[ Page 2353 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: executive council estimates. On vote 2.

Mr. Lauk — 2353

Mr. Macdonald — 2361

Mr. King — 2362

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2363

Mr. Macdonald — 2364

Mr. King — 2364

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2364

Mr. Barber — 2364

Mr. Lea — 2365

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2365

Mr. Macdonald — 2366

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2366

Mrs. Dailly — 2366

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2366

Mr. King — 2366

Department of Human Resources estimates.

On vote 113.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2367

Mr. Levi — 2368

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2374

Statement

Nanaimo Schools Dispute Settlement. Hon. Mr. Williams — 2377

Mr. Stupich — 2378

Mr. Wallace — 2378

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2378

Routine proceedings

Mineral Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 30) Hon. Mr. Waterland.

Introduction and first reading — 2379

Mineral Resource Tax Act (Bill 57) Hon. Mr. Waterland

Introduction and first reading — 2379

FRIDAY, JUNE 4, 1976

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

(continued)

On vote 2: executive council, $636,598 — continued.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Now that we're all apparently recovered from last night

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: There was lots of action in this Legislature, Mr. Chairman, to the hon. minister. I don't know where he was, but the Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) was within an inch of falling over the edge of a cliff defending his estimates. The opposition, in its effectiveness, was lashing away and he was giving blood on the floor of the House. Where were you?

Incidentally, some obscure political figure was elected in Vancouver East and he'll be back.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I'm not sure this is within the administrative responsibility of the minister. On vote 2, please.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, after yesterday's review and debate, I'm not sure what is in the administrative responsibility of the Premier. But I am sure of one thing. For the first time in this House I have not seen such an obsequious back bench, thumping their desks whenever the Premier...burped. Let's hear it for the Premier's tie! How about his hairstyle? Do I hear a little bit about...? I'm sure it couldn't be for anything else, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: This is what they call the cabinet sweepstakes!

MR. LAUK: It's called the cabinet sweepstakes indeed, Mr. Chairman. The cabinet sweepstakes are directly under the administration of the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I wish to assist the hon. member. You know, of course, that we have time limits, and I'm sure that you have some salient points that you would like to make.

MR. LAUK: There's lots of time, Mr. Chairman, lots of time! Don't be anxious! I've got so much material here I just don't know where to start first.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: With respect to the Premier, every other minister of the cabinet has his deputy minister sitting beside him. The Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) I know is sitting over there, but she's too busy conserving and touring and political Provincial Secretarying to really be the deputy to the Premier. I think that the real Deputy Premier should be seated, and I so move. I move that Mr. Dan Campbell be seated on the floor of the Legislature to assist the Premier, Mr. Chairman. Could you put that motion, please? Could you ask leave that Dan Campbell be seated on the floor of the Legislature?

Mr. Chairman, I can't hear you. Could you ask leave of the committee to seat Dan Campbell on the floor of the Legislature?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think that motion is in order. It's facetious and....

MR. LAUK: Are you saying that's a facetious motion?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: Well, I am hurt indeed that the Chairman would consider it facetious ...

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: ...because the Chairman considers Dan Campbell facetious (laughter), and he shouldn't. Dan Campbell's very important.

Why, the other day I was walking out in front of the legislative buildings and I saw Dan Campbell getting into a Budget Rent-A-Truck.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I quickly checked the back to see if it was files or not, and I phoned home. Everything's secure.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): You didn't keep the truck, too!

MR. LAUK: Talk about paranoia and this kind of a government having the head of intergovernmental

[ Page 2354 ]

affairs drive a Budget-Rent-A-Truck! What were you moving — shower fixtures? What was the secret?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: He sneaks in. I couldn't tell, Mr. Chairman, whether he was wearing a pair of dark glasses or not, but he snuck out the side of the building where the Premier's office entrance is and climbed into the Budget Rent-A-Truck. He saw me and he looked away — he looked away. "Maybe Lauk won't recognize me, " he probably thought to himself.

AN HON. MEMBER: How did you know it was you? (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: Dan Campbell, the real Deputy Premier — or is he the real Premier? Executive director of intergovernmental relations — a position that requires a diplomat. What exactly are his functions?

Well, I don't often quote Jim Hume. (Laughter.) I mean, Jim Hume is not the Walter Lippmann of the NDP (laughter), but I do think that it's appropriate....

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): The media's on your side. You know that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Vicious attack. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: The Premier appointed Dan Campbell as his Deputy Premier and I'd like to know a few things about him. Did he help write the budget? We're all familiar with Dan Campbell's style, aren't we?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: We're all familiar with his style, but in The Daily Colonist on March 22, Jim Hume asks these questions, and I think it's important to put it to the Premier, as Jim Hume put it to the Premier:

"Not all nastiness will be on open display in the Legislature, of course. Much of it will take place in the backrooms where politicians play their favourite position-jockeying game. There were a few good examples opening day where the keen observer spotted Social Credit Party leader, Peter Hyndman, seated so far below the salt that he was almost lost in the crowd.

"Nothing important, you say? Maybe not, until it's remembered that Dan Campbell had a little to do with the seating arrangements. Outwardly Dan and Peter are bosom buddies fighting side by side on the same team, but never let appearances fool you. Behind the scenes there's a little power struggle going on with the betting about even as to which of the party stalwarts will win. Campbell has to be the favourite."

Well, this pilgrim has something to report. The other day I was in Vancouver and saw my old classmate, Peter Hyndman, walking dejectedly in the rain in the city of Vancouver, and I said: "Peter, are you going to run for the nomination in West Vancouver–Howe Sound, or in Coquitlam, or Omineca?" He said "No."

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: No, the Premier won't even let my friend do government work. (Laughter.) He won't even let my friend do government work. Well, isn't that wonderful? "That's a switch, " I said to Peter. "Why is he discriminating against you, the only Socred who is not receiving goodies from the government?"

Is the Premier aware that there's a special list of Social Credit lawyers to which ICBC adjusters can only refer legal work from ICBC? Is he aware of that?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Oh, yes. There's a list of lawyers, Mr. Chairman. There's a long list of lawyers, and that's been issued by written hand — not by typing or memorandum, but by hand — to adjusters working for the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, and it says: "Well, only these lawyers should have legal work referred to them."

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Name names.

MR. LAUK: I think maybe the bar should be informed. I think the Law Society of British Columbia should be informed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Name names.

MR. LAUK: You'd like the names? I'm glad you asked. (Laughter.) They'll be here in a moment.

Perhaps the good doctor from Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) could advise the Premier about the list and check on the list. I think it's an outrage that lawyers in the city of Vancouver and around this province do not have an equal chance as citizens of British Columbia to do the legal work of ICBC. I think that's an outrage. I think it's sheer hypocrisy for the Premier to stand up here and wave his arms around thinking: "Oh, we're not like the feds." What nonsense!

Interjection.

[ Page 2355 ]

MR. LAUK: Okay. You deal with it there; you ask for that list. You ask for that list. If you doubt me we'll bring it in next week and show it to you.

I've heard of paranoia, Mr. Chairman, getting back to Dan Campbell. Talk about paranoia, Mr. Chairman — Dan Campbell is nothing. He's sneaking out to his Budget Rent-A-Truck. But the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips)....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Could I have a little order, Mr. Chairman, please?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe if the hon. member would stick to vote 2 perhaps the members would give more attention.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, that's clearly a biased statement. I am dealing with the administration of the Premier's office. I am dealing with a certain amount of paranoia surrounding the executive council. When I ask for order in the committee, I expect the Chairman to protect this little member as well as any other.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will expect that little member to obtain to vote 2. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: If I don't have order, Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman now leave the chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

NAYS — 26

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, I might take this opportunity, as we have some distinguished guests in the gallery, to introduce them to the members of the House. In the gallery today we have: Hon. Gurvinder Kaur Brar, Minister of Housing for the State of Punjab; Mr. Charanjit Chanana, Member of Parliament, Upper House, India; Dr. A. Ramachandran, Department of Science and Technology, India; Mr. Murshid Ahmed, Chief Producer of Films, Ministry of Information. Accompanying them are: Professor A. Bose, United Nations special guest from India; Mrs. Kanadaswamy, whose husband is with the United Nations in New York; and Mrs. Suvira Ahlwat. I ask the House to welcome them.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask the Premier a number of questions that have to do with a serious issue, and that is the issue of paranoia. We have been told that it's time in this province to stop the extremism that's going on — the political revenge on the part of the government. It's not just the NDPers and the press and people who are associated with the political scene directly. It's the chief executive officer of the B.C. Telephone Co.; it's people at Habitat; it's people across this country who are concerned about the extremism that's going on in this province. Talk about paranoia.... The Premier is pretending to read his letters and sign his mail.

That's better.

Talk about paranoia. Let's talk about the shredder that you put into the executive council chamber — a shredder that the previous administration never had need of. They raised a big issue about the Lauk papers, but all the ministerial files are intact and can be produced at any time. I say that without any equivocation whatsoever.

What kind of a government is it that shreds every memorandum and every piece of paper? What kind of paranoia is that? And how far does that paranoia go? To the most senior civil servant getting into a Budget Rent-A-Truck in almost a secretive fashion. To a shredder in the executive council room.

The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) said that he's just moved the shredder into his office. The way he talked a couple of months ago, Mr. Chairman, I didn't think he had anything to shred. He said it was bare. Everything was bare! He says that very sensitive, economic documents come across his desk that have to be destroyed. I would say so, Mr. Chairman. I would say so.

In a time when it is essential that in the democratic process there be open and candid government, this Premier does everything possible to make both himself and his ministers and information unavailable to the public, to this opposition, to this Legislature and to the people of British Columbia. Paranoia! Watergate! The shredding of documents

[ Page 2356 ]

day after day after day.

He will not let another Nixon situation develop here: there are not going to be tape recordings; and no files are going to be shredded. Not a word to be judged. What's the latest news, Mr. Chairman? Hotlines from the Premier's office to each and every minister. I understand the Minister of Education's (Hon. Mr. McGeer's) hotline telephone is red. Does it have a special ring to it, Mr. Premier? Are they bugproof, Mr. Premier? What kind of paranoia is going on with the Premier and this government? The kind of paranoia that leads to extremism, conspiracy and undemocratic action in this province! That's the kind of paranoia it is, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You can ignore it only once. Shredders were not enough; hotlines, unbuggable phones, untappable phones are in there now.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: No, I'm not upset, because I didn't know that we were tapping regular phones. But what paranoia!

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Do you know that the Premier is worried about the lead time — as he said in some of his remarks — on some economic developments? I'll just deal briefly with some of the points he raised yesterday afternoon, and get to something I feel should be mentioned.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, Brascan wasn't a coal developer; it never was a coal developer. We knew that Brascan would not proceed with Sukunka, and the government knew that on December 22 when they took office. So who're you trying to kid? Talk about lead time! You've done nothing since December 22 to put the Sukunka coal deal together, and you knew since December 22 — or you should have known — that Brascan wasn't going to proceed. What kind of hoodwinking nonsense and bafflegab are you trying to feed the people of the province? Lead time. Waving his arms around — oh, so reasonable — to the thumping of the backbench. What nonsense!

Lead time. You knew five or six months ago — and what did you do about it? Nothing. If you didn't know about it, what were you doing — reading your reviews in Alan Fotheringham? You should have read your reports: Brascan was out — it was going out. And what did you do then? We're told $5 million for feasibility studies for northeastern coal. That $5 million, the same $5 million, is scattered about all the different departments — I think it's six or seven different departments. The six or seven ministers, including the Premier, have each announced it three times. If you add that all up it's close to $900 million — or maybe less or more, depending upon how many announcements were made. But it's the same $5 million — just $5 million — and, you know, it's supposed to go for all kinds of studies. It's just a delaying action because they know that they can't proceed.

The Premier mentioned in his remarks that Manitoba raised taxes too — and this went by without comment. I have the Manitoba government's statement in this year's budget: "The Manitoba government has ruled out any general tax increase in either the basic personal income tax rate or the general sales tax by applying primarily selective and temporary anti-inflation surtaxes on large corporations and the top 3 per cent of the income-earners in Manitoba." That's what we're arguing for, Mr. Chairman, to the Premier. Don't tell us that Manitoba raised taxes — on whom?

You have attacked the little people of the province. That's what we've argued about. Don't pretend that you don't understand that attack. Financial wizardry: raise personal income taxes and sales taxes — what genius! — and then claiming that it'll take three years to get us out of a depression. Well, Mr. Chairman, this kind of economic thinking is extremely dangerous. It's the kind of economic thinking that prevails now in B.C. Hydro. It's the kind of economic thinking that is absolutely devastating to this province. It's destroying the little people, and it's ignoring the great resource-takers of the province. The sellout gang is back.

The member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) got up and gave a very clear and honest speech yesterday. It was the first admission by a member of the government side of the abject failure of the coalition economic policy. The member for Skeena got up and told us about a 14 per cent unemployment rate in Terrace. He got up and clearly inferred, from his remarks, that the economic policies of this Premier and the coalition government are failures.

You can't run a province the way you run a hardware store or a motel. You can't do it. You can't go around and count the paperclips and the pencils when you've got tremendous costs to face, and efficiencies and inefficiencies to deal with. You can't run a business like this the way you run a hardware store. You've got to be able to understand some basic economic facts — I'm not saying partisan economic facts — basic economic facts. When you raise taxes you take purchasing power from the people.

Smile as arrogantly as you like, Mr. Premier. Be arrogant, but the people of this province are going down the tube because you don't understand the

[ Page 2357 ]

basics of economics.

Even as far back as 1819, people were saying....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Major Douglas.

Mr. Chairman, do you know what you do? I'm saying to the Premier: do you know what you do? You don't raise taxes when you're trying to get the economy moving. You don't ignore taxes on major corporations and bill taxes on the massive part of the population if you intend to get the economy moving. The only time when the Premier and his ministers become eloquent, as far as reduced taxation or incentives are concerned, is when they're talking about Imperial Oil or when they're talking about some multinational corporation. They don't talk about the incentives for the little person to have better purchasing power, more jobs, better income. That's what the member for Skeena was talking about really. He was very honest about the plight of the people in his riding, in his constituency. He knows that the economic policies are a disaster. The report on the Terrace situation is May of this year and it covers the first few months.

There's no magic to turning the economy around. There's no secret, unless you want to play political games and hire Clarkson Gordon to do a little flim-flam for you. But there's no secret to turning the economy around. If the world markets are fine, and they're becoming better, you reduce personal income taxes. You increase incentives to the ordinary person, not to the multinational corporations.

As was pointed out so eloquently yesterday, the incentives of a greater profit to major oil companies did not induce them to invest one more penny than they would have otherwise into exploration. The Premier seems to be satisfied and content with the creation of myths to hoodwink the public of British Columbia. He doesn't seem satisfied to be Premier in reality, to govern for all of the people of this province and to be rational and to be honest. No. what he must do, Mr. Chairman, is create myths. Clarkson Gordon created a myth for him — a great deficit. He creates his own myth: "Because of the tremendous problems that the NDP administration has created for this province...." And in the corridor he says privately: "Well, really it was the worldwide recession but, you know, politics is politics."

You know, what kind of bafflegab is that? Why don't you become an honest, straightforward Premier governing for all of the Province? It's a sad history of only four or five months, worsened, not improved. We now have the highest unemployment rate in the history of the province of British Columbia at any time during its time, and the Premier does it again. He comes in with his chart and he says: "Well, we finally reached the September rate of unemployment." That was the seasonally adjusted. When he was arguing about unemployment when he was the Leader of the Opposition, he would take the actual, because the actual was higher. Do you know, he jumps from column to column.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's not true.

MR. LAUK: It is true. You used to use the actual.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Seasonally adjusted.

MR. LAUK: No, the actual.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): You sure did.

MR. LAUK: When you talked about 100,000 unemployed in this province, that was a lie then. Either you lie now, or you lied then.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please, Hon. Member!

MR. LAUK: Which way will you have it? We said 100,000 unemployed....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I know the hon. member is....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Premier, please! If I just may express the point of order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'd ask you to excuse him because he's flushed with success today. He's really excited, and I know he doesn't mean it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is incumbent upon the Chair to maintain order and, although it would be nice to be forgiving, we would not know when to be forgiving and when not. Therefore, I must ask the member to withdraw the word "liar."

MR. LAUK: Oh, I think that if the Premier says....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please withdraw the word "liar."

MR. LAUK: Oh, I can't, Mr. Chairman. He said that he....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please withdraw the word "liar."

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I can't. Do you know

[ Page 2358 ]

what the man said? He said he never used actual figures for unemployment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, you have been a member in this House long enough to know that there are some....

MR. LAUK: I don't want to give the Premier any special attention on this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So you will withdraw?

MR. LAUK: I'll withdraw that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: But I should say that the Premier put an advertisement, when he was Leader of the Opposition, in the newspaper, saying: "100,000 unemployed."

HON. MR. GARDOM: Advertisement.

MR. LAUK: Oh, a Point Grey elitist.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Ha, ha!

MR. LAUK: Opportunist, power-hungry, deserted turncoat from his own party.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I want to complain about the garbage pickup. They took some of my files the other day. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. GARDOM: Thank God they didn't deliver them to me. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: Correcting me — advertisement. It said: "100,000 unemployed in the province of British Columbia." We checked the figures. There were no actual figures of 100,000 unemployed; they were seasonally adjusted. Pardon me, the opposite is true. (Laughter.)

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): You blew it!

MR. LAUK: There were no seasonally adjusted figures, and now he's saying that he always dealt with seasonally adjusted, but it was the reverse at that time. What utter nonsense! You jump from column to column — whatever suits your purpose.

Now listen to my point. It's a sad thing when there are 110,000.... I heard this week that there were almost 114,000 unemployed in the province. Let me tell you, that is a sad thing. But what is even sadder is a Premier that has come to power on a promise to be honest and open and he creates and perpetuates these myths. He gets up and he answers the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford), if at all, by saying: "We are going to try to improve the situation, Mr. Chairman. We're going to have investigations and we are doing reports. It's going to take three years to turn the situation around." The member for Skeena must have bit his lip sitting there listening to that bafflegab because he eloquently placed on the floor of this Legislature the plight of his constituents, particularly in Terrace, and backed it up with research by that report. And the Premier bafflegabs him.

I don't see the member for Skeena thumping his desk too often, Mr. Premier, because he has been here too long. He is not carried away with personalities. He doesn't consider the cabinet sweepstakes worth his time. He is an honest man, he's always known to be an honest man and he is an excellent politician already in the history of this province, let alone today. He stood up and honestly put a case to the Premier and he was bafflegabbed. He wasn't answered.

What the Premier should have said is: "Mr. Member for Skeena, I'm sorry that we didn't sign the northwest rail agreement. I'm sorry that we couldn't do that. That would not have provided miracles but it would have improved the situation. Mr. Member for Skeena, I'm sorry that we haven't had that meeting between the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) and the people up at Can-Cel. I'm sorry that we haven't proceeded along the lines of assisting Eurocan through DREE to expand their programme."

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: He's already met with them. That's wonderful. Was that yesterday?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Five or six months have occurred; Eurocan is still waiting for some assistance through DREE to expand. The northwest rail agreement was shunted aside because you got involved in possession of stolen property during the campaign. You were involved in a stolen briefcase and a stolen Telex. You were proud of it. That is why you have to turn back the northwest rail agreement.

Does the member for Skeena get an apology even? Does he get the time of day? No, he's just an old veteran politician you can ignore with all your new turncoats and motley crew from various other political philosophies you have put together as a coalition. You can ignore even a veteran politician when he honestly sets forward a case for his constituency. The development and social

[ Page 2359 ]

improvement that would have been brought about by the railway agreement have been left on the table and, as I heard from Ottawa, may never be picked up again. Decreasing the number of jobs, increasing unemployment and decreasing revenue to the province — that's the disaster of economic policies of the Premier of this province.

It has been mentioned, Mr. Chairman, that there is a problem with campaign funds. Because it seems that the Premier of this province understands the importance of being honest and open about campaign funds, I will read the material that has been read in this House yesterday; I will read it again so that the Premier understands what I am about to say. In the Premier's estimates last year, the present Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) asked the then Premier to spell out appropriate standards for the receipt of campaign funds. He had this to say:

I have said quite clearly what the ethics should be. Anybody who donates before or after an election and who makes personally known to you that he is giving money, and the amount of money he is giving, is himself guilty of improper motives.

That's a pretty strong statement there, Mr. Premier; maybe you should listen.

He went on.

Let there be no doubt about the motives of anyone who offers a gift to someone running in an election or elected. Let there be no doubt about the motives or ethics of such a person who makes his identity known and who makes known the amount of money he wishes to give. That man expects favours in return.

That's a pretty strong statement by the Minister of Education, a man whose family in political life goes back a long way, a man who, although a bit of an opportunist in the last few years, has been highly regarded in political life.

Let me give you an example of what he was talking about and how dangerous it is when large corporations are involved with campaign funds. Perhaps the new government takes over after receiving a number of donations from various corporate and personal donors, which is legal, The new Premier of the province appoints a board of, let's say, the local Hydro corporation. On the board he appoints first of all an old political crony. That's obvious. He's not trying to hide the fact because he can't. Then he appoints someone else. He appoints someone else who sits on a number of other boards.

Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, all the Premier has to do is say "just a minute." He doesn't have to have permission. He's extended that courtesy to everybody else in the House. What's the matter? Is he a little disturbed with me today? Good! We'll carry on.

As I say, this new Premier of this hypothetical province appoints a political crony to head up the local Hydro corporations. On the board he appoints an individual who sits on other boards, and it comes to light that the individual who was placed on the board, under the chairmanship of this political crony, sits on, among other things, several boards of other related companies. We find out further, somewhere down the line, that one of these other related companies is directly associated with, let's say, the chief fund raiser of the Premier's political party. Not only is he associated with the chief fund raiser of the Premier's political party, but he once, while representing the private company in question, went to the Crown corporation in question and offered to buy their retail sales of a particular commodity — let's say natural gas.

Doesn't that raise a number of questions, Mr. Chairman? It takes us back.

"Let there be no doubt about the motives of anyone who offers a gift to someone running in an election or elected; let there be no doubt about the motives or ethics of such a person who makes his identity known and who makes known the amount of money he wishes to give. That man expects favours in return."

May I point out, Mr. Chairman, that a man by the name of Hungerford has been appointed to the board of directors of B.C. Hydro Co. Mr. Hungerford, among other things, sits on the board of Inland Natural Gas. I asked this question of that political crony of the Premier's the other day — the chairman of the board — and he said yes, he still sits. Roderick M. Hungerford, president of Flex-Lox Industries, is one of the directors of Inland Natural Gas.

I'm not even going to bother about raising the conflict-of-interest situation between Hydro, which operates with natural gas, and Inland Natural Gas. That's minor. It may cause other governments to resign, or at least that director, but there's something even better than that. Hungerford is on the board of Inland, and then gets on the board of a Crown corporation which has very strong competitive advantages over private industry. He's now sitting on that board with the Premier's political crony. So far it's not too bad, but it's a serious conflict.

But then we recall that on February 28, 1974, on the 20th floor of a building at 1199 West Hastings Street in the city of Vancouver, Austin Taylor Jr., the chief fund raiser for the Social Credit Party — the coalition — goes to see Jimmy Rhodes, the head of the British Columbia Petroleum Corp. What has he got to say? "I'm representing Inland Natural Gas. Can we buy your natural gas retail facilities from B.C. Hydro? Could you approach your Premier?"

You could have knocked little Jimmy over with a

[ Page 2360 ]

feather, Mr. Chairman. The chief fund raiser of the Social Credit Party goes to see the head of a Crown corporation, saying he represents Inland Natural Gas. "Can we buy the retail outlet?" Then when that party comes to power we find that Hungerford, from Inland Natural Gas, is sitting on the board of B.C. Hydro. Pretty cosy, isn't it? Doesn't it raise some questions? No, it doesn't. Not to the Premier. He doesn't understand what I'm talking about. He doesn't know the gravity of the charges that can be made, and the cloud of suspicion over what's going on.

Do I have to read the statement again?

"Let there be no doubt about the motives of anyone who offers a gift to someone running in an election of elected; let there be no doubt about the motives or ethics of such a person who makes his identity known and who makes known the amount of money he wishes to give. That man expects favours in return."

That's the charge. Hungerford sat on Inland Natural Gas at the same time when Austin Taylor was sent by them to the Crown corporation to purchase the retail outlet for a ridiculously low price, I would say. I understand that Mr. Rhodes replied, "No, but we'll buy Inland Natural Gas." Austin Taylor Jr., chief bagman for the Social Credit party, beat a hasty retreat.

Then we find, of all the nerve, that Hydro has a new board member — a man who sat all this time on the board of Inland Natural Gas. The Premier just doesn't understand the gravity of this kind of a situation. He dodges. He avoids. He bafflegabs. He ignored the comments of the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford). He didn't answer the questions properly.

He's got to go to the top of the crass, Mr. Chairman. He has someone else as Minister of Finance. All right, he's fulfilling that promise, but he did it not for the fulfilling of the promise; he did it really to avoid being under fire.

He's afraid of the press. He's afraid of the opposition. He's afraid of the new member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) . He doesn't answer questions. He takes on no responsibilities. He's got a philosophical myopia that makes some of the sheiks in the Middle East look a little bit like philosophers. He has absolutely no understanding of the ordinary wage-earning British Columbian. He's a millionaire with a silver spoon, soft-handed and overprotected. He demonstrates a callousness towards the well-being of others.

Mr. Chairman, we can't ask him any questions because he hasn't done anything. Whenever a minister puts his foot in his mouth it's called "unfortunate." Too bad. "Don't ask me that question; it's within the responsibilities of a committee." It's the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. It's someone else. It's this person; it's the next person.

But he's got to be held responsible, Mr. Chairman, for the actions of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), who hid behind a civil servant, who blamed a civil servant, who attacked a civil servant publicly. If the allegations of slander against that civil servant are proven, I hope the Premier has the courage to demand that minister's resignation and drum him out of cabinet altogether. I cannot think of a more reprehensible thing to do than an elected politician — a Crown minister under oath — blaming his irresponsible bungling on an ordinary civil servant and that civil servant having no other recourse but to take it to court for justice. Is the Premier not responsible for that? Can he avoid answering for that? Can he avoid answering for appointing his crony to B.C. Hydro who says that if you don't plan for maximum growth now at 9.2 per cent, low-growth projection for the B.C. Hydro would mean 13 hydro-electric dams with untold devastation to the environment.

[Mr. Bawlf in the chair.]

"What would you rather protect?" says this political crony in charge of Hydro. "What would you rather protect — moose or men? Don't plan for a depression." He says anything less than 9.2 per cent is planning for a depression.

The Department of Economic Development doesn't say so, the B.C. Energy Commission doesn't say so, but this political crony says so. What gives him the right to have that power over this province? Can that Premier sitting right over there blame anyone else but himself when this devastation takes place? The B.C. Energy Commission and economists across this land say that if you say 9.2 per cent is the low-growth rate, industry will fill the gap. They'll expand to 9.2 per cent.

You don't have to be a genius, Mr. Chairman, to the Premier. Don't listen to the double-talk, Mr. Premier. I can't believe you would accept that advice just offhand. It's devastating advice, Mr. Chairman. It's disastrous advice. It comes from a political crony who flirts with an international conspiracy. That's who Bonner is. Good Lord — open your eyes. See that 9.2 per cent would be devastating for this province.

Economists in the Department of Economic Development say 7.5 per cent would be realistic. It would fulfil expectations. It would be in line with other energy commodities — gas and so on.

Why have hydro-electric power when hydro-electric power is going to be so cheap and so available in British Columbia? Is that the process, Mr. Chairman — to make it so cheap that they have a whip hand to bring in industry? It already is that way. You don't need it now or in the future. Industry will move in on a reasonable basis and on a planned

[ Page 2361 ]

basis, but if you say 9.2 per cent industry will expand to 9.2 percent. It's a self-fulfilled prophecy. All the economists say it's a self-fulfilled prophecy. If you plan to expand to 9.2 per cent then indeed the demand will be 9.2 per cent. If it's 7.5 the demand will be 7.5.

It's absolute doubletalk to say that we expect the demand to be 9.2 per cent. You're creating a demand by saying that in itself, and you are letting this man get away with creating a disaster in this province — 12 hydro-electric dams in the Stikine, across this country, destroying wildlife, destroying farmland, destroying the environment and the ecology that belongs to the future generations of this province. And for what? To sell cheap power to an American-dominated industry. What nonsense! What's the answer that we get from this political crony in charge of B.C. Hydro? "Oh well, if you plan for anything less, you are planning for a depression." That's nonsense!

The Premier should answer more about a number of other things. I know my time has almost expired. Before I take my seat there are a number of other questions I have to ask the Premier. I am told that the estimated cost of the Premier's shower room was $10,000. The tiles in his shower were replaced three times. Yesterday he said it was $300 for the shower. Well, it may have been $300 for a shower fixture, but that shower room cost $10,000 — $10,000 to move a wall and change the tiles three times. What was wrong with the tiles, Mr. Premier?

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't forget the door.

MR. LAUK: Oh yes, and the door. The door was replaced or something or handcarved by some South American voodoo carver or whatever he is.

I don't know what you are trying to do, Mr. Premier. On the one hand you make a token gesture of cutting back your salary by 10 per cent, and on the other you spend $10,000 on a shower. Yes, $10,000 — don't shake your head. The tiles were changed three times in that room. Don't talk about the $225 you paid for a shower....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please. Would you please address your remarks to the Chair?

MR. LAUK: Oh, yes. I am most delighted to do so, Mr. Chairman. The Chair has taken on proportions that I could never have expected earlier.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I have raised a number of issues. The Premier, who has gone on signing his mail, gritting his teeth...maybe he has something to say now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 2 pass?

MR. LAUK: Nothing to say?

MR. CALDER: Nothing to answer.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): I'll be glad to yield to the Premier if he wants to reply to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

Well, I was busy yesterday and I want to say right off that I want to congratulate the Premier, as head of his political party, in coming in second in Vancouver East, nosing out Levinson, heading off Bader's threat, sliding past the Conservative candidate and topping the Liberal. That's very good and the Premier has proved to be a very good loser. It's an experience that will be useful to you in the future, Mr. Premier. Learn to like it.

I'll try and make my questions rather rapid but, at the same time, I'm very much concerned with what I am saying here. I see in this clipping of May 5 — and this has been public knowledge — that the Premier, after going down to the energy conference, said the following: " 'Surely we should be at least $10 a barrel,' Bennett added, saying that the current price of $8 a barrel should rise to the international price of about $13." And in the story that's repeated in a different way. " 'Oil at $13 a barrel is a bargain because replacing the oil will cost $16 or more, depending on how far north new supplies will come from,' the Premier said."

Now I would like to know whether the Premier made those remarks, and I would like to point out the consequences of it, in terms of the giveaway to the oil companies in the Peace River who produce between 55,000 barrels of oil and somewhat less per day depending on what extent they are on a slowdown. What the Premier has done, even by going back east to support the present increase — he wanted at least $2 and it turned out to be $1.75 phased in — is that he has not only increased the price of gasoline for the consumers of this province by 7 or 8 cents, but he has made a gift to the oil-producing companies of the Peace River area, most of them dominated by multinationals, of $36.5 million!

I base that upon a flow of, say, an average 50,000 barrels of crude oil per day from our Peace River — our own oil. Increasing that barrel price by $2 — that's $100,000 a day — that is $36.5 million a year granted on a platter to the oil companies for the old oil that they are producing from the earth of British Columbia, without them having to expend any new money on that flowing oil!

Because the wells are in; the gathering systems are there; the plumbing is in place. And this is the flowing oil — old oil — produced in British Columbia, and on which the Premier has given a grant of $36.5 million a year to the oil companies. With all that's happened to the ordinary people of this province in the last few months, that is an unconscionable

[ Page 2362 ]

giveaway.

MR. KING: Punish the poor and reward the rich.

MR. MACDONALD: It's been widely quoted and never denied that Imperial Oil, the biggest of the companies — the company with the greatest presence in Boundary field, and conducting a slowdown strike for more money — contributed $234,000 per year between 1970 and 1975 to the campaign funds of political parties, excluding the NDP. I specifically put to the Premier that you received money from Imperial Oil. that you supported the price increase of their barrel oil and that that's a political payoff back to that multinational oil concern at the drastic expense of a rising cost of living for the people of this province.

My specific question is: is any of the $36.5 million...? And we're not talking about the $13 price the Premier wants to give the oil companies, according to that quote. You know, that would be another 25 cents a gallon for everybody who drives a car in B.C. It seems ridiculous to me, Mr. Chairman, that in our own province we should be supporting the Arab-fixed price of oil and saying that we have to give back to the multinational oil companies that are prospecting and producing in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta and the north...that we should give them the Arab price even though their costs haven't risen, and even though the figures are plain that big companies like Imperial Oil had net returns go up in 1972 to 1975 from $157 million to $250 million. Yet during that same period they reduced the amount of exploration and drilling expenses they're putting into investment in Canada.

So there's no guarantee — in fact, quite the opposite — that this bonanza of $36.5 million a year that has been given to the oil companies in B.C. alone will be put back into exploration and drilling for new sources of supply. There is no incentive system such as we imposed in the case of natural gas where, if there had to be a price increase, they could only cash that certificate if they actually spent the money on new exploration and drilling.

My specific questions to the Premier are these: will any of the additional oil price be taken back into the public coffers by way of increases in royalty payments due to the Crown on old oil — on the flowing oil — or is that totally a gift to settle campaign debts to the international oil companies? I don't think the Premier is listening, but I want to know whether any of that money, the increased price of oil, the $1.75, is going to come back to the public of B.C. by way of improving our royalty take from the flowing oil of B.C.

The second question: will the Premier impose a two-price policy — as we had in natural gas — to protect the consumers of this province in terms of the price of gasoline?

The third question I want to ask is: will the Premier undertake to bring in an election expenses Act so we do not have favours on a gigantic and lavish scale being granted to international companies which are at the same time contributing campaign funds to the government in power?

If ever a campaign expenses Act was needed in this province it's now with this government, in this year, in this term of office, which I hope will be short, because we are finding with a lavish hand the resources of B.C. peddled off to, as I say, these international companies, while with the other hand there have been heavy impositions on the people of the province in terms of their cost of living, the taxes they pay and the charges they meet when they travel on ferries or go to a gas station to buy gas.

Will any of that money come back, Mr. Premier, by way of royalties to the Crown — the $36.5 million? Will there be a two-price system for oil, as there is for natural gas, as established by the NDP? And will the Premier undertake that there will be an election expenses Act, to clean up our politics in this province of British Columbia, within a period of one year?

MR. KING: I hope that the Premier would pay some attention to the very serious questions that have been put to him by my colleague, the member for Vancouver East. They are serious questions, questions affecting the disparities that I talked about earlier, in terms of the tax and cost burden that is being disparately placed on the people of British Columbia to the extent that the average working poor, the average working person and certainly those on fixed incomes are asked to bear a much heavier burden in terms of costs and revenue to this province than are the great corporations that the Premier seems unwilling to demand reasonable returns from on the exploitation of resources — not only in the petroleum industry, as my colleague has pointed out, but certainly with respect to the Kaiser coal development that ships hundreds of millions of tons of coal out of this province annually without any indication from the province that the royalty payments will be increased to develop additional revenue for the province when last year Kaiser Co. experienced the highest profits on record.

I think it is shameful that the Premier sits there mute and fails to take heed of the case, demonstrated to him beyond question, that all of the government cost increases have imposed about a 10 per cent cost-of-living increase on the average worker and pensioner in this province while millionaires, corporations and others have seen only 2.5 per cent of their disposable income eroded by this government's policies, building, compounding and accelerating the disparities that exist between income

[ Page 2363 ]

groups in society. I think the Premier should take that matter seriously, respond to it and defend his economic policies in this House. I can only interpret it, Mr. Chairman, as arrogance on the part of the government if there is no satisfactory response or answer.

I have one other issue I want to raise, Mr. Chairman. I hope the Premier will take notice and respond, because in asking for his salary from the Legislature of British Columbia, which is a very large amount of money, I think he should be prepared to answer the questions put to him and to defend his economic policy. I want to question the Premier about the government's policy with respect to mining in the parks of this province, because we have had some conflicting statements from members of the executive council regarding precisely what the policy of the new coalition government is.

I refer to a Canadian Press wire story on December 5, 1975, when the Social Credit leader, Bill Bennett, was quoted as saying that if his party is elected December 11, logging and mining will be banned in British Columbia parks. That is an unequivocal statement, Mr. Chairman: logging and mining will be banned in parks without reservation, was the Premier's statement. He didn't qualify it in any way.

Therefore it is with some chagrin and some curiosity that I noted statements by the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland), for instance, on January 29, 1976, quoted in the Victoria Times. The headline is "Mining In Parks Isn't A Bad Thing." That's what the Minister of Mines said: "Mining in parks isn't a bad thing."

Other members of the executive council have indicated and inferred that existing claims in parks might be allowed to be developed and brought into production. That is in direct conflict with the Premier's assurances during the election campaign that there would be no mining or logging in the parks, period.

In light of statements by two of his ministers since that time, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Premier to give assurance to this House that indeed it is the policy of the government to disallow any mining or logging activities in the provincial parks of this province. I would appreciate an unequivocal statement from the Premier articulating precisely what their policy is and repudiating the suggestions made by the Minister of Mines and others of his cabinet colleagues.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, maybe the Premier won't say about an election expenses Act, but the other thing is specific: are you going to take any of that money back?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I talked about it at length, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MACDONALD: The royalty.

HON, MR. BENNETT: Unfortunately, the member for Vancouver East wasn't here yesterday, because that subject was canvassed several times — campaign expenses and what the policy of the government was on an inquiry. We covered most of the subjects, but I allowed you to continue because I thought you wanted your name in the record today to prove you were back. (Laughter.)

The member for Vancouver East did mention oil prices and the province's resources. I will say again that our policy is very different from the policy of that party which when they were government offered to turn over the resources of the province to the federal government if they would socialize them. I say the resources of this province will stay with British Columbia as long as we are government and belong to British Columbians.

We were supported in our provincial rights stance by the Premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Blakeney, also NDP, who jealously guards the resources of that province and the value of those resources such as oil for the benefit of the province.

The member for Vancouver East well knows, Mr. Chairman, that any increase in price is not passed through. In fact, they had some experience with natural gas in which their policies of passing through the amount for exploration...was kept lower than an amount that would allow exploration to continue, and that's a subject that we discussed yesterday. When we were up in Fort St. John it was indicated that we had an 18-month to two-year hiatus or loss in exploration because of the policies of that government — and based on the type of statement that member said — until they had a report from the chairman of the B.C. energy board, Dr. Andy Thompson, that got them to change the policy for the benefit of British Columbia, because their rhetoric had hurt this province. On that basis, the bulk of the increase will always go to the province.

What we are arguing about is the right of the province of British Columbia to control its resources and have the value pass through to the province. We are not going to remain within the framework, if we are to have a strong Canada, as sort of a colony of the rest of Canada to be exploited for the benefit of central and eastern Canada. I resent it; we are full partners in Confederation.

In fact, I think the people of British Columbia spoke out clearly last December 11. I think a lot of it had to do with the former government offering to give the resources to the government of Canada to meet their own philosophical commitment to socialize it. The people of British Columbia said: "We want the value of our resources kept to help broaden the economic base of this province for the benefit of British Columbians, because a strong British

[ Page 2364 ]

Columbia will mean a strong Canada."

I say again, I don't want to take up the time of the House going through the discussion of campaign expenses and the Act and the study we intend to bring in. If the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) will have the time, if he's going to be in B.C. any length of time this week, he could read the Blues from yesterday.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the Premier had a debate about the nationalization of oil resources, and I'd love to engage in that but that wasn't the subject I brought up.

The specific question is on the additional moneys flowing to the oil companies producing in the Peace River area in British Columbia, which I estimate to be $36.5 million a year: will you rearrange the royalty schedule so some of that money at least comes back to the public? Will you answer that question?

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier, before he goes east and agrees to higher gasoline prices and higher prices for the oil companies, ought to know by that time, before he makes that kind of agreement, whether anything is coming back in additional royalties to the people of this province. Now, even a long time after, two months after he made his speech for the higher price of oil to the oil companies, the Premier still will not answer whether he's going to take any of that back at all for the suffering public of this province so that their taxes and other services could be improved. Still no answer.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to, at this point in time, just interrupt the debate for a few moments to ask the House to extend a very warm welcome to a couple who are here from Chester, England — Mr. and Mrs. Passey. Mr. and Mrs. Passey and very many of their neighbours, have opened their doors, have received Canadians — 800 families of Canadians — over these past few years with an idea that started when they realized that visitors to Britain did not ever get to see a typical British home, and very often did not have the opportunity of seeing the hospitality of the people of Britain.

These people, without any remuneration to themselves or without any incentive at all from anyone, began a series of visitations from small hotels throughout their area and very many Canadians have received their hospitality over the years.

As minister responsible for Travel Industry in this province, I am particularly delighted to welcome them. I think it is an example that British Columbians and Canadians everywhere could well follow. It is my pleasure to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Passey, and I would also ask the House to welcome two people who accompanied them and who have made possible the trip for the Passeys to British Columbia, Mr. JohnPlul of radio station CKNW and Mr. Barry Wall from Air Canada, who are also in the gallery today. Thank you.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I just want to associate the official opposition with the remarks of the Provincial Secretary and join in welcoming Mr. and Mrs. Passey to British Columbia, and commending the radio station involved, and Air Canada, for collaborating in bringing them over.

I was fortunate enough to listen to a radio report some few days ago about the impending visitation, and it is certainly our pleasure to welcome them here and to commend them for their kind hospitality to many Canadian citizens over the years.

Mr. Chairman, just one brief thing on the Premier's estimates again before I take my seat. That is simply to request from him some indication of what the government policy is regarding mining in the parks, because I think he can appreciate that there have been varying interpretations, rightly or wrongly, placed upon the government's policy.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, this policy was reiterated by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) during a speech in the House earlier. It's simply that there will be existing agreements for mines in the parks that were there in the former government, such as in Strathcona. Historic agreements will be worked with the department to phase them out. No new mines will start in the parks. That's quite clear-cut. No new mines will start in the parks, and mines that were there — the historic agreements that were there when your government was there, such as mining in Strathcona — will be worked towards phasing them out or will continue. Those are the problems that we deal with. No new mines will be started in the parks.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): I have a very simply request, Mr. Premier, and I make it on behalf of my colleague from Victoria and the other three MLAs in Victoria.

We have sought, and so far received no answer, to determine what precisely is your government's policy on the payment of its full share of taxes to the city of Victoria for provincial properties.

I am in receipt of a letter from the mayor of Victoria dated May 12 in which the mayor points out that on the present basis his city will receive this year the sum of $630,505 in property taxes from the provincial government.

The mayor also points out in the same letter that were the province to pay its taxes as every other taxpayer does, the city would be in receipt of $2 million.

Interjection.

[ Page 2365 ]

MR. BARBER: That is a shortfall, as the mayor concludes, of $1.4 million. I would like to point out, Mr. Premier, that the first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) — a member of your own back bench — has very successfully pointed out to the people of Victoria, and I join him in doing so, that this is an unfair and an unreasonable position. It's one which has been unfortunately adopted by provincial governments for years and years and years. I, for one, regret very much that our own government chose not to act on it.

I look forward to hear you saying this morning, Mr. Premier, that you intend, as a matter of policy, that the province shall pay its full share — 100 per cent — of taxes on provincially held property within the city of Victoria.

The mayor of Victoria points out that this year alone the city stands to lose $1.4 million. I join with all five members of the Legislature representing greater Victoria in asking you to give us today your policy. Will you pay full taxes or not? Will you pay them or not?

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Chairman, I only have one question to the Premier and that is: before we finish this current session of the Legislature, will the Premier and his government be calling motion 9? It's on the order paper.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'd just like to welcome the member for Prince Rupert back, Mr. Chairman.

I first of all say to the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) that, as I said yesterday, the department — or the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) — are working on a new financial formula for municipalities. Also under review at the same time is the question of taxes, or grants in lieu of taxes, or the alternatives on government-owned property.

Some of the Crown corporations within ICBC — we passed regulations where they would pay full taxes this year, and the whole matter is under review in conjunction with the revenue-sharing programme that we're discussing to hopefully put the legislation in place with municipalities next year. All I can say is that we're looking at it.

As you know, the Minister of Municipal Affairs was a former mayor of Saanich and a strong advocate of the province paying its way. Certainly his views will not be lost within the framework of the review. I just can't say at this time, because it's not completed as to how it would fit into financial sharing.

MR. BARBER: Will you pay retroactively?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No. I might add that there's no thought at the present time to be retroactive into this year. We're talking about next year.

To the member for Prince Rupert, all motions on the order paper.... I'm not sure what.... I haven't looked up what Motion 9 is, but the motions are there and the traditional procedure in government as to when motions are called will be looked after by the House Leader. I'm sure that, as in past legislatures, some motions will be called and some may still be on the order paper. I've no way of determining right now what motion will be called in advance.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, it's all fine and dandy to stand in the House and say that, as Premier, he has no idea what motion is going to be called...

Interjection.

MR. LEA: ...or whether it isn't going to be called. The fact of the matter is that he has the power.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: He has the authority to call any motion that the government so desires. I am asking whether the government is going to do that because I believe that if that is allowed not to be discussed in this House it is going to leave a black mark over the whole Legislature. It should be discussed openly, the way motions were even put on the order paper by the previous government and then called dealing with these kinds of matters.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I can only say to the hon. member that every motion that's on the order paper is important to those who place it, or it wouldn't be placed as a motion. I am sure that no member of this Legislature has ever placed a motion frivolously. The member asks me, Mr. Chairman, to determine that that motion is more important than others and that some may be left and it will be called because, in his opinion, it's more important. But all motions are of a serious nature. Otherwise I am sure no hon. member would place them on the order paper to take the time of this Legislature.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

I can only say that in many cases in the last Legislature we had motions that we considered urgent and very important that weren't called by the last Premier and the last government. As I say, the Legislature has some time to go and there is plenty of time. We have had some private members' bills and I am sure some motions will be called before the legislative session runs out.

[ Page 2366 ]

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I'll have to accept that answer from the Premier, but it would seem to me that a motion on the order paper that questions the integrity of a cabinet minister and questions the integrity of what that minister has said in this House in terms of whether that information was correct or whether it was deliberately misleading the House is a motion that the Premier would want to have discussed, to clear not only that minister but also the government as a whole. I accept the Premier's answer that he is afraid to call the motion.

MR. MACDONALD: I'll be brief even though I am rested after a good day yesterday. Premier Bourassa, for whom I have a very high respect, is asking, in the patriation-of-the-constitution conferences, for constitutional guarantees respecting language and culture.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We covered that.

MR. MACDONALD: You covered that? Will the Premier give his assurance that British Columbia will not commit itself — we being a multicultural country, really — to such constitutional guarantees, at least without this Legislature being consulted?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, again, we covered the constitution yesterday and British Columbia's position. We took a very basic position on the simple patriation of the constitution with no province starting to use this very symbolic act of uniting the country to negotiate this and that for their provinces. We said that the guarantees for the provinces, in the simple act of patriation, could be in the bill before the British Parliament to say that once the constitution is back, no changes to the constitution could be made without the full approval of all the provinces and that the constitution itself — the amending formula — must have the full approval of all the provinces. When that's done — just bring back the constitution — we can carry out those discussions with our constitution in Canada. We said that to bring the constitution back must be an act of unity for the country.

We are not in favour of any act of bringing back the constitution which, in fact, may divide or balkanize Canada any further. Bringing it back must be a sign of unity and a signal that we are one country. That is why we have stated our position for the simple act of patriation. No other way will serve the purpose of that national unity at this time.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): It's obvious we are reaching the close of the Premier's estimates. Unfortunately there are a number of questions which have been asked of the Premier of this province in his first time in this position which he has not answered.

The one question that I want to ask again — which has been asked by several members of the opposition — is one very simple question which is very crucial to this province: Are you going to increase the royalties on coal? If you are not, why not?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Burnaby North, Mr. Chairman, knows full well that if we start announcing tax increases in advance of the budget, it is, in effect, an indiscretion. We can talk about getting full value for resources and we will. As prices rise on the world market, we expect that the province will participate in any increase in the commodities while maintaining fair taxation.

I might say, although we differ, that we fought an election saying that taxation should never be so punitive nor the government's hand so big for the resource dollar that it takes away from those hands that would keep the industry going — particularly the hand of labour, which is the people working. Above all, we must keep our people working. The government itself alone has the flexibility to ensure that this happens. We must maintain that balance.

When the government's hand becomes so big for the resource dollar that it destroys work opportunity and employment for our people, then government isn't really accepting its first responsibility, which is to the people of this province. That's not a sell-out to resources or to resource companies and multinational companies. That really is being aware that a strong British Columbia, a prosperous British Columbia, can't be achieved with a super-government. It is only achieved when everyone has an opportunity to work and produce; and if government is part of the problem, then government has an obligation to make sure that they aren't part of the problem but part of the solution.

MRS. DAILLY: No answers.

MR. KING: Just a brief comment before the Premier's estimates speed through this House, Mr. Chairman. I could not allow the comments from the Premier to go by without some notice being taken.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I wish the Premier of this province were as sensitive with respect to the heavy cost burdens being imposed upon the backs of the ordinary people in this province as he is sensitive to the cost impacts on those huge corporate friends of his. Here we have had demonstrated in this Legislature, during the course of the Premier's estimates, an indication that an additional cost burden of in excess of $1,200 per year has been imposed upon the working poor of this province directly as a result of the policies, the economic policies, of this government. Yet he has the audacity, Mr. Chairman, to stand up and weep tears of concern for the large mining corporations.

[ Page 2367 ]

Kaiser Resources last year, despite experiencing a royalty increase from 1972 to 1975 of from 15 cents to $1.50 per ton, bore that increased royalty payment and yet, Mr. Chairman, experienced record profits — all-time high profits — through the exportation of our coal, our one-shot, irreplaceable resource. Yet the Premier was able to come in here, apparently without pangs of conscience, and heap the heavy cost burdens upon the taxpayers of this province — over $1,200 a year — on those people who can least afford to pay that kind of cost increase, and then stand up and piously talk about defending the expansion needs and the marginal profit needs of corporations who are doing very well, thank you.

I want to suggest that in an era when Kaiser, for one, experienced record profits, we still have an unemployment rate in this province of very close to 10 per cent. Scandalous! I wonder what justification the Premier has to place the kind of confidence in his corporate friends that he apparently infers. He says they have to be granted profits of this magnitude before employment will be created.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that in the mining industry jobs are shrinking annually because of new technology in the method of mining. Although profits are reaching record all-time highs, the number of jobs to British Columbians are shrinking in that industry. His concern that jobs are going to be created and economic stability achieved solely through reliance on the private sector is an illusion, Mr. Chairman.

I suggest that this government get off their cushiony chairs and start getting out there in the community understanding the plight of the 114,000 people who are unemployed in this province and doing something realistic and sensitive to ease and assuage the tremendous suffering that's going on in our community now, rather than talking about some need to recompense and to subsidize — because, in effect, that is what's happening — those huge corporations who are developing and exploiting our irreplaceable resources and doing very well through their diverse operations.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the Premier gives some attention to that approach.

Vote 2 approved.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN RESOURCES

On vote 113: minister's office, $124,264.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Chairman, members of the House: I firstly wish to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation to the staff of the Department of Human Resources for the tremendous cooperation they have given me over these last difficult months. There's been a great deal of preparation, a great deal of work that had to be done, and certainly I've experienced tremendous cooperation from all of the staff involved. They have been very helpful in the review that took place and very helpful in developing new policies and new attitudes with respect to human resources in British Columbia.

We found on taking office that much had to be done. We found that such programmes as day care had not been reviewed for a whole two years and that delegations were quick to come to the office to make their appeals for an increase in the rates because of the fact that nothing had been done for two years. Certainly an increase was due to these centres.

We found that the Pharmacare rates paid to the pharmacists and the rates paid to the denturists and to the opticians had not been adjusted, that little had been done and that, in fact, still, for example, an optician was not able to prescribe any more than welfare glasses to people in need. Certainly an adjustment was due or overdue.

We found — and perhaps most disturbing — that the welfare rates had not been reviewed, let alone adjusted, for a whole two years and that many groups in society in British Columbia were suffering desperately, particularly the single-parent families and those over 55 years of age who found it difficult, if not impossible, to find employment even when perhaps the opportunity was available. The handicapped were concerned because the programme was such that there was no incentive available to them to seek employment even on a part-time basis. This was a group who historically wants to get out and do their part and be a normal part of society in the community.

We found that the atmosphere with Ottawa was far from good — as a matter of fact, a bit of a joke — and that we lacked millions in federal cost-sharing that might have been available over the years had the appropriate action been taken. We made a number of changes, but also we reiterated statements, policies, that had long been on the books such as attire, which was very controversial, such as the low-employment areas — things that were actually in effect but never enforced. They didn't mean anything. There was no respect, no leadership, no sincerity. It was chaos, like a rudderless ship.

The improvements already made and those to follow will make Human Resources in British Columbia the best and most credible system in the whole of North America.

I heard about the delegations that used to visit — sometimes fairly regularly, I take it — the previous minister (Mr. Levi) — sometimes take over the office entirely. Certainly I must admit that I had and still have a respect for the previous minister because I believe that he sincerely had a real concern and

[ Page 2368 ]

feeling for people — I credit him for this. But I must say that I have been terribly disappointed over the last while. I am hoping that perhaps during the discussion on the estimates the member for Vancouver-Burrard will make a statement once again, perhaps alleviating some of the fears that he has established in the minds of so many people through his recent statements.

He has made statements to suit his political ends. I am sorry for this because it is certainly not something I expected from him. I am hoping that he will make a correction when the opportunity is given him.

AN HON. MEMBER: Irresponsibility.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The thing that these people need most is a sense of security. He is trying his every way to kill that sense through falsehoods, particularly, of course, when he speaks about Mincome and says Mincome is dead.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The first thing we did when we came to office was to increase the Mincome. The Mincome is higher now than it has ever been. I am not sure that it is because perhaps the member doesn't understand....

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

MR. LAUK: I was distracted for just a brief moment. The hon. minister used the word "falsehoods" in relation to the hon. second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi). I would ask the Chairman to direct the minister to withdraw that remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me check that. Hon. Minister were you impugning the hon. member? Did you impute any improper motive in your speech?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Could I change it to "incorrect statements"?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then I have to ask you to withdraw "falsehood."

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I will withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: He withdraws. Thank you.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I am not sure if it is because perhaps some of the members on the other side still do not understand the Mincome programme as it was or was meant to be. It is the old-age security plus the guaranteed income supplement plus a provincial payment to bring it up to a certain amount for those 65 years or age and over. It is the minimum income by way of spouse's allowance plus the payments for those between 60 and 65 married to someone 65 years of age and over, or it is a straight payment for those in need not meeting a certain level of income to those between the ages of 60 and 65.

The figure is adjusted quarterly on that portion which comes to the people from the federal government, and that adjustment is based on a change in the cost of living. The adjustment so made is totally at the cost of the federal government. There is no provincial sharing required for those moneys which are brought about through the quarterly adjustment. We can adjust for those between the ages of 60 and 65, but when such adjustments are made it is completely at the cost of the provincial government.

Following the last adjustment — and perhaps this is where some of the confusion comes in, and I'm hoping perhaps this may explain it to the member if he doesn't understand it fully — we decided to withhold such similar increases to those 60 to 65 so we could assess the priority needs for those people who require the services from the Department of Human Resources, so we could devise a new and better and more equitable formula for all of the people involved, not any one particular group because they're out there, because they're visible or because it's politically popular, but for all of the people requiring assistance from the Department of Human Resources.

These priority needs are real. When $1 million of non-shareable revenue is spent, then that $1 million non-shareable could have purchased in other areas $2 million worth of services or benefits on shareable programmes. This is recognized by the thousands of people in British Columbia who are thinking and who are seeing through all of these programmes and who know the needs not only of themselves but others in the community. These people have called me and they've written me, and I'm very pleased with the response generally. The needs of even those who perhaps cannot speak out for themselves as well, the disadvantaged that possibly are not visible but are really there, and that perhaps have long been forgotten, and certainly over the past two years have not been attended to....

The Department of Human Resources is going to be a positive force and, of course, the GAIN legislation will give us the blueprint for progress and action in British Columbia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, you know, if history in this province is going to have to start on December 11, 1975, then I think what we have to do is to perhaps remind some of the new members across the way what existed before

[ Page 2369 ]

December 11, 1975.

The minister seems to feel that if a programme is not cost-shareable, then we mustn't get into it. I would remind him and I would remind the House, Mr. Chairman, that in September of 1972, the handicapped in this province, some 3,000 of them, were getting $139 a month. The senior citizens in this province — and there were 205,000 senior citizens in this province over the age of 65 in 1972 — half of them, approximately 108,000, were on the guaranteed income supplement getting a maximum of $150. Then there were 16,000 people who were getting the supplementary provincial allowance of which 1,200 got the maximum of $41 and the rest got anywhere from $1 up to $41. Now what has to be understood is that under that programme, if you're going to operate an assets test, that is the only number of people that you can possibly have on that programme.

Mr. Chairman, you can look at the programme and you can say to yourself: "If we're to operate within the guidelines of cost-sharing, then we can only afford to have in this province some 16,000 people who would be entitled to a supplement and only 1,200 who would be entitled to the full supplement in order for us to cost-share with Ottawa."

As I said in the Premier's estimates last night, Mr. Chairman, there was a long and bitter debate in this House in February, 1972, around the issue of a guaranteed income of $200 a month. It was well known in those days and even in the days before that senior citizens in this province were not getting the kind of assistance that they needed. It was well known that there were senior citizens in this province who were starving. It was well known that people of that age were eating dog food.

There was a great debate; it was one of the issues in the 1972 election: are the people of this province prepared to expend millions of dollars to assist senior citizens — and not just 16,000 senior citizens, but the bulk of the 107,000 that were on the guaranteed supplement? At that time the average payment on the income supplement was only $40; the maximum would be up to $67. But the average person on the guaranteed income supplement — those 107,000 — in 1972 were getting $120 to $130 a month, not the full payment — remember that only 1,200 got the full payment. Thus the great debate in the election, and the seniors took part in it that election.

They made themselves very visible; they said that they wanted a fair share of the pie that was being cut up. They had made their contribution and wanted to be assisted. So when we were elected, within six weeks we came into this House and we tabled the bill. Now I would remind the minister that it's very strange that we went from 16,000 people who were in need to 108,000 people by December 1972. Nobody in the province begrudged them that money.

We took the position that if we could get sharing, we would get it. If we couldn't, then the taxpayers of the province — because we'd been elected on one of those issues — would pay the amount, and that's what happened.

In the first instance we introduced the programme in order to meet need, and that was what was important. But I go back to the minister's statement. If you wish to conduct all of your programmes under the basis of cost-sharing, then you will go back immediately to 1972. And that's where you're going to go back to, because if you insist that you're only going to participate in programmes of income support that are cost-shared, then you will have a smaller number of people every year being assisted, and a large number of people who need to be assisted will have to be taken out or will not be able to come in because the assets test will affect them.

What is going to happen is that we're going to get a return back to the days when people.... And Mr. Chairman, I don't want to get into discussing the GAIN legislation; I'm still on the Mincome thing. If people have $3,000 and $4,000 of assets, instead of computing income from those assets you're to say: "You're not going to be eligible for the programme until those assets are down to $1,500." That's what the previous Social Credit government did. That's why they were only assisting 16,000 senior citizens in this province in 1972. Now you're making it very clear that that's what you want to do.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that what we had in the beginning when the government took over, and the minister took over his job, was a great deal of very heavy rhetoric — which is very popular out there, that kind of rhetoric. We had the kind of rhetoric where the minister would go up to Nanaimo and would say: "Do you know that 10,000 dead people have cards and they're getting Pharmacare?" He said that up in Nanaimo in front of a group of believers — Socred Party members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ten thousand of them?

MR. LEVI: Yes, 10,000 people were getting cards for Pharmacare, and they were dead. Yes, Mr. Minister of Forests and Lands and Water Resources, you can look like that.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources and Minister of Forests): Wrong again!

MR. LEVI: Wrong again? He didn't say that?

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: The minister is defending you, Bill.

[ Page 2370 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, he went up there and he said that 10,000 dead people are getting Pharmacare cards.

You know, it's interesting that there was a question asked on the order paper by one of the members: how many people got the card? How many prescriptions were filled, and how much did it cost? And what was his reply? Nil; not appropriate, not applicable.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that right?

MR. LEVI: Yes. Then he went to Vancouver and in a moment of euphoria he said that welfare in this province is $40 million to $80 million. And the member for Prince George (Mr. Lloyd) believes him, don't you, Mr. Member? After all, you're with him on that side of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you talk to the Chairman?

MR. LEVI: No, no. I'm talking to you, through the Chairman. Don't get so touchy. Is it $40 million to $80 million? Now we have to ask the minister during these estimates: is it $40 million, is it $80 million, is it $100 million, is it $200 million?

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Oh, there we go.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Don't be silly; I know it's not $100 million.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, $100 million — that's your figure.

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

MR, LEVI: These are his figures — $40 million to $80 million — just like that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I interrupt you just long enough to assist you? The member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor, and if any member wishes to speak, then please stand in your place and address the Chair.

MR. LEVI: I would like the minister to tell us how it was that we lost out on some several millions of dollars. During the budget debate I asked the Minister of Finance.... There's a section in the budget speech, which I presume was written by the minister or somebody who gave him the information, saying that the previous government lost out on $17 million of cost-sharing. When I asked the Minister of Finance if he could tell me what that was, he said I had better ask the Minister of Human Resources, because he didn't know what it was all about. So I'm now asking you: are you familiar with the section in the budget? Mr. Chairman, I'm asking the minister if he's familiar with that section. It says that we lost out on $17 million.

I would like to tell the House how this happened. In what way did this take place that we lost out on $17 million? Or is he making reference, possibly, to a new programme that is not yet in place — the income supplementation programme? It isn't in place yet and is not likely to be, as I understand it, as a formal programme for perhaps almost two years. I would like him to tell us where we lost out on that, bearing in mind that the basic procedure that we took in terms of doing things in terms of seniors and the handicapped was first of all making it possible for them to get the money and then doing what we could in terms of some adjustment to get whatever cost-sharing we could get.

We made no secret of the fact that in terms of the Mincome programme the total amount of money that was being shared by the federal government was approximately 20 per cent — just over 19 per cent. The rest was being picked up by the taxpayer in the province. But the important thing is that if you're going to go the cost-share route, Mr. Chairman, then obviously you are going to exclude a significant number of people who need to be on the programme.

Without referring to the GAIN legislation, it's my understanding that the minister is reputed to have said that approximately 5,000 people in the 55-59 group will benefit under the GAIN programme. What we'll have to do when that bill comes up is to produce some of the income tax data and find out just how many of that age group, which is approximately 130,000 to 140,000, need to benefit but will not be able to get into the programme because there's an asset test.

The minister tells us, in respect to the Mincome programme, that in January he increased the Mincome payment to $265. That's quite true. That announcement regarding the increase was made in October, 1975, at the time when the former Premier announced the price freeze and what other adjustments would be made to assist groups. At that time the announcement was that for all people over the age of 60 and handicapped people their Mincome would go to $265. It worked out at about a $15 increase over the previous payment.

So far, Mr. Chairman, I am in agreement with the minister that $265 was paid out in January, 1976. However, when we get to April of 1976 we find that

[ Page 2371 ]

only the people over the age of 65 got the quarterly increase and that the handicapped and the 60-64 group did not.

We're told that the reason that they did this was that they wanted to review and to look at the situation so that they could perhaps spend the money in a better way. I frankly don't know what better way there is of spending money than assisting people who are on the handicapped pension and people between the ages of 60-64, but perhaps the minister will enlarge on that when he comes in.

He made reference to the pharmacists. I don't know whether he mentioned the dentists, but I think he mentioned the pharmacists not having an adjustment. That's very interesting, because when he answered the question on the order paper he noted that there were at least three adjustments during the three years that the NDP was the government. That's on the order paper. You answered the question.

The minister will have to tell us, because we have to keep going back over this, Mr. Chairman. The minister has a problem of saying one thing and then somehow later on saying something else. He makes a mistake so he corrects it. He makes another mistake so he corrects it. I have to say to the minister that he said that the rates for pharmacists had not been looked at for years. Mr. Minister, that simply isn't true. The rates were looked at last year. They were looked at the year before and they were increased and they were increased right back from 1973. So if you're going to give us the information, tell us the facts.

On the optical thing, you're quite right. That's quite true. We were in discussion at that time on that one. But when you're going to give information you should give the information in such a way that there's a degree of frankness without rancour.

You talk about reviewing programmes. I think what you have to do is to go over to your administrative offices in the Belmont Building and meet more frequently with the staff and discuss with them and read the reports on the various reviews that were made in respect to all of the programmes. All programmes were constantly under review. That's the way you operate. To suggest that the programmes were not under review is simply not the case.

I want to make reference to the work programme which is called PREP. Perhaps the minister will be able to tell us how, Mr. Chairman, with an unemployment problem of some 115,000 people he is going to develop a system, according to his assistant in Vancouver, which in the first three months he's going to find some 12,000 jobs.

Well, I'm sure the minister knows that half of that gentleman's problems are usually over anyway because the number of people going off welfare into employment averages about 2,000 a month; so he's going to succeed with about 2,000 in any case.

As I said when the press asked me about the PREP programme, I was quite fascinated that they could achieve such a large amount of employment. If this is the case and he's able to do this by, say, September 1, then I would suggest seriously that at the First Ministers' conference, Mr. Chairman, the Premier speak to Prime Minister Trudeau and suggest that he replace Mr. Andras, who is really making a mess of things down there.

I think that it is one thing for somebody to talk in a very realistic way about putting people to work, but it's an entirely different thing to use a large amount of rhetoric which does not amount to the kind of employment that one can find. We went through, in this province, in 1970, 1971 and 1972, the Provincial Alliance for Businessmen, when we had one of our former predecessors — I refer to "our, " Mr. Chairman; the present minister and myself — who was the great gafflebagger of this Legislature at one time. He said that he was going to put more people to work than anybody else in Creation.

I would remind the members, and there are members on that side — the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), when he used to be on this side — who used to ask questions of that former minister.... Do you know, in all of that operation we couldn't find where job placements had taken place in more than 200 cases in the fiscal year 1971-72? We asked the questions. We put the questions on the order paper, and the questions came back. None of the great number of jobs materialized that we were told were materializing.

Now if it is possible for the minister to place people in employment, that is good. I think that that's a first-class effort. In the three and a half years that I was over there doing the job he's doing now, we made every effort to place as many people as we could in employment. I met three years ago with your Mr. Stowe and used some of the methods in the department. After all, we had over 30 job-finders. We conducted in the city of Victoria, Mr. Chairman, a very successful job-finding programme until the Province of Alberta threw up its hands and said: "Stop sending your people to Alberta." But at that time we were making arrangements through Canada Manpower to send people who were employable to jobs that were available, because you will recall that in 1974, Mr. Chairman, the unemployment rate in Alberta was less than 2 per cent. We were looking for the possibilities of where we could send people who were willing to work. That happened. That operated. We moved over 1,200 people out at that time.

But there is a question that we have to ask ourselves. We have to ask ourselves a question in terms of how far we can go in terms of operating a Department of Human Resources in the whole business of pre-empting what should be — and, in my opinion, has never quite happened — the function of

[ Page 2372 ]

the Canada Manpower in order to find the kind of employment that people need.

Certainly we are not dealing, when we are dealing with the unemployed employables, with the most employable people in the world. They are simply the low men on the totem pole in terms of their access and opportunity to employment. It may very well be that there might be jobs out there at $3 and $4 and $5 an hour, but in my discussion with employers, and I've had a lot of discussions with employers in terms of these jobs, it is a very difficult process to convince them that these people need the opportunity to be able to work.

After all, in this province in 1974, recognizing the problem as it was, Mr. Chairman, we became the first province to become involved with Canada Manpower in the community employment programme. As a matter of fact, that programme, as a basic idea, came out of a joint paper by two members of the department who submitted it to the federal-provincial conference and it was picked up by the federal government. We entered into the first agreement with the Government of Canada to implement a community employment programme. We selected the two areas where the programme should start operating, in Nanaimo and in Kamloops, and the objective of the programme was to reach the hard-to-employ, the so-called hard-core unemployed, and train them and put them into jobs.

It's a slow process. The figures, in terms of successes, are never very great, and they are not satisfying to the public. But it is a slow process. That was put into place, and it is my understanding that it is still in place. We had a report from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), who is one of the participants, who made a statement saying that that programme was in place and that we are still participating in it.

So there is nothing that the minister has told us, in terms of the plans for the department, that is new. What is new is the rhetoric, but not the planning. The planning was there. That's a credit to the department; that's not a credit to the minister. It's there. They were asked to put together these ideas. The rhetoric is the thing that is different. But the effort is there, and it is still there, and that is the important thing. Across all the political stuff, I say, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, that it's a tough job that they have in terms of trying to place the unemployed, especially the people on welfare. But let's not single them out as being some kind of public enemy of this province — these people who are on welfare — particular the unemployed employable. Because, Mr. Chairman, the minister knows as well as I do that the large majority of that group turn over at such a rapid rate that we are only left with a small, hard-core group of people. But the rest of the unemployed employables turn over. They go back to work. They seek out. They find out what's happening.

But always remember that that group you have of unemployed employables are people who are always going to be on the periphery of the employment field unless they are able to get some kind of training. Who are they competing with? They are competing with a large number of people in this province who are not employed. The largest single group of unemployed in this province are the people between the ages of 16 and 25. That's not only a provincial figure in terms of the percentage but it's also a national figure. And there is a lot left to be desired in respect to what happens to 16, 17, 18 and 19-year-olds in this province and in this country in terms of what future they have. What future do they have in terms of employment when many of them are not making it through the school system?

Now we are dealing with a very small group of people. We are not dealing with hundreds of thousands of people. We are dealing with in that age group something in the order of 30,000 to 40,000 people. But the important thing is that when you look at that total budget that exists in the Department of Human Resources, when you look at the unemployed-employable category, that expenditure represents 3 per cent — 3 per cent of the total expenditure of the department. It's true that the public can look and can say, Mr. Chairman, if you're spending $12 million to $15 million in terms of assisting 10,000 to 12,000 people who are classed as unemployed employables...then there are some questions raised. But when you bear in mind that there are large numbers of these people who work through the system, the important thing is that this becomes an inevitability in terms of the economic system that we have,

In all sincerity, I wish you luck in terms of the job-finding efforts, because it is important that we are able to find people.... But it is important that the public not be misled. I know how tough it is to try and see that we make the effort to get people into employment. But it's the rhetoric, Mr. Chairman. It's the rhetoric which panders to a large group of people out there who are looking for some kind of scapegoat.

It is very easy to select out and to say there is an unemployed-unemployable group and to leave the impression out there among the public that most of them are 20 years old and have hair down to their backs, and that's not the case. But it's very nice for the kind of rhetoric the people want to hear out there. But that's not what the problem is all about, Mr. Minister. If that's the kind of rhetoric you want to use, then that's on your head. But I have never used that rhetoric and would never be prepared to use it. I am not prepared to excoriate any group in society, whether they be unemployed employables, the old people or the young people. And I know that

[ Page 2373 ]

you have allies out here. You have an ally in the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). He loves the rhetoric that you use because he thinks the same as you do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mein Kempf.

MR. LEVI: You know, that's the way he thinks.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Well, the important thing is putting aside the rhetoric. We have to look at the difficulties that this minister has in terms of his job, and I accept it. All of us who have been ministers know how difficult it is to do the kind of job that has to be done. But I keep impressing the fact about rhetoric because rhetoric does not get the job done. It doesn't get it done at all.

What is it? I can't even remember what PREP is — provincial re-employment programme.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Provincial rehabilitation and employment programme. Okay, a very nice name. But I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that what you really should make it is: "Provide real employment, please." Let's not have a lot of rhetoric. Let's not talk about all the jobs that are available at $4 or $5.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: You like that one? "Provide real employment, please." That's what you have to say to the employers. That's what they have to say, Mr. Chairman. "Provide real employment, please." Don't give us a job that's going to last for three days. Don't give us a job that's going to last for five days.

Because you know what happens? If you work for one day in this province and then you get laid off, you become a statistic with Canada Manpower. They have you down as being employed. That's what is remarkable about their figures. They say there are 115,000 unemployed, but when you look at the number of people who are supposed to be employed and you look very closely, they have people on the employment figures who aren't working. But if you work one day you become an employment statistic.

So in terms of this minister's programme — yes, proper employment. Let's make sure that if they're offered a job it has some possibility.... I know that it's not going to be possible in every case. In some cases many of these people who have not worked for a long time are not going to be able to sustain that kind of employment, period. It's true. Whether we like to accept it or not there are people in our province on welfare who are not able to function the way most people can function. But again, it is important that when we do this we don't do it in a rhetoric where people are going to get upset, where people are going to feel that that is the real enemy. Who do they point to? Some young, long-haired kid who might be lucky to get $160 a month twice and then he is off and gone somewhere. The important thing is that it is what happens in the discussions with the employers.

We know, in terms of the whole employment situation, the Manpower unfortunately is still not cognizant of more than about 40 per cent of employers who are seeking employees. That's one of the sad things about Canada Manpower: they do not have the kind of confidence from the employers that they really should have — not that they've earned it, because they've got a long way to go to be able to develop the kind of delivery system that makes them as credible as they should be. The important thing is that there are jobs out there. The jobs vary in terms of their location.

I would like to hear sometime during this debate the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), Mr. Chairman, get up and tell us what the employers are doing in his area to attract people to employment.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Get them up there — that's fair enough. I remember two years ago going into Mackenzie, where they needed a lot of people to work. There was nowhere to live. In the summer they were sleeping on the beach and they were working in the mill. It's one thing to talk about employment and it's another thing to talk about what the employers are prepared to do beyond the business of providing employment. That is an important thing. It is suggested that if the employer doesn't provide the kind of adequate facilities for people.... You see, you've got the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) there — the minister of company towns. Under his estimates we are going to discuss the literal horrors of company towns where the turnover of employment is so terrible because the employers have still not looked, Mr. Chairman, at the need to provide for people other than employment. Those are the difficulties that the member for Omineca's (Mr. Kempf's) people have.

MR. KEMPF: You're wrong again.

MR. LEVI: Wrong again. He's the know-it-all. What I would hope, Mr. Chairman, is that if he stands up — if he can understand what's going on in this debate — he will tell us what the problems are.

I suggest to you that the problems go beyond the simple provision of employment. That is the kind of thing in the discussions that all the ministers have in

[ Page 2374 ]

terms of economic development in this province. There are discussions with the employers about how far they are prepared to go in terms of assisting people, particularly those people who have not been able to hold onto regular employment. It's not always because they are not prepared to stay on the job, but they are not prepared to stay on the job if the living conditions are absolutely impossible. Those are some of the problems that create unemployment, that create the kind of turnovers that we have.

In terms of the minister, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to just cover one other thing; perhaps he would comment on it. First of all, I was hoping that we would have an annual report. Is it coming in the next few days?

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: He says yes — after the estimates, presumably.

I would like him to comment, if he would, on what took place in Ottawa. As I understand it, B.C., Quebec and Saskatchewan were part of that triad again that was in favour of support. This is according to the reports in the Globe and Mail, Mr. Chairman. Would he comment on what took place in Ottawa in the last few days?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 113 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on! The minister didn't get up — stop playing games!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair can only recognize members on their feet. Shall vote 113 pass?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I was very happy there for a moment, Mr. Chairman. I thought perhaps everyone was being very cooperative and that we were going to do away with a lot of rhetoric.

MR. LEVI: No, Wednesday afternoon you will get it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I would be very pleased to answer some of the questions raised. Yes, starting from the last, we certainly did in Ottawa discuss very thoroughly the matter not only of the new social services Act but also of the guaranteed-income supplement proposals. I am sure the member is aware, from reading press reports and also from perhaps judging those reports that have come back to British Columbia through Canadian Press, that British Columbia was the most positive province with respect to this proposal.

I am sure everyone here in the House would agree that if we want to take people off welfare and if we want to help those people who are very close to the line and may one day end up on welfare we should provide the type of programme that is being proposed from Ottawa, that being the guaranteed income supplement.

The guaranteed income supplement programme provides incentives to those on welfare to in fact become employed, even if only on a part-time basis at first. It also provides additional income for those people who are working for a very low wage and who are often just as well off on welfare. So we do, and did, support the programme and we're hoping that we might have further negotiations with Ottawa regarding it.

On the matter of the figures used by the hon. member regarding the number of people on welfare who are unemployed but employable: the figures that you gave ranged from 30,000 to 40,000 to 10,000 and were a little misleading in that respect, so I would like to give you this figure, 23,500 people, which is a figure given me by the department and which appears to be accurate. That is, 23,500 people on welfare are unemployed but employable. And we've been very conservative in our figures because, for example, of the 22,000 single parents, we only used 1,000 in the figure of 23,500 because we would like to believe that again it is preferable to have the single parent at home, wherever possible, in order to provide for the family.

You made mention of the programme that existed previously. You mentioned the employment programme as it existed before PREP and you also mentioned the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen. I don't know too much about the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen, or just exactly what the figures were, and I don't want to enter into that debate, I do know that the programme was, soon after you came to office, discontinued, and unfortunately I'm sure some of the people, particularly those who were in the making of the programme, found themselves either on leave of absence or unemployed. I can assure you that no such action was taken by this particular minister with respect to the Department of Human Resources; we have not had layoffs, we have not had people moved from particular positions because they were involved in a particular provincial programme or of a particular affiliation.

Regarding the programme as it existed in the department just prior to PREP, one of the unfortunate parts of that programme is that in fact it was more of a roll-over programme. It did not provide for a followup, a follow-through or any check to determine whether people were placed in employment and kept employed, or whether they were just simply given a job for a few days and then

[ Page 2375 ]

back into the welfare scene. So the figures there are really not a true measure of the success of that particular programme, and that is why we're hopeful our new programme will provide a far better result in that it's not only finding people work, it's not only seeking out jobs; it is following through after jobs are found and people have been placed in employment. It is following through to make certain a week, a month or two months later that they are still there working, still active, that they are still happy and employed and that all is well not only for the employer but also the employee.

It also involves training, rehabilitation, motivation and community involvement. So all in all it's a far wider programme, and I'm sure that the results will be extremely gratifying and meet with your approval as well as mine.

There was mention made of the $17 million. The question was asked: Where did the $17 million come from that was supposedly lost in cost-sharing from Ottawa? Yes, that is a fairly accurate figure. Again, it's a figure that was given me by the departmental people following considerable research. The problem is that there was no cost-sharing on the majority of Mincome recipients, of course, because there wasn't any asset test, as you're aware, hon. member. The institution of an asset test will allow for far greater cost-sharing by Ottawa.

Also, if we can increase through GAIN the assistance given to other categories of people, then naturally there will be far greater cost-sharing available for those Mincome recipients as well.

I believe that fairly well covers the questions raised. You certainly made comment about my having made errors in statements, or mistakes in statements. I don't believe there were too many, but if there was, I did quickly correct them. I certainly will continue to correct any mistakes made, and I think that's the way it ought to be. I don't blame them on other people in the department. I don't blame other ministers or other members of the government. I take the blame and I correct the mistakes. Thank you.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, the minister is a good bloke. He takes all of the responsibility and that's good.

MR, D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): A lot better than the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) .

MR. LEVI: Yes, his colleague, the Minister of Health....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's more than you did.

MR. LEVI: Ah, Mr. Minister of Economic Development, you can't cite one example of when I didn't take my lumps when I had to. Right, Mr. Chairman? If I had to do it, I had to do it and that was it.

Don't sit there suggesting that it was otherwise, because it wasn't. Don't just talk for the sake of talking. That man sits there and his mouth moves and he says virtually nothing.

Just going back to the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen for a moment....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Why don't you just use those cards — yes and no?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LEVI: I just want to make mention to the minister of . . . In respect to the PAB, just to clarify it, the PAB that we inherited — of course, you said you didn't know, so that's fair enough — was made up of Mr. Gaglardi's flaks. We inherited 26 flaks. You know what a flak is, Mr. Minister. That's a political appointment...26 of them. We found that just three or four months before they schlepped them through on order-in-council. We were simply not prepared to have that kind of what we characterized as a pork barrel, and we dispensed with it. We undertook and did.... In all cases but two, people were placed in other forms of employment. We did that at the same time. It was Willingdon.

That programme certainly was not a programme that we were prepared to deal with at all, because it didn't show any kind of results at all. Certainly I think that the advantage that the minister has is that he has an opportunity to look, as he has done, at the existing attempts at job-finding in the department and some ideas that he has of his own. That's fair enough. I have no criticism with that at all. Just to restate that: as long as the employment is real and it is not just a statistic, it's worthwhile,

I would like to talk about and cover just briefly some of the problems in relation to the number of recipients. The reason I want to raise this is because, you know, there have been many debates about which government did what kind of programme for people on welfare, whether the former Social Credit government was the great work party and what other government was not the work party — that is, the work-creating party.

One of the things I would like to point out is that, as I understand it, if I'm correct today, and I know in December the figures were approximately true, there are approximately 130,000 people on welfare at the moment — approximately, within perhaps a thousand. It may be a thousand out, just about that. Of that, as I understood, probably 68,000 to 70,000

[ Page 2376 ]

are children. We're looking at perhaps 28,000 to 29,000 family heads, and then we're looking at about 30,000 single people. It is important to look in terms of the single people because we're dealing, Mr. Chairman, with people between the ages of 18 and 59. That covers that whole group,

I am prepared to dispute very strongly the minister's suggestion that there are 23,000 unemployed employables in this province. I simply am not prepared to accept that figure, not prepared to accept it at all. If you have 30,000 single people, and the experience that we went through, particularly in the Vancouver area and in this area here where everybody was interviewed.... Those that were found to be employable were sent for job counselling, Mr. Chairman. It was found that of every 10 people who were sent on to job counselling, only six really were, in any way, job-ready and could be considered employable. We found that the figures really were reduced quite dramatically. That's why we used the figure, and very legitimately so, in terms of singles now — for a moment I'm talking about singles — of somewhere between 8,000 and 10,000 single unemployed people.

The question of the employability of the other people — and there are a number of things that mitigates against them getting employment, Mr. Chairman. There is the question of age. There is that group that is over 40 which is now a tough age in which to become employable, particularly if you're at the welfare level.

There are single women who are also the widows who are not eligible for the Mincome. They're not readily employable. It's simply not good enough to look at an age group and suggest that these people are readily employable, because they're not. I would dispute very strongly the minister's figure of 23,000, because I don't think that that in any way is correct. If we are dealing with 28,000 family heads and we have about 22,000 single women, now the suggestion is that the other people who are the family heads.... And, of course, you have men and women. The important thing is examining, particularly middle-aged people, why they're not employable. You know, we did inherit over the years a large number of people, now in their fifties, who previously had fairly serious industrial accidents, who at the time were not compensable, and consequently became part of the welfare system.

Many, many of these people are not employable. That's the trouble. They're not employable for many reasons, physically, and we went through very much the old question of the low back injury when we broadened the handicapped pension programme. On the issue of the 23,000, I would strongly dispute that.

One other question I do want to raise is that if we have 130,000 people who are on the welfare rolls, I would point out to you that back in.... December, 1970, was the peak month, the highest month — in fact, 1970-71 was the highest year for welfare recipients in the history of this whole province. In that year we had 136,000 people on welfare — 1970-1971. It was a very serious unemployment situation.

That was the year when our predecessor had his not-so-well-known overrun of some 36 per cent of his budget, He budgeted $108 million and spent $147 million. That was a bit of a habit in those days — getting overruns in that department. But that year was really the worse year; 147,000 people were on welfare in December, 1970, but the average for that year was 136,000.

At no time during the 3.5 years that NDP were government did we reach that figure, and I sincerely hope that we will never reach that figure again. The welfare numbers in this province in 1973 and 1974 were down significantly, even to below 108,000. Certainly there is a time lag of the effect of unemployment and what it does to your welfare figures, but let's get the record straight, Mr. Chairman — at no time under the previous government were the welfare figures ever as high as they were under the previous Social Credit government.

The important question of the future is the one that concerns me, and I ask the minister this. It's something he might like to think about over the weekend. I have looked very closely at his departmental budget and looked at the appropriations that he's made for direct social assistance. I'm concerned, Mr. Chairman, that the minister does not have in his budget anywhere near the kind of money he's going to need to even cover the kind of social-assistance operation he may get into.

One would hope that the employment situation is going to improve, and it's important that it improve, particularly from the point of view of the minister's department. It's been suggested that by October or November — and I hope this doesn't happen — the reported rates are showing somewhere in the order of 130,000 and 140,000. If that occurs I would strongly suggest that the minister, Mr. Chairman, is going to have reason to become extremely twitchy as to whether he's got enough money in his budget to cover the cost, because once they start coming on, they seem to come on in geometric numbers, and it becomes tough. I appreciate that he's moved in and he's slashed the special-needs programme, which I think was an extremely retrograde step. You've gone back to what I used to call, when I first became the minister, the $35 blanket caper.

I'll tell you about the $35 blanket caper. When I first came in, on my desk was a memo about a request for approval, under the special-health needs, for two blankets. I think it was for $35. That request kept bouncing from the supervisor in the office in

[ Page 2377 ]

Vancouver up through the regional director to the assistant minister's office to the deputy's office, and somehow it landed up on my desk. We decided to take a look at what it cost for this kind of stuff to go bouncing up and down two or three times through the bureaucracy. We found that that little exercise which had gone on for almost three months cost $800 of time, going up and back. That was the system that existed in 1972 before we came in. That was because you needed approval for almost everything.

The idea of the special-needs programme, Mr. Chairman, was that you would give the line workers who knew what the situation was.... It was always said to them that you don't have the key to the bank if you make the right kind of judgment, but when you make judgments about emergency needs you've got to make them at that time. You can't stall people when they're having problems; they need to be dealt with right away. That's why the special-needs was brought in. It was not brought in, as one of the members who sits on the public accounts committee suggests.... You know, somebody whispered in his ear: "We've got a little bit of political stuff here. There was a bit of a ripoff going on." He hasn't come up with the facts yet and I hope he will deal with that in the estimates. But the thing is that the special-needs programme was to meet special needs, and everybody has special needs. Most of us who have special needs, who are not on welfare, usually have access to bank accounts. If we don't, we go to the banker and ask him to give us a loan. These people have nowhere to go, and that's why you have a special-needs programme. If what is going to happen is that you're going to have to require the going back up the line to the regional director for approval, then it's going to cost a lot of money, and you're going to have people out there whose needs are not being met.

One of the great problems that existed in the system was the whole business of the voucher. The voucher was the great system where, because of what the comptroller-general required, everything had to be vouchered. Then we found that to voucher things, to give somebody a voucher and do all the things they had to do with it...they'd go to the store and buy something by a voucher, and very often the girl at the cash register would go: "Mr. Manager, welfare voucher!" You know, a very embarrassing kind of process. So we brought in the impress-cheque system — an immediate, spontaneous response to what people need. It's money-saving; it's a humane way of doing it; it meets need quickly and at the time it is needed.

I think in the question period you said that you were looking at the programme. Now I hope that after you have looked at it you will reinstitute it, because that's the way to run a programme in respect to meeting emergency needs. Because of the people the minister is dealing with, Mr. Chairman, it is important that the system be able to react in a quick, practical manner. But what has now been suggested, and because the regional directors have to approve it, the people are going to wait and there is going to be hardship. If we drift back to that previous system, it's going to be very, very costly. So I would like the minister, if he would, to comment on the special needs programme and that hopefully it is coming back.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, the special needs programme has not been discontinued. Special needs can be looked after now through the regional director. It was formerly handled by practically anyone and everyone in the field. Frankly, there was concern expressed by the people in the field themselves who felt that it was too open-ended — and I'm sure you understand this — that in fact people who knew their way through and could make a noise were receiving benefits sometimes over and above what might have been required, while others, who were perhaps a little more timid and couldn't come forth quite as easily or didn't know exactly how to go through the ropes, were not receiving the benefits even though the need was there.

So we've now said that special needs can be attended to through the regional director, and we are reviewing the programme to devise a better way that we may have these benefits not only for those who know how to get through, how to make the application, but for those who are really and truly in need, regardless. So it's not a discontinuation, it's a review, and I'm hoping we will come up with a better approach. Certainly we will be reporting on that very soon, I hope. But the staff has welcomed this time off so they will have the opportunity of making recommendations to the department for improvement of it.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

NANAIMO SCHOOLS DISPUTE SETTLEMENT

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: A brief statement with respect to the dispute which has been continuing in the city of Nanaimo, its regional district and the school district involved.

[ Page 2378 ]

I wish to announce that I will be appointing an industrial inquiry commission for the purpose of assisting the parties in that dispute in the resolution of their difficulties. This decision has been made taking fully into account the consequences which this dispute has had and will in the future have upon those citizens and students who are the victims of such a work stoppage.

The identity of the commission will be announced on Monday. At the moment discussions are continuing in my office with the representatives of the union and of the employees' association with respect to the details surrounding the inquiry and the implications that may arise from any recommendations the inquiry may make.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Minister.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. Minister of Labour for his statement. I know he has worked very hard to try to arrive at some sort of solution or at least some procedure to arrive at a solution. My concern is that a commission will be appointed, that there will be no agreement that the report will be binding on both parties, which it could be if they both agreed in advance, and in that event the likelihood of the schools opening before the end of June would be almost impossible.

I'd like to ask the minister and all the members in the House to join with me in making a unanimous request that both parties agree in advance that the report, when it does come down, will be binding upon both of them, in which event the schools could reopen immediately.

I know the union is very concerned about this, about the effect it will have on their position and the concern that it will impair their bargaining position from here on, but I think the effects on the community, and in particular on the students in that school district — the importance of getting the schools reopened fully for the limited time that is still available in the school year — should outweigh the concerns that the union has right now.

So I would ask the members in the House to join me — I know that the official opposition will — in asking for a unanimous request to both parties that they do agree that the report, when it comes down, will be binding, and that in that event, work will resume immediately.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mt. Chairman, I certainly welcome also the statement by the minister. I found the report which was tabled in the House yesterday describing the situation which has developed in relation to teaching conditions and even lack of cleanliness in the school facilities and so on to be quite disturbing.

While I can't say that I stand at a moment in the history of the Conservative Party when I can speak with the authority of hundreds of thousands of voters, I do feel that the point made by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) is absolutely central to this kind of problem with which, unfortunately, the minister is repetitively being faced. This was the comment I made just yesterday in acknowledging his progress in appointing an industrial inquiry commissioner in the case of the hospital dispute — that, in fact, this did represent one further serious and sincere effort to solve the problem, but that the findings of the commissioner would not be binding.

I can only say that I would support most strongly and eagerly the suggestion by the member for Nanaimo that this House, in some way or other, try to indicate its deep desire to have the two parties consider the sound wisdom of having the findings of the commissioner binding.

I cannot, of course, and would not dare to speak for the Liberal leader, who doesn't happen to be here today, but he and I have....

HON. MR. BENNETT: He's celebrating. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: The Premier, I think, in interjecting that the Liberal Leader is celebrating, I would say, is being presumptuous. But in discussions with the Liberal leader, and considering many of the statements he's made on this very sensitive area, it would not surprise me at all if he joined with the House in suggesting that our unanimous recommendation go to the parties, pleading with them that if it is at all within their power at the discussions which the minister mentioned a moment ago, that are continuing in his office.... And I would appreciate knowing, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, if he could tell the House whether that decision has been made by the two parties, namely to accept the recommendation as binding, or have they stated that it will not be binding at this point in time? Certainly any measure which is within the rules of this House to express our unanimous hope in that regard would, I think, be most fruitful and constructive.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) for their comments and I certainly will convey their sentiments, which I take to be the sentiments of this entire assembly, to the parties.

I might say that I met this morning also with the president of the B.C. Teachers Federation, who has expressed the concern of his federation and of the Nanaimo teachers about the situation. He indicates quite clearly that the teachers in Nanaimo are ready and willing to discharge their responsibilities under

[ Page 2379 ]

their contractual obligations to the school board and, of course, to the students. They only wish to be assured that they have the ability to discharge that responsibility without the apprehension of physical harm which is implicit in the nature of the dispute which exists today. I know that we can count on their cooperation in that respect.

In the matter raised by the member for Oak Bay as to whether or not the parties have discussed this matter or accepted it, I can say to you that it has been discussed and it is one of the matters which will continue to be discussed over the afternoon. I only trust that the expression of the sentiment of this assembly will assist me in that regard.

MINERAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

Hon. Mr. Waterland presents a message from His Honour the Lieu tenant-Governor: a bill intituled Mineral Amendment Act, 1976.

Bill 30 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.

MINERAL RESOURCE TAX ACT

Hon. Mr. Waterland presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Mineral Resource Tax Act.

Bill 57 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.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:08 p.m.