welcome the new leader of the Liberal Party and

to say that although he is probably commenting on the small size of the

chamber compared to Ottawa, I think we do try very hard to make up in

quality what we lack in quantity. With respect I wish him well despite

the fact that his party did lose 3 per cent of their popular vote.

I do feel that on August 30 the people of this province spoke very

clearly and I respect their opinions, but certainly they have no taste

for Liberal politics, and somehow or other, I feel convinced that we

will get even more definitive evidence on October 30.

I would also like to welcome all the new members to the House. I

think that after sitting in a House with the original disciples of the

N.D.P., I find it exciting to see so many new eager faces around me and

for those who are seated on this side of the House, I hope they won't

get that lost feeling which I used to have at times when I sat in the

rather uncomfortable chair now occupied by the Hon. Member for Delta

(Mr. Liden).

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

MR. WALLACE: Well we all make mistakes, my friend. You made

your share. (Laughter).

I would wish to add my personal expression at the passing of Harold

Merilees and Dudley Little. These were men who believed in their cause

and I feel that they contributed greatly to this House and they are men

whose courage we must try to emulate. I've already said that the people

of the province spoke on August 30, and we as an opposition party, as I

have said many times, respect the same kind of democratic ideas and the

system of government that the Premier has often spoken of in this

House. We are not here, Mr. Speaker, to oppose simply for the sake of

opposing. Where the legislation brought forward is sound and sensible

and is a genuine attempt to meet the needs of society today, such

legislation will have our ready support.

With the largest increase in the popular vote and at last getting

into this House legally as a Conservative by election, I would like to

outline some of the basic concepts which will guide our actions and our

policies during the proceedings in the House.

We believe very strongly, Mr. Speaker, in the wisdom and strength of

the independent sector — that is, the segment of our society which is

free from government control or influence.

In the commercial area we believe in a free market economy and in

the profit motive, and for this we make no apology. In the

non-commercial area we believe in a lot of individuals and their

voluntary associations, the freedom to determine their destiny,

providing only that their actions or inactions do not injure the

freedom of others. Based upon our belief in the independent, it

naturally follows that government must be restricted in its growth,

allowing it to intrude only in those areas where individual action or

group action is obviously deficient.

Legislation by order in council or regulation is as abhorrent to us

in a democratic system as it is to the other parties which have spoken

in the House. In the hastily-prepared bills presented to this assembly

we will find an unnecessary allotment of jurisdiction to the government

which truly usurps the traditional jurisdiction to the House.

Thirdly, the role of government should not be as master but as

servant. A government must direct its efforts to creating opportunities

which allow individuals and their groups fulfilment through their own

efforts.

We unashamedly endorse the philosophy of incentives, that is the

creation of circumstances by government which encourages the individual

or the groups to better themselves by their own personal efforts.

Fourthly we believe very strongly in direct government assistance to

those who cannot help themselves. The handicapped, senior citizens, and

the unemployed have a right to expect our communities as represented by

government, to provide meaningful assistance.

It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that in this session and at other times

we will come in direct conflict with the philosophies of the

government. We

[ Page 33 ]

will, however, strive to offer constructive

criticism and to keep our discussions and debate on a plane of dignity

and courtesy and it certainly has been my hope since the election

results that this indeed would be one of the major forms of progress in

the legislative process in this province.

This is when I get to my "however", if the Hon. Member from Peace

River (Mr. Smith) would wake up. Oop…sorry!

The new government has been in power just over a month, Mr. Speaker,

and already we would have to comment on some of the mistakes which have

been made. There has been quite a flow of statements, some of them

official, some of them unofficial and some of them in-between, but, the

Premier despite, his strong belief in the concept that the Premier

should not also be Minister of Finance, has done exactly that which he

criticized of the former premier. I'm well aware that the Constitution

Act allows only for 14 Ministers, but…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: What's new?

MR. WALLACE: …but by his own example he has created double

portfolios and therefore it really is not valid to suggest that he had

no choice, as it were, but to take on the portfolio of the Minister of

Finance.

He himself frequently said that this meant the concentration of too

much power in the hands of one man in a democratic system. We would

feel that it is our obligation as an opposition party to point out this

particular action of the Premier.

Now that action is unsettling in itself, but we are deeply concerned

about some of the public pronouncements made at Press conferences

regarding the take-over of major business enterprises at an unspecified

date. This creates serious unrest in the business community, but it

also does very considerable harm to investors and many of them are

people of modest means who have attempted to invest wisely and have

savings in the later years so that they will not in fact be dependent

on government assistance, in one form or another.

The results of these premature announcements regarding takeover are

not dissimilar from the results of the activity of the B.C. Power

Commission in the late 40's when it endeavoured to reduce the price of

the Nanaimo-Duncan Utilities Company.

Mr. Justice Wilson, I would like to quote, in the B.C. Court of

Appeals stated "Thus the intention to expropriate is to be used as a

weapon to lower the cost to the expropriator". I repeat this is

unconscionable and as we well know, to take B.C. Telephone as an

example, the statement has resulted in the drop in price or something

like 65 or 55 — or within these ball park figures anyway.

Many of the measures, Mr. Speaker, which the government is to bring

forward at this session we will support. We would agree with some of

the comments already made, but others have obviously been prepared in

haste and are somewhat inadequate for their intention.

I would also have to echo comments already made that the more one

looks at the throne speech, the more one has to wonder why there was a

need for a so-called emergency session. We would certainly like to hope

that we are not here essentially for the political advantage of the

socialist party nationally.

I would like to look, Mr. Speaker, a little more closely at the

reasons given by the Government for this emergency session. The party

that now constitutes the Government ran for election on several very

basic issues which were repeated time and time again. These issues were

unemployment, inflation, and the needs of the senior citizens and the

handicapped persons. It was my understanding, again from the various

statements publicly in the Press, that this session was called

primarily to pass legislation that would implement election promises.

[ Page 34 ]

Yet what do we find? If we think of unemployment, it is not

mentioned in the throne speech and there are no recommendations

whatever dealing with the creation of jobs.

As recently as a week ago, the newspaper of October 10, it was

revealed that in September of this year we had 61,000 unemployed in

British Columbia, which is 6.6 per cent of the labour force compared

with 5.5 one year previously, and I would think that such a tragic jump

in unemployment with all its attendant human misery and suffering would

indeed justify an emergency session of this legislature. But if you

look at the throne speech there is not a word mentioning unemployment

or jobs, despite the fact that the government ran for power and was

elected, making that one of the primary issues.

Again, about a week ago, on the same date or October 11, the

newspapers reported that the cost-of-living index had continued to

spiral with the price of food up 10.2 per cent over September of 1971

and a substantial increase in the price of clothing.

There can be few items in the cost-of-living picture that are more

important than food and clothing, and I wonder what use there is in

providing increased supplements to citizens, if the increases are to be

rapidly swallowed up by the effects of inflation.

I think we are all agreed that the fundamentals of the cost of

living are indeed food, clothing and shelter. Again, to look at the

throne speech closely, there is nothing which will deal with these

problems to any measurable or adequate degree. In fact, if you look at

the throne speech — while we cannot debate the bills at this time — one

could really conclude that the intended actions of the Government will

be in the opposite direction.

There is a real possibility that there will be unemployment for

unskilled persons and that the price of consumer goods will continue to

rise.

As for the cost of shelter the throne speech completely ignores this

aspect of the cost of living, and I would think that any serious

attempt to deal with this constructively should have meant a revised

landlord and tenant Act, so that any increase in income supplements

provided by this government will not immediately be taken up by rent

increases.

I am very pleased to see the Premier nodding and hope that this

means we can look forward to this kind of legislation, but I must

return to the question of the senior citizens which was also a big

issue. I think the most tragic irony of the whole throne speech lies in

the fact that the Government fails completely to give any assistance to

the large segments of senior citizens who perhaps are the most

deserving of any senior citizen, and I'm talking about the patients in

private nursing homes and private hospitals, and those receiving

chronic care who presently do not qualify under the acute care, or

extended care legislation.

We have somewhere in round figures 5,000 such persons and there is

every reason, as I know from direct experience, to be sure that there

are perhaps another 5,000 that should be receiving this kind of care

but cannot do so for reasons of lack of facilities, and lack of money.

The throne speech offers no help in this regard and yet the reason I

use the strong phrase "tragic irony", is I find that in the throne

speech while it doesn't say very much about senior citizens it

certainly says something very clearly in this sentence: "Without their

energy, dedication and commitment to the province in its early days

none of us would be in a position to enjoy a great province as much as

we do today."

With this, I agree entirely, but what about these 5,000 people? The

picture, if I have to make it more plain, I think is some of the most

pitiful misery that I see in my whole practice as a physician. The

elderly couples — finally one of them has to go into a nursing home, so

first of all they parted in terms of their marriage. The next thing

that happens is that the spouse who is well, or relatively well, has to

sell the family home to pay for the care of his wife and finally he has

to go on welfare to cope with the costs which is certainly no

exaggeration to say average $400 to $500 a month.

[ Page 35 ]

As my friend on my right says, they often both end up on welfare,

and pitifully too often separate facilities, not even able to spend

their last days in the same residence, or the same building.

I would appeal, Mr. Speaker, to the government that perhaps this was

an oversight — I am prepared to be charitable and consider that in the

haste in preparing the legislation and the speed with so many things

have had to be done. I would hope that this is a matter which will

still be attended to during this present session of the House.

Other statutes that are to be brought in this session — which again

we cannot debate at this point — and I am thinking particularly of the

discussion on tobacco and liquor advertising, I really see nothing

urgent in this kind of legislation. Particularly when a regular session

is only three months away, I feel that the Government might have shown

some more temperance and judicial consideration after the first flush

of victory without rushing into such a so-called session where much of

the legislation really does not justify the calling of a session and

indeed the expense — which must be a public item of some amount which

we will know later on.

I am also dismayed by some of the proceedings of this House

yesterday, when a serious attempt was made to obtain some of the

reforms now which I think we are all agreed upon. I'm not nitpicking or

splitting hairs. I'm just saying, Mr. Speaker, that there are certain

reforms which I think in large measure this whole House must be in

favour of, and when we are all early in the session I think we are in a

co-operative mood. I am certainly speaking for the small Conservative

Party, when I say we are in a co-operative mood.

Such matters as the setting up of a question period surely in my

reading of the situation could easily have been done by unanimous leave

of the House, just changing the rules by unanimous consent of the House.

I'm no student of the rules but it seems to me that this is

something we could have done.

There are other issues, I think it is ridiculous in this day and age

that we have the farce of the public not even being able to put their

arms on the front row around the galleries and their not being able to

take notes, and their not being able to do some of the simplest

reasonable things which I think we could change very quickly.

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

MR. WALLACE: By Order in Council.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Well, if you can change that, Mr. Speaker, how

come it's so difficult to get a question period? There are some things

that are apparently very easy to change by the whim of the man in

power, and there are other things which take the most complicated

procedural angles in this House.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I think that something as simple as the

question period which was raised yesterday — perhaps if they're so keen

to interject, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Premier could tell me if indeed

it could have been done in the method I am suggesting.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It could have been.

MR. WALLACE: It could have been? Well that's fine — you've

answered the question. But anyway I don't want you to become

acrimonious. I just feel that if this is an emergency session and there

are so many reforms which we are all in favour of and we're all eager

to get at it. I don't know that we need such a detailed bill to spell

out a whole lot of proposed research before we do some of the simpler

things such as the question period

[ Page 36 ]

and the unedited Hansard

I would assume, and the creation of an auditor general. Does this

require a tremendous amount of research? I don't know, I'm just

expressing an opinion.

But at any rate, Mr. Speaker, no one wants long speeches today. And

in closing I just wanted to say that where the socialists are negligent

in meeting urgent needs such as the ones I've outlined in terms of the

elderly citizens in nursing homes, we will never cease to criticize and

we will never cease to bring the matter to the House.

And above all we plan to oppose the intrusion of government into the

affairs of individuals where we deem it quite unnecessary. We plan at

all times to uphold and reinforce the rights and freedoms of the

individual in the face of any attempt at dictation and domination by

the state.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there any further debate on the motion? I

recognize the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, on a

point of order I rise. I wonder if the Premier would consider an

adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House so we

can get on with some legislation this afternoon? I'd be prepared to

move that adjournment if the Premier would accept it.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the Honourable Member taking the floor in

this debate?

MR. McGEER: It was really a question by leave of the House if

I may, Mr. Speaker, enquire what the Premier's…

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order that I can recognize

on this particular question, Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Well, I thought that the government having so

little to say might be prepared to carry on with legislation this

afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, we have ahead of us now a debate

that has priority over all other business, except introduction of bills…

MR. McGEER: I am asking the Premier if he would accept an

adjournment if I made it. As a matter of faith between Members of the

House, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I must call the Honourable Member to order.

Would he kindly take his seat or would he continue on the motion before

the House?

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I've not been left much choice

by the Premier and I will carry on with this particular debate. I'm

disappointed, may I say, Mr. Speaker, at the manner in which the new

Premier is conducting the House because he commenced with the good will

of Members on all sides. We are anxious to bring about reform, we were

anxious to get on with the business of the House, and it's rather

disappointing that we don't get open co-operation from the Premier in

rather simple matters such as I've raised this afternoon.

The reason why I proposed an adjournment, of course, was to give the

Government an opportunity to introduce the legislation in a fuller way

this afternoon by bringing bills forward and having the Ministers

announce their intention to…

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! order please! Is the Honourable

Member speaking on the motion before the House? You are taking your

part in the debate on the throne speech?

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

[ Page 37 ]

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

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

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

order please?

MR. SPEAKER: You know, Hon. Members, that the Chair is always

at the disposal of the Whips and I have no lists in front of me. I must

recognize the Members as they take their place in this debate. I hope

that the Whips will get together in the future.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, getting more directly to the motion

before us may I first congratulate you, Sir, on your election to the

chair. And I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that a matter of relief to you will

be the fact that you will not have to face the former member from

Burnaby-Edmonds who took that post in the last Session of Parliament.

But we certainly wish you well, we look forward to reforms in the House

if and when they come.

I next would like to congratulate the mover and the seconder today,

as new Members, but people who obviously know a great deal about the

life of British Columbia — particularly the Second Member from

Vancouver-South (Mrs. Webster) whose husband once sat as Leader of the

opposition in our Legislature. Her remarks were a very warming reminder

of the valiant struggle of the socialists in this province before the

time of power. And now of course a completely new

chapter is going to

be written and it's up to the Premier and his new Government to let us

know whether that promise will be fulfilled, or will be a great

disappointment.

The seconder again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate for a

very worthwhile description for us of the problems of northern British

Columbia. And I suppose if there were one caution to put forward with

regard to his remarks it's that the north of British Columbia requires

development. That means boldness and initiative. Not just on the part

of government, but on the part of the private sector. And as far as the

northern part of British Columbia is concerned it has really been

private development that has done so much to further it, with

government in most ways being the junior partner in those ventures.

I would have hoped, Mr. Speaker, that many of the Members today

would have been anxious when the opportunity arose to take their place

in this debate. Because life in the Legislature is short and we have a

record number of 28 new Members in our Legislature now.

I've been very fortunate, Mr. Speaker, in having served for 10

sessions in our Legislature. And as I look around me today I recognize

only seven faces who were here when I first entered the Legislature. I

think that that's testimony that life is short, particularly in the

Legislature, and that Members must seize every opportunity to make

their ideas known, and to present them as forcefully as possible.

And of course Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party, and before them

the C.C.F., were noted for having private Members with a great deal of

initiative. There was never any party discipline there. And so, if you

are to carry on with the tradition of your party, of course you won't

be bound in any way by the discipline that characterized a former

government that now sits in the Opposition. So feel free to vote with

us on this side of the House and remember that that has been your party

tradition.

Mr. Speaker, on a rather sad note two of the private Members of this

House who did distinguish themselves by rugged independence and by

outstanding contributions, have passed away in the last few weeks. I

refer of course to Mr. Harold Merilees, and Mr. Dudley Little who not

only were valuable politicians but great and courageous men. And I

think it should go on the record what they did for this province and

for our new Members even though they didn't sit here and watch them in

action.

They were backbenchers to emulate and there was never any hesitation

on the part of those members of standing up and speaking their minds

and voting accordingly.

[ Page 38 ]

Mr. Speaker I disagree with the view presented by the House Leader

for the Opposition (Mr. Richter) because as the Leader of the Liberal

Party has pointed out there really was no need for this special session

as far as the legislation itself is concerned. The legislation is

really light, it's minor. Most of it could have been done by

regulation. Therefore the reason why we are here today must be so that

each of you as new Members of the Legislature can have the opportunity

of putting forward your views. Let the cabinet Ministers know in public

what you think. You know, if you have the caucus sessions behind closed

doors you're not supposed to say what happens. But here you can put on

record for your constituents, and for the people of British Columbia

the kind of stuff that the members that have been elected as socialists

here in British Columbia, the kind of stuff they're made of. And so

this is your opportunity, and that's really why the session is here.

For you to speak in this throne debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Four vacancies are coming up in the cabinet.

They won't.

MR. McGEER: Now, Mr. Speaker, there's another important

reason too. And that's for some of the cabinet Ministers…

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are they?

MR. McGEER: …to let the public know what they intend to do,

and it's rather strange, Mr. Speaker, that the cabinet has left the

chamber. They've had to have a little caucus meeting to figure out what

they're going to do this afternoon. And that really isn't the way to

prepare for a session. Each of the cabinet Ministers, Mr. Speaker,

individually should be standing up and taking

part in this debate, and

letting the backbenchers know, the Opposition know, and the public of

British Columbia know in a formal way where we're going to be going in

the next few weeks. The fact that they sit so silently, not even

wanting to discuss their own legislation is testimony to extremely poor

preparation.

The Premier, Mr. Speaker, could easily have said he would grant an

adjournment, instruct the cabinet Ministers to bring forward their

legislation and for each of these bills we could have been given the

intent of the legislation. An adjournment could have been taken by the

Opposition to bring back the criticisms and the recommendations for

improvement. But we really haven't had that. What we've had is some

confusion and a little bit of vindictiveness I might say, Mr. Speaker,

that very much disappoints me.

But the cabinet Ministers still have their opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

I hope tomorrow that they will seize that opportunity. Not to discuss

the rather trivial legislation that they've brought before us but to

give us in a major way what their intentions are in the coming months

and therefore what kind of direction we may expect from the government

over all.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as far as the Opposition is concerned, and I

really think the public of British Columbia as well is a very major

issue during this session must be the conduct of the new Premier

himself. Again, I'm disappointed that he's not in the chamber. Just as

I'm disappointed that the Leader of the opposition is not in the

chamber. I would like to tell the backbenchers that this is unusual — unfortunately it isn't. And I only hope that when you have your

opportunity to speak in this debate you'll have the careful attention

of the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition. I know the Premier is

new in his job…

AN HON. MEMBER: Used to spend all the time on the hot

line…you know…

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

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

truth.

[ Page 39 ]

MR. McGEER: Could you please bring that Member to order, Mr.

Speaker? You did it very well yesterday afternoon and if you could

continue on in that tradition I'd be grateful.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Several times, Mr. Speaker, the Premier has

referred to the Leader of the Opposition as "the Premier". He's had

difficulty getting it straight that he is the Premier himself.

One of the characteristics of the man who must assume the most

important job in British Columbia is that he speak with care, with

intelligence and deliberation. And perhaps, it is difficult, Mr.

Speaker, for someone who has spoken carelessly for so many years as

Leader of the Opposition to become accustomed in just a few weeks time

to the heavy responsibilities of office.

But, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that a considerable amount of

damage has already been done during this learning period. And I would

recommend to the Premier that he conduct himself with a great deal more

care in the weeks that lie ahead. But I'm not sure, Mr. Speaker, that

what's required here is just to get used to being in the saddle.

Because there are some philosophical problems underlying many of the

new Premier's statements and which could lead to difficulties and

conflicts in the Province of British Columbia in the days and years

ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind some of those who are here today what

some of those statements were and why they caused problems. No one

could have entered the Premier's chair with more good will than the

present leader of the government. He received a resounding mandate from

the voters. It was felt that after 20 years a breath of fresh air would

blow through government. But the first thing, Mr. Speaker, that the

Premier said was that he didn't believe in booms. Well and good. Booms

are bad but only because they lead to depressions. But the Premier

didn't quite put it in that context.

The second statement was that he believed in going slow on growth.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like the Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) to

consider very carefully the implications of that remark and the same

for the Member from Omineca (Mr. Kelly) and the Member from Fort George

(Mr. Nunweiler). "Go slow on growth, " said the Premier. Fine. Except

that the unemployment in this province is up several thousand from last

year. The heritage of the party that is now the opposition was an

unemployment rate that was double what it was when they took office. By

the time you get to 70 or 80,000 unemployed, Mr. Speaker, you're

carrying a heavy economic burden. But the unemployed simply are not

statistics. Everyone is a human tragedy. And so

[ Page 40 ]

when you say "go slow on growth" what you're really

doing is encouraging the total of human tragedy in the province.

Next, Mr. Speaker, the Premier promised higher taxes. Not because

there were any statements from him as Minister of Finance that the

treasury was depleted. Indeed as Minister of Finance the Premier said

there was lots of money. The throne speech says we're a wealthy

province. So the higher taxes weren't due to a shortage of money. Mr.

Speaker, the higher taxes smacked of vengeance taxation. Mr. Speaker,

that's why I think there should be an unqualified withdrawal from the

Premier because we neither need nor want vengeance taxation in British

Columbia. It will be too hurtful to the provisions of jobs. And, Mr.

Speaker, no one should know more clearly than the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. King) the problems that develop when unemployment is high and

is rising.

We're going to have higher unemployment in British Columbia this

winter. And even if the Premier does all the right things, makes all

the right statements, it's hard enough in times like this to give

anywhere near an adequate total measure of employment in the province.

Then he urged the province to conserve electricity. Throwing us in

the dark. Which is alright if there really is an electricity shortage.

But since there isn't, but only a need for the Minister of Lands and

Forests (Hon. Mr. Williams) to lay down a clear energy policy. This

statement could hardly have been intended to encourage employment and

development in the province.

And lastly, Mr. Speaker, he made it quite clear that the government

intends at some undefined time in the future to take over private

industry in the province.

It did depress the market. I don't totally agree with my colleagues

on the Opposition side in saying that the consequences of that were

most important as far as harming little investors are concerned. That

isn't the real problem. The real problem, Mr. Speaker, is that the

stock market is an indicator of the degree of confidence that people

have in the growth and potential of this province. And when destructive

statements are made by the leader of a government and they are

reflected in this way the danger does not lie in the value of the

stock. It indicates the underlined psychology of development in the

province.

What that drop in the stock market said, and everybody should

understand it, is that the people who have been responsible for

building growth in this province and who must be the ones to take the

initiative for development and employment in the future are saying: "We

don't wait to play the game in British Columbia because of the

government that is in power". It's going to hurt the working man of the

province because he doesn't create the jobs — he only works at them

when they're available. And you take away the development and you take

away the working man's job.

I think that there are some words that need to be said not just

about the conduct of the Premier, who has really been like a small boy

sent in to a big job and discovering for the first time in his life

that there's a tremendous amount of money available and the best thing

to do is to spend it first and think about where it came from second.

But there are some things that other cabinet Ministers have had to say

already that have had a rather damaging effect.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: No, on the problem of jobs, Mr. Attorney General

I'm addressing you as the Attorney General and not as the Minister of

Industrial Development because there has been no programme of

industrial development in this session nor will there be one. Mr.

Speaker, for practical purposes we are without a Minister of Industrial

Development in British Columbia. I refer to the Minister of Social

Rehabilitation, because the former one — and, Mr. Speaker, we all know

his faults.

[ Page 41 ]

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: I'm talking about social rehabilitation; we'll

get to the Minister of Industrial Development later.

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

work…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: No, no. I'm not talking about him. I can't find

words of praise there. (Laughter).

Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen did provide jobs

in British Columbia, it did provide jobs. And when the new minister

took office his first act was to can it…

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Welfare):

My second act…

MR. McGEER: His second act, he says. Well I won't make

inquiries about the first one then. But he canned it. Mr. Speaker, I

think it was the Premier who was the one most vociferously to call for

getting rid of that particular alliance. But not even did this Minister

visit the premises nor did he ask for any kind of report, nor did he

give to the public of British Columbia any indication of how many jobs

had been provided by that organization. All he did was get rid of it

and leave the unemployed with a little less to help them in the way of

getting ahead in British Columbia.

Again, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Social Rehabilitation has closed

down the Willingdon School. In doing so he asked that it not become a

matter of public debate. But surely it must become a matter of public

debate, because the Minister has given no indication at the time he

closed that institution down how we are to care for these people. And

everyone knows — and the present Premier was one of the first to draw

attention to this in the Legislature — that every facility of an

alternative kind in British Columbia has a long waiting list.

Some of these are two and three times the length of people that can

be looked after. And those who are trying to place delinquents and

people with mental illness in that age group in British Columbia are

finding that there is no place at all to send them. And all the

Minister has done is to make that problem more acute.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, I don't have too much praise for the

previous Minister of Industrial Development. He was the one — I forget

which member of the then opposition stood up and said that…was it the

present Attorney General? — he said the Minister didn't understand what

was in the report he just presented to the Speaker. And the Minister of

Industrial Development yelled across the floor and said: "You wouldn't

understand it either".

They were both right and that's a difficulty, Mr. Speaker. Because

we have no industrial development programme, at least the man who's

presently Leader of the Opposition began to understand after we had

hammered away for 10 straight sessions on the need for industrial

incentives in British Columbia to provide jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. McGEER: His death bed repentance was to say he would hold

a special session of the Legislature to introduce legislation for

incentives for secondary industry in British Columbia. And when we have

61,000 unemployed in this province nothing could have higher priority

than that.

Nothing is being done by the present Minister who is the Attorney

General, but who is not the Minister of Industrial Development because

he has no programme. Once more that key portfolio in British Columbia

remains leaderless.

[ Page 42 ]

Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed too in the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mrs. Dailly) because she was the one who stood up every single

year and asked for the Perry Report to be released. We all agreed and

so what happened; the Minister took office, read the Perry Report and

decided she wouldn't release it either.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: Well what's the trouble with the Perry Report?

What's in it that would make every government want to hide it away on

the shelf? I suggest the trouble with it, Mr. Speaker, was that it

suggested that we ought to have a decent programme of higher education

in British Columbia and maybe that isn't one of the priority items of

the present Minister of Education.

The Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. Mr. Williams), Mr. Speaker,

has done a little bit of wrecking in British Columbia too. He dissolved

the Energy Board.

HON. R. A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources): They dissolved themselves.

MR. McGEER: But it was your responsibility, Mr. Minister, to

appoint brilliant new people to that Energy Board and give them terms

of reference. Instead you let it go and probably went along with what

the Premier said in saying he had a personal hang-up about nuclear

power. Well I think that's too bad, Mr. Speaker, because one of the

characteristics of the former government was that it had hang-ups about

energy and kept inserting politics into what should have been straight

commonsense decision making.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you read the…?

MR. McGEER: You didn't send me a copy. I understand that and

the truth of it is that I have not read the 10 volumes but I have taken

a fair perusal of it and will be having a great deal more to say about

energy in the future.

For the moment, Mr. Speaker, I only want to make it very clear that

the Minister of Lands and Forests has not had a positive policy like

many of the other Ministers. His policies to date have been negative.

You see what we have with this new government. Consistently, everywhere

we look we have good social legislation, and we expected that. Because

the Opposition, the official Opposition had talked about that for years

and years.

But they weren't the only opposition in the House. And there were

some people, and they were on the Liberal benches, who were talking

about the need for good social legislation but the need for good

economic policy too. And what we've done is to bring forward the social

legislation but to give every indication that a wrecking bar is being

taken to the economy.

I say with the greatest seriousness, Mr. Speaker, that the greatest

contribution that the backbenchers of this government could make, would

be to bring forward at this session the kind of common sense that so

far has been lacking on the part of a good many Ministers.

I'm sorry that the Minister of Labour has left, because again we

expected from him some common sense, some restraint. He is a veteran

Member of the House, a union man, a good speaker as I recall, although

he hasn't had much to say in the present session.

Yesterday, he introduced a bill, or it was introduced for him as a

message from the Lieutenant-Governor, dissolving the mediation

commission. I don't intend, Mr. Speaker, to discuss that bill, because

we will have an opportunity to do so, but what was done was done with

no prior consultation of the people who were affected by having their

jobs cut off. They learned about it by watching television, which was

discourteous and bad judgment. But secondly something of this kind

should never have been done without at least getting reports and advice

from the mediation commissioners themselves on what might be the best

course of action.

[ Page 43 ]

I'm not discussing the bill itself, Mr. Speaker, with due respect I

know that you have been hearing some chatter on the far side of the

House. I'm not discussing the content of the bill itself. I'm merely

discussing the wisdom of the way the Minister of Labour introduced it,

because there are certain things that you do before you bring

legislation down on the floor of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member must not discuss matters

which will be coming up under the bill.

MR. McGEER: I was trying to make clear that that's what I

won't do, Mr. Speaker. I'm very careful to observe the rules. The

Members on the other side of the House may laugh, but they will know

that I am the most orderly member.

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

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

start.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier gave one indication of the poor preparation

he has made for this session by placing us in violation of the rules,

intending not to establish committees at all during this session of the

Legislature, and that after all of the speeches we heard, not just from

the present Premier, but all the cabinet Ministers. Surely, you

remember those speeches about how the committees never worked, and how

important it was to have committees. Then you call us all together for

a session and don't even go through the motions of setting up a

committee to establish committees.

That's a very acute disappointment to me, Mr. Speaker, that we would

have to force the government to establish committees of the House. It

shows how quickly things change when you move from this side of the

House. I don't know what happens when people move across this aisle.

You seem to suffer total amnesia.

Oh, make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, the day will come when both sides

of the House will be filled with Liberals. I can remember the story of

a former government, Mr. Speaker, when everyone in the House belonged

to one party, it wasn't a socialist party, and there was just one

socialist member in the House. No, there was one. This socialist member

had to leave the chambers and go to the gentlemen's room and he made

the comment to the Press when he went: "Every time I leave this room

those guys are in caucus".

That day is coming, Mr. Speaker, and fortunately we have got a great

deal of patience, although I think the present Premier by his actions

is making that day seem a great deal closer.

One of the most valuable ways in which a legislature can flower, and

where the people — and there are so many in this back bench group — will have the opportunity to make an important contribution, not just

stand there wheedling a Minister or the Premier to please do something

for your constituency, but to make an important and substantive

contribution, is to be a member of a committee that has a mission in

the province. Because as legislators, we can't know everything about

everything, and if you believe the Press, we don't know anything about

anything.

The advantage of a committee is that it gives the opportunity for

those who are not elected to come into the public forum and give

testimony regarding their special knowledge and in that way to educate

the educators. I know there are some members of this House, and I think

particularly of the Hon. the lady Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms.

Brown) who would have welcomed that opportunity in years past. Perhaps

many of the others of you would have too, but here this opportunity is

laid before the new government — and remember that the backbenchers

make up a majority of each of these committees.

This is your real opportunity to contribute, and how disappointed I

am that these people who sit on the cabinet benches and made all these

speeches for committees to be established, then they get into the

cabinet

[ Page 44 ]

benches where it doesn't really matter for them

anymore, but where the committee work is just as important as it ever

was, and where the backbenchers that they weren't even thinking about

at that time would have their opportunity to make a contribution.

And what do they do? Just brush it all aside with an arrogant

dismissal of the House. I would like to see an adjournment but it was a

summary dismissal yesterday afternoon, without even going through the

motions of seeing those committees established. And I hope now that the

Premier has reluctantly made that motion, that when you have your

caucus meetings — and I know unlike the Leader of the Opposition, that

the Premier attends those caucus meetings and he is going to continue

to attend them, probably right through the first year — when you get

him in the caucus you will be able to insist that these committees

function and that it get on with the job of letting the people of

British Columbia who have special knowledge, but have not had the

privilege of being elected as members to come and give their testimony.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, this is what we have needed more than

anything else in the labour field in this province. This is what should

have been done before any new labour legislation was brought down — to

have the labour leaders and I suppose the commissioners who are now

deposed and some of the industrial leaders appear before committees of

this House and let us know what the score really is out there in the

real world beyond the legislative chamber. Undoubtedly, Mr. Speaker,

the most important of all the committees which sits in this House,

although I must confess its importance has been very much diminished in

recent years is the Committee on Public Accounts. We need to know this

session, Mr. Speaker, since there will evidently be no budget, the

amount of money that is available for the increased benefits that are

planned.

We have had from the Premier a fantastic variety of statements. He

is on record in Hansard , and I am sorry that I don't have my

copy with me, as giving an indication of something of the order of $16

million per month for a programme.

Clearly, we don't have that kind of leeway in our budget. On another

occasion he said $40 million, on another 60. But these are large

amounts of money and if we are going to look at revisions of this

magnitude in the budget then of course we need to know exactly where we

stand and the public accounts committee of this session should be

looking into interim receipts, should be doing the work that the

Finance Minister obviously hasn't done to date and should be preparing

the ground work for a very much expanded spring activity.

Because I am certain, Mr. Speaker, that for the first time ever the

accounts of the B.C. Hydro will be opened up for public perusal. For

the first time that the accounts of the B.C. Railway will be opened up.

For the first time the accounts of the Liquor Control Board will be

opened up. All these Crown corporations have worked in the shadows with

no questions being asked because no questions were permitted. That's to

be the function of the public accounts committee. And so we might as

well prepare the ground work now and be ready to get on with the future.

I want to make one small comment before concluding, about what is

left over as one of the largest projects in British Columbia and one of

the greatest bungles that has ever been made. I refer to the Columbia

River Treaty — the fact that we are short probably of the order of $400

million. We are committed to store water for a period of over 100 years

from today and it looks like all the money that we'll ever get has been

obtained. Unless the present government takes active and aggressive

steps to have that Columbia River Treaty renegotiated. The great

errors, Mr. Speaker, that were made by the former Premier and his

government were in not putting a cost of living clause into the advance

payments that were made. That was the reason we were left $400 million

and some short.

But the second error in negotiation — and this was the principle

reason why the present head of the B.C. Hydro was thrown off the

negotiating team — was because he believed that peaking power needed to

be taken into consideration. Those who negotiated the treaty made the

stupid blunder of ignoring it completely.

[ Page 45 ]

I first became aware of the magnitude of our error when I visited

the Grand Coulee Dam this past summer. The size of that dam is being

quadrupled to over 9 million kilowatts. And what it's being used for is

peaking power which is enormously valuable to the Americans but for

which we Canadians get not one cent.

What the Americans are going to be able to do as soon as that giant

installation is completed — and once the Columbia River Treaty was

signed the American Congress made huge amounts of money available

immediately to expand those facilities — is simply this. At four

o'clock every afternoon when the housewives come back from their jobs

and turn on the stove and the television set and the lights, there

haven't been any appeals in the State of Washington to turn off the

lights. Then it becomes necessary to supply power. You have to hold a

tremendous amount of power in reserve to meet that peak demand. And so

what will happen in the State of Washington is that when the lights get

switched on late in the afternoon those extra generators will be turned

on to supply the energy. And because the water is stored in Canada

behind places like the Duncan Dam which have been absolutely ravished

by the flooding for which we're getting no compensation because that

water has been held in Canada, the Americans will be able to do this

every single day of the year.

Had there been no storage and had the Americans put the same amount

of power on the Columbia River Treaty they would have got it all in

June and July. Sure, the power would have come on and they could have

shut down all the other thermal plants that they're building. But the

point is they wouldn't have had the power when they needed it and there

was no way they could have stored it. Because we've spaced it out and

we allow them to do it from four until midnight every day of the year

they're able to gain a tremendous benefit from us and yet still claim

that we're entitled to nothing because if we let the water go they'd be

able to use it all with the energy that they put in. The generators

that will be put in the Grand Coulee dam are such that they would be

able to take care of all the flood waters coming down for the peak

run-off over the past 50 years.

So, Mr. Speaker, we've been badly skinned on the Columbia River

Treaty. It's been a major disaster and I'm glad the government agrees

because it's up to them now to take the initiative. You've got to do

it. You've got to reopen those negotiations. Otherwise that great

opportunity is going to be lost, and we'll be left holding the water

but they'll be left having the power.

The Premier is the one that asked many penetrating questions about

the Columbia. O.K., that was when he was in opposition. Now one of the

great challenges that he faces as Premier is to bring about some

restitution of the one-sidedness of that treaty.

And along the way, just as a footnote, I'm sure that the Skagit

Valley could be renegotiated with no difficulty at all. But I know that

the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) who has carried

so to speak the burden of the Skagit Valley for all the Members of this

House will be speaking on that subject.

I hope now that we have a new government he'll get just a little bit

of support in his crusade.

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party has outlined what our

policy will be — to be constructive in criticism. He gave a splendid

example of that this afternoon and I know that all the members of our

party will be pursuing that policy to the best of our ability. We want

to wish the new government better success in the days ahead than

they've had up until this time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia

River.

MR. J. R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed

again a pleasure for me to take my place in this legislative assembly

to represent the people from Columbia River.

I want first of all to congratulate the mover and seconder of the

Speech from the Throne. I know they were brief and they're following the

[ Page 46 ]

precedent that was established by the Speech from

the Throne — it's so brief it's almost impossible to find it.

Is this an emergency session — or a special session. Make up your

mind which it is. It missed many of the crucial issues that are facing

the people of this province.

I want to congratulate you as well, Mr. Speaker, on being appointed

Speaker of this Legislature. Nevertheless, when I nominated someone to

oppose you yesterday afternoon at the opening of this session, it was

in an attempt for you people to be consistent in your policies and in

your directions and in your words. Because it was in 1970, I remember

very well, in which you nominated the Member from Vancouver–Point Grey,

the second member from Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom).

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

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

after the election was in 1970.

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

MR. CHABOT: And I'll never forget just a few days ago the

Minister of Lands, Forests, Water Resources, Recreation, Conservation

(Hon. Mr. Williams) et cetera, et cetera had this to say about their

position, their statements while in opposition. He said this: "…Now

maybe some people will begin believing we meant what we said in

opposition".

In 1970 you said that the Second Member from Vancouver–Point Grey

should be the Speaker of this legislative assembly. You've reneged on

your commitment to this Member that you made to him in 1970 and all I

was attempting to do yesterday was to make you people realize that

there's a need for consistency in statements in this Legislature.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Why didn't you vote for him?

That's what we want to know. He'd have made a great speaker.

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

well then.

MR. CHABOT: You know, I think that it's important. I was

speaking to the Speaker not too long ago and I found it rather

difficult to have the opportunity of meeting with the government Whip,

being the Whip of the official Opposition in British Columbia, or this

session of the Legislature I should say. I found it rather difficult to

meet the Whip. I don't know who your Whip is really. And nevertheless,

I was told by the Speaker really that the Whip should convey what

should take place. I talked to the Speaker this afternoon and he agreed

with the procedure that should take place in this legislative assembly.

However, not too many minutes later this agreement which we had didn't

take place. Didn't take place. I want to assure the Speaker of this

legislative assembly that I'll be most cautious in the future in taking

certain people's word relative to speaking procedures in this assembly.

But since the new government, and I want to congratulate them for

their election to office to lead the affairs of the people of the

Province of British Columbia, but I do want to say that since you've

come to office you've certainly shocked the business community of this

province. Maybe that's what you intend doing. But, I don't think that's

good economic policy that you've announced over the last two or three

weeks. Because, you've made in my opinion what are some very wild and

irresponsible statements relative to the economic policies and

direction of your government. There has been a comment not too long ago

by Mr. McConnell, who is a very able reporter, one who was a Press

representative to this assembly, representing the Vancouver Province and now he's the editor of

that newspaper. He had this to say about the new Minister of Finance in

the province. He said that "it is now six weeks since he came to office

finance than he did in opposition. To put it charitably that wasn't

very much".

[ Page 47 ]

Now this is the attitude that the business community has in British

Columbia relative to your government because of the statements that you

have made, these statements of retrenchment that you have made in the

last two to three weeks. It's already been said today that millions of

dollars have been lost by investors and there are small investors as

well — people who invest in secure stocks such as B.C. Telephone. They

look at it as a means of earning more income and not becoming a ward of

the government in their older years.

There's been millions lost by these statements of take over. I want

to say this to that government that if they're going to take over the

B.C. Telephone, I do want to say this, that they're going to find it

far more difficult than they realize to take over a federally-charted

corporation in this province.

But, if they do have intentions of taking them over, take them over

now. Take the cloud away from this industry and from industry in this

province, so that people can expand their industries.

I want to say that the B.C. Telephone does have an expansion

programme, a project expansion programme, in which they project to

spend something in the neighbourhood of $136 million. They're going to

find it difficult indeed to raise this money and if they are successful

in raising these dollars they're going to be costly dollars.

All you're doing by these wild and irresponsible statements is

slowing up the creating of future jobs in the Province of British

Columbia. For this I say that you should hold your head in shame. What

does the Minister of Finance say regarding the take-over and the loss

that people have suffered on the stock market? "Oh, you win some, you

lose some, it's like playing the ponies. You can't win them all".

I want to tell him that's a

pretty irresponsible statement for the Minister of Finance and the

Premier of this province to be making. Because there are people in this

province that have their life savings in the B.C. Telephone, and other

secure corporations, hoping to increase their income in later years. I

think it's a shocking example of what we're looking forward to in the

Province of British Columbia under a socialist government.

It's quite obvious to me that the new Finance Minister does not

understand economics. It's quite obvious to me that there is a definite

need and a need now for a new Minister of Finance in the Province of

British Columbia. Certainly in the backbenches there must be someone

with the ability to serve in this important portfolio, there must be

someone I'm sure. I met some of those people on the backbench, not all

of them unfortunately, and I will as time goes on. But, I'm sure there

are some that are ready and willing to assume this role, and I'm sure

they would do a much better job than has been displayed by the present

Minister of Finance.

HON. W. L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): The Minister

of Labour's a great improvement, anyway. (Laughter).