[ Page 41 ]

CONTENTS

Morning sitting Point of order Mr. Speaker's statement in Votes and Proceedings not complete.

Mr. Bennett — 41

        Mr. Speaker — 41

Statement Report on Columbia River Development Cost Reallocation Study Committee.

Hon. R.A. Williams — 42

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Industrial Development Act (Bill 15).

Mr. Kelly. Introduction and first reading — 42

Affirmative Action Plan Act (Bill 16). Ms. Brown.

Introduction and first reading — 42

Tenants Collective Bargaining Rights Act (Bill 17).

Ms. Brown. Introduction and first reading — 42

An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act (Bill 18).

Ms. Sanford. Introduction and first reading — 42

Throne speech debate Mr. Bennett — 42

Mr. Bennett (amendment to motion in reply to Speech from the Throne) — 52

Mr. Chabot — 52

Hon. Mr. King — 60

Mr. Wallace — 63

Mr. Smith — 64

Appendix — 68

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1975

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the privileges of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you state them?

MR. BENNETT: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we had a statement from the Speaker, and it's purported to be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings of this House. Yet I notice a very serious omission of part of that statement. It's contained in the Blues but is not recorded in the Votes and Proceedings of this House.

Last year in this session we had a question of someone attempting to change one word in Hansard — one word as it would relate to the proceedings of this House — and there was a very, very serious discussion about the recording and accuracy of Hansard and the accuracy of the proceedings of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member is perhaps making an error, because a statement of reasons on the question of privilege made in the Votes and Proceedings is not intended to be a Hansard. So if you're working on the assumption that it is....

MR. BENNETT: No, I'm not, but it is my contention, Mr. Speaker, that the Votes and Proceedings are an extension of the full statement that would be made as recorded by Hansard and that Votes and Proceedings would be the complete statement and not an edited statement. A very significant part of the statement that was made in this House has been left off the Votes and Proceedings.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that the question of parliamentary procedure that was discussed was prepared by me and sent to the Clerk's office, and what I said in the House was read by me with additions that were made by me in comments or explanations beyond the written statement of the parliamentary procedure involved?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): He's not finished; let's hear what he's got to say.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I make no changes in the speeches, either as I prepare them, or that they may be delivered, but the statement that was prepared in this House, in total, is not the statement as recorded in Votes and Proceedings.

MR. SPEAKER: Nor does it have to be. In some cases a speaker may merely say that he referred to a question of procedure. He doesn't have to give the full statement or explanation he gave in the House. He can merely give a short record of it in Votes and Proceedings if he wishes, This is part of the rules of parliament. If you want further consideration of the issue, I'll be glad to expand on the subject.

MR. BENNETT: Well, yes, Mr. Speaker, I wish you would expand on the subject, because are we to believe then that you have the right of editorship over what is recorded in Votes and Proceedings?

MR. SPEAKER: I decide — or often the Clerks do — how much of a matter discussed in the House in the way of procedure shall be recorded, because on many occasions there are statements made in the House, interchanges take place, and that is all kept in Hansard quite accurately, so if you are complaining that Hansard is in any way being altered, you are not correct.

MR. BENNETT: I'm not complaining about Hansard.

MR. SPEAKER: And so far as Votes and Proceedings is concerned, it only is a statement of the particular parliamentary law and it does not thereby add to it all the comments or the editorial asides that you may make in the House.

I would appreciate your giving me your authorities for this statement. If you are complaining on a point of privilege, then I suggest that you give me the authorities by which you are being guided.

MR. BENNETT: I rose on a point of order to ask for clarification, and your clarification is that you are prepared to edit all statements, including your own, as they appear in the Votes and Proceedings.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm prepared to give a summary of the parliamentary law, as I understand it from the authorities, in Votes and Proceedings because it is there for consideration of the House; it is there for the consideration of those who come after us. Whether it is right or wrong, it is a statement of the parliamentary procedure and it is not intended to be a Hansard of the debates of the House. Those are contained in a separate document which is quite accurate, I hope.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order, please?

[ Page 42 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Speaker would assure the, House that the tapes of Hansard concerning this statement will be saved in case there is a final editing of the Hansard.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. They are always saved and they are then turned over to the aural records section of the archives. There are two sets of Hansard tapes: one is a permanent all-day tape that is kept as a backguard-safeguard, as it were, for anything that is said in this chamber. This is kept in the archives, and I hope will be preserved for a long time so that you can all some day write your memoirs.

AN HON. MEMBER: So do I.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): I ask leave of the House to make a statement.

Leave granted.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to report further with respect to the committee that was questioned by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams).

I should like to advise the House that the name of the committee referred to was the Columbia River Development Cost Reallocation Study Committee. The committee was appointed by Dr. H.L. Keenleyside on September 26, 1967. The members of the committee were, at the time of appointment: R.C. McMordie, chairman; T. Chambers; R.W. Gross; J.W. Milligan, secretary; and W.D. Kennedy — senior official of B.C. Hydro and Power Authority. Others who participated in the committee were Mr. L.E. Beard and Mr. E.G. Tallman.

The committee reported to Dr. H.L. Keenleyside, and we must assume that in turn the reports and recommendations went to the government of the day.

I ask leave to table with the House copies of some of the related memoranda, data and minutes in relation to that committee — all of them that were on file, when we became government, that we were aware of, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. King presented a report on the Special Employment Programmes Act, Careers '74, which was taken as read and received.

Hon. Mr. Lea presented the annual report for the Department of Highways for the year 1973-74, which was taken as read and received.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT

On a motion by Mr. Kelly, Bill 15, An Act to Amend the Industrial Development Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN ACT

On a motion by Ms. Brown, Bill 16, Affirmative Action Plan Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

TENANTS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
RIGHTS ACT

On a motion by Ms. Brown, Bill 17, Tenants Collective Bargaining Rights Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE LAND REGISTRY ACT

On a motion by Ms. Sanford, Bill 18, An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to rise once again after being so rudely interrupted by the mechanical system yesterday, which is a change.

Interjections.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate some of the points I made yesterday and point out to the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), who is finally with us in the House a few days late, that my speech wasn't pre-released, that I had a briefing session as I do with the press ahead of time, but it isn't prepared, as his were, in absentia many times — we feel that the report should come directly from the Legislature.

Interjections.

[ Page 43 ]

MR. BENNETT: Yesterday we were concerned, Mr. Speaker, with that part of the Speech from the Throne that offered no hope of leadership for the people of the province regarding the economic condition of this province as it relates to creating unemployment within British Columbia, and the fact that unemployment is now at its most unacceptable level ever in the history of this province.

When you have over 100,000 people unemployed, and over 100,000 people on the welfare rolls, including those areas that have been diverted to Mincome payments, it's a very serious question that in British Columbia those that produce real results from their labour are becoming a declining few and those who are unable to find work and who must live off the public treasury are becoming more and more. The balance is getting out of all reason and it's unacceptable to us on this side of the House, as it should be to all British Columbians who want the opportunity of work in this province, the opportunity to participate in and create the growth in this province that will result in more taxation for government to provide services to people.

It's very easy for a government to spend the money; it's more difficult to take the responsibility of managing an economy and creating the balance between growth and an economy, both for employment and as a producer of taxes. That is the difficult part of government. That is the difficult part. It's easy to be a spender. It's difficult to be a producer and a creator and a saver.

It's of small satisfaction to the 100,000 unemployed in our province that this government and some of its Ministers laugh off the problem and make light of their plight in unemployment.

You know, they had a man-on-the-street interview in the paper and these people were asked. The first Member said: "What unemployment? I'm eating better than ever." The second one said: "I've packed my bag. Under the NDP government I've never had a better job and I have the opportunity to travel." The third one says: "Since the election of the NDP I get to play sporting events in far off lands."

They don't suffer from unemployment, Mr. Speaker. Unemployment means nothing to them. They've solved their own unemployment and the unemployment for their friends....

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Right on.

MR. BENNETT: Take a look at how they've solved the unemployment for their friends. There were 29,000 people in the civil service April 30, 1972; 43,000 in the civil service June 30, 1974. That's 14,000 people. It's significant where the increases are, Mr. Speaker....

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Their diets are working well. They're only gaining three pounds a day.

MR. BENNETT: It's significant where the increases are. I see the Finance department has increased from 775 to 1010. I can give them the answer: they don't need more people on the bottom, they need to change the man at the top, the Finance Minister and the Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett), who doesn't even know the correct unemployment rate in this province.

He comes into this House and says the rate is 7.5 per cent, doesn't understand that the latest DBS is 7.1, makes no attempt to be aware of the amount unemployed. Sweep it under the rug; hide your head like an ostrich from the problem and pretend, and maybe it'll go away. Just maybe the Americans will do something about their economy to bail out this government, this government that was willing to take credit for the economy they inherited. Yet now that they are in serious difficulty, they blame every other part of society for their problems.

If it's not the problem of the former government, it's the problem of governments before that. If it's not their problem, it's the problem of the Liberals in Ottawa, or whoever's in Ottawa. If it's not their problem, it's the multinational corporations, or it's the problem of the United States or the Japanese — everyone's problem but their own. What a cry-baby government! What a cry-baby government!

Didn't you know that this party over there, 30 years in opposition to the coalition government, the Liberal government and the Socred government...? You had all the answers. You have been two and a half years as the government of this province, and everyone knows that the answers you had then were not answers, just phrases. You have no answers for British Columbia. You're showing no leadership; you're a failure, a failure as government.

Look at the buildup of employment in the service, and yet no employment is being created from this vast bureaucracy for the people who want to produce in this province. Significantly, where's the big buildup? Well, here, from 85 in Travel Industry to 328. Well, we know it takes that many people just to buy the tickets and handle the arrangements for the cabinet. They go on their steady stream of vacations out of the country. They're living well, and that's an easy way to escape from facing the problems of the poor and the people who are suffering from inflation and the people who can't find work in the Province of British Columbia.

It's very significant, with all the increases in all the departments, that one department shows a drop. What's this? Industrial Development drops from 171 down to 61, and it's very easy to see by their own figures that that has happened because there has been no creation of jobs in this province.

[ Page 44 ]

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Where are the jobs?

MR. BENNETT: It's so significant how little importance they place on the creation of jobs in this province that the Minister wasn't even taken on the last travel trip to China. There are serious problems to be discussed in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, serious problems affecting not only our economy but how we relate to the federal government.

At a time last November when this House was sitting, and when Ottawa was bringing in serious proposals that would affect provincial revenues in resource taxation, the two Members of this government that apparently have the authority to deal with gas exploration and natural gas were out of the Legislature, out of the province, out of the country. While Alberta was meeting with the federal government in an attempt to maintain gas exploration in their province, nobody from British Columbia was guaranteeing that gas exploration would continue here. While they were resolving their problem, as much as they disagreed with the proposals made by Ottawa on resource-revenue sharing, in this province no action was taken until that famous public relations exercise was dramatically announced over all radio networks in British Columbia in January.

Exploration can only take place in the north during the winter months, and the winter months were mostly gone — a little late to crank up the exploration to save the economies of Fort St. John and others, to search for the gas, which is evidently short in this province, for use by our citizens and for consumption.

MRS. JORDAN: Where was the Premier when he was needed?

MR. BENNETT: Here we have the responsible Members of government — not just on a pretence trip to China — lolling on the sands of Hawaii, while other governments in other parts of Canada wrestle with their problem of guaranteeing the search for gas, realizing that the timetable was short and if we were to have exploration in the winter months of 1974-75, action must be taken then — not a much-ballyhooed trip to Ottawa that, as much as they would like to pretend is a success, the newspaper articles from other provinces, particularly those dealing with this very important resource — such as The Albertan in Calgary — put into perspective as a public relations exercise.

It said that on Tuesday the fiery B.C. Premier journeyed to Ottawa to inform the federal government of his plan. Following a three-hour meeting with a government group headed by Donald Macdonald, federal Energy Minister, a chastened Mr. Barrett emerged from the conference room to announce that the deal was off. There would be no increase in gas export prices in B.C. He said he came like a tiger and left like a pussycat.

MR. PHILLIPS: He had his feet firmly planted in hot air.

MR. BENNETT: While it's very enlightening and humorous for the people of B.C. to be entertained by their leader, their Premier, and to have a steady stream of jokes, it doesn't fill their belly or provide work opportunities for them or build the province.

In 1972 the people of this province went looking for a leader and they hired the court jester. They hired the court jester, and it's of small satisfaction to them — the funny lines and the quips are doing nothing about the serious problems in British Columbia today.

Our economy has never ever been in a more precarious position than it is right now. Our economy in British Columbia, which has been taken for granted for so many years, is now threatened in its ability to provide both jobs and taxation to provide benefits for people. We must come to that conclusion when we see the mounting unemployment and the decline of industry as both a base for employment and a base for taxation.

We must fear for government budgeting in the future. I know that the economy has generated sufficient funds for this year and probably for next year, but what of down the line? What about these escalating costs in government, a buildup of bureaucracy and a de-escalation of the impetus of the economy outside in the private sector that provides the funds for bureaucracy to function? Government has never ever created wealth. Wealth is created outside in the private sector. It's created by people. It's created out there by people's labour developing the resources of this province, utilizing their skills and initiative. Only after these people have contributed their labour and their effort, then government can participate both in a tax way and in a way of directing the economy. But government itself has never ever created the wealth of a province or a nation.

We've heard that this government, as I say, blames all their problems on other areas, and as opposition they used to have all the answers.

As opposition they took trips to Washington state. I wonder if they'd go to Washington state today, where they're worried about whether this province is going to take action that will harm their economy.

I wonder if. the people of this province are prepared to accept the statements of the mover of the motion on the throne debate when he talks about this government doing something about the forest industry and moving in. He quotes the one company that isn't a Crown corporation as the government's

[ Page 45 ]

great success — Can-Cel, the one corporation the government said they would leave in the hands to be managed independent of government, and they quote that as their success story. That is their success story. Mr. Speaker, they talk about that as their success story, where all along they've been saying: "We're not responsible for the management. We've left it out in the private sector. We're not interfering. We're not giving it aid. Lands and Forests aren't giving it special privileges — we're treating it just like any other company." Any other company until they get to the position of wanting to take some credit and saying that Can-Cel didn't lay off people. Well, of course — they didn't have a chance to interfere with it. But how about Kootenay Forest Products, which is 100 per cent owned by this government? What about Kootenay Forest Products?

The second area of concern is that Kootenay Forest Products, main employer in the Nelson area. This is from the Nelson Daily News....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BENNETT: ...that has a Member who is not concerned about their problems:

"Main employer in the area has been virtually shut down at its Meadow Creek camp since early December. This has had a drastic effect on the whole economy of the area. Instead of approximately 125 people employed either directly or indirectly, there are only 12 people employed."

Very important in an area of this size.

"As Kootenay Forest's actions was recently purchased by the provincial government, Bob Williams, Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, the Premier and Bill King, Minister of Labour and MLA for this area, are being contacted and being asked for an explanation as to why the government will take over a company and then within a few months allow the company to shut down."

This is the company the government should be talking about. This is the wholly-owned company. This is the one where they direct the affairs. This is the company that this government should be taking credit for, not the company they say they don't interfere with, not the company they say is operating separately in the private sector and still is a private company, even though they own 79 per cent of the shares. Apparently their financial knowledge is just as sketchy there as it is in the difference between a grant and a loan, which the Premier is still trying to puzzle over since he made the mistake in answer to the House the other day.

This is the difficulty we have in our economy. They blame the private sector. Yet here we have one of the few government-owned corporations in the forest industry, which they direct, laying off people in the Nelson area — 125 should be employed — down to 12. That's the type of thing that's hurting the economy all through the interior, the north and now spreading into the metropolitan area of British Columbia. That over 10 per cent unemployment rate that's in the interior and the north will eventually reach the urban area of Vancouver.

MR. PHILLIPS: They're consulting up there. They're consulting the people into unemployment.

MR. BENNETT: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics, for January, announced that the unemployment rate in B.C. was 9.1; that, seasonally adjusted to make it look better, was over 7.5. But, Mr. Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly), they said in the same report that in the north and the interior the unemployment was over 10 per cent.

Yesterday your Premier and leader said he was willing to accept DBS and the federal government. He didn't agree with them anywhere else. Perhaps you could have a private discussion with him and find out whom to believe from your side. He had the wrong figure, and you've got the wrong story and your government has the wrong action to lead this province.

We've seen a lot of changes by this party as government from when they were in opposition. I can remember when they were concerned about unemployment. I can remember, reading back in Speeches from the Throne, that the then Leader of the Opposition (Hon. Mr. Barrett) was concerned when he said, as Leader of the Opposition, that he could solve the problems, even if he wasn't Premier. He had a Datsun plant and a Toyota plant; then a copper smelter and a steel industry and a shipbuilding industry.

Well, British Columbia waited for them while he was in opposition and they are waiting now that he is the Premier of the province. Where is the Datsun plant? Where is the Toyota plant? Where is the copper smelter? Where is the steel industry? Where is the shipbuilding industry? All of these specific items were promised then and are promised still, while unemployment is rising.

If they have these industries available that they had all the answers for and were going to bring on stream then, why aren't they here now? Why aren't they creating industry to employ British Columbians now? Why not? Because now, as then, they have no answers. Talk, talk, talk.

Their answers then are the same as the solutions that they developed. They can be taken in the same context as the promises that the present Premier wouldn't serve as his own Finance Minister, that he was going to take all the taxes off education on a five-year programme, that we were going to have 100

[ Page 46 ]

per cent assessments immediately. We can take those promises of a Toyota plant and a Datsun plant and place them side by side with those statements from a bygone year. Put together, they spell "deception" — deception to the people of this province.

People want leadership; people want government that will lead them out of the problems of unemployment and economic difficulties. Yet we have no problems. Even those things that were promised in bygone days are not being delivered. It's a government, Mr. Speaker, of waste and welfare and excuses, and it's good at all three. That's what characterizes this government, a government that now seems to assume that they have royal prerogative. They almost talk as if they were using the royal "we." I remember when the speaker from Alberni (Mr. Skelly), who moved the throne speech, talked about how we've had 21/2 years of NDP rule. "Not-serving-the-people-as-government" NDP rule. There seems to be confusion enough in this House and in this province between the Legislature and the Crown and the people, and it seems to me that certain Members on the government side have delusions of grandeur of ruling and not of serving the people in this province.

This government with its attitude has alienated local government; it has alienated the federal government. For the first time we've had a Member stand up in this House and say that relations are the worst they have ever been with the Government of Canada.

MR. PHILLIPS: They were going to have a love affair with them. They were going to have a love affair with Ottawa.

MR. BENNETT: That is a statement of the mover of the Speech from the Throne. It comes along and develops upon a theme that's right in the Speech from the Throne: relations are the worst we have ever had with the Government of Canada. They've alienated the Government of Canada and alienated local governments who now cannot finance within the framework of their tax revenues. They've alienated the school trustees and the teachers. But most of all they've alienated the people themselves. They're not a government of the people; they're a government for selected people.

I find it amusing to listen to the statements of the Premier as he goes around the province and talks about why there were overruns in government. He had to catch up on the school construction and the hospital construction, and that's where the money went. But now they're going to cut their cloth to suit the budget.

But what about those massive new capital constructions for schools? In the report filed in this Legislature, answers to questions — questions that were phrased and answered the same right from the year of 1968 on — we see dollars spent on school construction in 1970 — $45 million; 1971 — $51 million; 1972 — $55,300,000; 1973, the last reported amount — $39,800,000. An increase? Is that the type of an increase they talked about when they raised their salaries? Not likely. Down in one area. That's not where the money went. Where has the money gone?

Hospital construction? Let's take a look. 1971 — $19,862,000; 1972 — $17,724,000; 1973 — $20 million; 1974 — $23 million. But in that period of inflation, Mr. Speaker, a lift of $2.5 million doesn't even meet the inflationary rise to meet capital construction costs. It reflects in the number of beds that were created. We can only express the dollar amount in what it creates in services.

Here we have 1971: 551 acute care beds, 221 extended care. That's 772 beds.

In 1972: 364 acute care, 586 extended care. That's 960 beds.

In 1973: 335 acute care, 569 extended care. That's down to just over 900.

In 1974, they give a total of just 773 beds. They don't even break them down.

That's not progress; that's not where over expenditure has gone. It's another excuse developed and presented to the public that doesn't actually sum up the situation. It doesn't tell us where the money has gone or where it's going. We certainly know it isn't going where they said it's going. There are the figures as they have been presented to the people of the province, and those figures are the government's own figures.

We of the British Columbia Social Credit Party, Mr. Speaker, propose for this province a series of initiatives that will get this problem through, that will create housing, that will create employment, that will get out people working again, and offer them the opportunity to own their own homes.

We propose a B.C. housing corporation, not a Dunhill Development that buys projects at inflated prices, not a Dunhill Development that pays millions to developers who have already started projects and have them already under construction, and then take their money down to California and start new housing projects. They don't even keep their money in B.C. because they see how inefficient this government is. Who wants to invest in a province with leadership like that? They laugh all the way to the bank. But it's not funny to the people of British Columbia to have a Housing department and a Housing Minister who allows this to happen, and a government that appointed the Housing Minister in the first place.

We propose a B.C. housing corporation that will effectively deal and direct the development of

[ Page 47 ]

housing, both in rental accommodation and in ownership, in this province.

That housing corporation will be able to effectively control or subsidize interest rates to those sectors of the economy that need help. It will administer those funds such as the second mortgage fund which has always had an effective interest rate lower even than the first mortgages of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corp. It will be able to distribute the home buyer's grant. It will be able to direct and deal in other areas of housing from co-op to government-sponsored housing to the creation of individual housing where people are allowed individual ownership.

It will not be used as its own contractor or be able to use up social capital and waste it in buying existing projects. It will be able to direct housing in all areas of this province, to direct housing to the municipalities, to those areas where it's needed. If we need an inventory of 40,000 or 50,000 new units, it will be able to direct those areas in advance.

It will need the cooperation of municipalities. I will mention further in this speech how we propose to get their cooperation by helping them in their financial problems, which is one of the reasons why they are discouraging housing within their boundaries.

We would take the B.C. housing corporation and we would make it work for the people. We would allow them the opportunity of home ownership that the people came to this province and this country to get. Many of them left countries like England and other countries to get away from being tenants, either of the state or of the large landowners. If in British Columbia you had lived and travelled in the interior, as I have, and seen the early homesteads, nobody would have gone through the hardship of carving them out of the wilderness to have them owned by the state, to be tenants of those homesteads and of those areas, to be tenants of someone else. It's not in the interest of the individual to work and put in those hours to be a tenant of the government, no matter who is the government of the day. Only a person owning his own home has the freedom and feels the freedom of being a free citizen and not a tenant, and who can truly make a democratic judgment and be part of the democratic process and truly a free citizen.

And let's take those areas, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Brown-out Barrett! Brown-out Barrett!

MR. BENNETT: I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that nobody will ever accuse the present Premier of knowing anything about secret reports in any of the Crown corporations after the incredible performance he put on just the other day in the House and lack of knowledge of the B.C. Rail of which he's president. He doesn't know about a shortage of cars for the lumber industry; he doesn't know the unemployment rate. He doesn't even know how they're going to get cars to solve the problem or what the production schedule of the proposed car plant is. Nobody will ever accuse him of having special knowledge, or even any knowledge, of the problem for the Crown corporations. An incredible performance in this House!

MR. PHILLIPS: He knows how to deal with the Arabs, though.

MRS. JORDAN: No, they know how to deal with him.

MR. BENNETT: Housing is a very real problem for our people, and they are expecting leadership from government in the creation of that housing, Mr. Speaker. They are looking for help. They are looking for opportunity to own their own home, as I've said. We believe that this can be done with the creation of a B.C. housing corporation, as I suggested — one that will make available the opportunity of home ownership to everyone in British Columbia. Then those who choose to be tenants by choice and not by direction.... The only way they can get land in this province — that owns 95 per cent of the land — the only way they can get their own small piece, is to lease it. That's not acceptable to us, and I think that recent results of the land-lease auctions in Prince George and in the north would indicate that the people of this province don't wish to pursue that course. They want to own their own land. We believe that, cooperating with the municipalities, the B.C. housing corporation will be able to take what steps are necessary to guarantee that this opportunity for home ownership can exist in British Columbia again.

To make this possible, Mr. Speaker, we also propose a new financial arrangement with municipalities, one that we proposed last fall in this House and one that we reiterate. It is the principle of revenue-sharing, coupled with pre-budgetary conferences with municipal governments in this province. It's not new. It's been advocated for years by municipal governments. The government in Ontario has gone part way and done some study on the subject. But what we could do is to take those steps on a provincial basis, and in any future conference with the federal government that involves the sharing of the revenues of this country, I believe it would be the responsibility of this province to bring leadership, along with Ontario, in asking that the federal government itself, when they reallocate revenues, be made aware of the plight of

[ Page 48 ]

municipalities.

When the BNA Act was drawn up and Canada was created, nobody anticipated the growth of this third level of government. Nobody anticipated that today, as in 1975, it would be the largest form of government, one touching more people, faced with more costs, dealing with people, and also, Mr. Speaker, ending up being the most democratic of all levels of government. Municipal government is the one level of government where people can appear before their council, question their representatives. It is the one level of government where they can expect answers, and it's right there in their local community to serve them. They don't have to travel to Victoria or Ottawa. They can get immediate response; and while many people think that the discussion and, at times, the shouting that breaks out on the municipal level is wrong, I say it is healthy for democracy.

We say that the costs facing these municipalities can no longer be met — as they haven't for some years — off the property tax, which is a regressive tax. We believe that, while leaving the property tax, the municipalities must participate in those growth revenues that reflect the economy of both their province and their country.

Here is the level of government faced with all the costs of handling inflation, the increased costs of providing services to people, increased costs now that society is more aware of pollution and the controls needed and the costs of waste-disposal systems and other controls that can only be put on at a municipal level. This level of government must have those additional funds, not funds tossed out in an airy-fairy scheme on your way to Ottawa, but funds specifically from more than one resource area, and specifically from more than one tax area.

We think, specifically, that a portion of the provincial and the federal share of the income tax should go to revenue-sharing and be designated to the municipalities. We believe that a portion of the revenue from resources should be allocated to municipalities.

This, Mr. Speaker, was a point we made and developed at our recent convention and is a commitment not only of myself, but of the party as part of the policy that we are committed to: revenue-sharing for municipal governments in this province. This will help the housing problem, as I suggested earlier. It will help the problem of housing, as I suggested earlier, because municipalities have been prone to discourage development of housing within their boundaries because they have looked upon it as a cost factor. They have looked on housing on a balance-sheet basis. Yet government is only there to serve people, and municipalities have been forced to think this way because of the limitation of the source of their funds. This will allow them to encourage housing, to provide space for housing, and, with the B.C. housing corporation, would, indeed, go a long way to solving the immediate problem for making available serviced lots which are in short supply and fictitiously high-priced in this province because of the actions of this government. That is a commitment of our party.

Of course, in other areas, we would like to have seen a commitment in education in the throne speech, not only that we recognize that education can best be directed on the regional level by the school trustees, but also in cooperation with the classroom teachers, and also the opportunity for equality for all students in this province, and that the government would work together with the school districts to provide an education system that could incorporate within it all of the independent schools which now are precluded from participating in government financing. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that this government of today, but certainly our government of tomorrow, would make this a prime requirement in the field of education and offer this opportunity for all children in British Columbia.

In the area of pensions and income maintenance, I read the report of the Premier's speech to Simon Fraser where he said the other parties would do away with Mincome and do away with Pharmacare. That's not true. I want to say that....

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Oh, you like something we've done, eh?

MR. CHABOT: You've expanded our programme. (Laughter.)

MR. BENNETT: I'd like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier makes light of it now, but....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not me. I take it very seriously.

MR. BENNETT: Yes, the unemployed know how serious you are. You're really funny to them, really funny. Giggle, giggle.

Interjections.

MR. BENNETT: In talking about Mincome, I congratulate this government on those extensions they made of the supplement to old age pensions that has historically been available in this province. I congratulate them on the extension they made in including other people. But I wouldn't want them to continue to fool the public, such as the misstatement the Premier made. I mean the continuing part of the misstatements he made that we would do away with Mincome because, Mr. Speaker, this....

Interjections.

[ Page 49 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: That's a lie, and you know it. You're misleading the people.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you for rent control or against rent control?

MRS. JORDAN: You're interrupting the speaker.

MR. PHILLIPS: What's another lie?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you for rent control or against it?

MRS. JORDAN: Have you asked Rosemary lately?

MR. PHILLIPS: We're for housing for people. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the Hon. Leader of the Opposition wants the interjections or would he like the Speaker to intervene?

MR. CHABOT: You do anyway.

MR. SPEAKER: Whenever I get a chance. (Laughter.)

MR. BENNETT: If I understood the Speaker's formula for intervention it would be easier for me to interpret when I want ....

MR. SPEAKER: All you have to do is signal with your right eyebrow when you want any help.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BENNETT: I'm not looking for help. I believe the Speaker is here to serve the Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Absolutely. That's what I try to do.

MR. BENNETT: Now, in the area of pensions, this province, through coalition governments, and I guess Liberal governments, and other governments, has always had supplements to the old age pension. Those supplements have taken that pension that's always been the highest in Canada. Those supplements have been separate provincial supplements, initially, up to 1960, and after 1960 the supplements were part of a new federal-provincial formula. But I want it made perfectly clear that since 1942 this province — and it isn't just the government of the day — on behalf of all the people has been able to supplement the old age pension for our senior citizens and, while it's never enough, this province through other parties, meaning other governments, has, on behalf of the people, always made a commitment to solving the pensions of the elderly.

This is a record of the province and not necessarily the private preserve of those people who select what answers they are going to give on any particular day. We would like to see...because Mincome today, if we take the purchasing power of the pension in 1972, today, at its level, there is less purchasing power for our senior citizens because of the escalation of food costs in this province than they had in 1972.

We believe that Mincome, or whatever you want to call the programme, should be tied to the cost of living and it should have a new, higher base representative of the change in the cost of living since that time. It's indicative that with the jump in Mincome there was a $17 increase in the federal participation right after that was never passed along. Much of the work that the federal government has done has not been recorded in benefits to our elderly, and we would suggest that the basic minimum now should be $260. But we should also recognize those benefits for senior citizens who have been able to provide for their own old age and they, too, should not be neglected by government or by society in the provision of benefits to help them who are just above the minimums of Mincome.

We've got to take a long look that people will be discouraged from looking after their own old age and their own retirement time of life. They should be rewarded and not penalized for having done this. Then again, in Pharmacare, there has been a good extension of a programme, but remember we had the drug supplemental programme that in 1972 had given over nearly a million prescriptions and had $3.3 million in drug supplements alone, plus $2 million for dental care and optical care. Again, we would agree that this is a good programme and it's one that has been brought in with the minimum of bureaucracy. We agree that it should be extended, though, to those families with chronically ill children who require medication. If drugs and the cost of drugs are a problem for our senior citizens, certainly the young families, if they're fortunate enough to be employed in this province right now, struggling to make ends meet, with chronically ill children, have a similar problem. We believe that those benefits should be extended in that area also.

In the area of industrial development, of course, Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that this province has suffered. It's my understanding that full cooperation and the full use of the DREE programme has not been made and that we need to decentralize industry in this province and decentralize population into those areas which need a balance, where they're served only by resource industries now, and we need a development of secondary industry. The B.C. Development Corp., as it has been set up, has been a disaster. What we need in this province is some direction for secondary industry, some help

[ Page 50 ]

both in feasibility studies and some aid, Mr. Speaker, in providing not free grants, but low-interest loans to help them over their early years — a revolving fund that will aid small secondary industries. We certainly don't need to give financing to the big firms.

Those citizens don't want the government to have equity ownership. They want the opportunity to own their own business and direct it, and they're looking for the one thing that's difficult for them, and that's the availability of low-cost capital. I think the province can do that very, very easily. It's money well invested in the future of our province, and it would develop into a revolving fund.

We've got to understand that we have a problem with the economy in this province, particularly as it relates to the resource industries and particularly as it relates — to mining and to forestry. It's not very reassuring to have the statement from the government that the mining companies are ripping off when we see what's happened to this province and the lack of jobs and the extension to the loss of that economy to other areas of service and employment that are dependent upon them. It's been part of the gradual deterioration of the interior economy, an economy that helps to feed the whole provincial economy, and eventually is what is causing and what has caused the problems we're faced with now.

One only has to take a look at what has happened to mining claims in this province to realize that the actions of this government, along with the inaction I've talked about, have actually discouraged the development of our economy. We see mining claims in British Columbia, that in 1972 were 53,000, down to 24,000 in 1973 and down to 10,000 in 1974.

MR. CHABOT: Shocking!

MR. BENNETT: By contrast, the Yukon, which was 3,000 in 1972, is 7,889 in 1973 and up to 12,450 in 1974.

AN HON. MEMBER: You see where they all went.

MR. BENNETT: It's interesting to see where they all went. Bill 31 has often been titled "The Yukon Development Act." It may be funny to the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick). To those people who lost employment, either directly or indirectly, it's not funny, Mr. Speaker, and it shouldn't be funny to the MLAs that claim to represent them.

You can't blame it just on mineral prices, because in 1973, when they were at record highs, there were 15 projects ready to be developed in this province at a cost of $2 billion. They would have employed 6,000 people directly and 40,000 indirectly. Yet that Member says that it's because of mineral prices now. Not at all. We have letters of complaint from responsible people in northern communities who have complained directly to the government. I have a copy of a letter from the mayor of the District of Stewart, who wrote to the Hon. Minister. He sent me a copy, and he says:

"Thank you for your recent letter in which you state that the mineral land tax Act could not be the reason that Granduc has cut back production and laid off 500 employees, resulting in the loss of a $6 million annual payroll to my community and to our province.

"It seems to me that you and your experts are guilty either of not realizing what havoc your mineral royalties legislation has wrought on our mining communities or of not caring."

"Certainly it seems reasonable to conclude that the Granduc cutback could not be blamed on just your 2.5 and 5 per cent royalties, but let us not forget the super-royalties. Are you not of the opinion that a mining company would be more inclined to take a loss, or alternately to stockpile concentrates, during times of low metal prices if it was known that a fair profit could be made when the metal prices were high?

"What I fail to understand is why your people went ahead with the super-royalty in spite of overwhelming opposition from your many friends and supporters. Surely the telegram of June 3, 1974, from Frank Howard to the Premier opposing the super-royalty, and moreover predicting the dire results of such legislation, would have made your people aware of the mistakes you were making."

Interjection.

MR. BENNETT: I wonder if he's being muzzled by getting a job. And he says:

"More than anything else, however, what I as a lifelong supporter of your party find hardest to explain to the citizens of this community, which has lost two-thirds of its workforce, is why a supposed 'people's government' in Victoria would not make one telephone call or send one senior official to the area to see if help is needed.

"The Stewart municipal council unanimously supports my views on this subject. We all trust that you will now realize that your royalty legislation must be modified forthwith.

"Yours very truly, I. McLeod, Mayor."

[ Page 51 ]

aware that B.C. can never divorce itself from both the Canadian economy and the global economy. But we also must accept that the government of the day has the responsibility to control and direct those parts of their economy internally so that they do not aggravate a situation.

British Columbia at one point in time was able better than any other province to withstand a world economic collapse or a world economic situation such as we face today. But because of the actions of this government, specific work that would have picked up unemployment during this period — capital construction costs of mines....

I know the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) has taken a strong interest in this part of our economy and has led the fight against this government, and he should be interested in this. He's concerned for this province, as we all should be, that this employment base and this capital construction, which would provide employment now and employment in the future, is lost during a time when we must have it, when we need it, when we need that expansion and development of the economy that will save us from this particular situation, to guarantee government revenues to continue programmes to people. We must have them. We must have them.

Yet this government seems unaware and is plunged on this course, not out of study and not out of any particular set of statistics or knowledge of the industry, but out of a blind commitment of hatred against a particular segment of society and against private ownership in general. Their preoccupation and their commitment to this political belief is hurting this province of British Columbia and her people.

I would suggest that in this year 1975 we take this area out of political discussion where it cannot be resolved now, and that we appoint a royal commission to deal adequately with resource revenue as it shall be distributed both to government and companies, as it needs to provide employment and profits to continue the expansion and to attract the investment capital that is needed, and that a royal commission would come up with a formula that would guarantee a formula that is fair and will provide for the division of capital, or of moneys, or of revenues that will guarantee the continued expansion and employment, and yet make sure that the people, through royalty revenue and through the other taxation revenues that are available to governments, at their disposal, the income tax and others...that it will make available to government those revenues also, can guarantee that this province will be able, in all areas through industry, to provide employment for our people.

I think that this royal commission should look also at all areas of resource revenue, and in the forest industry as well. I think it's long past the time from the last Sloan commission that we had an independent inquiry — not an in-House inquiry, not a sweetheart report, but an independent royal commission — in which the public and all are allowed to make presentations. Hearings should be conducted in public available to the people of the province — able to discuss in concert with not just provincial government and management and labour, but also the fourth hand at the table, that of the federal government in their search to divide the spoils of resources.

We must be able to come up with a formula that can be developed in consultation, not confrontation, and be solved at the bargaining table, not through a flurry of press releases hastily conceived on a trip to the east. This is the only way in 1975 that British Columbia can solve this important situation dealing with our economy and guarantee to our people employment, and to those investors a climate of stability that allows them some opportunity of return.

We don't need to give guarantees because the right to make a profit also should contain the right to go broke, but we do need to have guaranteed stability within the rules, and to know that the rules won't change to suit the referee and some of the players.

I was pleased to see in the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, mention of electoral reform. There again, it's another important part of our system that is being brought in without any opportunity for the public to participate by way of input or discussion. If something as important as this can be directed by partisanship, when we're opening up the whole area of electoral reform, I would feel that it's in the public interest to guarantee to them that any government with its majority will not be playing with the rules or making the rules to suit their particular situation.

I know that Ontario recently, in this regard, called a public commission, the Camp commission. They had on it representations that would have reflected other party views: Douglas Fisher, Farquhar Oliver, Mr. Camp. They held public meetings and hearings in the Province of Ontario in all areas of electoral reform as it related to election expenses and the financing of campaigns.

I think, when we talk electoral reform in this province, that any such commission should go further and that the electoral reform should also cover redistribution, and it should cover what seems to be on everyone's mind: whether there are alternative methods of voting in this province. It should be prepared to receive from the public submissions and suggestions that they can present to this Legislature, not on a partisan basis but on a basis that these are the suggestions and ideas of the public who we are here to serve, and that only in such a non-political report could the basis of any forthcoming legislation be drafted with the guarantees to our citizens, that we have indeed arrived at a solution that was not

[ Page 52 ]

partisan but equitable for all.

I would also advocate that in this year our party — further in our commitment to more involvement from our citizens — would be prepared to advocate several bills and Acts that would allow for more possibility for the public to participate in government. There are very few parts of the American system of government that I would ever advocate or defend, but one part, Mr. Speaker, is that they have an opportunity for citizens to advocate an initiative or a proposition that could be discussed or dealt with by their legislature. On a petition of 10 per cent of the population, such an initiative could be introduced by the people when they get a government that's unresponsive to their wishes, and it would guarantee that no one-time election mistake would mean that the people are precluded from having themselves heard for three, four or five years, whatever decision that government may make.

MR. PHILLIPS: Like we've got here in British Columbia.

MR. BENNETT: We would believe that we would introduce a citizen's initiative Act and bring this new opportunity to the citizens of the province to participate in the public discussion and the discussion of public affairs.

Our party, Mr. Speaker, also believes that a subject much in discussion is transit. While the discussion seems to revolve around who has the authority for transit and whether consultation is being allowed or going on between regional or municipal authorities and the government, we'll never be able to develop a transit system until the authority and the financing guidelines are clearly defined.

We would intend to introduce to this House an urban transit authority Act which would indeed, Mr. Speaker, spell out such a formula both as to capital costs, after the federal proposal — a capital cost, such as a 75-25 provincial-regional — and continuing grants for operating deficits, which everyone knows such a transit authority would incur. We would call further for the amalgamation in those areas or the taking in of the transit facilities away from Hydro and into any such authority where such authority was set up on a regional basis. We intend to introduce a bill in this House covering that.

We also intend to introduce a bill called "The Truth in Autoplan Act" which would guarantee that the public would know the true cost of the premium and that for any subsidies, either hidden or real, but undisclosed to the public, the public would have the full opportunity to know the costs of Autoplan and their auto insurance. We will introduce that Act in this Legislature. I think it's a question that's on the public's mind. It would serve the public interest.

We also intent to introduce the franchise dealer protection Act, because today the complaints in this province, Mr. Speaker, from people who either have gas station franchises or fast-food franchises or other, many of them, are at the mercy of an unreasonable contract — a contract, Mr. Speaker, that does not allow them the opportunity of showing the initiative that an individual operator must have. Rather than reflecting the competitive or initiative system or any enterprise system, they really are the extension in some form, in some areas, of a monopoly, and we don't agree with that.

We would introduce a bill called the "Restraint on Speculation Act" to restrain the Minister of Finance from using all the powers of the Revenue Act to speculate with the public's money, Mr. Speaker, because we've seen a decline in many of the investments, and we know that there's been a loss of social capital for the people of British Columbia and will be lost from benefits.

We are concerned, Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, with unemployment in this House. We are concerned that the people of this province are suffering because of the economy. We are concerned because of the unemployment rates that we've discussed. We are concerned that because of the economy the public will not be allowed to or have the economic opportunity to buy a house. We feel that this government hasn't shown leadership or direction in this throne speech to solve those problems.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I propose an amendment, moved by myself and seconded by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), that the motion in reply to the opening speech of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor be amended by adding the words:

"This House regrets that the speech of His Honour fails to provide adequate proposals for strengthening the economy of the province so as to provide work opportunity for our people to alleviate the highest unemployment rate in our history."

Mr. Speaker, in introducing such an amendment we must be aware that even this government, even the Premier when he was opposition leader, was concerned about unemployment in this province at a much lower level than we have now. I can remember from January 24, 1972, from the Journals of the House, where he was concerned about an unemployment level of 64,000 people. He was concerned about a welfare roll of over 100,000 people. Well, now when we have over 100,000 people unemployed in the province and 100,000 on welfare, certainly that concern must be even greater today at the worst period in our history for employment for our people.

Mr. Speaker, I move the amendment.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I certainly

[ Page 53 ]

wish that it wasn't necessary for me to second this amendment to the Speech from the Throne but after having examined the speech, Mr. Speaker, I find that the speech is shallow indeed. It is shallow in its content, shallow because that government is unwilling to face up to the realities and the concerns that the people of British Columbia are experiencing at this time.

Nowhere, Mr. Speaker, is there a reference to unemployment in the Speech from the Throne.

That government over there, when they were in opposition, constantly castigated the former government for its lack of content in the Speech from the Throne. But there was never any exception; there were never any deletions on the concern with unemployment by the former government, Mr. Speaker, because they referred constantly in every Speech from the Throne to their concern for jobs in British Columbia. The last speech delivered by the former government makes reference to unemployment, the plight of people and the action which the government proposed to take to alleviate the problem of the day.

On Thursday, January 20, 1972 — that session opened a little earlier than this one — they were ready, Mr. Speaker. They said in that speech delivered by the Lieutenant-Governor that:

"In October, 1971, there were 53,000 persons unemployed in British Columbia, or 5.7 per cent of the labour force. Nevertheless, this is a significant improvement over the 1970 figures, when 69,000 persons or 7.9 per cent of the labour force were unemployed. The continued expansion of the economy in the province is an encouraging sign and the rate of job creation has been adequate under normal circumstances. However, I beg to report that the continued high level of migration into the province affects this delicate balance and creates additional problems for which solutions are being sought. In order to help reduce the unemployment rate with which we are faced, you will be asked to consider job-creating measures involving British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, the Pacific Great Eastern Railway Co., housing, forest and park development and protection of the ecology."

It was clearly spelled our, Mr. Speaker, at a time when unemployment was substantially less than what it is at this time. There was concern expressed. The figures were related in the Speech from the Throne; yet this shallow document, for which we have an amendment on the floor, is unconcerned about those people who are unemployed in British Columbia.

The latest figures I have, Mr. Speaker, were issued by the Unemployment Insurance Commission in Vancouver, and they have this to say in relationship to the numbers of people unemployed:

"Unemployment in British Colombia is about 100,000 and the economy is at its lowest level in 15 years. These figures are given today by economist Dr. Roslyn Kunin of the UIC in Vancouver. She based her figures on the number of claims for insurance benefits being made by jobless people.

"Dr. Kunin said in her interview that the number of people on claim who are connected with the forest industry is 40 per cent higher than a year ago. 'There are 11,000 people related to woods operation on claim right now,' she said. 'There has been 1,000 layoffs recently in the mining industry.' She said: 'Employees in many small firms from Squamish to Fort Nelson, along the route of the strike-bound B.C. Railway, have swollen the number of unemployed.'

"'The most recently available figure for UIC claimants,' she said, 'was 84,726 in September.' But she estimated that the total now has increased to more than 100,000.

"Statistics Canada figures show that 'B.C. had an actual unemployment rate of 7.3 per cent. Those were the latest figures; more recent figures have been issued which show the effective unadjusted rate of unemployment in British Columbia to be 9.1 per cent of our labour force."

Yet there is no mention whatsoever in the Speech from the Throne relative to the serious problem that 100,000 British Columbians are facing today.

I was surprised, as well, that the mover and the seconder of the Speech from the Throne failed to make any reference to the plight being faced by the people of this province. One talked about Bomarc missiles. Certainly it is of concern, but I would think that unemployment would be of far more real concern to the individual in this province than the storing of missiles in the United States.

The Member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) talked about the strained relationship that exists between western Canada and the federal government. He said that it was more strained now than it has been since the time of the Louis Riel rebellion. That's going back a long way — that's going back to 1885, Mr. Speaker. What kind of political nonsense is that?

We have a government who has suggested that it is going to be on a good relationship with the national government. Is this some kind of a plot, some kind of a political plot, that is being instigated by that government against Ottawa, first initiated by the Premier and the Speech from the Throne, then also by the mover and the seconder? There appears to be some kind of conspiracy developing on that relationship between Ottawa and the Province of British Columbia — a real vendetta, Mr. Speaker. But lo and behold, that mover and seconder, great

[ Page 54 ]

servants of the people, showed little concern about those who are seeking employment in this province. No concern at all.

Oh, I remember the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) when he was in opposition. Oh, he was concerned about the unemployed, but what is he doing now, Mr. Speaker? He's emasculating jobs in this province, that's what he's doing. In 1972 when unemployment was nowhere near the numbers and the percentages that exist today, this is what that Minister of Mines, the Minister against jobs, had to say in January of 1972:

MR. NIMSICK: Unemployment was referred to in the Speech from the Throne.

Well, it meant that it was referred to. I can't even do that about that Speech from the Throne that was delivered not too long ago, Mr. Speaker, just on Tuesday of this week. There was no reference to unemployment in that speech.

He says:

I rather smiled at the Hon. Attorney-General and the Premier when they were suggesting that our expansion is going to take care of the unemployment problem of the country. Our expansion is going to take care of it. Do they realize that our gross national product is increasing by leaps and bounds? And our unemployment is increasing at the same time. At the same time our unemployment is increasing. The reason is of course that automation has crept into a lot of this. And we're producing so fast that the people are being unemployed.

The Hon. Minister has got a good example in the mining industry. In 1951, it took 8,000 men to produce $193 million of values. In 1969, 4,000. One half the number of men produced $394 million of values. Twice the amount, with half the men.

Now, how do you figure out that by expanding the mining industry you're going to catch up on employment? You just can't do it. You've got a lot of other ways that you've got to do it.

Now, there is a statement on the question of mining by the Member for Kootenay who is now the Minister of Mines, the Minister who's destroyed hundreds of jobs and tens of thousands of future jobs in the mining industry of British Columbia, who was concerned when he was in opposition.

I received some figures from the mining industry just a couple of days ago that are very revealing and I think they are worth quoting at this time.

I'm not going to read the entire manual they sent but it indicates very clearly the opinions and the concerns of the mining industry in the Province of British Columbia. It goes on to say:

"In spite of record production values the mining industry in British Columbia is on a disaster course and unless prompt steps are taken by government to correct it, serious damage to the overall economy and the well-being of the people of the province will occur. The economic well-being of this province is directly tied to the development of natural resources: lumber, minerals — including oil and gas — fish, water and agriculture. Secondary industry attracted to British Columbia is largely dependent for its existence on sales to natural resource industries."

It goes on to talk about the mining royalty — the 5 per cent royalty levy — but its greatest concern, as expressed in this document, is with that of super-royalty, that killer of mining in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. They go on:

"The formerly thriving mineral industry has almost been brought to a standstill."

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Copper prices!

MR. CHABOT:,

"Most producing mines continue to operate but no new mines have proceeded to production during the past two years."

We've just heard from the Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), Mr. Speaker, who says "copper prices" — and that's the first word he's uttered in this House since he's been a Member. No, I apologize, Mr. Speaker, he did introduce some Girl Guides once. I apologize.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Vicious attack.

MR. CHABOT: But it goes on to say no new mines in two years. There must be a message there. Can't those Ministers over there read, Mr. Speaker? Can't they see?

"Exploration expenditures, estimated from the budgets of large exploration companies in underwritings on the Vancouver stock exchange up to May, have dropped to $19.4 million in 1974 as compared to $27.7 million in 1973 and an estimated $38 million in 1972. This is a drop of 49 per cent during the past two years, despite increased costs due to inflation.

"Claim staking in British Columbia is at the lowest level in more than a decade, dropping 76 per cent in the first nine months of 1974 as compared to the average for the same period in 1971-72. This shocking drop in claim staking reveals that there is very little grassroot prospecting in the province. The following table shows the decrease in claim staking."

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) read these figures out but they are worth repeating, Mr. Speaker. In 1971, 36,973 claims were staked in British Columbia; in 1972, 53,309 claims; in 1973, 24,627 claims; and in 1974 we are down to 10,643 claims. The total number of claims in good standing is down by more than 50 per cent in the province. That

[ Page 55 ]

must give some message to that government over there, Mr. Speaker. These are very revealing figures. I wish the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) was in the assembly today to listen to these figures and maybe take some action on behalf of the people of this province.

"Capital is moving out of British Columbia to many different parts of the world. British Columbia is losing some of its most highly experienced mining personnel to other countries. This loss of expertise is the most serious problem as, once gone, it will be difficult to attract back. British Columbia's prospectors report increased difficulty in interesting mining capital in their properties. There are currently some 15 important mineral deposits in British Columbia that could be placed into production if conditions were favourable. To place these mines in production would entail a capital investment of at least $2 billion and generate 6,000 direct jobs and 40,000 indirect jobs."

If the government was concerned with unemployment, they'd do something about the mining industry in this province, which could solve half of the unemployment that British Columbians are facing today. There are 6,000 direct jobs by the development of those 15 major ore bodies that are sitting because of the punitive tax rate in this province, are not being developed, denying 6,000 direct jobs in British Columbia and 40,000 indirect jobs in the service industries that service the mining industry. Isn't that government going to listen? Can't the government read? Can't that government see, Mr. Speaker, that they're killing job opportunities in British Columbia by their actions and by their constant threats against investment capital in this province?

Oh, yes, that group over there — when they were in opposition, I remember the great consternation and concern they expressed about unemployment. But it appears strange things happen when they sit in those comfortable offices in this building, Mr. Speaker. They get salaries, such as the Premier's $60,000 a year, and those cabinet Ministers get $50,000 a year. Strange things happen. It appears that that group, once they move into these lavish offices, seem to lose sight of reality. They seem to lose sight of the plight of the working people in this province. It appears that they're too comfortable in office. It's about time they showed concern for people in this province.

Just the other night, Mr. Speaker, I listened to the mayor of Stewart express his concern with the economy in the northwestern part of British Columbia. He stated that it is customary to have between 20 and 100 exploration firms in the Stewart area on an annual basis, exploring for minerals, creating jobs in the exploration field, attempting to create jobs in the construction of future mines, attempting to create jobs in mining in the northwestern part of British Columbia. But he stated on that television programme that last year, 1974, there was only one exploration firm in the Stewart area.

That must give some kind of message to that government over there. People are no longer interested in exploring for minerals in British Columbia. And that government sits over there. It is unwilling to allow the normal flow of jobs in British Columbia to take place because of its punitive and irresponsible tax measures, Mr. Speaker.

We see the tragic cutoffs. I hope that Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) who comes from the Stewart area will stand up and speak for himself and for his constituents, and say whether he's concerned about the plight of the people in his constituency, that great mining district of Stewart. Is he happy with what this government has been doing to his constituents and to the mining industry in his constituency? He has been given an opportunity now to stand up and express his concern or forever keep his silence and live with the consequences as well.

We see the tragic cutoff and the hundreds of jobs lost in Granduc, Bethlehem Copper, Western Mines. What about all the mines that have been closed down and the hundreds of jobs lost there, Mr. Speaker? That government makes no mention in the Speech from the Throne that they are going to take some kind of action to alleviate the problem that has developed to a serious proportion in this province. All we see is the little programme suggesting that they're going to create employment in the forest industry. They don't tell us how much is going to be allocated as far as dollars are concerned. They don't say how many people will be employed. They don't say when the programme will start, either.

Yet that government was told time and again by a great variety of economic forecasts during the last year of the serious situation which would face British Columbians in 1975. It certainly hasn't heeded the advice that has been given to it.

I have the "1975 Economic Outlook" issued by the Employers Council of British Colombia about the Canadian economy in which they speak about the economy in British Columbia as well. They express their concern with what is taking place in this province. But does that government listen? No, Mr. Speaker, that government is unconcerned about the plight of workers in this province. I'm going to quote from this economic forecast in case they haven't read it, in case they don't open their mail in those cabinet offices which they have. It says: "The outlook for British Columbia is somewhat more negative than that for Canada." There is a more serious problem in British Colombia than there is in Canada.

I think the unemployment statistics bear that out,

[ Page 56 ]

Mr. Speaker. Unemployment in British Columbia is reaching the same proportion as those "have-not" provinces, the Atlantic provinces. Nowhere else in the "have" provinces of Canada is there such a high rate of unemployment as we're experiencing here in British Columbia.

"In 1975 the B.C. economy will be, at best, relatively flat. It may well be negative during the greater part of the year.

"B.C. at present has a steadily worsening rate of unemployment. The seasonally adjusted figure for November was 6.9 per cent, up from 5.5 per cent in January. Canada, on the other hand, had a 5.5 per cent unemployment rate in November, comparable to earlier in the year. We can see few new jobs in our primary industries or in residential construction, retail, transportation and service industries.

"Utilities and utility construction may create some new employment, but government and government institutions are expected to do much of the hiring in the province over the next year. The opportunities for alternative employment in the Alberta tar sands development would seem to be rapidly vanishing."

Apparently that has been corrected. So British Columbians now, Mr. Speaker, according to this, will be able to find jobs in Alberta.

"Thus, seasonally-adjusted unemployment rates approaching 8 per cent... " Seasonally adjusted 8 per cent; over 10 per cent actual. Unbelievable! This is a projection after lengthy survey of the various industries in this province. "...approaching 8 per cent can well be expected unless the structure of the work-force changes abruptly." Changes abruptly. Unless that Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), that Premier and all those Ministers over there change their attitude and their policies abruptly as well, we're going to have more and worsening unemployment this month.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: You know, Mr. Speaker, I don't think we should tolerate this kind of facetious statement from that Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) over there — that I am praying for unemployment. I don't think that's called for, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Do you think I am praying for unemployment? That's a bunch of nonsense, and you know it, Mr. Minister. I think you should withdraw that kind of nonsense.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): You think I should but I won't.

MR. CHABOT: Oh! Mr. Speaker, I wish you would have that Member withdraw that.

MR. SPEAKER: The statement that you're praying for unemployment?

MR. CHABOT: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the rule is that if a Member misstates the position of another Member on any question or misstates his remarks or interprets them wrongly, the Member concerned has the right to stand up and correct that misstatement to the House. I believe that is what you're doing.

MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm already standing up. What are you talking about?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, then, it has saved you from sitting down.

MR. CHABOT: Is this a new ruling?

MR. SPEAKER: I believe it is the law of parliament, but if you don't....

MR. CHABOT: I thought it was customary, Mr. Speaker, in the chamber to ask a Member to withdraw. What kind of nonsense is this? Are you defending that Minister over there?

MR. SPEAKER: Would you mind waiting...?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, have that Minister withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: May I ask the Hon. Member to cite the authority that is different from what I've given. I believe the rule is....

MR. CHABOT: No. Send me your book.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: Just ask him to withdraw.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: ...I agree completely. There was nothing unparliamentary with what I said. If you don't like it, just argue back.

MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member....

[ Page 57 ]

MR. CHABOT: Don't take your directions from that Minister, please. Just be fair for a change, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Don't impute motives to the Speaker, please. I think I've stated the proposition correctly: if anyone says anything unparliamentary about you or insults you in some way personally, then he must withdraw it. But if he misstates your position or misinterprets your position or alleges that you have said certain things you have not said, the proper course is to rise in your place, if you are seated, and correct that Hon. Member.

That is the rule, is it not? Would the Hon. Member agree that is the rule?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the Minister implied improper motives that I pray at night or sometime in the daytime — sometime within the 24-hour period (laughter) — for more unemployment out in the province.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Hon. Member takes that....

MR. CHABOT: I take that as an offence.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Hon. Member takes that as an offensive and unparliamentary remark, would the Hon. Minister withdraw any intention of an offence?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I will change it to "hoping for," if "praying" offends him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh! oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Well, if that's imputing a motive, I think the Hon. Member should withdraw anything that would impute a motive to the Hon. Member who has the floor.

MRS. JORDAN: Withdraw. Don't be so arrogant.

MR. SPEAKER: Did the Hon. Member imply any motive?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest, by the Member's actions over the past two or three years, that I'm not too far out. But if it makes everybody more comfortable in this House, I'll withdraw.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh! oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Well, the question is a difficult one because it deals with a statement made by the Hon. Member, which is taken one way by the opposite Member. All I can do is suggest that honour should be satisfied on both sides.

MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker, if you're not about to have one of your Ministers or one of your friends withdraw, that's fine with me. I'll remember that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CHABOT: I'll remember that, I'll tell you that.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you threatening...?

MR. CHABOT: You'll have to live with that, Mr. Speaker. I'll tell you that.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you threatening the Chair?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, you know full well I'd never threaten the Chair. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Well, then, may I ask the Hon. Member, if he isn't threatening the Chair...?

MR. CHABOT: Oh! Mr. Speaker, stop playing games. Stop playing games.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CHABOT: Stop playing games.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Why is there such a jealous regard for your rights but not the rights of the Chair? I tried to be fair to you. I tried to ask the Hon. Minister to clear up what his imputation, if any, was. I thought that he had done so, and yet you attack the Chair.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's all right. I'll carry on and consider the source of the nonsense from the Minister of Health who suggests that I pray at night for unemployment. Well, I'll just have to accept it because the Speaker is unwilling to have the Minister withdraw it. The record will clearly show that it hasn't been withdrawn.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. CHABOT: I hope that the interruption and the delay caused by the Member is not going to

[ Page 58 ]

jeopardize my right to speak for the full length of time. As for the interjections by the Speaker and the Members, I hope that they will be taken into consideration.

But it's no wonder, Mr. Speaker, with attitudes as expressed by that Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), and attitudes expressed by other Ministers on unemployment, that in British Columbia we have a serious overrun in welfare of $103 million; and they are unconcerned about that clerical error. Mr. Speaker, they are unconcerned about a $103 million overrun in one department, just a slight clerical error — attempted to be justified by that Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston). That Member for Dewdney attempted to justify that $103 million overrun. I'll tell you that you are going to have a lot more overruns on welfare unless you do something about unemployment in this province.

Those irresponsible statements by the Premier over the last two and a half years certainly haven't contributed to the attraction of investment capital in this province that creates jobs, Mr. Speaker. Do you think that investment capital is going to flow freely to British Columbia with the constant threats by the Premier and those cabinet Ministers over there? Certainly not. Investment capital, in case you don't know it, Mr. Speaker, creates employment in British Columbia. No wonder we have problems in our economy with those kinds of irresponsible statements.

You know, the expansion of the forest industry in British Columbia over the next three years, 1974, 1975 and 1976, is negligible. Would you believe, Mr. Speaker, that in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec...? Certainly they have timber, but they are not considered forestry-oriented such as we are in British Columbia. Not half of their revenue, not half of their income, not half of the gross product of their province comes from forestry as it does in this province. Their expansion is going to be 10 times that of British Columbia. Doesn't that give some story to that government over there that there is something wrong with their actions and their irresponsible statements?

Capital investment is fleeing British Columbia. It is not flowing as it should to create jobs in this province.

You know, yesterday we had the spectacle of the B.C. Federation of Labour presenting a brief to the cabinet — a love feast, Mr. Speaker. Those great representatives of the workers, the B.C. Federation of Labour, came and presented their concerns to the government.

I listened to the president, that socialist lackey, that government lackey, George Johnston, on television last night...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: ...express his concern, his humane concern, about.... He made public statements about his humane concerns. One was that they have a continuing adoration and devotion to the government. Continuing adoration and devotion to the government! No. 2, there was concern about the bureaucratic mess of the Labour Relations Board. I don't know whether they were talking about the interference by the Deputy Minister of Labour, Mr. Matkin, or the Labour Relations Board, but those were the two expressed concerns of the B.C. Federation of Labour.

Did they talk about unemployment? Certainly not. It was not of concern to them when 100,000 people are unemployed in British Columbia. No, those socialist lackeys were here.

I remember, Mr. Speaker, when unemployment was substantially lower than it is today. In 1970 the great demonstration took place outside and inside this House, when the B.C. Federation of Labour spent over $25,000 to fight the government of the day. It wasn't concern for the unemployed; it was political concern. I remember the rabble-rousing that took place in this assembly — the people fighting up in the gallery, windows being broken in the gallery — and they expressed concern when unemployment was about 50 per cent of what it is today. I'll tell you the concern they were expressing: those lackeys of the socialist government were expressing political concern, that's all. And George Johnston is just nothing but a lackey of that government over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CHABOT: How many jobs has the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) created, Mr. Speaker? How many jobs has he created? He's created none.

This government and the taxpayers of British Columbia have been ripped off by millions of dollars by the developers of this province. They've done well, Mr. Speaker, while the taxpayers have been bilked by the developers of British Columbia.

You know when the Premier talked about secondary industry when he was in opposition. Oh, I remember the letters he used to write to Toronto, Datsun and Toyota — brought up by the Leader of the Opposition. Oh, yes, he brought them out. In fact he had a great meeting here.

He was going to create secondary industry here in British Columbia. Oh, yes! But we haven't heard since he's been government for two and a half years of any further consultation with Datsun or Toyota for that great assembly plant that was going to come on stream back in 1971 or 1972. He says: "I'll tell you how we're going to create jobs. I'll attract these people. Then we'll put the jobs in place." I'll tell you, rugby trips to Japan don't create jobs for British Columbians, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 59 ]

Mr. Speaker, we used to have a Minister of Industrial Development for whom a phrase was coined by the former Member for Vancouver Centre, Mr. Herbert Capozzi. He told the Minister of Industrial Development to "get off his fat stats." Well, I'm not going to tell that to that Minister, because he's not sitting on any statistics, but he hasn't created one job since he's been in office, Mr. Speaker. Not one!

You know, he's been preoccupied with the accumulation of industrial land. That's all he's done. He's got two parcels of land he's attempting to accumulate for industrial development that won't come as long as they have a philosophy such as is espoused from that party over there. They won't create jobs, secondary jobs, in British Columbia. All that Minister over there has done is to accumulate industrial land. He has not created one job for British Columbians. Not one!

It appears, Mr. Speaker, that some messages don't get back to the Speaker of British Columbia. Here is a letter written — I don't know if it was to create jobs in the furniture-manufacturing business or not — to the Leader of the Opposition by the Speaker. He says: "Will you kindly indicate the kind and style of furniture that you might require for your group's office, particularly with relation to your preference as to colour and design?" Which do you want? Do you want mahogany or Japanese teak?

So the Leader of the Opposition wrote him back a very appropriate letter in which he said:

"With respect to your letter of February 13, 1975, suggesting that my office might be refurbished, I would like to reply as follows:

"At this time, when there are thousands of residents of British Columbia unemployed; further, when the government itself, the Treasury Board, has indicated the necessity for restricting expenditure, I would consider it improper for me to accept any refurbishing to the office of the Leader of the Opposition.

"I think you can appreciate that with the situation of British Columbia referred to by the Treasury Board directive which went to every government department, it would set a poor example for this office to be refurbished."

Can you imagine? They want to refurbish. There must be something there.

But I can't understand why the Speaker reads some newspaper articles and misses others. I read the article where the Premier says we're even cutting down the paper clips, Mr. Speaker. Obviously the Speaker didn't read that statement, Mr. Speaker, but he read another one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't believe you're permitted by the rules to introduce the Speaker into the debate. But I will table all correspondence, including the request from the opposition with regard to furnishings.

MR. CHABOT: At a time when we should be showing restraint, the example set by the government is being extremely lavish. Apparently he didn't read the newspaper article. He reads other newspaper articles, but not that one.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the waste and extravagance displayed by that government in the last two and a half years certainly haven't created jobs for British Columbians. Mr. Speaker, we have a heavy cabinet that is comfortable in office.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the place is terribly noisy. I'm having difficulty being heard.

That government over there, when they were opposition, was a government of vision in many areas. They were going to set the economic climate to create employment for British Columbians. They expressed concern about unemployment. In fact, I'll never forget the 1971 amendment to the throne speech, moved by one Mr. Hartley and seconded by Mr. Calder, when unemployment was substantially lower than it is today. They expressed concern. That's why I expect that Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) to stand on his feet and condemn that government for its lack of action on behalf of the working people in this province.

If he doesn't, Mr. Speaker, he hasn't fully fulfilled his responsibilities to the people he represents in his riding. He has a responsibility to speak out. We will be watching for him, Mr. Speaker, to see whether he takes his place or not. We'll be watching.

This government, in its attitudes toward the private sector, helps diminish the kind of flow of capital that is necessary to create jobs in British Columbia. That government looks on the private sector as the enemy, as enemy No. 1. How can they expect jobs to flow from the private sector when they treat the private sector as enemy No. 1? Certainly capital investment will not materialize in British Columbia with that kind of an attitude from that government over there.

They used to pay lip service to the plight of the working men in this province. Oh, they were concerned when they were in opposition. But I'll tell you that their concerns today are shallow indeed in that shallow document that was delivered in this House a few days ago. There was no concern expressed in the Speech from the Throne. None whatsoever. Oh, but they were concerned when they were over here. Oh, yes, they were concerned. They've lost sight of the plight of the working people of this province.

There is a genuine need for action, for programmes

[ Page 60 ]

 — temporary programmes, in fact — to alleviate the serious plight that is facing the working people of this province. Yet all that government can do is tell us that they're going to have a forestry programme. They don't say when, how much or how many. That's not good enough from a government that professes to represent the working people of this province.

Unemployment to the unemployed is real. Unemployment to that government might not be real, but there are out there in British Columbia 100,000 real people who want work. This throne speech makes no provision for the kind of employment that is necessary for those 100,000 people seeking employment in British Columbia.

I strongly support this amendment to the Speech from the Throne. I'm sure that after my talk — the very few minutes that I've occupied in this chamber — the cabinet will take to heart those words of concern that I've expressed on behalf of those 100,000 unemployed people in British Columbia and will take some appropriate, immediate remedial action.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): I rise to speak to this amendment because I think it's a rather curious amendment coming from the official opposition, an opposition that is expressing grave concern at this particular point over the rate of unemployment in the Province of British Columbia, a rate that is much lower than the average for the rest of this nation.

MR. PHILLIPS: Defending unemployment.

HON. MR. KING: I would point to the Statistics Canada report for February, this current month of 1975.

I would point out that the growth in our labour force in the Province of British Columbia has far exceeded the national average. We have for the first time exceeded the one million mark in terms of the workforce of British Columbia. We saw an expansion in the work force of 5.8 per cent, or 58,000 workers, in 1974.

Does that sound like the kind of doom-and-gloomy economy that is being forecast by the Members of the opposition, Mr. Speaker? I hardly think so. That is a growth in our workforce that exceeds the national average in Canada in an appreciable way.

Further, and very significantly, I would point out that the increase in our women workforce has certainly exceeded anything witnessed in this nation within recent years. We had a very spectacular increase in women in the workforce — over 30,000 last year. These are factors that certainly do not portray a weak and slowing-down economy such as the opposition likes to outline.

I rather enjoyed the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). I must admit that he's a much more entertaining performer than the leader of his party (Mr. Bennett). If he pays little attention to fact and to any statistical basis, at least we could forgive him on the basis that he is an amusing performer.

I must admit that I'm frankly amused at times because he never bothers to confuse any issue with facts. He gets up and talks about the alarming slowdown in our economy, about the harsh unemployment — he quotes figures such as 100,000 workers looking for employment in this province. Well, you know, he's only approximately 30,000 out, so that's a reasonable performance for the Member for Columbia River. I suppose one might say that's about as close as he ever gets to the truth. But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that there are some 66,000 workers unemployed on a seasonally adjusted basis in this province. The basis for that report is Statistics Canada and the research branch of the Department of Labour, and they coincide.

MR. CHABOT: Nonsense! The latest figures show 78,000. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I wish to apologize to the Member. He was only 22,000 out. I beg your pardon, I said 30,000. He's only 22,000 out. But the significant thing is that he seemed to have those facts at hand, even when he was making his speech. (Laughter.) That's the kind of weight that should be attached to the rather hysterical comments and performance of the opposition. That's about the weight that should be attached to it.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're proud of 100,000 unemployed. The Premier seems to be proud of that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Tell them to go to Alberta.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: Let the workers out and bring the welfare in.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

Interjections.

HON. MR. KING: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, when the two gentlemen decide between them whose figures are correct, we can get back to a reasonable debate on this issue, because unemployment is an important issue. It is an issue that the government views very, very seriously.

I would like to point out what the Journal of

[ Page 61 ]

Commerce had to say at the year end, December 30, about the state of the British Columbia economy, which seems to be the basis of grave concern to some of the opposition Members.

Their report on the year-end performance of B.C.'s economy provided some rather revealing figures. It showed that primary industries and construction reached $70.2 million, an increase of 20.1 per cent in 1973-4. It showed a very spectacular increase in the manufacturing sector, an increase of 29.2 per cent in 1974 — hardly a figure that reveals any lack of confidence in the stability and the future of this province.

On along we go: utilities, an increase of 16.6 per cent; trade finance, commercial services, increases of 17.7 and 14.1 per cent; institutional services and government, an increase of 17.6 per cent. A total of $3.9 billion dollars in this province over the past year, and this is the annual report submitted by the BCCA president, Frank Reder, just on December 30 of 1974. Hardly a bleak, dismal picture portraying doom and gloom and lack of confidence in the economy of this province.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're proud of 100,000 unemployed.

HON. MR. KING: Now, I might say, Mr. Speaker, that we at times have differences of opinion with some of the people in industry in this province. We were elected to set social and economic priorities for the Province of British Columbia with due concern to employment considerations, environmental and ecological considerations, as well as the sound husbanding of resources in this province. We are not satisfied as a government to rely solely on the extractive, exploration types of activities in this province to provide the base for our employment needs. We believe that we have to try to....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm shocked that that remark was thrown to the Minister, and I ask the Member to withdraw it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: A personal remark about the Minister and his wife.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I think this is another example of how the Premier is awake only half the time. I said that he was a wife-beater in relation to his husbanding of resources, following his statement that they were charged with husbanding their resources. Maybe if the Premier would stay awake and listen to the debate, perhaps we wouldn't have some of these problems in British Columbia.

HON. MR. KING: I've never had any inclination to beat my own wife, but there are those in this House who might.... (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, the picture I am attempting to draw is one of this government's concern for developing a stable and sound economy, one which will provide jobs — not the temporary "chobs," as the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) says, related to an extractive and export-related, multinational corporation type of tenure, but rather based on sound industrial ties within the province which provides not only jobs now but job security in the future for our workforce.

This is why, Mr. Speaker, this government acted decisively in the case of Ocean Falls when an international company was quite prepared to close the doors on a town and all of its residents and walk away from any social or economic responsibilities and leave the pieces to the taxpayers of this province to pick up.

This is why, Mr. Speaker, this government was prepared to act, and act decisively, to ensure that there was security of employment, that the way of life of a whole town was preserved.

This is why, Mr. Speaker, we moved to acquire Can-Cel, to ensure that two pulp mills would provide a stable source of employment in significant areas of this province.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is that why you're buying Panco Poultry? Is that why you're buying everything else?

HON. MR. KING: This, Mr. Speaker, is undoubtedly a departure from the position that would have been taken by....

Interjections.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to get into a shouting match with the Member across the way. When he runs down I'm prepared to continue.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): You may never start. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. KING: You know, I'm amused by the position the opposition takes. They say to us: "Well, you're hiring too many civil servants. Government spending is going out of control." On the other hand, they come charging in here criticizing us because there is not enough work in the province. We have the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) running around saying that the first move he would make on the return of a Social Credit government would be to fire all the civil servants.

[ Page 62 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. KING: Is that your concern for unemployment? Is that your concern for the workers of this province? And I must add, Mr. Speaker....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw, withdraw.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Withdraw your leader. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. KING: I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that they may well occur within the not too distant future. I understand there are some ambitious people on the back benches watching very closely the statements and performance of the Leader of the Opposition. He may well be withdrawn; I don't know.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Where did he go now?

Interjections.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

HON. MR. KING: I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I find it a very curious thing to hear particularly the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) expressing his strident concern about unemployment in the debate here today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He didn't even stay for the debate.

HON. MR. KING: No, he walks out because perhaps he was aware that I would be moved to remind him of the position he took in 1969, 1970 and 1972...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, no. Don't do that.

HON. MR. KING: ...when a proposal that affected his own industry, an industry in which he is an official, a company official — namely the railway industry — was threatened by the export of gigantic volumes of British Columbia coal through the United States on a foreign railway. This was a move that threatened and jeopardized the jobs of hundreds of people in his own constituency, in the Member for Kootenay's (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) constituency, and in my own — Kamloops — and Vancouver. Here we found the government of that day, of which that Member was a cabinet member, not only supporting the export of that coal on the Kootenay and Elk Railway, not only extending their charter 11 times to accommodate the construction of the rail link to the U.S. border, but we found them funding the legal costs through the Attorney-General's department of that foreign rail line to jeopardize and diminish the jobs of Canadian workers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. KING: There a member of the railway industry, an executive council member of that government, sat silently and, in fact, refused to speak to groups of workers who attempted to gain his ear when he visited Revelstoke.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

HON. MR. KING: I wonder about his concern today, Mr. Speaker. I wonder just how genuine it is. I certainly am not imputing motives when I question that sincerity; not at all. But it's the kind of attitude that I just have a little difficulty understanding.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They move the motion and then they leave for the debate.

HON. MR. KING: Yes, well, after a performance like the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) put on, I don't blame them for leaving because people are up in the galleries listening to them, watching them. I'd slink away too, I think, if I put on a performance like that.

MRS. JORDAN: They left when you got up.

HON. MR. KING: Now, the only other point I wanted to make, other than to introduce these few facts on the employment statistics in the province, which are not good — we're not satisfied with them — is that certainly by comparison to the rest of the nation, by comparison to our friends south of the border, we are in a very, very enviable position in terms of our employment and in terms of the economy of the province.

In conclusion, I must comment on the absolutely unforgivable statements that were made by the Member for Columbia River when he commented on certain executive members of the British Columbia Federation of Labour.

I have debates and disagreements with members of the B.C. Federation of Labour and with various people in industry. But I think it ill behoves any Member of this Legislature to stand and accuse people in the public realm of this province of being lackeys and pork choppers, and whatever else the Member may have referred to. I think that's the kind of language and the kind of performance that detracts not only from the dignity of this House but certainly from the credibility of any Member who would indulge in that kind of language. We may disagree with certain labour groups; we may disagree with

[ Page 63 ]

certain industrial groups. But surely the essence of a democratic society is that we at least recognize their right to take that position which they hold and to treat them with some respect.

When Members of the Legislature indulge in this kind of language, I can't help but question, since that remark came from a former Minister of Labour, just how he would hope to develop a relationship with people in that position in the unlikely event that he ever came to a position of responsibility again. I just wonder how he could hope to set a climate conducive to good labour relations in the province when he is attacking members of the trade union movement as being lackeys. I think that's a shocking performance; I think it's a performance that should not be repeated in the House. I think the members of his own constituency would be ashamed had they heard those kind of comments today.

Mr. Speaker, I think that's all I'm prepared to say in this debate. I would point out that I will be certainly making a more exhaustive and a more detailed presentation at the appropriate time when my departmental estimates are up and when the various reports of my department branches are debated in this House.

I think the picture that is drawn in terms of the total labour-force increase in the province, in terms of a rather stable employment picture when contrasted against a major recession throughout the world, is an encouraging sign for British Columbia. I think it will be borne out by the statistical documentation which I will introduce at the appropriate time.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this motion be defeated and we get back to the important business of giving effect to what is a very, very exciting government programme to be introduced and dealt with at this session of the Legislature.

MR. BENNETT: To correct statements made by the previous speaker: at no time have I ever said or did I say that my answer to unemployment was to fire civil servants. I would wish that corrected.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is not a matter of privilege, but the Hon. Member is entitled to stand and make the correction.

MR. BENNETT: Correction, yes.

MR. CHABOT: On the statements made by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), I think my position on the movement of coal from Sparwood to Roberts Bank is clearly on record — public statements are on record in Hansard and other places as well. It differs widely from the statement attributed to me by the Minister of Labour.

He suggested as well that I had refused to meet and discuss the problems with workers in Revelstoke, and that certainly isn't the case.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member has made a correction on the record.

Interjection.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I don't think anyone in this province could have anything but real concern at the very substantial rate of unemployment in the province at the present time.

I think we also have to recognize that unemployment is something which has to be dealt with because of its relationship to world conditions. Since this province depends for its economic stability to a very large measure on its capacity to sell abroad, it is all too easy, in my view, to play politics with the subject of unemployment.

It's the position of this party that I'm not here in this House to play politics; I'm here in this House to try and present a positive, constructive position as an opposition party in the hope that the government will listen to some of the positive and constructive ideas that I would like to put forward in the course of this current session.

When we dispense with the politic playing and get back to the main motion and the discussion on the throne speech, we have what we consider to be some very useful, positive ideas as to how this government and any succeeding government should take a longer good look at the whole question of unemployment and the stability of our economy.

We know very well that the current problem in unemployment is largely related to the forest industry. Since we export 70 per cent of our lumber to the United States, where housing starts are down by 50 per cent, it is very obvious that there are conditions relating to the present unemployment in this province which cannot be solved by stopgap measures. I would have to criticize this government for not taking a longer look at the whole problem of our economy, in terms of the forestry and mining industries in particular.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) — to revert for a moment to a specific and short-term situation, however — did quite rightly refer to the action in regard to Ocean Falls and Can-Cel, which this party supported for the same reasons: that we are interested in the social well-being of people as well as their purely economic well-being. I would just ask, if this kind of philosophy pervades the government benches: why did they not take some sympathy on the employees and subcontractors of Twin Valley Contracting Co., where some 70 people in the province are out of work?

I'm not here to debate the validity or the wisdom or otherwise of the contract between Twin Valley

[ Page 64 ]

and Can-Cel, or at least a subsidiary of Can-Cel, but I do feel that one specific example where the government's espousing of sympathy for human beings who cannot find work or who have had economic difficulties is one where the Minister of Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) has flatly refused to give any kind of help at all.

But, in general terms, it is our opinion that the government is taking a very short-term look at the unemployment situation in the province, when, in point of fact, the cyclical nature of the mining and forest industries should make it absolutely mandatory for this government or any other government to come forward with far-sighted proposals to stabilize the employment situation in these two industries. As I said earlier, when we discuss the throne speech in detail after this amendment has been voted upon, the Conservative Party has some private Member's bills which we will introduce to point out the position which we feel should be taken by any government in trying to level out....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Could we have a little quieter House, please?

MR. WALLACE: ...the peaks and the troughs which are all too typical of the history of both these industries which provide so much employment in this province.

So while I believe that as far as the official opposition is concerned this is a particularly political play which is being taken, at the same time it is fair, in my view, to ask this government why there is not evidence of some longer-term planning, at least with the hope and assurance that in years to come people in this province, particularly those whose livelihood depends on these two main industries, can look forward with a greater degree of confidence, knowing that there will not be the periodic up-and-down situation, where for a year or two they are employed and earning well and then for a long period of time they are out of work.

So in that respect I feel that this government has fallen short in its efforts. But I do feel that the most important thing for this House today is to vote on this amendment and get on with the main debate.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to say a few things concerning this amendment, because regardless of how the Minister of Labour wishes to treat it, or with what frivolity he likes to issue his remarks about the debate — the frivolous approach that he has taken — it is a serious matter in the Province of British Columbia, and I intend in the next little while to suggest to the government some of the ways that they might have overcome some of the unemployment problems we experience today.

You know, there's little solace for the people in the province to look, as the Minister of Labour did with some pride, I suppose, on the fact that the figures for industrial expansion and production show an increase in 1974 as compared to 1973, because those figures quoted do little better than cover off the inflation factor that we have experienced during 1974. All of us must realize that the net result of that in terms of actual increase in employment opportunities has just not happened, that we have done little more than stand still in most areas of the province, and in many areas, Mr. Speaker, we've done far worse because we have lost ground with respect to the labour force that is available and which requires employment and jobs today.

What has the government of this day done about employment opportunities in northern British Columbia? Very little. They appointed a Minister in charge of northern affairs who skips around over the province, the northern half of it at least, holding conferences, talking to people, but that's all that's happened. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think you might be well aware of that fact because I am sure you will agree with me that very little has happened in northwestern British Columbia, a part of the country with which you are very familiar, in terms of concrete programme, of development or increased job opportunities.

So it's fine if you want to pay lip service, or the government wishes to pay lip service to the northern part of the province, to go on junkets around in the Citation jets here and there, pop in for a few hours, tell everybody that they're well off, pat them on the back and say: "I'll see you again some of these days," but don't solve any employment problems.

At a time when the Minister, who is supposed to represent northern affairs and the government of this province, should have been in consultation with the petroleum industry in British Columbia regarding exploration in 1974, what did you do? What did the government do? They conducted a vendetta against the petroleum exploration business in British Columbia. They conducted a vendetta. As a result of that, the exploration which ordinarily would have taken place in northeastern British Columbia was almost a complete write-off this year.

Ordinarily, while we are standing here in this House debating the matter of employment opportunities there would be anywhere from 40 to 50 rigs employing several hundred people actively engaged in exploration in northeastern British Columbia. And what are the facts today? Nineteen rigs operating, two of which are service rigs, Mr. Speaker, and a service rig does nothing more than go in and do a slight repair job on a well that was operative but for some reason has lost production. So really, we have 17 rigs working. How many last year? Forty-one at the same time last year. No exploration

[ Page 65 ]

going on. No seismic work of any substantial nature going on in northeastern British Columbia, and it's at a time when the demand for natural gas was never greater.

The companies have tried to explain their position to this government by telling them that they are experiencing the same inflationary costs as everyone else in business today. They've tried to say to the government that you seem to have set a pattern for salary increases of 30, 40 and 50 per cent, and as a result of that we have to pay the same sort of salary, if not a premium, to get people to go into the exploration business because it's a hard, thankless, dirty job in extreme weather conditions.

I don't know how many of you have sat on D8 Cat at 30, 40 and 50 below out in the muskeg country in northeastern British Columbia on a seismic job, but there are still people prepared to do that, provided they are paid exceptionally well for doing that work. All kinds of people who would have been gainfully employed this winter, on unemployment insurance or forced to go to the Yukon, the North West Territories or Alberta for work.

Now let's contrast that with the picture in the United States. Right now, as I stand in this House, there is an active competition going on in the United States for experienced personnel in what we refer to as the oil patch. They're bidding for people with experience — for drillers, for rig hands, for engineers — to come into the United States, and they are making them very attractive offers. Why? Because they seem to feel that there is a reasonable reason for them to believe that there's still a lot of natural gas to be found in that area immediately east of the Rocky Mountains.

AN HON. MEMBER: They found a new field in southwest Texas.

MR. SMITH: They're taking the experienced personnel from British Columbia. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, if that trend continues, it won't matter what the government does to try to readjust the policies that they've inflicted upon the industry, we won't have experienced personnel around. So, for goodness' sake, before we lose all of our qualified people to the United States, get off the high horse that you've been on with respect to exploration in the province of British Columbia and resurrect the climate that will make it conducive for companies to go back into the drilling fields.

They don't expect rip off profits. All they expect is that with the increased costs they have to absorb and a decreased possibility of gas production from those holes they drill, they will be given a reasonable return on their investment.

Has anybody in government sat down with the exploration companies to find out what that is? No.

The Premier has said time and again: "We don't care what happens to the price of natural gas or how high it goes; we will not pay one more cent to the people exploring for gas." Is that justified in relation to the fact that they have to experience the same increase in costs as everyone else? I don't think so.

So the job opportunities are there, Mr. Minister of northern affairs (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler), but what is being done about it? Certainly by the statements of yourself and other Ministers of the Crown, you haven't done anything but provide a doom-and-gloom situation for those people engaged in the petroleum exploration business in British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: I suppose we'll have more task forces.

Talking about task forces, in northeastern British Columbia there is a section of timber presently in the right of the Crown called the Blueberry PSYU. What has the Minister suggested that they are going to do about that particular area? Is he going to encourage companies to go in and actively bid for the right to harvest logs from that particular area? No. He's going to conduct an ecological study.

There have been half a dozen studies already conducted, Mr. Speaker, but an ecological study may take anywhere from six months to two years before any decision is made as to what will be done on the harvesting of that timber.

Is it the Minister's position that a Crown corporation will be able to do it better and more expeditiously than the private companies already engaged in logging and forest industry in northeastern British Columbia?

What about the plans of Mohawk Petroleum Corp. to build a new refinery in British Columbia? They have been greeted with nothing but a succession of stumbling blocks thrown in their path by the provincial government every time they tried to make a concrete move in this particular area. Why? Because it seems to be obvious that the government of the day decides they want to go into the refining business themselves.

Has there been any encouragement to the existing refineries to expand their operations? No, none at all. If they were allowed to expand their existing refinery facilities in Prince George, in northeastern British Columbia, in the lower mainland, would that not have created more jobs? I suggest to you it would have, and at no direct cost to the government.

It seems the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) took great exception to the figures quoted about unemployment by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). That's very little for the Minister to hang his hat on — as to whether the figures are 80,000 or 100,000 unemployed. The important point

[ Page 66 ]

is in relation to the economy of British Columbia. It's far too high.

There would be jobs available, provided the right political climate existed in this province. But what industry in their right mind will come into the province, let alone be able to convince financial institutions to back them with substantial amounts of capital if they know before they start that (1) the government is conducting a vendetta against them, and (2) if they are successful, they are probably subject to takeover by the Crown — and at the Crown's price, I might add; not at the fair market value price but at the Crown's price? Certainly the people of this province have seen enough of that to realize investment in British Columbia is a very precarious thing at this particular time.

What happened when B.C. Rail was on strike? Did the Minister step in immediately to appoint a mediator? No. He allowed the economy of north-central and northeastern British Columbia to come to a complete halt before enough pressure was generated to force the Minister into doing something. What happened when he did? All of the employees of B.C. Rail immediately went back to work, thereby restoring the vital link that is needed to produce jobs in British Columbia.

What was happening in a community like Fort Nelson while the railway was on strike? Well, Fort Nelson Lumber Co. Ltd. suffered catastrophic effects. They couldn't market any chips or anything else. Churchill Copper, who deliver their ore by truck to Fort Nelson — that is the concentrate, not their ore — and then by rail from Fort Nelson to a deep sea port at Squamish, had to all but close down.

Not only that; at the time the strike took place there was enough ore sitting on track — not ore, but concentrate, copper concentrate — between Fort Nelson and Squamish to cover their payroll costs for months, provided they were able to get it to the port and deliver it to the buyers.

That's great business, isn't it? That's something to be proud of. That certainly helped the unemployment problems in northeastern British Columbia.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) suggested that this government is concerned about developing a sound industrial economy. Well, if that's true, why doesn't the government do something about providing a better political climate for industry to come into the province? Why don't you look into the problems that could easily be solved without costing the government any money or any large investment of taxpayers' dollars, but by merely changing the attitude and the position and the policy of the government so it would be more favourable to increased investment in this province? If you want to set up guidelines and checks and balances and controls, industry can live with that as they have in the past. That is the manner in which you provide employment opportunities for those people presently unemployed in British Columbia.

The mining industry is a great example of what has happened. Exploration — down the drain. Who won out?

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: I'm wrong about Mohawk Oil? Well if you want to go into a detailed discussion on Mohawk Oil and the problems that they've experienced, I'd be glad to go into it with the Minister. But it's enough to say in this debate on this amendment, Mr. Speaker, that the trouble they have experienced has been partly the result of the provincial government and the policies of the provincial government and the provincial government's full position on the exploration and production of petroleum products in the Province of British Columbia. The Minister well knows that. Without investing any money, they could have been in operation by now.

If you provide the right climate, capital will flow into the Province of British Columbia. But the thing that industry fears the most is the fact that legislation now exists by which the whim of one Minister can remove from them the right to operate in the Province of British Columbia. You certainly don't provide new jobs that way. The fact of whether we have 100,000 or only 80,000 unemployed shouldn't give anyone any feelings of comfort. It's too great a number.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair]

The mining industry in the province, as has been said before, is in a rapid decline. Why? What do they feel has caused their current problems? Government policies. This is why the new mining ventures that would have come on stream by now in British Columbia have suddenly terminated their exploration and work in this province.

It's laid out in the report from the British Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines, some of the problems they have experienced in British Columbia. It says that the enactment of Bill 31 was one of the main problems. The super-royalty is another problem — the fact that they are in the middle of a fight between the federal and provincial governments with respect to the taxes and royalties that they are paying. The federal government says that they are going to collect it anyway, regardless of what the provincial government does. So we get double taxation.

I think it is time the federal government and the provincial government jointly sat down to determine a fair and equitable basis of taxation. That's all

[ Page 67 ]

industry is asking for. But what they object to very strenuously, Mr. Minister, is double taxation and the fact that the result of double taxation is a disaster to them. It does little good for the provincial government to posture in one direction and the federal government another without coming to any positive solution.

They point out in their latest report that their problems have been compounded by the provincial government and the position of the federal government being unresolved. Certainly they would look more favourably at the province, provided they did not have to face double taxation. But the super-royalty that the province has created has certainly generated most of the problems the industry faces in this province.

It's not necessary for the government to invest the tax dollars that they garner from the citizens of this province to create new jobs. The money and the capital needed will come in when you provide a climate as good or equal to other parts of Canada. That's the way that you create new jobs in the Province of British Columbia; that's the way you stimulate the economy at a time when we have unemployment in many areas. You provide the proper economic climate with the checks and balances that you know full well you have at your disposal.

You can always tax on an equitable basis, regardless of what the market conditions might be. We've experienced this in the logging industry. Unfortunately, the mining industry is in the position of collapse in the Province of British Columbia. They are. They can't exist much longer, particularly with the prevailing prices of minerals and the attitude and the policy that they have to live with in this province.

I would think that at a time when the government should be looking at programmes to stimulate the economy, the throne speech would have given some indication of your concern and some definitive outline of the policies and the programmes you intended to get on stream this year to provide employment opportunities for those people who wish to stay in the Province of British Columbia.

The amendment is a good one, Mr. Speaker. It certainly zeroes in on the area where the throne speech should have spent time providing direction for and solutions for those problems. That is why it was moved by the Leader of the Opposition. That is why I take pleasure in supporting this amendment.

Mr. D.A. Anderson moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Lea files answer to question 44. (See appendix.)

Hon. Mr. Lorimer files answers to questions. (See appendix.)

MR. SPEAKER: I undertook during the speech of the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) to table all the documents that I have with respect to requests for furnishings and improvements in the offices of the opposition.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, seeking some information, I appreciate what was done overnight with respect to the sound system. However, it continues to cause difficulties, as you well know.

MR. SPEAKER: They'll be working on it over the weekend, I assure you.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:58 p.m.

[ Page 68 ]

APPENDIX

42 Mr. Curtis asked the Hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs the following questions:

With respect to the Islands Trust Act:

1. What have been the total expenses incurred by the General Trustees for each of the following purposes to the most recent date for which information is available: (a) Travel, (b) accommodation, (c) per diem allowances, and (d) telephone and other communication?

2. What general office expenses have been incurred in terms of staff salaries, equipment, supplies, and incidentals in the offices used for the Islands Trust from the date of establishment to the most recent date for which information is available?

The Hon. J. G. Lorimer replied as follows:

"1. (a) $3,683.59, (b) $1.899.11, (c) $28,925, and (d) $132.10, all expenses to January 31, 1975.

"2. To January 31, 1975, $9,081.23."

44 Mr. Curtis asked the Hon. the Minister of Highways the following questions:

1. Does the Minister of Highways have a personal office on the Queen Charlotte Islands and Prince Rupert?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, what are the total costs to the Provincial Treasury of the offices and what is the staff complement with respect to each office?

The Hon. G. R. Lea replied as follows:

"No."