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)

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 63 ]

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

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

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

gives me a great deal of pleasure to tell the House that today we

have some students from Prince of Wales High School — 35 of

them. With their teachers Mrs. Gross, Mrs. Campbell and Mr.

Frizell.

The motto of the Prince of Wales for the Members' attention is

Ich Dien, "I serve" and I hope the Members will give them a

warm welcome.

Introduction of bills

MR. N. R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to withdraw

bill number one standing on the order paper in my name because of a misprint

in its title.

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

order paper today.

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

work.

MR. SPEAKER: I understand the Hon. Member wants leave to

remove item one on the order paper for today. Shall leave be

granted?

Leave granted.

AN ACT TO REPEAL THE PROBATE FEES ACT

Mr. Morrison moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

14 intituled

An Act to Repeal the Probate Fees Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 14 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after

today.

AN ACT TO REPEAL THE SUCCESSION DUTY ACT

Mr. Morrison moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

15 intituled

An Act to Repeal the Succession Duty Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 15 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after

today.

AN ACT TO REPEAL THE GIFT TAX ACT

Mr. Morrison moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

16 intituled

An Act to Repeal the Gift Tax Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 16 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after

today.

[ Page 64 ]

BRITISH COLUMBIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ACT

Mr. Phillips moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

17 intituled British Columbia Development Corporation Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 17 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after

today.

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

have in government.

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

THE OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION ACT

Mr. McClelland moves introduction and first reading of Bill

No. 18 intituled The Open Space Preservation Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 18 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after

today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MUNICIPALITIES AID ACT

Mr. A. V. Fraser moves introduction and first reading of Bill

19 intituled

An Act to Amend the Municipalities Aid Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 19 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after

today.

AN ACT RESPECTING MOBILE HOMES

Mr. Smith moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 20

intituled

An Act Respecting Mobile Homes.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 20 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after

today.

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE GUARANTEE BY THE PROVINCE OF

LOANS

FOR FEEDING CATTLE FOR MARKET

Mr. Schroeder moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

21 intituled

An Act to Provide for the Guarantee by the Province

of Loans for Feeding Cattle for Market.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 21 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after

today.

ON THE JOB TRAINING ACT

Mrs. Jordan moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

22 intituled On the Job Training Act.

[ Page 65 ]

Motion approved.

Bill No. 22 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after

today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY OF BRITISH

COLUMBIA ACT

Mrs. Jordan moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

23 intituled

An Act to Amend the Municipal Finance Authority of

British Columbia Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 23 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after

today.

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

Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the day.

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

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, traditionally upon

first speaking at the opening of a new session one indulges in a few frivolities

but I wish to pass this by today in light of the fact that I am speaking to

the amendment to the motion. But I would take this opportunity to welcome all

the young people and the visitors in the gallery and I'm sure they will appreciate

the seriousness and the consequences of this debate. Because it should now be

obvious to all the people of British Columbia that financially we are in Barrett's

Wonderland.

Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, your claim to financial

expertise is preposterous when you base it on your experience as

a social worker and suggest that this gives you a financial

genius.

In just 35 days you have demonstrated to the people of this

province that you understand very little about what makes the

economy of this great province run. Your admission in the Speech

from the Throne that this wealthy province has the funds

available for your programmes, and your pride in standing on the

basis of the economic movement now makes it very clear that your

basic approach to driving the economy of this province is in

finding yourself plugged in to no greater a financial expert than

Santa Claus.

The record of failure on your part and your government's part

to act decisively in listing out the job creating potential of

this province is there and here for all in this province to

see.

The investor, the small businessman, is given the cold comfort

of a shrug — a half a billion dollar shrug. Unfortunately since

you, through you, Mr. Speaker, took office and your government

took office, nearly half a billion dollars has gone down the

drain. The trend of the Vancouver Stock Exchange alone, and while

it is true that there is a slight dip in the stock markets across

North America the facts are there and the drop in the Vancouver

exchange is 9 per cent more than anywhere else. For a total of

$300 million. And $165 million of that total represents the

reactions of the marketplace to you, Mr. Premier, and to your

government. To your foolish statements of Thursday last. And

Friday last was Friday 13th. And it was indeed a dark day for the

little people as well as the large people in this province.

[ Page 66 ]

And when we hear the moans and groans from the other side of

the House saying, "Oh," it proves and reinforces our

contention that the Socialists have no concept that the

investment of the economy is made up of little investments as

well as large investments. These investors little and small who

have taken this drop and lost this money had willingly placed

their life savings in this province — which was recognized

around the world as having had financial management second to

none.

The double A credit rating which again gets the sports jacket

shrug, and which this province has enjoyed with the credit rating

agencies of the world was not an accident Mr. Speaker, and the

$300 million shrug of the Premier was not an accident either. It

represents his deep rooted sentiment that all private profit is

evil and that investments in the private sector are to be

discouraged in this province.

And it may come as a shock to you Mr. Premier, through you,

Mr. Speaker that it takes over $200 billion a day to drive the

British Columbia economy forward — private capital, and private

investment. And at the very worse time of the year, namely now

when the investment decisions for 1973 are being made by little

companies and big companies, by little investors, and by big

investors, you deliberately and irresponsibly, bring forth your

ideological nonsense. You have already admitted a personal, and

I'm sorry to say an emotional, hang-up with respect to nuclear

power. Further decisions of such consequence are not and should

not be made on an emotional hang up of a boy Premier.

(Laughter)

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Personal allusion should not be

made in the House, and I would ask the Hon. Member not to do

that.

MRS. JORDAN: No. He said he was 41 last night, and he told us

how young he was — but I'll bow to your decision.

But what is important is not whether he's a boy Premier, a man

Premier, a child Premier, or an irresponsible Premier. The

important thing is that this type of decision is not good enough

and he should hang his head and blush with shame, that he can so

lightly shrug off the loss of this major investment. And the

confidence of the investment sector in the Province of British

Columbia. Mr. Premier, your decision with respect to the British

Columbia Telephone Company is even more shocking and it could

almost be called devious and immoral. Are you deliberately

attempting to drive the value of these share…

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

seated.

In this House we don't call people deceitful, nor devious. And

we don't use the expressions that the Hon. Member has used. And

if she continues to ignore the Chair on this I will ask her to

withdraw.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but what I want to know is, is

the Premier deliberately trying to drive the value of these

shares down so that he can make the take-over price cheaper? Are

you saying to these Members, are you saying to the people of

British Columbia "don't worry boys and girls, Barrett can get the

B.C. Telephone Company for you wholesale."? How financially

immature and irresponsible can you be? Where is your regard as a

Premier, through you Mr. Speaker, and for your Government for the

private rights, for property rights of individuals, the other

rights of individuals? The sanctity of contracts? Your loose

attitude on contracts between government and the investor is

already destructive and destroying a free society.

Your ill-timed, your heavy-handed jack-booted approach to the

individual rights of people, small investor in this province, to

the sanctity of contracts is alarming and it's amazing that it

isn't more alarming to the Ministers that sit around you.

You cannot help but spread a cloud of concern over the

investment sector of this province. The sector in which jobs are

created, the markets through which jobs are created. And again

you are displaying a welfare

[ Page 67 ]

ideological approach which can do nothing more than to destroy

the confidence in this province.

You're acting as if capital and labour are enemies, and they

are not enemies of one another — the philosophy that Marxian

socialists have espoused for so long a time. They are natural

partners and by working together here, in British Columbia they

have brought about and produced one of the highest standards of

living in the world. Certainly there have been abuses, in capital

and in labour too. But when they work together as a team the

benefits to our society are very clear and have enjoyed by the

people in this province.

You would not only disturb the natural and the effective

relationship of these two areas, but would be willing to accept a

job loss that's involved in this disruption — to the people,

jobs to people in all parts of this province and you would do

this in the name of an emotional hang-up. Even with the B.C.

Telephone Company, Mr. Speaker, the Premier of this province

should get in touch with his national leader who has been

bouncing around Canada rightly naming corporate welfare burns. But

even he was gracious enough to single out those corporations who

were responsible.

He had an award of merit, and what was one of the companies

that he awarded his award of merit to? The British Columbia Telephone

Company. David Lewis singled out the British Columbia Telephone

Company as an example of a good corporate citizen — paying, Mr.

Premier, its fair share of taxation. All of which you wish to

drive out and flush away. And the job creating potential of the

money that you require to take over that company will be

lost.

I suggest in speaking to this amendment with respect to

natural gas for Vancouver Island that you are equally incredible.

Surely, the citizens of this island who make up 1/5th of the

population of British Columbia deserve to be brought in to the

natural gas distribution of this province. If we can ship gas to

California surely the residents of this island have the rights to

the jobs that would be created by the bringing of natural gas to

this area.

The previous government had advised Dr. Shrum that it was

government policy, our policy, to bring natural gas to this

island, and to see the people benefit from this job-producing

input. And again, Mr. Premier, through you Mr. Speaker, you have

permitted your Ministers to issue confusing, wooly, and unfounded

statements, perhaps forgetting about natural gas over 1/5th of

the population of this province. And you have offered no

alternative.

The incredible part of this, and all these other statements,

is that they seem to be made with almost a deliberate sense of

malice. If you watch the Minister of Lands, Forests, Water

Resources, Conservation and almost near empire-builder on the

television it's shocking to the people of British Columbia to see

him gleefully announce policies which are going to lead to

unemployment in this province.

Your government seems not to understand that such actions

precipitate an immediate reaction in the business community. Ana

in the case of your government the people of this province, the

little people of this province, the little people of this

province, the small investors, the small businesses, as well as

the large businesses have had a reaction which is all bad.

If you don't believe just walk down the street, any street in

the ridings of some of your own Members and talk to some of the

every day people, talk to the small business people, the grocery

clerk, the small window screen manufacturers — those who have

all their money tied up in their land and the working man in this

province, the man who draws and hopes to draw a steady pay

cheque, the man or woman who wants to have an alternative in his

job and an opportunity to better himself in his job and receive

greater remunerations to enjoy more benefits in life.

Talk to him, Mr. Premier, and you'll find that there is a

stream, a river of uneasiness and concern in this province in

these people. Thirty-five days and you have a river of

uncertainty running in a province

[ Page 68 ]

that enjoyed the greatest economic confidence, the greatest

people confidence in the history of the free world. And your

Minister of Lands and Forests says now "the public will believe

what we said in the opposition, we will do what we said we would

do in the opposition."

But no responsible second look. None whatsoever. No careful

examinations by this cabinet, by this Premier, of these

policies. No examinations of future policies based on reality and

no communication with the business community — only to

the media.

Your party has always been great for manifestos, Mr. Premier.

You had the Regina Manifesto, the Premier himself, Mr. Speaker,

happily signed the Waffle Manifesto. Why doesn't the Premier come

clean now? Come clean now, Mr. Premier, and unveil the Barrett

Victoria Manifesto.

Get you secretary to fill out your appointment book.

Meet with some of these people — you're not too busy, there is

nothing in the legislation here that requires this

Legislature to meet that is going to benefit the general public

of this province. You have already said that your Ministers give

adequate explanation for their unimaginative legislation

that they have introduced. You laugh, you don't even know what

you're doing.

Important

pieces of legislation in the Speech from the Throne that we are

amending are the increase to pensioners which should be higher — which

should be $225 a month, the increase to the handicapped. You didn't

need this Legislature, you didn't need this spending of taxpayers'

money to do that, you could have done it by order in council. They

needn't wait until December for Christmas from Santa Claus, the Santa

Claus finance here for their cheques. They could have had them at the

end of this month, if you had acted, as there was the money and the

policy to help these people.

MR. SPEAKER: Madam Member, would you kindly in future address

the Chair, rather than some other person in the assembly?

MRS. JORDAN: Surely, Mr. Speaker, indeed. You have already

said that the Ministers will give good explanation of this

legislation that you have introduced, but you wouldn't

allow the House if it was an emergency legislation to go into it

immediately.

We will go along with all these pension increases, after all

it was our government that put them forward in the Kelowna

Charter. (Laughter). Mr. Premier, through you Mr. Speaker, yes it

does, because I am proud of the record of our government and it

was, and I will say it again. It was the Social Credit government

and in the Kelowna Charter, that the people were guaranteed a

minimum income, old age pensioner of $225 per month and we had

it figured out so that it could have been cost shared.

It just was the recycling of money through the provincial

government and the provincial taxpayer into the federal coffers.

I want to get on to the fact of Barrett's Victoria Charter and

that I think you should call the business people over here,

little ones as well, and bring them to your office and outline

for them here and now item by item, detail by detail, method by

method and tell them what you are doing and where you are going

and what you are going to do with this province.

Bring the Barrett-Victoria manifesto out into the open and

lay it on the table and let the people see it. You have pledged

an open government, through you, Mr. Speaker. Now act on it. I

would ask, Mr. Speaker, the Premier to stop using his office as a

shooting gallery, not for meeting with people but for press

conferences, media conferences where he takes pot shots at

various sectors of this economy. That's what a Premier's office

is for…

MR. SPEAKER: Will the Hon. Member please confine herself to

the amendments before the House and not the Premier's office?

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the Premier's office isn't

to be used for the creation of jobs in this province what is it

to be used for? Perhaps if you object to this you will speak on

behalf of the Premier.

[ Page 69 ]

The Premier's office, the power in this province, is to be

used for the creation of jobs for people and that is the purpose

of our amendment. Surely, there could be no question about the

orderliness of that. I would call upon the Premier in this

amendment to accept our suggestion and to bring out into the open

the one job creation programme that he has used, and that is a job

creation programme within his own political sphere of extremely

high salaries in relation to what the average person and the

working people in this province are earning — $16,000 a year to

$40,000 a year to an unknown quantity. I would call in this work

projects programme, to bring that programme before this Legislature,

and to indicate in the Speech from the Throne that you would, so

that these appointments could be debated, so that these

appointments could have been put out for public bid.

It's just possible there are some people in this province who

didn't work on the N.D.P. campaign. Who didn't write the programme

for the Province of Manitoba, who would be very competent to

carry out and help you carry out some of the programmes which I'm

sure you most sincerely desire to do.

When you examine what has happened in the last 35 days, you

can say no more than the fact that this government, this cabinet,

and this Premier are acting like a bunch of kids in the cookie

jar. You are operating a "cookie jar" government. You say it,

you lifted the lid, and there was money and you went gleefully

diving in without any thoughts or consequences of your action,

and Mr. Premier, that is not good enough for fostering investment

in this Province, and for strengthening the investment

climate.

It's going to come home, Mr. Premier, to all levels of

government and while you sit here laughing about the cookies, and

the largesse that you are passing out in political realms you

won't listen to the fact that other levels of government are

going to suffer and I refer to the municipal level.

Your actions will affect them in a very direct way. The

municipal financing authority in this province has enabled these

governments to borrow money at a very low rate of interest, an

even lower rate of interest than other provinces were allowed to

do, and these municipalities could borrow money to create jobs,

to put in sewer systems, to build buildings, to better the life

in their communities and create jobs for everyone — jobs that were

open for public bid, not just for a favoured few, and they had

this rating because of the sound management of their own

organization and the sound management of this province, and they

are going to feel the pinch of this irresponsible cookie jar

action.

I would suggest that this government is undoing the very

foundation on which the record of financing in this province was

built and in the municipalities, in the school boards and in

other areas.

Mr. Premier start please, through you Mr. Speaker, being a

prudent manager. Get your hands out of the cookie jar. You said

you wanted to be a prudent leader, do so. Don't be intoxicated

with the crumbs from these cookies, get on with the job and start

coordinating your present financial commitments with revue

expectations.

It may be hilarious to the cabinet, but you know you can only

spend what you've got in spite of your airy fairy theories, and

your expenditures as they are outlined now are not in relation to

the expected revenues of this province and do not take into light

inflation, nor do they take into light the bureaucracy that you

are building up which will increase your expected

expenditures.

Yes, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, I admit that this will take

a year or two to show up, but it will show up unless you change

your policy. If you change your policies, Mr. Premier, through

you Mr. Speaker, this part of the House will support you. If you

pull on the reins to maintain stability in the economic sector of

province, if you pull on the reins to curb wasteful government

spending that has been started under your administration, we will

support you and we will help you. But we don't think you are

doing that, Mr. Premier.

[ Page 70 ]

We think, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier doesn't understand the

fiscal policy of government itself and he doesn't understand that

it is a prime factor in producing the kind of economy that will

produce jobs for people in all parts of this province, and so,

Mr. Speaker, we ask through you the new members of this

government to take a look at your cabinet, to honour your

commitment to the people of this province, to be concerned about

the expansion of jobs and secondary industry in this province

through the actions of your government, to see that the money

that this government is spending now is not being doled out to a

few, but will benefit the many, to see that agriculture gets its

opportunity to provide the jobs that it can and to ensure its

longevity and its

part in our economy by having a fair return for

their province.

Join with us on this side of the House and vote for this

amendment. See that British Columbia does move ahead. See that

you can carry out your responsibilities to those people who

elected you by supporting this amendment.

If you go home, and you haven't been home for a few days, and

you talk to the people through you, Mr. Speaker, in your

constituency you will find that they have but a simple question.

"I need a job, where am I going to get it, what are you doing

about creating a job for me, for my family, and for my children?"

Let the Premier know, through you Mr. Speaker, that you want him

to fill his appointment book, that you want him to call the

business people to Victoria to discuss this very, very serious

situation, that you want him as leader of your party, as leader

of your philosophy, as leader who helped get you elected, if you

want him to get his hands out of the cookie jar and get on with

the business of helping the majority of people in this

province.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that when that bell rings every

member of this House has a responsibility to let their conscience

be their guide. We, as I said before Mr. Speaker, as Members of

this House, as opposition who are deeply concerned about the

consequences of the Premier's action both inside this House and

outside this House will be pleased to support. We have taken the

initiative and we have introduced legislation which is compatible

with this amendment which shows him how he can create jobs.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon, Member, please, I would remind the Hon. lady

that she herself put a bill on the order paper that makes it

impossible for her to debate the subject at this time. Would she

kindly refrain from discussing municipal aid as she has been

doing.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, at this moment I was talking about jobs for

people, but I will bow to your decision and I will close by again suggesting

without any reference to the bills that this side of the House is prepared to

offer every help it can. This side of the House is prepared to give you our

offer of confidence if you will merit it in your action and that until you do

this ask all members of this House to support this amendment and try and bring

this government to some sense of rational thinking and some effort to undo the

most serious errors that it has already made.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney-General.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General & Minister of Industrial Development,

Trade, & Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I'm rising to debate the amendment.

It's the first occasion I've had in this session to address you, Mr. Speaker.

You've changed, Mr. Speaker, but life is change and I want to deal in speaking

to this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I want to deal first with irrelevant matters

and then touch upon relevant matters.

Touching lightly upon some of the relevant matters, under the

first heading I want to say that the Member for Vancouver Centre

and I, I'm hopeful will try to arrange a game of tennis with a

couple of South Africans. I'm trying that but it's still just

love-all.

[ Page 71 ]

I want to say that in speaking to the amendment that we've had

very good speeches although I've had the impression that Liberal

Leader, mark one, and for that matter Liberal Leader, mark two,

didn't really know what they thought until they heard what they

said.

On the other hand, I like to speak of the House leader — not

the Member for South Okanagan, but, his two House leaders, one on

each side. But, I like the speech for the Member from Similkameen

(Mr. Richter) better than I like the speech on the amendment of

the Hon. Member from Columbia, (Mr. Chabot) because the first

member's speech was short, that's why I liked it. But I want to

say the Member for Columbia talked about employment and secondary

industry, and a development corporation. He is a great admirer

of this government. He expects us to do in four weeks what they

failed to do in 20 years. Now we're good Mr. Member, but we're

not that good. The member for North Okanagan asks how they can

assist the government, Mr. Speaker, and I say that they might

assist us best by quitting while they're behind. After all, Mr.

Speaker, we did just get here. Here today, gone tomorrow.

(Laughter). Would you believe 20 years?

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

HON. MR. MACDONALD: And it is a special session or an

emergency session, I don't care what you call it, Mr. Speaker,

and its purpose has to do with employment and it has to do with

putting purchasing dollars in the pockets of our senior citizens

to help the economy, and begin the correction of the monumental

injustice to some in our society who have deserved the best and

have received the worst.

Now the Opposition says, "let's have aid to secondary

industry," after fighting the idea tooth and nail for 20

years. Talk about political tergiversity. Mr. Speaker. But I say

amen to the idea. But, I sound this note, call it caution if you

will — that I want our economic programme to be sound,

responsible, effective, and community based.

Anyone can incorporate a corporation and a legislature can

vote money, but, if we say, Mr. Speaker, that it should be slow

and easy it is because we want it to be worthwhile. I've already

talked in that four-week period, that short four-week period,

with leaders in the industrial field and people from the

universities and people from labour, one of them I have no

hesitation in saying is the most honourable Eric Kierans, a most

distinguished Canadian.

You know what he told me, Mr. Speaker? He said that you should

do your research and planning first and not rush into the

mistakes other provinces and countries have made. I don't want to

be like the fellow who's speeding and was stopped by a policeman

and he offered the excuse that he was hurrying home to get there

before he had an accident.

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

HON. MR. MACDONALD:

So here are some of the things we must know as we discuss employment

and secondary industry. I have no hesitation in mentioning some of the

things that should be explored because, in spite of what's been said

opposite, this is an open government. We do want discussion,

constructive discussion, in this legislature and we want it in the

whole community of British Columbia and some of the things that have to

be considered in terms of the employment referred to in this amendment

— the aims of an industrial corporation or assistance programmeme. The

extent to which it should be a profit maker, the extent to which it

should be a subsidized in any way or both.

Now, we have in the federal field a vast alphabet soup of

assistance programmes. It's simply amazing the number of letters

that they have. It seems to be something in excess of anything

contemplated in the Roosevelt New Deal, but, they have rushed

into some of their corporations without any certainty as to the

objectives they sought to attain.

Not surprisingly, they have piled up in part — and I say in part only — a

record of waste, regional discrimination and failure. There have

[ Page

72 ]

been too many grants of get-away money. We want to know the kind of help to

B.C. industry that will be available from land assembly, to loans, to equity

participation.

We want to know the kinds of industry that should be helped.

Small exiting British Columbia industries can be helped, for

example, to expand and compete in the wide world. Or, new

industries can be sparked.

The first is probably the most promising but both have to be

considered We have to consider the appraisal procedure to handle

applications for assistance, we have to examine the success and

failure records of other provinces of Canada. And, finally I

think we must have participation and consultation with leaders in

business, labour, and the universities along with government —

not only in setting up our industrial assistance programme but also

in its operation.

Perhaps, this may point, Mr. Speaker, to an economic advisory

council outside of government, with the leaders in the economic

segments sharing with us the exciting and rewarding task of

charting British Columbia into the proud future she ought to

have. As I say, I suggest these things, Mr. Speaker, not

because they are government policy but because we welcome the

exchange of positive ideas and suggestions from among our fellow

citizens. We are an open government. Pride of authorship does not

concern me, Mr. Speaker. I'm not worried about looseing my face.

And, where the ideas come from are not the important thing. But

let me say this; we do want constructive ideas, we do not want,

and this province does not need, the strident voices of

panic-mongers, too many of which we heard, Mr. Speaker, yesterday

afternoon in this Legislature. On October 12, 1972, the Premier

of British Columbia revealed a secret that had been well know for

years. Yes, we believe the B.C. Tel should be owned by the

people of British Columbia and we intend to achieve that proud

social objective. And at once the panic-mongers pressed the

button. Newspapers reported that paper profits had been wiped

out. As a matter of fact, the newspapers wiped out those paper

profits, by their sensational and extravagant reporting of a

non-event.

But, even the papers, let alone the Premier of British

Columbia, didn't drag down the Dow Jones industrial index. Or

drag down the Toronto Stock Exchange index, all of which have

gone down. But I don't thing the Hon. Members friends, Mr.

Speaker, should blame the newspapers for that, and I don't think

they should blame the Premier of British Columbia. There has been

a stock decline which had had nothing to do with what has

happened in this province, and I am quite confident that when the

strident voices of the panic-mongers have died down there will be

the normal expanding business activity in British Columbia that

we expect and we expect right through the coming year. Once again

our policy, Mr. Speaker, is easy does it. No rush, no rush, no

panic.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We should and will, of course, enlist the

aid and services of those thousands of B.C. Tel employees who

have so much to offer this province.

We will, of course, see that security holders receive fair

market value for their investments. And I stress fair, and not of

value artificially depressed by sensational stories or by

government. We will, of course, sit down with Ottawa in due

course, and resolve constitutional problems.

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

HON. MR. MACDONALD: After all, a national objective of Canada

is an extension of Canadian ownership and equity in our

economy.

But why should a B.C. utility be paying tribute to a vast

multinational corporation fat beyond our borders?

The Liberal leader says that he has been reading the Wall

Street Journal and he says that he was shocked to find that the

only B.C. news in the Wall Street Journal was that we planned to

own our own telephone

[ Page 73 ]

systems. How they must have felt on Wall Street. The peasants

were getting restless again. First it was the Dominican Republic, now it

was British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mexico?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: But they know, Mr. Speaker, that we are a

businesslike government and that we mean business. I wish that

the Liberal leader would read the B.C. papers and have faith in

this province. Don't knock it. We can march forward into a glad,

confident future, and that's just what we intend to do.

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

Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I'm glad that someone from the government benches saw

fit to rise in this debate. The silence from that side of the House was becoming deafening.

I must say, however, that the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald), or maybe he was speaking as the Minister of

Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce presented me today

with the same problems that I had with him when he sat on this

side of the House. Having described his remarks as partly

relevant and partly irrelevant I wasn't able to tell which was

which. However, he always gives a humorous speech and we indebted

to him for that.

He made some interesting remarks, saying that we want to have

constructive discussions about the problems which are confronting

the economy of this province. And we want to have open government

so those things can be discussed. He's always been in favour of

open government. He was going to present a sunshine bill at one

time but the fog seems to have descended on Victoria, at least

these last couple of days.

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

province!

MR. WILLIAMS: But this, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what this

amendment is all about. It is expressing regret that this throne

speech has not given us the opportunity of having a constructive

discussion on the matters to which the Hon. Minister has just

referred.

That's the problem. It's no good to say "we have only been

here four weeks." Although I must say that having listened to the Hon. the lady member from North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) I

chuckled when thought what a difference 35 days could make in

one's attitudes towards the economy of this province and the

action that government should take.

But that's not the problem. If we're going to have

constructive discussion of this very important subject, it should

be discussed in this Legislature or in a committee of this

Legislature. I too would like to be constructive and make a

suggestion.

I'm surprised that the Hon. Minister has not already realized

the mistake that was made and corrected it. We should have had,

Mr. Speaker, indications in the Speech from the Throne that this

government would ask this assembly to establish special committee

for the purpose of carrying on the very kind of constructive

discussion that the Hon. minister raised today.

If you're going to have open government, Mr. Speaker, you're

not to carry on these discussions in the closed circle of the

cabinet and those consultants that they may see fit to

employ.

It is the members of this assembly sitting in committees who

should be meeting with representatives of industry, of labour, of

our universities, the economists, the people who can really come

before us and tell us what the next years must hold for British

Columbia if we are to realize the success that is properly ours.

That's open government. That's why we're saying "where is it in

the throne speech?" This is what this amendment is all about.

[ Page

74 ]

As I listened to the Hon. Minister I thought that perhaps he

would be voting in favour of the amendment. I agree with him that

we don't need to have any more emotional strident voices.

Although I noticed that his voice towards the end became just a

little bit strident. I'll keep mine down.

Our complaint and the complaint that is made on this side of

the House is that the Premier, the first Minister of this

government has himself been strident, careless and incautious in

his remarks. Remarks which were acceptable when he sat on this

side of the House, even as the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal

Opposition. But remarks which emanating from the Premier's office

have a far different effect.

I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that far from being a blunder

on the part of the Premier, I am concerned that those remarks were

not a blunder but made on purpose. And the effect that it has had on our

economy is obvious. He is now suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that anyone can

come in and do business with British Columbia. "Be partners with us,"

he says. Reminds me of that popular song "Mac the Knife." You know, about them

shiny white teeth what flash, you know. "Come and be partners with us."

The sharks bite. This is not the way, Mr. Speaker, in which to encourage

new industries to come to this province to produce the job that we

require. Not that kind of talk will produce the partnerships that the

government hopes will result from discussions. Indeed, if we're to

believe what the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) has said this

afternoon, the Premier is speaking previous to the decision on policy.

Because we haven't got any policy yet. We're going to have these

constructive discussions and yet the Premier seems to have some very

specific ideas as to the kind of industrial development that he is prepared

to accept.

One aspect of the amendment before us has received scant

attention. And that is the suggestion that the government should

be giving its attention to the encouragement of industries for

the processing of agricultural products in this province. This is

a matter which was of very great concern to me and should be of

very great concern to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich) although he hasn't seen fit to make himself available in

this chamber much during the past two days.

But, Mr. Speaker, processing of agricultural products in this

province is an essential to the continuation, to the very

survival, of agriculture as a viable segment of our economy in

the Province of British Columbia.

Not only in this province, but elsewhere there is no question

that the agricultural community is the least served by government programmes. It is the most depressed area of our economy. The

return at the producer's level bear no relationship whatsoever to

the cost that the consumer pays. Food processing is only one of

the ways in which this can be improved. But it should be part of

a study. And it is the lack of this kind of consideration in the

Speech from the Throne that gives me the gravest concern as to

the serious approach that this government is prepared to take to

the problems of agriculture and the allied industries.

I don't wish to pursue this matter at length but, it's quite

clear the government doesn't know where it's going. I accept

that. In 35 days there's a lot of things to be looked at. First

of all, the Ministers have to decide which side of the desk is

the front and which is the back. Well, you could have found that

in 35 days. At least with an executive assistant to help you.

But, when you come into this House at the first session of the

30th Parliament of this province you should at least be ready to

allow the Members of this assembly to join with the government in

open government and discuss the most significant job that faces

government today — production of jobs in our economy, the

employment of our citizens and the avoidance of the tragedy that

unemployment can bring.

I wish I didn't have to support this amendment. I wish it had

been in the throne speech but it wasn't and you're to be

criticized.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. lady Member, the first Member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain.

[ Page 75 ]

MS. P.F. YOUNG (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, Hon.

Members, I see here a repetition of what we have seen in the past

20 years. And particularly in the past six years in this

province. Old thinking, old ideas. We are in a new decade,

totally new world, and have to look at the bigger expanding

labour force due to an increase in the world population. We have

to look at such things as the diminishing job market due to

automation. Particularly in primary extractive industries — our

principal industries in this province. We're reminded that in the

mining industry what it takes to extract 100 times now, it takes

the same labour force as it did 20 years ago. There has been no

increase in the labour force but 100 times increase in

productivity in that industry.

are also seeing the dimensions of our natural resources and we find

they are not infinite as we had been led to believe. We're seeing the

boundaries and we're beginning to learn that we cannot expand beyond

those boundaries, that we must utilize them carefully, judiciously and

with a great degree of skill. Therefore, we must re-examine our total

picture of what is a job. Must it always produce a profit for somebody

else? Must a job be a profit-making proposition? Cannot a job have

something other than a dollars and cents value to it? Does not a job

have social or spiritual profit also? Is there not value in a person

teaching a retarded child to dress itself? How can you put a dollars

and cents value on something like that? You cannot.

We are told that the solution to all our problems is to

introduce and to stimulate industry. This is true, particularly

secondary, tertiary and related industries. But it would remind

you that you do not necessarily do it with capital investment

because capital investment frequently is spent on labour-saving

devices. The magic word I understand is "productivity." The more

productivity per man hour or per machine hour the better it is.

However, some people tend to forget that the producer is also the

consumer. If the consumer hasn't anything to spend to consume

with, he's in no position to produce — and vice versa.

A study was done two years ago by two national American

magazines that showed the rate of cases on welfare always rose

during a recession. They did not go down after the recession went

away and the recovery began. They remained the same. In

succeeding recessions the welfare rolls rose again. And so it

went on and on. The welfare rolls never decrease after a

recession. For the simple reason that automation in industry, the

expanding labour force, is actually taking away jobs from those

marginal workers, the semi-skilled, the unskilled and those

particularly between the ages of 45 and 65. Once out of a job and

onto welfare rolls they stay there. They don't get off, and all

the Manpower job-training, O.F.Y., L.I.P., ad-hoc

off-the-top-of-the-head programmes in the world are not going to

help them.

That is why I believe we need a total new look at the entire

job creation situation in the province — a thorough

well-researched study of this problem. And it cannot be done in

35 days. And anybody who thinks it can, Mr. Speaker, I really

worry about their degree of intelligence, Sir, with all due

respect.

We were asked as backbenchers if we could support the

government in their proposition of studying this programme in the

future. I know I speak for all of the backbenchers. We support

the government 100 per cent. Because they will be the first to

know when we don't.

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

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

D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In speaking to the amendment I first would like to just offer my

congratulations to you on your appointment since I have not had the

opportunity to do that before during the short time that this House has been

in session.

I do want to speak on some specific matters which I feel, had

they been part of the throne speech or had there been some

indication from the

[ Page 76 ]

Premier and from the government that these measures would have

been in effect or considered, would have had a great deal to do

with the employment of more people in this province. And while

the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and the lady

speaker who just took her place made quite a bit about the fact

that you've only had 35 days in office and how could you be

expected as government to bring about all these plans in a short

period of 35 days, I would like to say to the government, Mr.

Speaker, through you that you have had 20 years on this side of

the House as Opposition and many of you have been members…

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

answers.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: All those years.

MR. SMITH: …you had all the answers all those years you

were sitting in opposition to all the problems of the Province of

British Columbia. What's the matter? Have you forgotten what all

the answers are?

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

MR. SMITH: Where are you now with these answers? It's not a

valid point to suggest that you've only had 35 days. This

government has men on that side of the House on the government

benches now and in cabinet portfolios who are senior in years of

service in this legislative assembly. You've got the experience

to draw on. Why don't you use it to benefit the people who this

winter will soon be without jobs?

You've got the best financial position at your disposal of any

government taking over anywhere in the free world. There was

never a time that any province or any other part of the world

that I know of where there was a change of government. There was

never a time when a government came in such fortunate

circumstances with the dollars there to help you and assist you

in promoting programmes which would employ people.

I'd like to refer now specifically to a programme which is

certainly not new. But it is a programme that would have helped our

agricultural industry and believe me, Mr. Speaker, the

agricultural industry in the areas that I represent is in very

serious trouble this year, very serious trouble this year, and

we'll be very fortunate if a number of the farmers who presently

farm in the Peace River country will still be able to say that

they are farmers a year from now unless this government does

something to help them.

They are growers of wheat, grain and alfalfa. They are people

who have been employed in the basic economy of agriculture for 30

years. They're presently asking the Minister of Finance, Mr.

Speaker, through you to the Minister of Finance, for assistance

from the Disaster Fund.

The money is there, the money is there, Mr. Premier, and Mr.

Minister of Finance, and what has your answer been to the people

of the Peace River country? To their plea for help. The answer

has been to turn the wire that I sent you over to your Minister

of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) who says the matter is being

looked into.

How long does the problem have to be looked into — for

another six months, six days, six weeks, 35 days? How long before

some of these people find themselves in such a position that they

can't make their financial commitments and we'll have more

unemployed people on our hands, not less? But there has been

prepared by this government a study on the manufacturing of

alfalfa cubes within the province. It was prepared by the

Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce under the previous government.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 77 ]

MRS. JORDAN: You saw what happened to him.

MR. SMITH: I agree, the previous M.L.A. from South Peace River

was interested in it mainly because he wanted to put his own

personal farm into agricultural production.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh, oh.

MR. SMITH: Now, that is one thing…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

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

ask him.

Certainly

he shouldn't be criticized for looking into a programme which would

benefit him personally as well as other people who are in the farming

industry.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SMITH: I can see nothing wrong with the fact that a farmer

is looking for something to return to him a fair return from his

farm land. We can get into alfalfa production in three areas of

British Columbia in a large-scale way — in the Creston area, in

the Okanagan area, and in the Peace River Country. But before

that can be done the people who would be mostly concerned, the

farmers themselves, have to find development capital. And even

one plant would run to a cost factor between $500,000 and

$750,000 to process effectively alfalfa cubes. Which incidentally

could be then transported to the market by containerized traffic

on the British Columbia Railway.

But they don't have the capital available to them and the

farmers would like to think that the government of this province

would give them some assistance — not in the terms of a handout,

simply in the terms of low-interest loans over a long period,

long-term low-interest loans to help them collectively build the

type of plants that would be necessary to process alfalfa. As a

matter of fact we could carry it one step further in the same

fields that produce alfalfa and adjoining them we can get the

other coarse grains so they can make a complete supplement which

would be highly acceptable not only to our own market in British

Columbia but to the export market as well.

We have a meat packing plant in the Peace River country. As a

matter of fact we have two of them up there, they're not large

plants but they do need capital. Mr. Speaker, they cannot operate

today even with the assistance of I.D.B. if they have to look at

interest rates of 10 and 12 per cent.

The Federal I.D.B. is prepared to lend them money at 10 and 12

per cent, but any accountant will tell you that it's not possible

for them to be successful in the packing plant industry, which

has a very, very close margin of profit, if they have to pay 10

to 12 per cent interest for their money.

The packing plant that I know particularly well in my part of

the country serves the large and increasing — we hope at least

it will continue to increase — increasing oil industry in that

party of British Columbia. The poor man who built this new plant

invested every cent of his life savings and he still had to

borrow about $150,000 from I.D.B. as well. But there is no way

that he'll ever make that plant a success when he's had to pay

between 10 and 12 per cent interest on the loan from the I.D.B.

They should have told him, if they were experts in the field of

finance, that he could not make it with interest rates of that

range on such a narrow margin.

AN. HON. MEMBER: That's usury.

[ Page 78 ]

MR. SMITH: It's usury. He's invested all his money and he'll

probably go down the drain and take with him between 15 and 20

employees that depend upon his packing plant for their job. It's

unfortunate because if he was able to borrow money at a

reasonable interest rate he would be able to expand his operation

and continue with a profitable business, not only for himself but

for every farmer in that part of the country who is engaged

presently in raising cattle for the market.

And while we're

talking about cattle, why should we have to export all our

feeders to Alberta and then buy them back as finished beef

products? Certainly we should be able to supply money to the

people that are in that industry to purchase cattle from the

range land in the fall and feed them out on the understanding

that the money would be short term loan. These are the things,

Mr. Speaker, that we regret the throne speech did not deal with

because there was ample opportunity to include within the throne

speech provisions which would, when they were implemented,

provide people with employment in this province.

I'd like to

refer also to another matter which would have provided employment

for people not in the Peace River part of British Columbia, but

in the lower area of the province. And I'm sorry that the

Honourable the Minister without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Calder) whose

affair it seems to be now to investigate the welfare of the

Indian people of this province is not in the House. But a short

time ago before the election a group of people wanted to start a

cannery at Port Simpson. Native people, people who had an idea

and working together co-operatively wanted to start a business

which they would run and they would control. But they needed

finance, Mr. Speaker, they needed financial support.

The

government at that time promised them financial support and I'd

to read from and quote from a copy of the Native Voice ;

The first

citizens' fund of B.C. will finance a $2 million Indian owned and

operated co-operative fish cannery at Port Simpson to the tune of

$1 million, with the other funds coming in a form of loans from

the $50 million incentive fund the current government has

promised to establish. The announcement of the Minister of

Municipal Affairs this month has aroused a spat of charges by

Opposition candidates of political motivation in the decisions,

but the general reaction has been favourable. M.L.A. Frank Calder

has welcomed the move as a means of helping develop the northern

area and provide jobs otherwise unavailable to the Indians in the

area. N.D.P. Leader, Dave Barrett said he would finance the

entire project…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SMITH: Where is the Minister with Portfolio now? And what

is he saying about the proposed cannery in Port Simpson? That was

going to employ native people in an area that they know something

about. In jobs that would take them off of welfare rolls. Where

is the $1 million that was promised them from the first citizens'

fund? The money is in the first citizens fund. What happened?

the present government so callous that they won't even talk to

these people? Because I'd like to quote you from another letter,

Mr. Speaker, and this one is dated October 16, 1972. It's from a

Mr. S. M. Thomas who's very well known in the group that are

proposing this cannery. He's the consultant and adviser and has

been very closely related to the work that's going on by this

group to try and get this cannery going. The letter is addressed

to Mr. Dan Campbell.

For your further information, all

applications submitted by non-status and other organizations to

first citizens fund have been actioned. It looks like we are

being discriminated against. I believe this is because we

completely supported the Social Credit Government who have

supported us for the last four years. It is a shame to think that

the Indian people who tried to create employment and an industry

that will take them off the welfare rolls and also for the first

time in history give them the opportunity to compete with their

fellow

[ Page 79 ]

Canadians. The future of the Pacific North Coast Native Co-operative looks bleak, and without these funds that were approved by

yourself and other ministers of the first citizen fund this office and

this project will come to an end.

What is the government doing for these people besides hiding

behind a smoke screen that there has been no study done properly

before you get involved in it? What are you doing for them?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Studying them.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Delay!

MR. SMITH: Are you doing the same thing, Mr. Speaker, through

you to the Premier, with the farmers in the Peace River country

who desperately need some assistance from the disaster fund?

Delay it, delay it, delay it! Until such a time it's of no

benefit to them. Or are you hopefully thinking that they'll

forget about it?

We had a chance of having a copper smelter in British Columbia

and I hope we still have a chance for that.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

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

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

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

would hope.

AN HON. MEMBER: 1964 was your first session.

MR. SMITH: ….and I would hope that we will still have a

chance of a copper smelter in the Province of British

Columbia.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Lots of luck!

MR. SMITH: But I'll tell you this, Mr. Speaker, that if we

don't want it in British Columbia, the Hon. Arthur Laing,

retiring Minister of Northern Development, says they would be

quite happy to have it in the Yukon.

We have no guarantee in this province or anywhere else that

business will automatically flock to British Columbia to invest

dollars. Unless we give them a fair break, a political climate

which doesn't scare them half to death, the chances of making a

fair return on their investments over a long period of time, and

an atmosphere within the province that will create certainty in

their minds that the investment will not be wiped out by

misleading or unthoughtful statements — statements by Members

who now occupy the seats of government and should know better

than to make those kind of statements without first thinking of

the consequences they will have on the whole economic process

within the Province of British Columbia.

We want to create an atmosphere here where people will be

prepared to buy back British Columbia from whoever may presently

hold the shares. We want to create an atmosphere where they will

come in and build new industry. But we can't do it by shaking the

confidence of every investor, not only in British Columbia but

throughout all of Canada.

There's been a disruption in the business climate because of

statements made and while I'm not going to prolong on that point

of view I do say this — that the government has a responsibility

as government to every citizen in this province to protect their

interests, to provide wherever

[ Page 80 ]

possible a genuine atmosphere of goodwill towards business

communities, so that people will be interested in investing money

in British Columbia, they will be interested in providing new

jobs.

It doesn't take large industries with billions of dollars of

capitalization to create new jobs. Mainly, Mr. Speaker, what it

takes quite often is a man with ability, with ideas, with a small

amount of capital available at reliable interest rates, not usury

rates — putting the idea into effect in the many areas of

British Columbia where development will take place. Putting the

idea into effect and by so doing employing anywhere from five to

12 people — but multiplied hundreds of times over in all parts

of British Columbia it would certainly do a great deal to

remove the problems of unemployment in this province.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that other members of the

government will state their point of view and tell us why they

will not accept the amendment as proposed. They've been silenced

apparently by their leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: His heavy hand.

MR. SMITH: They haven't said anything about their views on the

matter. We would hope that after I take my place that other members on

the government side of the House will get up and speak in support of

this amendment. Because certainly it is the type of thing that we should be

discussing at this time, if we are concerned about what is happening in the

field of unemployment and run away inflation. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to

speak briefly on the amendment, which this party will support. I

mentioned and I will try to avoid repetition of what I said

yesterday since much of the content of that speech dealt with the

government's failure to fulfil what it considered pledges to

solve the two main problems of unemployment and inflation. And I

also mentioned yesterday that I had to really take a good look

around here to realize what a reversal of political fortunes had

occurred.

Today I am even more aware of this tremendous change because

here, Mr. Speaker, I almost, as I say, have to shake my head to

know if I'm really hearing what I'm hearing. Because first of all

the former government was asked — certainly the three years that

I've been in the House — time and time and time again to give

assistance for creation of secondary industry in the province to

create jobs. Time and time and time again, I heard this from the

Opposition of that day which is now the government.

Today that former government now sitting in the Opposition is

asking the very thing of the socialist party which it itself

refused to do over many years. So that this is a little puzzling — the sudden change of heart. And when we consider that the

government of today has announced certain plans which will

involve the spending of large sums of money we hear crowing from

the Socred Party that the dollars of course are available.

Obviously the question in anyone's mind is that if the dollars

are so readily available and if secondary industry is such a good

idea why didn't the Socred government do it themselves?

I know, Mr. Speaker, this isn't being as positive and as

constructive as I would like to be in this House, but

nevertheless I think certain points should be put on the record

and made absolutely clear. The apparent change of heart of the

Socred Party in this House is quite unbelievable to me. That they

now clearly admit that there was this large surplus of funds and

that although they did nothing about secondary industry while

they were in power, now it seems to be very politically suitable

and advisable and the very best thing for them to shout about and

dance up and down criticising the new government because it is

not immediately doing something they refused to do while they

were in power.

And I, Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect would have to

take issue with the Member from North Peace River (Mr. Smith) not

only because

[ Page 81 ]

he made a completely unjustified insult in this House — an

insult I might say, Mr. Speaker, against a man who is not here to

answer the charge. I want it put very plainly on this record for

those who have not been here over the past three years. One of my

friends across the way is wondering why I'm looking so serious

today when I was so humorous yesterday but the answer is very

simple, Mr. Speaker.

The fact of the matter is that in discussing the amendment,

the speaker from North Peace River referred to plans to process

alfalfa, a plan I may say which this party strongly supports and

included as part of its election platform as policy on

agriculture — strongly supported government assistance in the

processing of alfalfa to provide jobs and to provide income for

this province since there was already a market in Japan.

All I want to make clear, Mr. Speaker, and put on the record,

is that not only is that the policy of the Conservative Party but

it was over a period of three years a specific project which the

former Member for South Peace River attempted to persuade the

government of the day to follow.

So, once again, while I am speaking in favour of the

amendment, I feel it's very important that this House and the

public in the province should know the sudden switch around, a

complete and total 180 degree turn which the Social Credit Party

have done on these two particular points I have mentioned.

However, to be a little constructive, we agree that 35 days is

a short time. I think the lady Member, the First Member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain (Ms. Young) gave an excellent outline

of what the problem basically is in unemployment. That it is not

just a simple matter to create jobs, that there's a whole change

in our environment. Whoever reads "Future Shock" well knows so

many changes in our total society are occurring so rapidly that

what was suitable today certainly may be anything but suitable

tomorrow and may be even obsolete. So I accept that.

What does distress me about the fact that the government has

not put something positive in the throne speech is the fact that

while some further study be what they wish, many, many studies

have been done. There is a tremendous amount of information

available and once again — to return to the theme of yesterday — if this emergency session is really necessary I still feel

that the greatest emergency in the province right now is

unemployment. And for us to come here and enter into debate — or

at least it seems to have been the government's intention, Mr.

Speaker, that we should not debate anything other than the

subject matter of the bills. I stand to be corrected by the

Premier, Mr. Speaker, if this was not his intention. But it has

certainly appeared to us on this side of the House that we were

called into emergency session purely to deal with specific

measures selected by the government.

I feel, and it's obvious that every Member in the Opposition

who has spoken feels the same way, that it is not the prerogative

of government to tell us what we shall or shall not debate.

Because in our opinion unemployment and inflation are undoubtedly

the two major problems and some of these measures that are to be

proposed really will not help the people they are intended to

help to any measurable degree until we have dealt with the two

major problems of providing jobs and trying to cope with

inflation.

And so, while I enjoyed very much the speech from the first

Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain I think she outlined the

problem without offering any solution. And this is our feeling on

this side of the House — that it's all very well to spell out the

problem but to come to this House with no specific measures in

the throne speech to deal with them we feel is unrealistic and

means that the government is falling short in the responsibility

it has assumed.

In a more specific manner I would like to know for example,

Mr. Speaker, in the problem of creating jobs where the Toyota car

situation rests at the present time. The Premier when he was

Leader of the Opposition took the initiative of approaching the

car industry in Japan and we needn't go into the details — the

House and the province well knows this. And I would have thought

that since they seemed to offer a tremendous possibility in terms

of jobs and sine he keenly favoured it personally, surely the

House

[ Page 82 ]

should be made aware of where that situation stands at the

present time.

I think also that the theme has been put abroad in this debate

by the, government side of the House that there seems to be

something wrong in profit, and why should we create jobs just so

that somebody can make a profit. At that

part in her speech the

lady Member also quite correctly said that there are many

functions of government and society as a whole where certainly

profit is not the primary motive. But I think that anyone who

considers they can treat or look upon the profit factor in our

existence as being something of not much significance is really

ignoring a very basic part of human nature. Worse than that,

ignoring a very basic element in a thriving economy or in any

economy which must succeed.

I feel that if there is any intention by the government to

suggest that the profit motive is unimportant or can be

overlooked then indeed no wonder the business sector of our

society is shaking in its shoes and wondering just what specific

plans the government has in mind.

But of course, my learned friend reminds me on my right that

this is one of the elements of socialism and this is one of the

reasons that they're on that side of the House and I'm on this

side of the House. I, feel, Mr. Speaker, that in these general

ways although I accept that 35 days cannot give the government

the chance to provide all the answers, surely it should have come

forward with the answers to the most pressing needs in our

society and for that reason we will be voting in favour of the

amendment.

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

MR. C.A.C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members,

I'm disturbed and amazed to hear spokesmen for the Liberal

Party speak in the House on the alleged serious state of the B.C.

economy with regard to unemployment and retail sales. These

Opposition Members should know full well that under the

constitution of Canada, the main power to remedy such a situation

lies with the Federal Government.

During that time we have had a Liberal government in office in

Ottawa, they have done everything in their power, in my opinion,

to prevent the kind of atmosphere being created in this country

or in this province that will create jobs and provide incentives

for businessmen and shareholders who wish to invest in B.C. and

in Canada in job-producing industries.

Oh, they've done everything they can to make it easy for those

poor shareholders who live in New York or the Bahamas or

Lichtenstein or some other place outside the country to invest

large amounts of capital removing our raw materials from B.C. and

from Canada so they can enrich some other part of the world. But

I assure you, Mr. Speaker, they have not followed policies that

allow us to enrich ourselves by the reasonable use of out own raw

materials in Canada or in British Columbia.

And the attitude of the former government of British Columbia

was to say: "Me too. Whatever they do back there in terms of

hurting the economy of Canada we can do better — we can do

better," they said — and they did, and they did. British

Columbia has one of the most rich, most precious stores of

non-renewable resources in the world. Not just in Canada or in

North America but in the world. It is criminal, Mr. Speaker, that

we have an unemployment rate of over 7 per cent. I don't know

whether that's seasonally adjusted, I don't know. But when you're

unemployed it doesn't really matter whether you're seasonally

adjusted or not. It's criminal that we have this in such a rich

province as British Columbia.

I want to say something about the copper smelter situation in

the Province of British Columbia. For 40 years this party and its

predecessors the C.C.F., have been trying to get a copper smelter

in British Columbia. we find now that maybe we're going to get

one. The. Government of British Columbia said through its

Minister of Mines, the Hon. Member for Kootenay (Hon. Mr.

Nimsick) that we would be glad to have a copper smelter or

possibly two, but there are certain conditions — environmental

pollution conditions — that must be followed. And I might

[ Page 83 ]

say that some of his statements were even more bland than

those policies that the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Davis,

federally has been paying lip service to for years.

And I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and Hon. Members, what was the

reaction of the federal Liberal establishment? Though Senator

Laing they said; "If it isn't done the way we think it should be

done maybe it will go to the Yukon Territory." That is the

attitude of the government in Ottawa and that was the attitude of

the former Government of British Columbia — "We don't care what

the people want. We don't care what we pay lip service to. We're

going to do it the way the developer thinks is most profitable to

him." I don't think that is good enough, Mr. Speaker.

I'm a citizen of this province. I was born here. I believe in

this province. I believe in the people of this province. Whether

they're small businessmen or workers or investors or

self-employed professionals or pensioners. I believe in their

ability to develop this province in ways that are beneficial to

all British Columbians.

One of the spokesmen from the official Opposition stated

earlier that we were doing-in the small businessmen in this

province. Well, look around you, Mr. Speaker. Look at the

government benches. There are a number of us who are in small

business and we know all about the former government.

That election campaign that I went through was not very long

ago. And how many people — many came into my office, stopped me

on the street and said: "Look, we are getting it in the ear by

policies that are allowed by the government. We are getting it in

the ear we're being hurt. We're being hurt by the corporate

giants that control wholesale prices that are squeezing those of

us with retail outlets." They said: "You know, we don't want any

favours, we don't want any favours from you. We just want a fair

deal. We want the ability to stand or fall on our own

merchandising ability." And for a party that once prided itself

on being based on Main Street I think you should go back to your

ridings and go back to those people on Main Street because I know

how a great many of them voted and that's why there's 38 Members

on this side of the House today.

Finally, I wish to state that I think it's very important that

this government allow access to the decision-making process of

all persons.

I don't want to see anyone discriminated against. Not the

leaders of the corporate industries of B.C. or wherever they are.

I do know that I want to see a tax structure and an incentive

structure laid down and I'm not addressing myself to the

question, Mr. Speaker, of whether the corporate sector pays too

much or too little in the way of taxes. But, I do know that the

more responsible a corporate citizen is in this country today,

the more money they pay, and the more labour-intensive their

enterprises are the more taxes they pay, and the more

capital-intensive the less they pay. I think that we should work

very hard to put an end to that.

Finally, I want to talk about what, it has occurred to me, is

a decided lack of economic expertise across the floor.

You know, two prominent socialist economists in Europe, Mr.

Murdoll and Mr. Shiller have stated many, many times, that any

intemperate, ill-considered, ill-conceived, he's the entry of the

government into the marketplace in a capitalist economy, is going

to set that economy back two steps for every one they might go

forward.

This sentiment has been echoed by Mr. Freemon and Mr.

Galbraith, in the United States and I don't propose to be an

economic expert, but that, Mr. Speaker, precisely this

intemperate entry into the marketplace, is precisely what the

Members on the other side of the House are suggesting we do right

now.

I was very happy to see the Minister for Industrial

Development and Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) rise and

speak on this item, and say: "Yes, we are going to act and we're

going to act with all deliberate speed. But we're not going to

make the economy worse, as perhaps some people on the other side

would like us to do, by jumping in before all the information is

at hand."

One last thing. These completely unsubstantiated statements

about how the economy is about to go down to rack and ruin, if it

hasn't done so already in the Province of British Columbia — the

reasons given by at least

[ Page 84 ]

two successive Ministers of Finance, federally, Mr. Turner,

and Mr. Benson, for the failure of the monetary and fiscal policy has been

that we didn't have adequate information and what we had was always three

months late.

Is that so? Well, maybe it is. That means the information

we're perhaps working on, if we have any information about the economy

of B.C., relates to last July and not October. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

amendment?

Motion negatived on the following division.

YEAS – 16

Curtis

McClelland

Williams, L.A.

Jordan

Gardom

Phillips

Anderson, D.A.

Chabot

Schroeder

Fraser

McGeer

Bennett

Morrison

Wallace

Smith

Richter

NAYS – 37

Liden

D'Arcy

Barrett

Skelly

Lewis

Sanford

Macdonald

Hartley

Webster

Radford

Hall

Calder

Kelly

Brown

Gorst

King

Steves

Nicholson

Lockstead

Cocke

Barnes

Nunweiler

Young

Williams, R.A.

Anderson, G.H.

Stupich

Lea

Lorimer

Rolston

Nimsick

Lauk

Levi

Dent

Strachan

Gabelmann

Cummings

Dailly

MR. SPEAKER: Now on the main motion before the House, on the

throne address, the Hon. Second Member for Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. Well, Mr. Speaker, they survived this afternoon. You

know, Mr. Speaker, I can certainly say one thing, I thought the

former government was bad (Laughter,). But, I'll tell you this,

Mr. Speaker, this doesn't really look like the old court of Cecil

the 1st. There are no "Dans" or "Cams" or "Bills" dancing under

the sugar plums now, but I do see some very great smiles coming

from the sides over there, particularly those of the cabinet

Ministers and I think if you'll note very carefully, Mr. Speaker,

that the size of their smiles are in direct proportion to the

size of their pocket books at the present time. I notice one of

them even, Mr. Speaker, has taken to dark glasses. Old

cash-register eyes over there. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I would normally call you to order,

but not in this case. (Laughter).

MR. GARDOM: I suppose every party has its Farouk of new

Members here and I would like to express my warmest sentiments to

all of them. Even though they may find times in here, indeed,

frustrating, I'm certainly sure of one thing and that is they'll

consider this to be one of the most stimulating and fulfilling

experiences that they will ever encounter. However, I would offer

a couple of words of advice, if I may be so bold.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: Sometimes you wonder, eh? But, I think that

although we'll find within this House people with very dissimilar

ideology and very different philosophies, I think you'll find one

thing very, very consistent. That every individual in this House

is attempting to do his level best for the people of British

Columbia. Secondly, do whatever you can to retain your sense of

humour. Because sometimes it may be the last thing that you'll

have to rest upon.

Now, of course, Mr. Speaker, it's a joy for me

to see you there with

[ Page 85 ]

your new hat, and I wish to express to you my most sincere

congratulations. I know that over the past few months, Mr.

Speaker, you've spent a considerable amount of time with the

works of Coke — otherwise pronounced Coke — and Erskine May and I

think with your very unique knowledge of the processes of

departure the House is certainly going to be enriched with your

experience.

But, that's the gain side, Mr. Speaker, and on the loss side

we also have to think of another thing. Who in the former House

could ever forget the keen eye, and the quick turns and the sharp

circles of that great, gray bird of the sea, the former Member

for Burnaby-Edmonds. He used to soar through the chamber, Mr.

Speaker, soar through the chamber ready to feast on any speech.

(Laughter).

But I indeed congratulate you, Sir, in all seriousness. I wish

you great success with your deliberations and you have a

marvelous opportunity to bring about a democratization of the

processes within these four walls with the bill before the House,

and which I'm not going to discuss, and unfortunately the

processes which were not permitted under the former regime.

To our new Member and the new leader of our group, we are very

mighty proud of him and I envisage for him a very fine future in

the House. I would also, Mr. Speaker, to say hello to the tandem

twosome and I indeed wish them well. I am very glad, Mr. Speaker,

if I may say, that one of them's a doctor because already they

are starting to show signs of altitude sickness from their many

trips to the gallery. (Laughter).

Now being in such close proximity in this session to the

"social debits" is an experience very difficult to put into

words, very difficult indeed Mr. Speaker. But I cannot pass

without a couple of comments and I wish the Hon. Member was in

his seat, and I'm referring to the Hon. gladiator from South

Okanagan. He has broken pretty well every record that there was

to break in this province and he dedicated the best years of his

life to public service, and I would say that he very fearlessly

and unstintingly performed and for that he's a man and a man

indeed.

I have no intention, Mr. Speaker, of advocating in British

Columbia a senate, although the idea might have come to the mind

of the Premier looking around at the size of his majority. But if

we ever did happen to have one here, surely to goodness the Hon.

Member for South Okanagan would be the first choice and I would

rather hope, Mr. Speaker, that Ottawa does not turn its back on

him even though he sometimes did on them.

But the group that he represents and has represented — and

I've avoided using the name "party" with every respect to them

because I think that would be considered a misnomer because a

party it isn't, it wasn't, and it never ever will be, it's not an

ideology, it's not a philosophy but it's just been, Mr. Speaker,

a consistent method of operation — really brought about by one

degree of homogeneity and that's by its leader.

Today, Mr. Speaker as an organization it has gone "put" and as

a political organization it has also gone "phut", and I intend,

Mr. Speaker, and I think the people of British Columbia intend to

see that it will continue to remain "phut".

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

(Laughter).

Because, Mr. Speaker, I cannot see that either personalities,

or dollars for that matter, will ever put this "Humpty Dumpty"

back onto the rails. I would suggest the very best thing that the

chancellor of the exchequer, Einar the Gatherer, could do with

the $750,000 he still has in the till is give it to the Salvation

Army. Because, you know, I would rather see it do some good in

the province than be flacked out all over British Columbia in the

next provincial election, trying to pump a little bit of straw

into Mr. Galardi, or Mr. Peterson, or Flat-earth John, or whoever

they may pick. I thank them though, Mr. Speaker, very much for

the good that they did and indeed hope that the bad can be

rectified. My present sentiments for them, Mr. Speaker, is that

it's just a question of picking up their tent and silently

drifting away into the night.

Now, I have not yet, Mr. Speaker, personally congratulated the

Premier and I wish to do that. I think that the Premier of this

province ran a very good campaign. He only made one serious boob,

and he reiterated what the former premier said and just turned

the circle on it, but fortunately

[ Page 86 ]

that was rather early in the campaign and it didn't come home

to haunt him too very badly. I would like to say a couple of

words to the hordes. "Hi hordes!" (Laughter).

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

MR. GARDOM: H-O-R-D-E-S. But, Mr. Speaker, we've been slightly

deceived and I'm using the word very advisedly, because they are

not at the gate, they are right smack in the temple, and they are

already, Mr. Speaker, starting to sack the economy, and they are

sending business confidence in this province right up in

smoke.

Now, I would like to give a word of advice, if I may be so

impudent as to do so, and that is don't start scaring people to

death. You know I liked the cuddly image of the Premier, I really

did. Jovial, warm-hearted, family-minded, the minority defender.

But in the second day of this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, he became

"dangerous dave". We have been Jekylled and Hyde-ed. We have been

Jekylled and Hyde-ed, Mr. Speaker, and as the Hon. Member from

West Vancouver–Howe Sound said earlier today, the fog of

uncertainty and to a degree the blanket of fear has settled in

British Columbia. Now there is place for a capricious statement — there is place for fun, but there is no place for capricious

statement about the economy from the one individual whose solemn

and sole responsibility is to lead the economy and I think we

have here something that was not a capricious statement, but

something well-designed.

You know there is nothing to fear, but fear. But fear can

become a reality very, very quickly. B.C. Telephone, we have

heard a lot about it. One time he said it's a low priority. I

think its awfully low, awfully low, and I agreed with him then,

it was the lowest of low priorities. But how low is low? This is

what I would like to know. How long should its shareholders,

people who are from every walk of life, how long should they have

to sit and learn of their fate? When is the fiscal firing squad?

What form is the execution going to take, and in what forum

will it be announced? For the public and British Columbia

Telephone employees and British Columbia Telephone shareholders

have the right to know and they don't have the duty or

responsibility to keep their television sets on 24 hours a day,

like the mediation commissioners had to do to determine

government policy.

That is not the correct way for government to govern and even

worse I think, Mr. Speaker, than the manifest evidence of no

direction — what indeed has happened to the Premier's sense of

priority? You know we had a peculiar sense of priority in the

last session, when the former Attorney General, instead of waging

a first-class war against crime, became preoccupied with the

geometrics of topless dancing, and "Dangerous Dave" I'm afraid

you might be dong the same kind of a thing. I'm sorry, Mr.

Speaker — the Hon. the Premier.

Because we cannot have the Premier of the province

gandy-dancing around with B.C. Telephone. It is a monopoly, it is

completely subject to public direction. It is completely subject

to public control. But, I would say, for some overhead wires, it

is a clean electric and non-polluting operation. It hires

thousands of people. It pays taxes, it works not without the law,

but within the framework of the law and it is a good corporate

citizen in this province.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Premier gets steamed up about it.

He gets steamed up about B.C. Telephone when we have the worst

per-capita drug and crime rate in Canada.

He gets steamed up about the B.C. Telephone when our major

city without the provincial government becoming a full partner in

transit is on a suicide course today to urban chaos. Yet he gets

steamed up about the B.C. Telephone. He has inherited from the

former government a policy of cut it, dig it, catch it and ship

it out, instead of making the label of B.C. "Made in B.C.", and

there's something for the Hon. the Premier to direct his

attention to over B.C. Telephone. Those I say, Mr. Speaker,

through you to the Hon. Premier should be his priorities, and

kill this heroin killer — start a first-class war against it. A

$160 million stinking business in the Province of British

Columbia and you get concerned about

[ Page 87 ]

B.C. Telephone. Bad priority, Mr. Premier. Put the dollars

into fighting that now, and into transit and I would say into

encouraging and doing every reasonable, practical thing you can

to have as much B.C.-owned and B.C.-controlled secondary industry

which we have been woefully lacking, woefully lacking under the

former administration.

I can remember some of the better speeches of the Hon. Premier

when he was in Opposition about that particular point. He should

be concentrating, Mr. Speaker, not on B.C. Telephone but

concentrating on the priority of doing something to cure the muck

of pollution and the back-up in our hospitals and the log jams of

traffic, and the continuing plight of our aged and our disabled.

I'm delighted to see the two bills which you have on the order

paper and congratulations for those, and for bettering our

processes of education, by shoring up our recreation needs and

also for creating a healthy labour management climate and full

services — full services, not studies — to our Indian

community.

But don't go ahead and change your priorities from something

along these lines that I've been talking about rather than

getting steamed-up about B.C. Telephone and starting the scare

war with industry and B.C. Telephone and starting the scare war

with industry and B.C. Telephone in particular.

Now, I am a little concerned about this pancake Waffle

business. In fact, I'm quite concerned about it. When I read a little about

it, Mr. Speaker, it certainly seems to be pretty sour dough kind of

stuff for Canada. Here's one quotation: "…a socialist

society must be one in which there is democratic control of all institutions which

have a major effect in men's lives".

Then they continue on and they talk about instruments for

bringing the Canadian economy under Canadian ownership and

control but they go further than that. They say this — "They

include extensive public control over investments". Extensive

public control over investment. This is one of the things that is

being signed. "And nationalization of the commanding heights of

the economy such as the key resource industries, finance and

credit, and industries strategic planning our economy".

Now what are you going to take over in B.C. when you sign this

and you subscribe to this extensive public control over

investment, and nationalization of the commanding heights of the

economy such as the key resource industries — remember the life

blood of B.C. comes from forestry, it comes from mining, it comes

from fishing and agriculture. And I suppose there's no reason why

we couldn't include tourism as a resource industry in line with

these other things. It certainly is when it comes to dollars and

cents.

Are you going to go all the way, boys? This is what I want to

know. This is what the public want to know. This is the one main

thing that the throne speech lacks. A statement of philosophy.

And this was the one main thing that you sat in Opposition and

bitterly complained about for 20 years. The lack of a statement

of philosophy — but you've done the same thing.

Do you subscribe to this, Mr. Minister? Do you subscribe to

the full Waffle situation? Yes or no? Yes or no? Just nod your

head because you're giving the Province of B.C. today the heebee

jeebies. You are. People are starting to become scared. Of course

they're becoming scared — because if a fellow is in mining or if

a person is in forestry or if a person is in agriculture or in

fishing, and they read this "extensive public control over

investments and nationalization of the commanding heights of the

economy". What are we going to be left with here? Nothing but one

big, single, gelatinous mass of government.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: I think the very best thing the government —

indeed, I look pale and so do the people in this province look

pale. But you enjoy this. You like the cat-and-mouse game, Mr.

Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker. But the public aren't finding

this as much fun as you are. I tell you one thing — if you

follow through with all of this Waffle stuff no one is going to

need dark glasses because there's not going to be any light.

[ Page 88 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: I say this, Mr. Speaker. I say this to the

government just as the Hon. Member said that everyone would have

a tin cup. I say this to the government — bring in social

reform. Open up the books. Report the people's business and cut

some of the froth and prune some of the tinsel. Fine and dandy!

But please don't over-govern. And don't over-control. And don't

over-burden the people in B.C. with a stifling bureaucracy.

Because, you know, people have an inalienable right to shape

their own destiny. Every person in this room has taken this step

or you wouldn't be here. But for that, if you hadn't made that

decision yourself, you wouldn't be here. No one else made it for

you.

People do not want, Mr. Speaker, to be regulated and

controlled from cradle to grave. The good Lord gave people

initiative and desire and different work styles, and the spirit

of competition. We're not all out of one pod. We'd be as dull as

dishwater if we were. That spirit of competition is best

evidenced again by yourselves and in the electoral process in

which you have come out so handsomely. I say, nurture the

philosophy that I've been speaking about. Don't try to destroy

it. Because one shoe cannot fit everybody. Foster improvement.

Please do that and you can rest assured you'll have our support

for that.

But, if you're going to go ahead and say we're going to have

complete dull, domineering, inflexible stateism here, B.C.'s

going to be in for some very, very woeful years.

I would really ask the Hon. Premier, and perhaps the Ministers

here would convey it to him, to please stop playing around with

these economics. Because these socialistic theories of economics

which some of the new Members — who I must say all of whom spoke

exceptionally well — these theories of socialistic economics

they're not new. They're antiquated, and they're out of

step with any contemporary resource-based, industrially growing,

reform-oriented society which B.C. is.

You can control. Government's job, Mr. Speaker — to the Hon.

Member there — in my view is not to be in the business. Not to

be in the business. I think we are grossly over-governed not only

in this province but in this country. I think more things should

be done in the private sector. I would like to see government set

the guidelines — fine! Set the guidelines. Also be a beacon at

the front and to a lesser degree perhaps a cattle prod at the

rear. But don't get into the business, because you muck it up.

Every government that ever has, has mucked it up and it's

impossible to get rid of a government structure of any size once

it gets going. And people just inherit another burden. I

certainly don't want to find that we've got 2 million civil

servants in the Province of B.C. No way!

I say, Mr. Speaker, that if you continue to fiddle around with

the economics of the province as has been done in these couple of

mischievous days, irreparable harm and irreparable damage could

happen in B.C.

You know, you talk a lot about the robber barons and the

ripper-offers of yesteryear. I say, Mr. Speaker, if those people

exist here — maybe some do and maybe some don't — but they

could be subject to control. Policy control and tax control. But

to the lunch-bucket man and the hard hats and the soft

hats and the collar workers — whatever collar they may have or

none — and to the corner store proprietor without a healthy flow

of capital they — and not the ripper-offers, not the robber

barons, but those people — will be the ones to first feel the

pinch and they will suffer most the squeeze.

I'm most fearful, Mr. Speaker, of that in British Columbia

today. There's time to stop it because you can be a little

introspective. Change your priorities. Come in as a new

government with a little more excitement than you have done.

Excitement for the economic future of B.C. Because I am fearful

at the present time we're facing the substitution of one

democracy by another.

We had the monolithic autocracy of the former regime and that

has been replaced by the take-over bureaucracy of this one. I

think we may be moving

[ Page 89 ]

in this province from one malaise to another and it's very,

very difficult to call that progress, Mr. Speaker.

In closing, I'd like to say just a couple of words. And I do

hope this, Mr. Speaker, which is not in line with the remarks

that I have been giving so far this afternoon. I do hope that

these election lawsuits that have been carried on in this

province are settled or withdrawn or dismissed for want of

prosecution or are brought very quickly to trial. Because in my

view anything else is an abuse of the process of the courts.

Our courts should not be abused by political whims. If it's

principle that's involved, fine and dandy, then it's up to the

individuals to wage their principles. I would suggest this would be a very good

step for all of them. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and before I sit

down I would also like to compliment you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your

appointment.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, and

Honourable Members, it is of course appropriate for me to add my

congratulations to the new government of this province and to

express the hope that the Premier, his cabinet and the other

members of his party will bring good government to the people of

British Columbia during the term of this legislative

assembly.

May I also offer congratulations to the Speaker, and to the

Deputy Speaker, and wish you both well in your important roles in

this legislative assembly.

Along with others sitting here for the first time this week I

recognize that it is an honour to be a Member of this assembly

and to represent the people, in my case of a very interesting

constituency called Saanich and the Islands — if I may say a

part of British Columbia which contains virtually all types of

development, ranging from typically urban to rural and remote and

which most importantly includes our very beautiful and fragile

Gulf Islands.

Also with others I earnestly look forward to working in a

Legislature in which all British Columbians may truly take very

real pride. With the greatest of respect to those who have served

in this House previously and are here again, as well as to those

who are no longer sitting here, there have been many occasions in

the past two decades in particular when the level of debate, and

the style of activity in this House has been nothing more than a

very real source of acute embarrassment to the citizens of

British Columbia.

We look to this House, the citizens of British Columbia look

to this House, for leadership by example. Surely in this assembly

now there must be no room for arrogance, for bombast and for

discourtesy. Unfortunately in the first half hour this afternoon

we heard faint reminders of that discourteous behavior which

typified previous Legislatures.

It is with earnest concern, Mr. Speaker, that I wish to

support the remarks made here yesterday by my colleague the Hon.

Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) with reference to this shot-gun

policy approach being employed by the Premier and his principal

ministers thus far in their term of office. And incidentally, if

I may digress, while my colleague the Member for Oak Bay may be

very pleased to be sitting in the front ranks, I can ensure all

Hon. Members that I'm sitting behind him in order to keep a close

eye on him. I've been told that that is necessary.

There's no question that several irresponsible statements, Mr.

Speaker given in off-the-cuff and hastily-arranged interviews in

recent days, have caused very grave concern throughout this

province. People of British Columbia are saying, what is going

on? And this concern is being expressed not only by the so-called

big boys, the leaders of business and industry, but also — and

far more importantly, Mr. Speaker — by individual citizens, by

those still in the work force, and by those who have retired and

have small savings.

It may be true that as the Premier has stated that the

previous government repeatedly flipped-flopped through elections,

but surely it is much worse to get elected and then 35 days later

to flop so badly.

[ Page 90 ]

Mr. Speaker, this is an intermediate phase in the transmission

of government in British Columbia from a Social Credit to a

Conservative administration. And therefore all of us, the

government, the Members of the opposition, every Member of this

House must take the greatest possible care and move with very

thoughtful caution in order to avoid creating further uncertainty

and lack of confidence concerning both the short-term and

long-term future of this province.

It is tragically ironic in my view that many of those persons

who enthusiastically turned away from the previous government to

support socialism, for this interim period, are now the first to

be disillusioned and feel most keenly the results of

out-of-control inflation and the spectre of increased

unemployment.

There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that government's

proposal as outlined in the throne speech must inevitably

aggravate those two crucial, and distressing issues in our

society today. To this new member, the throne speech was a keen

disappointment. And I wonder with others, as other speakers have

said, if we are not here prematurely and before the government

has had truly a full opportunity to review the state of the

province and its policies and then to work on those key

statements which we were all lead to believe were so vital as to

bring us together today. Another few weeks might, Mr. Speaker,

have made a world of difference. The Speech from the Throne was

disappointingly brief and incomplete.

In conclusion may I express my concern for the future.

Concerns which have arisen from the contents of the throne speech

and the contents of interviews given and policy statements made

and answers given to questions by the Press. First, taxation. I

am concerned that there will be an even greater tax burden placed

on the people of this province, by this new government — a

burden which will stifle initiative and cause very real

difficulties among those persons that this government states it

wants to help.

Secondly, fiscal responsibility. I am concerned, Mr. Speaker,

that there is a lack of financial understanding on the part of

key members of this government and an inability to set priorities

and think them through carefully and with caution — again before

bring them to the House.

Thirdly, growth of government. We are concerned, Mr. Speaker,

that we shall be exposed in British Columbia to an unnecessary

expansion of the bureaucracy, preventing the ordinary citizen

from ready access to his elected representatives.

Fourthly, and finally, responsibility of government. We are

concerned that the Ministers of the Crown do not yet fully

appreciate the heavy responsibility of government which has been

placed upon them — the responsibility which at times places a

restricting obstacle on their desire to make pronouncements on

the future direction of the province. I congratulate the

government, but I urge the government in these critical weeks and

months to be careful, to be cautious.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Thank you very

much, Mr. Speaker. First of all I would like to join the others

who have congratulated you, Sir, and the Speaker of the House on

his election. It is an honourable, and an onerous task and I am

sure that the confidence that this House has placed in you will

be well born out in the years ahead.

A new experience for me, Sir, to have to turn left to look at

the Speaker. But it is the kind of experience that any worthwhile

socialist adopts readily and happily to.

I just didn't want to upset you too much. I think, Mr.

Speaker, I have to make a comment about the change that has taken

place in the House since last we sat here.

I can't remember any time in my few years in this House that

there was ever a group of backbenchers on the government side of

the House with such tremendous ability and who I know will make a

great contribution to the debates in this legislative

assembly.

[ Page 91 ]

I have no intention to rehash the election. I just want to say

how pleased and happy I was with the results.

I won't spend any time commenting on the confusion that's

obvious across the way. It's obvious that they're hurt, they're

bewildered, they're divided, they're lost and they still think

they're the government. (Laughter).

There were times when they were government they were

bewildered and lost, and they've carried that with them into

opposition.

You know, during the campaign they talked about their 20 years

of experience. And one would assume that they did have 20 years

of experience. But that was the tragedy of the last 20 years in

British Columbia. We did not have a government with 20 years

experience. We had a government with one year's experience

repeated 20 times.

That's why they were unable to let their minds soar into the

kind of visions that are required to meet the needs of this

province in the 1970's and 1980's and through on beyond that.

This was the measure of their failure. They were still thinking

of things as it were in 1952 instead of as they are in 1972.

I want to say, too, that every speech that has been made from

the Opposition side of the House is an even greater expression of

confidence in this government than the people themselves gave us

on August 30. Because every Member on that side of the House has

been asking us to do in 35 days what the previous administration

failed to do in 20 years.

I have listened to their comments and as I listened to their

comments I was reminded of what the designated House leader of

the official Opposition said after the election, when he was

asked what he was going to do. He said: "Oh, I'll sit in the

House. I'll take my wrecking bar and my sledge-hammer. That's all

we need in Opposition".

"That's all we need in opposition," he said. And that's what they

came in here with — a sledge-hammer and a wrecking bar. Here they are creeping

tippy-toe all over the House trying to spread doom and gloom all over the Province

of British Columbia.

I ask the former Premier to cast his mind back. I ask the

former Premier to cast his mind back to 1961 when there was an

attack on the financial stability of this province by certain

groups in this province. I ask him to remember what the Leader of

the Opposition at that time did. He said: "I refuse to

participate in any action, for very good reasons, that was going

to hurt this province".

I regret very much that this new official Opposition failed to

display that kind of responsibility in their new role. It's

obvious that there are people in the political life of this

province today who have set out on deliberate policy of

undermining the faith of the people in the future of British

Columbia. For political reasons. And they don't care what it

does…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm talking about all the speeches that you

people made over there.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You people talked about the stock market.

You people talk about the stock market. It's obvious that you

have absolutely no idea what the stock market is and how it

operates.

Every stock that's listed in that stock market is of money

that's already part of the input into the production of our

province. And once that input has taken place, from then on

whatever that stock is listed at in the market it no longer

affects the productability of the nation or the province.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

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

minute.

[ Page 92 ]

Interjections by Hon. Members.

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

betting game…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

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

game.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

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

Interjections by Hon. Members.

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

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: …and the stock market is betting. The

stock market is betting, Mr. Speaker, that this government is no

longer going to allow $138 million of copper to be exported in

the raw state without one penny coming to this province.

That's what the stock market's betting and the stock market's

right. The stock market's right. And the people out there, we

told them that during the election campaign. And they said it's

wrong for the raw resources of this province to export $138

million of copper ore out of the province, out of the country and

not one penny of royalty. We said right along we'd put a stop to

it and we're continuing with that policy. And the people out

there supported us in that policy.

I can understand the Liberals being a little upset. They've

seen the latest public opinion polls on the up-coming federal

election. It shows that the N.D.P. are ahead of the Liberals —

we're going to clobber the Tories and the Socreds are nowhere in

sight. You know…

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, but I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I

regret very much that the official Opposition forgot their

responsibility as British Columbians and embarked on this

irresponsible attitude towards the future of the province.

Now, I wanted to refer to some of the other things that were

said also. I wanted to refer to some of the other things that

were said, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich)…the Member from Peace River (Mr. Smith) referred

to the Minister of Agriculture. He said that the Minister hadn't

answered the telegram he had sent. Well., perhaps he didn't know

it — he didn't send the telegram to the Minister he sent it to

the Premier. And the Premier gave it to the Minister. And you

didn't refer to the letter the Minister sent you. Did you? Did

you? You didn't refer to the letter the Minister sent you. And

then we find that the Minister has been up there.

He talked with Mr. Framps, the chairman of the Peace River

Liard Regional District who telegraphed the minister direct, and

the Minister replied. Mr. Butler from the National Farmers Union

visited the Minister's office — have you been to the Minister's

office? No, of course not — regarding the Peace River problem and

followed up his visit with a telegram. In addition to the above,

he's engaged in several telephone conversations with people in

the area. So there you are. Then he goes on to talk about what

he's done and the people up there and they're all going to…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

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

the letter.

[ Page 93 ]

MR. SMITH: Didn't I?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Now what sort of playing games is that?

What sort of playing games is that? Come on! You know, Mr.

Speaker, we heard them talking about producing jobs. We heard

them talking about producing jobs, and why haven't we got in a

job producing thing in this session? What was their record?

According to an answer on the order paper in 1971, there are

25,000 employable persons on social assistance. Only 148 were

placed in on-the-job training and 450 completed vocational

training or retraining during 1971.

That was the sorry record of the previous administration. And

35 days after we were in power they say: "Why didn't you do

this?" "Why didn't you do that?" "Why don't you do something

else?" You know, Mr. Speaker, I said it the day after the

election when my phone began to ring. I said it's obvious that

the people have voted us in. They expect great things and I

promised them this — the impossible we'll do immediately and the

miraculous will take a little longer.

I heard them raise the question about natural gas to Vancouver

Island. How terrible it was that we're shipping natural gas to

California. And we haven't got to Vancouver Island. Who's been

the government for 20 years? Who produced a hodge-podge of

absolute nonsense that deliberately befouled the whole thing and

made it almost impossible to get a rational natural gas scheme to

Vancouver Island? The former administration.

Who talked about looking after little industry? Small

industry? Their own records show that in the last 10 years 1,000

small sawmills in the Province of British Columbia closed down.

One thousand little sawmills.

Well, we parceled the province up to the big boys. They

weren't even B.C. companies. They weren't even Canadian

companies. Consortiums from across the water. How many of these

new pulp operations put a share on the market when that new pulp

operation was going ahead? How many of them? They wouldn't let

the small shareholder in. They had it. They had the lands. They

had the timber. Little shareholders in British Columbia that had

faith in this province weren't given an opportunity to buy these

shares.

We've come through a period with a government, when they saw a

valley — dam it! When they saw a tree — cut it down! Some ore

in the ground — dig it out and get rid of it for nothing! Their

own figures told it. And you can examine the reports of the

Department of Trade and Industry. And you'll find that in 1969

they were telling that government that by 1980 only 8 per cent of

our population would be able to find employment in the primary

industries of this province.

They knew that. But they continued to adopt the same

exploitation of natural resource policy. They continued to

encourage capital-intensive industry and not labour-intensive

industry. They continually refused to set up a development

corporation that would help bring secondary and tertiary industry

to this province.

Now that they're defeated they say: "Why isn't it here? Why isn't it here?"

What a shoddy, shameful, two-bit, two-faced exhibition this has been for the

last two days. People playing games with the whole future of this province when

they had 20 years to do something about it. Twenty years! Then, Mr. Speaker,

they bequeathed us some problems. We can all agree on that. And incidentally,

I want to thank the Conservatives and the Liberals for their good wishes for

this government. I want to thank them for it. We want the good wishes and we

want the help of everyone, in this House.

We are determined to set this province in direction, 'til, in

20 years from now, people will realize what we were doing. We are

setting out the greater society with new and better standards,

new and better values. Something that has been required for a

long time.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let's put the blame for the present

situation in this province where it rightfully belongs. The slide

into the present situation didn't happen this last 35 days. I

give you the finance report in the Vancouver Sun , August 23.

August 23, when everyone expected the same old crew would be back

on this side of the House. What did the Sun say on that day? The

Vancouver Sun , August 23, 1972.

[ Page 94 ]

It says: "Revised 1972 Capital Expenditures for British Columbia are down from

last year and are below the 2 per cent increase reported for all of Canada —

a government study indicated".

In August, already, the figures were in, in July, and in June,

that the capital investment in British Columbia was on the skids,

because of the policies of this government. That government, at

that time. That's why a week before the election, there was the

evidence. It wasn't this government that was responsible for it,

it was the previous administration, and their complete lack of

foresight and of thought for the future.

I had reference to the fact that the legislation…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You talk about money. The first thing I did

when I got into office was to ask my controller to tell me how

much money was left in the Department of Highways for the current

year. What did I find? I found that it not only spent every

single penny the Legislature gave the department last spring, but

it committed the department to an additional $35 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: We never voted on that.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Does the public know?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's what you'd call reasonable

responsible government of the peoples affairs? Three months after

this House had sat, discussed and debated the highways of this

province for several days, allocated a certain amount of money,

because there was an election on you commit every single penny

and then go $35 million beyond that. That's what we found when we

got in to my department.

They talk about the amount of money for the senior citizens.

Last spring there was the Vancouver Province headline, "Socreds

killed $200 dollar vote". There was the headline — that's on

recor