[ Page 133 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Misrepresentation by newspaper report. Mr. Macdonald — 133

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions

Status of Farm Income Assurance Act. Mr. Barrett — 133

Efficient use of computer. Mr. Wallace — 134

Ferry service to Ocean Falls. Mr. Lockstead — 134

UBCM housing committee hearings. Mr. Skelly — 135

Grizzly Valley field gas reserves. Hon. Mr. Bennett answers — 135

Denial of ferry data to member. Ms. Sanford — 136

Use of November grape purchase. Mr. Nicolson — 136

Throne speech debate

On the amendment

Mr. Cocke — 137

Mr. Levi — 138

Mrs. Dailly — 144

Mr. Macdonald — 147

Mr. Nicolson — 149

Mr. D'Arcy — 151

Mr. Barrett — 153

Mr. Lockstead — 156

Mr. King — 157

Mr. Wallace — 167

Hon. Mr. Williams — 165

Division on the amendment — 168

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1977

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today are 17 students from Oak Bay Senior Secondary School accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Dave Reimer, and I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have in the gallery today a delegation from my constituency of Omineca, comprising members of the Stellako and Stony Creek Indian bands. These are students of the band development training programme, who are in Victoria as part of their course to learn about government. Besides their spokesman, Mr. Clifford Louie, I would like to make special mention of Lillian Louie, who is the chief of the Stellako band. Mr. Speaker, I would ask this House to make them welcome.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege. In the Vancouver Province of today's date there is a headline on the second page and a story on the first page. The headline says, and this is the purport of the story: "Letter" — referring to a letter I wrote — "Evaded Proposals."

The headline and the article in its implication are incorrect and misleading. The purpose of my letter was not to terminate negotiations. In fact, it offered M.E.L. Paving access to documents and information in the hands of the government or the B.C. Railway, and expressed a preliminary opinion only on liability. Any negotiations were in the hands of B.C. Railway, its solicitor, Mr. Hanrahan, and Charles Maclean, shortly appointed.

My letter was not intended to prevent, nor did it, meetings between the B.C. Railway and M.E.L. Paving. The purpose of the letter was to deal with grave accusations of fraud detailed by Derril Warren at a meeting between himself, the Premier (Mr. Barrett) and myself in August, 1974. These accusations were that the Social Credit government of that day had deliberately altered quantity estimates received from B.C. Railway engineers. I was not at the meeting as a negotiator or economic adviser, but because of the legal implications of these allegations.

As Attorney-General, I had to determine whether the allegations amounted to charges of criminal fraud. Such allegations brought to the attention of the chief law officer of the Crown would call for investigation by criminal fraud personnel at the RCMP. Derril Warren said he was alleging civil fraud only, but I had to assure myself, after study, that in fact they should not be directed for criminal investigation based upon information then available.

I concluded that the allegations were of civil fraud and did not then warrant, based upon the information at hand, criminal investigation; and therefore I advised him by letter accordingly, but at the same time offered him access to records under government control. It was my opinion then, and is today, that these grave allegations of fraud should have been adjudicated upon in open court.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I have listened to a statement by the hon. first member for Vancouver East, and I have failed, in listening to this statement, to determine your point of privilege, hon. member. That was what you rose and sought the floor on.

MR. MACDONALD; Well, Mr. Speaker, under the parliamentary rules, if a member has been misrepresented in the press, then that is a matter of privilege. There are numerous precedents to that effect. That was my point of privilege. It's standard in all of the parliaments of the world, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's customary, hon. members, to follow a statement, when it's a statement given as part of a point of privilege, with some request for action on the part of the member, or a motion to that effect. If it's not to be, then I take it that you are not asking the Speaker, on behalf of the members, to further investigate the matter; it was a matter of making a statement.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I think the member in these circumstances has a choice. You can, of course, put down a substantive motion and call people to the bar of the House, but that is the option of the member. I simply correct the press report.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

AN HON. MEMBER: The House has no knowledge of press clippings.

Oral Questions.

STATUS OF FARM
INCOME ASSURANCE ACT

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture is quoted in this morning's paper as hinting that the Farm Income Assurance Act may be terminated. Is that an incorrect report, through you, Mr. Speaker?

[ Page 134 ]

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): He got his directions.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, I guess I could make a statement, or ask for a point of privilege to make the same comments that the hon. first member for Vancouver East made, but I would say that it is a headline....

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The third member.

I would make the comment that the contracts are five-year contracts. As any good operation should be carried out by any business or any government, they will be reviewed, and at the time they come due we will have something to present to agriculture.

EFFICIENT USE OF COMPUTER

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he can confirm that the government has a Honeywell computer which is sitting almost idle at a lease rate of about a million dollars a year. If that is the case, what measures are being taken to put the computer to efficient use?

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, through you to the member: I think in the nature of the question the answer to it would actually be no, but we are investigating trying to make further uses of this computer, which is not adaptable to present confirmations and present programmes of the government. It is under study by the computer expert we have on tap. I might say that this computer was ordered by the previous administration…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. WOLFE: …and is involved in a three-year contract of upgrading. The serious point in view is that it does not conform to present adaptations of most government programmes.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary question is prompted by the minister's statement that the answer is actually no: I am wondering what the difference is between a straight "no" and an "actually no." But is it correct, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that we do have an arm of government entitled the B.C. Systems Corporation which is advertising nation-wide for computer personnel to be employed by a Crown corporation which does not exist and that Mr. McMinn is the senior advisor in this respect and is being financed in this regard? I would like to know, if that is the case, from which item of last year's or the 1976-77 budget all these expenditures are being financed.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Member, the present project being initiated, or under the charge of Mr. McMinn, will be a matter before the House in the near future in the form of a bill which will give all members an opportunity to understand the intentions which the government has in this regard, and which were announced last fall.

MR. WALLACE: If I might have a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the supplementary to the Premier in this regard. Can he confirm, then, the contents of his press release of October 7 that he will be the chairman of the board of the new Crown corporation, and does this not conflict with his publicly stated commitment that Crown corporations should be free of political influence?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): The press release, as we placed it, was an in-House committee allocating time. The chairman of the board and the board would be independent, but in the House the government must allocate the time or adjudicate the time between different departments. That's where it would be an in-House cabinet meeting.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary — or a final final, if I may put it that way. Am I to understand then, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier is making it quite clear that the new Crown corporation will have no Premier or cabinet ministers involved in the administration of that Crown corporation?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I am saying that I won't be the chairman of the board, nor will I be on the Crown corporation.

FERRY SERVICE TO OCEAN FALLS

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. In view of the minister's statement that he will not immediately resume passenger and a proper freight service to Ocean Falls and the central coast, how can the minister justify the fact that the Queen of Prince Rupert presently sits idle, fully crewed, two days a week at Topaze Bay?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, when the federal subsidy was cut off from Northland Navigation, B.C. Ferries immediately commenced to stop at the middle coast at Bella Bella to take on passengers both ways and continues to do so. On an interim basis, the

[ Page 135 ]

province also arranged, through B.C. Ferries, to operate a launch nominated by the federal government for a period. It did so for of the order of a month. The launch broke down; it may continue to operate shortly.

It's our intention, of course, to look after the people of Ocean Falls and those other points on the middle coast — their interests and ours are identical. But we do have under negotiation an arrangement with the federal government whereby they will reimburse us for part, at least, of our costs in providing a much better service than they have had in the past.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. While we are all aware that the present arrangement is completely unsatisfactory and not even being used by the people on that part of the coast, what I am asking is: now that the Queen of Prince Rupert is presently sitting idle at Kelsey Bay or Topaze Bay for two days a week, fully crewed, and has called at Ocean Falls — and the vessel can handle that port — why can that vessel not call into Ocean Falls to alleviate the very grave situation in that community today?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says the vessel is fully crewed. The vessel is without crew on the days when it is resting at either end of its trip up and down the coast.

The vessel in question is a ship. It is capable of carrying some 300 people. On the average the traffic in and out of Ocean Falls is of the order…

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Does it float?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. DAVIS: …of one passenger per day.

UBCM
HOUSING COMMITTEE HEARINGS

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Housing relating to the UBCM Joint Committee on Housing which was set up by the minister earlier last year. In what centres of the province were hearings held? Were briefs solicited publicly or by private invitation, and were hearings open to the public or the press?

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question and take it as notice. I'll check with respect to the centres. I could name two of them but I would like to confirm the centres in which the hearings were held.

GRIZZLY VALLEY FIELD GAS RESERVES

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yesterday I was asked by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) about the gas reserves on which the pipeline in the Grizzly Valley was predicated. The information that was researched and provided us by the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, of which that member used to be a director, said that production tests demonstrated that there were deliverable reserves in excess of 500 billion cubic feet of gas, with a potential exceeding one trillion cubic feet.

Now all of this information was made public on December 10 in a very detailed press release from the B.C. Petroleum Corporation. If that former director is listed, I would like to table it now.

Leave granted.

MR. MACDONALD: Who made the production tests and when? Who made these production tests?

HON. MR. BENNETT: All of the work was carried out under the supervision of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, who made the production tests? Was it Quaser and the other companies in the field?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, certainly the former director of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation would know that the corporation directs companies active in the field to do tests under supervision of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, that's the responsibility of the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! What is your question?

MR. MACDONALD: Does the Premier confirm that these tests were made by the private companies who had an interest in getting that gas out at any cost to the public?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Economic Development, the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources and the B.C. Petroleum Corporation all had a hand in supervising these tests, I would hope that the former director of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, and now the member for Vancouver East, is not casting any aspersion on the competency of the staff of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation to carry out a public function.

[ Page 136 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, again, does the Premier not agree that the staff of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation did not make these tests, but they were made by the private companies with an interest in the result?

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

AN HON. MEMBER: You're darn right it's a shame.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the testing has been carried out in the same way it's always been carried out, under the direction…

MR. MACDONALD: No! No way.

HON. MR. BENNETT: …and under the supervision of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation.

MR. MACDONALD: What was the $2 million for — these tests?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I resent this slur on the B.C. Petroleum Corporation personnel by someone who should know better, who is a former director and in this House. I ask the first member for Vancouver East to apologize to people who have worked for the province.

MR. BARRETT: You don't know what you're talking about. They did not make the tests.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I still ask that member to apologize to the members of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat. ]

DENIAL OF FERRY DATA TO MEMBER

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, this question is to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. In December I phoned the Ferry Authority in order to get information about the number of passengers and cars which were using the North Island Princess, the ferry that runs between Beaver Cove and Kelsey Bay. Your staff prepared that information and subsequently informed me that I would not be able to receive it because you had denied permission for them to release those figures. I wonder if the minister could advise the House why an elected member of this parliament should be refused information with respect to passenger and car usage on that particular ferry.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, if the information requested was of the character of number of passengers carried, number of vehicles carried and so on, I really don't understand why it wasn't made available to the member. If it was financial data, I gather this is customarily released on an annual rather than a monthly basis. But I'll certainly make inquiries and make sure that the hon. member gets all the information to which all members are entitled.

MS. SANFORD: I wonder if the minister would, at the same time, inquire who in his staff, then, would have informed this member that permission had been denied directly by the minister? Would you do that? Thank you.

USE OF NOVEMBER GRAPE PURCHASE

M R. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Agriculture: can the minister tell the House what has happened to the $227,000 worth of grapes purchased in November?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The grapes that were purchased with the $227,000, funds that went to the Grape Marketing Board, were converted into grape concentrate, and we are endeavouring to find a market for that concentrate in order to recover some of the cost of processing.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Where is it being stored?

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): In your basement. (Laughter.)

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, before you start, I have checked with Hansard and you have 14 minutes left in your address, if you desire to take that much time.

[ Page 137 ]

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): I don't have too much more to say. However, I'm pleased to have that kind of reply to that statement because, obviously, many of those sitting across the floor were just a little bit unhappy about hearing some of their past speeches read back to them.

Mr. Speaker, that unlikely alliance called Social Credit by some, that coalition of the right — the far right — has really brought this province to a sorry pass. The prophetic statements of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) when, in 1974, looking back at the old Social Credit history, he said that if you don't have the broadness of mind and the largeness of heart, the ability to repent and rethink — and all those statements, which I have here but which I won't go over.... But after having joined that group which has shown no repentance, after having joined the group which has carried this province back into the same kind of state it was in prior, where people are the lowest priority, obviously where people have to be the lowest priority under the circumstances, because the last year's effort has provided a reduction in the number of jobs, an increase in the amount of employment — the employment situation is intolerable at the present time. We have been shown a business recession due to this government's incompetence.

Let me just dwell on one aspect of why we are in such a state. The $500 million robbed from the economy has had a monstrous effect. The multiplying factor is thought by most economists to be about five times, so that means that really, in effect, $2.5 billion has been taken out of this economy, and who suffers? We all suffer, but particularly, Mr. Speaker, small business people, particularly those out of work, and when we moved this motion of non-confidence we are directing blame, because it was this government's policy that robbed the economy. Therefore, how can anyone, particularly those backbenchers who sit there plagued, I am sure, as I am, day after day after day, with letters from their constituents saying: "What am I to do? There are no opportunities in my area...." There are no opportunities in Atlin in mining; there are no opportunities in Omineca; in any of the areas that the back bench represents and, for that matter, Mr. Speaker, in the areas that the cabinet represents.

I think we're seeing a situation in B.C. that is relatively unique. College graduates, university graduates, men with degrees — doctorates, Master's degrees — are out of work, but the ones hardest hit are the ones that were ignored by this government in the past year, and they were the young. Between the ages of 19 and 25 we have a situation that's almost unbearable. When we were government, Mr. Speaker, we had a programme for students. They didn't even put on a proper programme for students, so how can we think anything but they have adopted the old philosophy that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) used to scream about and condemn? The Minister of Education gave us a speech on cabinet solidarity back in 1975. He said at that time: "When one minister walks a picket line, all ministers walk a picket line." I say now that when the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) fumbles, Mr. Minister of Education, all ministers in that government fumble. When that minister's under a cloud, all ministers are under a cloud. I agree with you, Mr. Minister of Education, that ministers walk hand in hand and there is such a thing as cabinet solidarity, and I would respectfully suggest to that cabinet that they remember this well.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) probably understands something about the removal of sore spots. I can remember that Minister of Health so well when he pointed his finger at at least two senior ICBC employees. You remember those speeches? Oh, yes. He wanted Gordon Root fired for calling him a two-bit politician. Now I suggest to you that the sin may be there, but certainly that is not a kind of a sin like wrecking an economy, or like fumbling, or like placing the government under a cloud.

I can also remember Mr. Scrivener being fired from ICBC because he was under attack from the now Minister of Health, charging conflict of interest.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member….

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that relates.

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment to the motion — and it is the amendment that you're dealing with….

MR. COCKE: It is the amendment I'm dealing with.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. It's not a wide-open debate which can be covered at many other times in many other debates. It's a matter of the critical state of unemployment in the province affecting many thousands of our citizens and their families, and the failing to deal with the impact of widespread unemployment upon the social and economic life of the province. All I'm suggesting to you is that your remarks must be strictly pertinent to the amendment and relate to them.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, with the exception of the Premier, the key position in the government is the Minister of Economic Development if, in fact, he is to put this economy back together again. Mr. Speaker, let's see a determined effort on the part of this government to put their house in order so that they may do that: so that they may put people back to work in the province; so that we can have some kind of faith in the government of this province to do

[ Page 138 ]

something; and so that the business community can have faith in the government with whom they deal and the ministers with whom they deal, in order to put this economy back on the rails. It's on the rocks, and I suggest to you it must be put back on the rails.

There are people suffering because of their actions. This government's friends in business, Mr. Speaker, are losing their faith. If nothing else, I would suggest to them that they better show a better sense of leadership. I suggest one way of doing it is to remove the Minister of Economic Development, along with his cloud, for the moment.

The attitude that is best shown by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf)...and remember this yesterday. The member for Omineca showed the attitude that seems to be permeating that government today, and I would hope they can shake this kind of effort. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) asked a question of the member for Omineca, "How many people are unemployed in your riding?", you know his answer, Mr. Speaker. It's clear in Hansard. He said: "If you're unemployed, you're on unemployment insurance."

MR. KEMPF: Wrong again! Wrong again!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, those words are in Hansard. I'll repeat them so that that member can try to deny it again — his own words in Hansard. He said, when asked about unemployment in his riding: "If you're unemployed, you're on unemployment insurance."

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Shameful!

MR. COCKE: Talk about a hard-hearted, witless lack of understanding of the people's problems in his own riding. Now, if that kind of attitude permeates the cabinet benches, Mr. Speaker, we're in worse shape in this province than I thought we were, and I thought we were in pretty tough shape.

MS. SANFORD: They don't care over there.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, what an attitude! Mr. Speaker, what an….

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, we're hearing it from the cabinet benches, too — totally lacking concern; totally lacking thought. What an attitude, Mr. Speaker; what representatives, if that's their attitude.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that they live up to their fine words. Break with the past arrogant attitude of Social Credit. Maybe this new coalition can do that. It certainly has shown no signs to date, and that's why we're suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that we're not confident. Erase the blot from your present record — and I'm not suggesting that past record. Let's see you perform. Let's see you perform in this area, and you know why I ask you to? Because you said you could, and you haven't. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I thought the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) was going to get up. Do you want me to sit down?

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Ça ne fait rien.

MR. LEVI: Ça ne fait rien? Mr. Speaker, speaking to the amendment, and just to clarify for our colleague from Omineca, because he became very upset when my colleague from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) suggested that he had said something which he claims he didn't say, Hansard records that the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) said: "The figures for up there are 12.61 above the provincial average, in north-central B.C." — which is where that member comes from — "What's the unemployment in your riding, Mr. Member for Omineca?" The member is recorded as saying in Hansard: "If you're unemployed, you're on unemployment insurance."

That's the Social Credit solution to the unemployment problem.

MS. SANFORD: When they run out they go on welfare.

MR. LEVI: Oh, no, they don't go on welfare. No, it's much more difficult to get on welfare there.

MS. SANFORD: They get out of the area.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, we have not had one speaker from the government side who has got up to talk about unemployment. One of the reasons they haven't been able to talk about it in the throne speech is because it simply isn't there, except for mention of the students. I would have hoped that the Premier — the oracle of Kelowna, son of the Wizard of Oz that used to be here — would be able to tell us how he is able to make all these projections that he makes in respect to the economy.

It's interesting that on November 26 he was in Cranbrook, and it says:

"Premier Bill Bennett said Thursday he's more optimistic about the economy than ever before. He told more than 200 people at a luncheon that the province had shown its best monthly performance in the past two years in respect to the economy. He said unemployment of 7.1 per cent is the lowest since the Social Credit government took office last December."

[ Page 139 ]

Then, some five weeks later, we have an announcement from Statistics Canada that the province of British Columbia had the highest increase in unemployment in the whole country — one of the highest increases in unemployment in the history of this province. But what perplexes me is: where does the Premier get his information? Where is he able to make these fantastic predictions about an upturn in the economy?

I can understand that it can be confusing because in the last six months the Conference Board of Canada — that august body back east — has indicated on three separate occasions that the economy is going up...no, it's going down...no, it's going up, and now we are waiting for a fourth statement to see where we are going in the next several months.

But surely the Premier is able to understand the comments from people in the various industries who have made observations. Recently, in The Vancouver Sun of December 29, they devoted a whole page to remarks by various leaders in forestry, in transportation, in mining, in construction, who expressed their views about the state of the economy for the next several months. Interestingly enough the headlines say: "A Shaky Economy, Higher Prices in View of Business and Consumers."

In the forest industry there is extreme anxiety. In November and early December we had announcements from the head of MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. that they were going to lay off 4,000 people. But they finished up laying off 9,000 people. Just prior to the beginning of this session the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) was quoted as saying that the 9,000 layoff was not the fault of the Social Credit government. Layoffs are always the fault of somebody else. I can recall, under the previous government, if one person got laid off it became a political problem for that particular government. We're not interested in the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker, telling us that it's not the fault of the Social Credit. What we are looking for is for them to tell us what kind of solutions do they have.

We have a statement by the president of the stock exchange who stated that the trading volumes on the Vancouver Stock Exchange this year are expected to run about $450 million. They're down from 1975. He was asked if things can get worse. This was supposed to be a turnaround year in 1976 for the British Columbia mineral exploration. But the thing is, it just didn't happen. The claim staking was down, there was very little activity. We simply were not able to attract the kind of investment that we needed in order to generate employment.

But can one wonder why it is that you can't generate that kind of interest from investors when you have the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), when he was the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources speaking in Kamloops, saying that unless the investment industry can be assured that this government is going to get back, they're not going to invest, and if they don't invest there's not going to be any employment?

So that's the situation. In less than 12 months, they've been able to turn around from the vicious kinds of attacks that they made in this Legislature this time last year, or 11 months ago, in which every possible blame was placed on the previous government, not because there was an economic problem because there was not in terms of the economy, but they were going to make the people pay. And the result, Mr. Speaker, of making people pay, has been an increased amount of unemployment, hat unemployment brought about by the tax policies of this government, the half-billion dollars that they sucked out of the economy.

I would hope that before the debate on this amendment is finished, Mr. Speaker, we will hear from some of the opposition members about what is going to happen to the economy over the next several months, what suggestions they have about providing employment. Everyone — every trade unionist and every person in this province — has anxieties about what the future is going to be. We have had no economic direction whatsoever from this government, and that's what we badly need.

We have brought in this amendment because it's necessary to highlight for the people in this province that unemployment is a serious matter; that the official count of 98,000 people who are listed as unemployed perhaps represents only 50 per cent of the number of people that are actually unemployed. We know that many people give up registering. Therefore, there are not the accurate statistics that we would think should be, in terms of the actual unemployment picture. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the unemployment picture in this province is closer to 150,000 to 175,000, — not 98,000 as reported by the statistics.

The future looks bleak. But yesterday we were told by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) that we mustn't speak like that. We mustn't talk about bleakness, we mustn't tell the facts, because it upsets investors. Has he forgotten how upset the business people in this community were last spring and last summer? Have they all forgotten over there how difficult it has been for people on this island, in the tourist industry and in the other industries that depend on the tourist industry to make a living?

What about the members for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Bawlf, Mr. Barber)? Are they concerned at all about the 10,000 unemployed in this city?

Interjection.

[ Page 140 ]

MR. LEVI: No one has expressed any concern. Something that will pass, they believe.

The Canadian Machinist, which is a journal of the machinists union, of which every member in this House receives a copy, in December devoted a whole page to the unemployment problem. It dealt with all of the country, but in one section, when they dealt with the regional aspects of unemployment, they said this:

"Regionally, in Canada, the machinist membership declined in five provinces and increased in five others. The biggest loss occurred in British Columbia, where membership declined over the year from 8,244 to 7,666. The major reasons, apparently, are a slump in the two key industries — construction, and automotive repairs. Again, despite the fairly good organized record in Quebec over the year, the membership declined there."

That was, of course, prior to the present government.

We can look all over this province and find a number of examples of where jobs have been lost. Mr. Speaker, last year the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) introduced a bill which was going to provide some safeguards for the gas station operators. That bill was not completed. There is some hint in the throne speech that it's coming back. But I would just like to point out to the House the kind of problems that have existed in that industry, and the kind of loss of employment that has taken place.

Imperial Oil sent to every member of the Legislature a copy of a statement by Mr. C.L. Goddard, the corporate manager, called: "Gasoline Retailing in British 'Columbia." He goes into advancing some arguments which are really directed against the kind of legislation that was planned last year.

He goes on to say that some years ago they decided that they were going to have to go into being more practical about their operations. Therefore, they moved towards a policy of having 50 per cent self-operated gas stations, and 50 per cent owner-operated. Then he tells us in his statement:

"Turning back to the marketplace, Imperial is continuing to divest itself of uneconomic and inefficient outlets, and to improve the efficiency of the remainder. This my company is doing at a rate that takes into account the unavoidable dislocation, and sometimes hardship, that such consolidation must inevitably bring to some dealers."

In 1974, Imperial owned or was associated with a total of 714 outlets. I am informed by the automobile association and the association that deals with the gas station operators that you can usually have two to three jobs per station. They usually use an average of three. So in 1974 they were associating with a total of 714 outlets, which were providing approximately 2,100 jobs.

By the end of last year, which was 1975, this number had been reduced to 682, so we already had a loss of almost 400 jobs. By the end of the year 1976, the outlets will have been reduced to 569, which is some 140 stations, which is something like almost 520 to 540 jobs.

That is the kind of thing that has taken place in this province over the past two years, but specifically this year, when the legislation which should have been brought in to protect these people was not. As a consequence, another 113 stations closed down, with a loss of approximately 350 jobs.

That's just in Imperial Oil. Then we have Gulf of Canada, which is also looking. to "rationalize" its operation. In their rationalization they had some 700 people who were laid off.

We go around and look at what is happening in terms of the business sector in this province: 350 jobs here; 700 jobs through another company; 860 jobs in the B.C. Ferries. We were told by the minister in charge of ferries last year that 450 people would be laid off, but we are now informed that it's 860. Very quickly, you can total up several thousands of jobs that have been lost as a result of the policies of this government.

There are no attempts on their part at all to tell us what they are going to do about the question of jobs. We are not told specifically what kind of jobs we can expect from the development in the coal fields; we have no indication of that at all. In any case, we are looking at a long-range process. But what is there for the immediate future? In February are we going to be told that the unemployment rate, which is not 8.8 per cent, but is probably 9 per cent…?

But again, we mustn't be bleak about these things because it upsets the investors and nobody wants to come to the province. If we mustn't be bleak, then the members on that side must get up, show a great deal of enthusiasm and give us some solutions to what's going to happen. Then perhaps the word will get back to the investment community back east, or even in British Columbia, and they'll say: "There's a government with confidence in itself. The members are speaking; they're optimistic. It's a place to invest." But we haven't heard anything from anybody — from nobody.

Last October the cabinet whistled in to Terrace — three of them — had some meetings and then left. A few days later I was in, with a group of colleagues, and we were told then that the unemployment rate in Terrace was 30 per cent. We were told that nearly 4,000 people had left that community. We were told in terms of housing, for instance, that there were over 400 houses up for sale because people were leaving. Then I had an argument with one of the local people who said that it's not 400 houses up for sale, it's only

[ Page 141 ]

289. But that's what's happening in that community.

But we don't hear from the great freedom fighter from Skeena (Mr. Shelford) ; he's not in the House now. The spokesman for the gas station operators hasn't said anything about the tremendous loss of jobs. He wasn't able to convince anybody on that back bench that it was necessary to pass that piece of legislation last year. He knows what the game is. He's been here long enough to know that when the oil companies want to put their foot down, they can put their foot down and the government will just say yes and follow on. But that kind of policy resulted in the loss of hundreds of jobs in that industry, has resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs in that member's riding, and we haven't heard a word from him. Not a word. We haven't heard a word from anyone, Mr. Speaker, and it's a great tragedy.

Then we have the new Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot). He was the great spokesman for unemployment. He's the only individual I know who was able to use the word "unemployment" four times in a sentence because he wanted to stress the importance of what he was saying.

The other day he was speaking to the annual meeting of the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines. He said that the mining industry could wait for three years until the next election and see who wins, but the result would be no expansion, no jobs and the economy would be in a slump. That was his message to them. The voter, he said, would conclude that there must be something wrong with free enterprise. Now we have the member of the government shifting the responsibility to the free-enterprise system: it's not the government that's at fault, it's the free-enterprise system. When they were in opposition it wasn't the free-enterprise system, it was the then government. But there's no attempt or no commitment on their part to take any kind of responsibility.

"The mining industry in this province," he went on to say, "has the responsibility to show faith and trust in the intelligence of our people by developing our ore bodies and by creating employment for the unemployed, who will respond by giving an indication of faith in our political system. Failure to accept this approach will bring on reversal." Now there's a very straightforward, practical, enthusiastic statement by the Minister of Mines on how to get things moving. But we also heard at that time at the meeting from William Dunn, the elected president of the chamber. He said that the chamber must police the industry, and cited overzealous prospectors who operate without sufficient regard for the environment and greedy speculators who manipulate the stock market for their own gain.

Now, it seems to me that on the one hand we have a minister who goes to the mining industry, rakes them over the coals, indicates to them that they have no confidence in the government, no confidence in the economy, and then criticizes them but offers them no solutions other than to say: "Believe us. Be positive; invest in British Columbia. We're a good government."

A good government! In the space of one year they have driven the unemployment rate up so high that they have created the largest number of bankruptcies in the history of this province. They have resulted in the loss of more jobs than any other government in the history of this province, and then they go out and ask that the free-enterprise system have confidence in them.

It is interesting again that in this session the two major issues which the government appears to be twitchy about have nothing to do with unemployment. They have to do with M.E.L. Paving and with what's going on up in the Grizzly Valley. But it would seem to me if they had any sense — if they were going to be forthright — that they would pursue the issues that people are concerned about in this province. The basic issue that people are concerned about in this province is how they are going to be able to make a living. What kind of guarantees have they got that they can be employed?

There are no guarantees offered by this government. There are no policies which have been enunciated. Sure, we have the coal policy, which is still not clear; we still do not have any clarification on exactly what we're going to do. So we ask, before this debate is over, that somebody from that side gets up and talks about the unemployment situation. That's not too much to ask from those people who a year ago were so critical of what they saw as being a difficult situation.

We now know from the business industry, from the investment industry, that things are far worse under this government than they ever were under the previous government, but they don't want to talk about it.

The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources has just entered the House. I should really take the opportunity while he's here to congratulate him on his appointment as Minister of Mines. I think that he was down in Siberia long enough and has now moved up. I congratulate him.

I would hope that before this debate is over, Mr. Speaker, that Minister of Mines will get up — now that I've just read two of his press releases — and tell us what employment plans he sees in terms of the mining industry, what he sees in terms of the general economy, because he's the kind of minister who can range over a wide variety of subjects. After all, he was once the Minister of Labour in this province. He could get up and tell us about the possible development of the Kootenay and Elk Railway. That's a pet project of that minister's, but that one

[ Page 142 ]

won't develop any employment; it'll simply take away jobs.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's not the truth.

MR. LEVI: Well, we'll see. They're very twitchy there on those subjects, but we'll see what happens with the Kootenay and Elk Railway.

On the mining industry, while you were out of the House, Mr. Minister, I said that what you did when you spoke at the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines was attack the free enterprise system for not....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Yes, you did. They didn't have any faith in this government. "Don't wait three years till the next election before you'll say to us: 'Yes, we have faith in you.' Re-elect us. Do it now. Have faith in the economy; have faith in the government."

HON. MR. CHABOT: Intelligence of the people.

MR. LEVI: Intelligence of the people.

But the facts are different, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker. The facts are that unemployment is at an all-time high and that minister did not take the opportunity when he was there meeting with those leaders in the mining industry to say to them what the plans of the government are about making sure that there's full employment.

Of course, he was practising the typical kind of economics that they like to practise: we'll leave it to the marketplace. He just goes in there and lashes them a few cuts across the back to remind them that the government is here, and then he says: "Go to it. Have faith in us." Then, as a little bit of icing on the cake, he says: "Now what do you think? We know that some of you people with plant equity worth millions and millions.... We're going to bring back the subsidies. Sure, we'll subsidize you." Under the

Iron Bounty Act, Cominco used to get, when the previous Social Credit government was in, something like $700,000 a year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell the truth.

AN HON. MEMBER: Welfare.

MR. LEVI: That used to be called a subsidy.

But he went to that meeting, Mr. Speaker. He talked about unemployment and then, in the same breath as that government says there are no free rides in this province, he says to them: "We'll probably bring back subsidies. Yes, we'll bring back the subsidies."

MR. KING: Give them a shovel.

MR. LEVI: We have a problem; we do have a problem. After all, we have one subsidy that was given out last August. We don't really know what for, but we would hope that sometime during the course of this session we'll find out why Quasar got $2 million in there. Presumably they got $2 million to help them do something that would develop employment.

Mr. Speaker, I'm rather doubtful that that was why they got the money, because if that's why they got the money, we would have heard from that government. If they had anything to say that was good about the prospects of future employment in this province they would have said it, because all of us who have been in government know that if you've got anything good to say you say it.

We can only conclude from the deafening silence over there from that group that they have nothing good to say, they have no good prospects for the future of the economy of this province. That, one year after they've been in power, is a very sad comment on the way that they have managed the economy in this province.

We should be hearing from the backbenchers; we should be hearing from the member for Kootenay (Mr. Haddad) . He doesn't say too much, but we should hear from him. He should tell us how things are in Cranbrook. We know they're cold; we also know that some people are very poor.

We will hear, no doubt, from the giant of Omineca. He will tell us of the great economic strides that that area has made under his government. Of course, the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) is too close to Victoria — he can't say too much.

But when are we going to hear from these people? What about that member, Mr. Speaker, who had so much to say last year, the member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree)? He knows all about economics and employment.

The great freedom fighters — We're going to hear from them. They're all going to get up and tell us what kind of plans they're going to insist that that government develop. That's our expectation, because we're the opposition. They're the government, so we have to know what they've got in mind.

Then, of course, we've got the member, Mr. Speaker, who's also a bit of an expert on employment, the member for Burnaby there.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Give us the $100 million — we'll create jobs.

MR. LEVI: Here we go — the $100 million.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The overrun — give us the overrun.

MR. LEVI: Just in answer, Mr. Speaker, through

[ Page 143 ]

you to the minister: the one thing is never, never, while we were government did we ever promise people anything that we didn't give them, and then take it away. We never took it away, but you took it away.

We've had, in the last few days in this House, Mr. Speaker, lectures. We had a lecture yesterday from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) about being positive. Let's not knock the government; let's be happy. Yesterday he danced around the word. I thought maybe if he said it, he might collapse. He didn't want to say the word "fraud," so he didn't say it. He avoided it.

We have the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who last year came in and said: we're going to introduce a GAIN programme. Well, we now know that for GAIN you have to read "loss."

We've had nobody stand up there yet and say what a wonderful programme GAIN is because, presumably, they've all received the same kind of letters that we've received — about people being cut back. There are people being cut off.

MR. KING: People starving in Cranbrook and you won't even give them a car.

MR. LEVI: Nobody talks about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's no unemployment in Cranbrook.

MR. LEVI: Oh, there is no unemployment in Cranbrook?

AN HON. MEMBER: No?

MR. LEVI: No? We'll have to check. There you are, Mr. Speaker; tonight we will phone the newspaper in Cranbrook and I will say to the editor of the newspaper: your member of the Legislature said there is no unemployment in Cranbrook.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: And then we'll see what happens.

But I do want to talk about an unemployment programme that was offered to this House last year, through which the Minister of Human Resources was going to solve most of our problems. He had an undertaking to find some 12,000 jobs before Christmas. And so far, again, no good news has been announced. As I said earlier, if you've got some good news to announce as a government, you announce it.

So we haven't heard anything. We've heard a great deal about the kind of problems that they've had getting the programme going.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Mr. Stew? We gave him a job, didn't we?

MR. LEVI: Well, that's the trouble, you see. You have the jobfinders. You know, we are into the interesting situation where, in the Jobfinders programme, you're going to set out to hire 30 people to find jobs for the unemployed. And you know what? When they advertised the first 20, 4,500 people in this province made application for those 20 jobs — 4,500 people applying for 20 jobs. That's the state of unemployment in this province — 4,500 people! Remember, Mr. Speaker, he shakes his head, that sceptical member from Cranbrook, who says: there is no unemployment in Cranbrook. Well, we may have to have you stand up and apologize to us on that, Mr. Member. No unemployment in Cranbrook! I am telling you that when, Mr. Speaker, 20 jobs were made available by Jobfinders, 4,500 people applied for them. Can you imagine that kind of bureaucratic crush that must have gone on over there — 4,500 people looking for jobs?

But that's now new. My colleague from New Westminster pointed out the kinds of problems that exist among men and women who are graduating from university, the kind of problems that exist with people who are coming out of high school. Forty per cent of the unemployment is with our young people who have no prospects whatsoever, who have been advised by Canada Manpower counsellors and by social workers on the line: Go to Alberta, go to Saskatchewan, go to Manitoba. There are jobs there, but there's no work here. And you know, here in this province, if you are a young person, it's almost a crime to be unemployed. You get the most difficult time if you need assistance. You are immediately suspect if you go in and ask for some help. Because out there in the community, the minister of welfare has a community of rednecks who just love to see people get beaten down. But that's the kind of atmosphere that exists. There are no employment possibilities at all for young people in this province.

Last year, the government, finally, was able to make up its mind about how much employment it was going to create for students. First of all we had a figure of 16,000. Then we had a figure of 12,000. Then we have a figure of 9,000. And finally, 7,000 jobs were created. That's what they created for 12 weeks.

Thus, we will probably hear from the Minister that there were problems with the computer, that there was the kind of internecine warfare that goes on in departments, and nobody could decide what it was they really wanted. We've got to have proposals, hard proposals, from that government about what they are going to do in terms of the unemployment situation.

We've had a further setback, in terms of the possibility of employment in the province. Under the previous government there was an extensive day-care

[ Page 144 ]

programme that made it possible for women to get out of the home, to go to work and to pay their own way. That is becoming less and less possible every day, because the ceiling is off the rates the day-care centres can charge. Now with the more rigid kind of means test that exists in terms of the subsidy programme, there you have another added burden in terms of creating unemployment — again, more jobs, hundreds of more jobs that were lost to people because they were not able to get the kind of assistance that they needed from the government.

I would have thought that there would have been suggestions in the speech about unemployment, particularly in terms of the tourist industry. After all, that industry suffered one of its severest setbacks. Of course, the government will very quickly say: "It wasn't our fault; it was the weather. John Paschold, the meteorologist, couldn't deliver the kind of weather we wanted; therefore people didn't come to see us and we had a very bad year."

I would have thought that they would have had a plan for the creation of employment in terms of the travel industry, some incentives.

MR. WALLACE: Like lower ferry fares.

MR. LEVI: Yes, that's an incentive. That's an incredible incentive. You know, you get on the ferry and you know that if you're doing a round trip and you're by yourself and you have a car, it's $28. Then you go into the splendiferous restaurants that are there now and you get yourself some eggs and some coffee and, before you know it, you've blown $35. Now who can afford $35 to go on the ferry?

AN HON. MEMBER: You must eat a lot of eggs. (Laughter.)

MR. LEVI: My, my, look at all the millionaires laughing at the people here. That's what's happening — all the millionaires are laughing at the people. And these high-paid cabinet ministers.... No problem any more for the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) — he can go on and he can actually buy two doughnuts instead of one because he's in a different pay bracket now. But they have no real understanding of the kind of problems that exist in terms of the people who want to be able to work in this province, to be able to travel around, to be able to make a contribution; no programme whatsoever.

Again, I would hope that after I sit down one of the members over there will get up. I'm sure that the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) will be able to get up; and the member for Vancouver South, the businessman from Vancouver South, should be able to tell us some of the prescriptions he has for the creation of employment. I hope that member will do that. I hope he'll colour our world a little bit and tell us exactly what it is that this government — his government — will do to assist people, because we have nothing from the other side, down in the far corners over there, the opposite end from where the cabinet benches are. But I'm sure that we'll hear from the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and the member for Kootenay (Mr. Haddad). Why, we might even hear from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis), because he has some ideas about employment. After all, he's planning to develop some free-enterprise housing programmes.

MR. SPEAKER: May I just remind you you're on your final two minutes?

MR. LEVI: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can't understand what that new member of the cabinet is doing over there. I find it very difficult to....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Time.

MR. LEVI: Time?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Is this what you mean?

MR. LEVI: Yes, that one. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought that was a new member of cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to support this amendment because it highlights, for the House and for the people of this province, the failure of that government to address itself to the basic, real problem in this province of what is going to happen to the community and to the economy in the future. We have no indications whatsoever. But what we want to be able to do — and we will do this, because we not only operate in this House, we operate outside this House — is continue the practice of going around this province on a regular basis and delivering the message to the people that this government has created more damage to the economy of this province in 12 months than any other government in North America; that they are not capable of getting the province out of the mess that they're in; that they are led by a leader who is not prepared to speak out in frank terms, to address himself to the issues in this House, but much sooner would rely on the PR, Nixon-type presentation of the plastic man.

We're going to go around and we're going to point out that this is not a government for the people, and we are being told by the business community that it is not a government for them either. That's the message that we're going to take, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm rather disappointed, actually, Mr. Speaker, to be up in my place at this moment because we had signs, just prior to the last speaker, that the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) was

[ Page 145 ]

going to be on his feet, and we're still waiting to hear from other members across the floor of the House.

HON. MR. CHABOT: He wants to have a little chat with me.

MRS. DAILLY: But it's very understandable that it would be very difficult for any member of the government to be able to get up and speak in anything but support of this amendment, and so therefore we can understand why they are all remaining silent.

The member for Omineca, who has been referred to already, of course, I want to reiterate, made one of the most shocking statements I've heard in this House. If he symbolizes the programme to alleviate unemployment by his government, it is a very, very sad day. I want to remind the House again that the only answer he has to the situation for people who are unemployed in this province is go on unemployment insurance, and that is something that the people of this province, I'm sure, are going to read about, think about, and I do not think they will forget.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of our amendment, of course, is a lack of confidence in this government's no programme to alleviate unemployment. That is the main purpose of the opposition producing and placing this amendment before the House, because no matter where you go in this province at this time, this is what stands out in all MLAs movements around the province.

In my own riding in Burnaby North, where I have a constituency office and where I spend a considerable amount of time listening to people and meeting with them, that has been the prime problem people have come in to talk to me about — the fact that they cannot find work. As has been mentioned before, the tragedy is, particularly in the ages of between 19 and 25, that young people who want to work, have the ability to work and have the skills, still cannot find work. I have seen this day by day in my office.

I came here to this Legislature for the opening of this new session hoping, for the sake of these people, that this government would have something positive, some positive programme so they could inspire some hope, some confidence in these people who have been approaching me and, I'm sure, also the government backbenchers. But what do we have, Mr. Speaker? All we have to do is look at the throne speech. We can take it page by page, and we can start off on page 3. On page 3 the first statement made by the government in relation to the economy is simply this, and I want to repeat it: "The strong, positive action taken by my government in the year just passed to restrain demands upon the economy and encourage initiative and enterprise by our citizens has provided a broad base on which to build."

Yes, Mr. Speaker, this government has certainly provided a broad base — provided one of the broadest bases of unemployment this province has seen since the great Depression. That is the base they have left in this province. Yet we read in the throne speech that they have provided a base upon which our citizen ' s can see encouragement. What base? This is the whole thrust of our amendment: we are asking and looking toward a government that can provide some hope and future, and we don't see it.

It was interesting to read in the Province this morning, one of the morning papers, an analysis of the present unemployment situation and economic growth factor in the provinces across Canada, which I know the former speaker did refer to. But I would like to just quote briefly from it to point out, first of all, that I do hope the people who opened their Province this morning did not stop at the headlines, because 1, frankly, was shocked when I looked at the headlines. The first headline was: "B.C. Will Outshine Most." Second headline: "B.C. Better Off."

Then you go past the headline and you look to see — "B.C. Will Outshine Most" — now what are they talking about? Then we find out: oh, in comparison with Newfoundland. When it comes to unemployment, yes, we will outshine Newfoundland. The projections of unemployment for British Columbia for the coming year are 8.5 per cent; Newfoundland, 13 and going to 14 per cent; Alberta, 4 per cent.

You know, there was a time that we used to hear the saying "Go west, young man." I don't say that in any disrespect to the other provinces, but it is a tragedy that in this once great province, where people came because they felt they could bring up their children and lead productive lives, people are fleeing from this province because there is no work. So it's an 8.5 per cent projection of unemployment in British Columbia; 4 per cent in Alberta; Ontario, 7 per cent. Yet we have the headline in this paper saying: "B.C. Will Outshine Most" and "B.C. Better Off."

Mr. Speaker, I just hope — and I'm sure — that the average citizen reads the paper carefully and doesn't just read the headlines because this is one of the most misleading headlines I have seen in the paper for a great number of months.

AN HON. MEMBER: Since this morning.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, since this morning — quite true. But in dealing with this particular amendment, you're quite correct, Mr. Member from our side, who happens to be across there at the moment.

As we carry on and look at these projections and this report that just came out, despite these vague statements of optimism in the throne speech, these

[ Page 146 ]

statistics certainly point out that the optimism is not here in British Columbia. It does point out that there is a slight increase in the economic growth, but t if you compare the economic growth in B.C., what t does it say? It says that it will increase to 5.6 per cent from 4.1 per cent last year. Well, then compare the 4.1 per cent and the 5.6 per cent with the economic growth in the prairie provinces, and we're still far below many other provinces in Canada.

So I just thought I should perhaps educate the headline-writers of the Vancouver Province because, obviously, they have picked out a story and then put on a headline which I consider completely misleading, and I'd like to get this on the record.

The throne speech goes on again, to talk about.... On page 4, and this is really interesting, it says: "My First Minister, " read by His Honour, "advises that the need for restraint and the lowering of expectations in all sectors...must continue." This province believes that B.C.'s restraints should even extend more than the present federal guidelines.

What a hope for the people of British Columbia! They've just gone through one of the harshest years in the history of this province in taxation, in increased Hydro costs, gas, fuel — everything. Yet here in the throne speech for 1977 they're told to expect even more harsh and stringent measures. This is what we read into the speech, and it is stated here. Then I find what would inspire, of course, lack of confidence by any person who read such a speech. It says: "Building a strong and productive economy," and I am quoting, Mr. Speaker, from the speech, "that will pay significant social dividends is slow, steady, but painstaking work — and all the citizens of the province will be challenged in this endeavour."

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

I am pleased to see that my fellow MLA from Burnaby-Willingdon is taking his place in the Speaker's chair at this time.

Now here is this Social Credit government telling the people of British Columbia in the throne speech that all of the citizens will be challenged to produce a strong economy. Mr. Speaker, when this government campaigned, before they were elected, they campaigned on a strong leadership restore-the-economy-of-B.C. programme. Now that they are in, after one year, they have given no programme for economic recovery: Unemployment rates are higher than ever, and what are they saying? They are saying to the people of British Columbia: "We challenge you to get us out of this mess." I thought governments were there to accept challenges and to give leadership. This is all this government seem to be able to do, to the people of British Columbia: "We challenge you."

Oh, it's a beautiful line and it sounds very nice, and it seems to fit in with what they think is the mood of the people of British Columbia. But I will tell the mood of the people of British Columbia today is becoming increasingly cynical with this government — this do-nothing government, this government that does not seem to care about the things that really matter to the lives of the average citizens of this province.

Mr. Speaker, we can carry on into the throne speech, and I've never before been up on an amendment that I can see ties in so directly, so directly and consistently, with the actual speech we are amending.

On page 8 we see again that it says what I consider just a lot of gobbledegook. It talks about intending, though the Ministry of Economic Development, to develop a flexible economic strategy. Then it goes on to say that he will have the continuing responsibility for channelling this participation into a united effort to benefit all. And so it goes on. You know, you sit here, or you stand here, and you read it — I wonder how many citizens out there feel tremendously confident that the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is going to improve this economy with those kind of broad, generalized, vague statements. And that's all we had last year from that minister and from the government; and we're still getting it.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we go on on page 8 and we come to tourism. Here is this beautiful statement about tourism: "One new programme is aimed at British Columbians...." Again, you see, it's up to the people of B.C., not this government. It is to create in the people of B.C. "a greater awareness of the benefits of tourism...." Now that is your policy for increasing tourism in British Columbia. And we've heard talk about promoting year-round convention centres, which of course we will have an opportunity to discuss when the minister responsible can give us some details on this.

Well, let's look at tourism in B.C. What happened? How many businesses went bankrupt in Victoria alone during the last summer because of this government's restrictive fiscal policies? How many? What happened to tourism in Victoria? It was the worst year they have ever experienced, and the blame rests with the policies of this government.

Therefore we have not only the opposition making these statements that there is not too much hope in that area, we even have them from the Employers' Council of British Columbia, their January '77 bulletin: "The tourist industry in British Columbia is not expected to show any substantial growth in 1977." It goes on to say: "It might benefit somewhat by not having to compete with the American Bicentennial and the Olympic Games." That is the only argument that this government could possibly use for the decrease in tourism. Here again, even in

[ Page 147 ]

this book, it says: "slightly...there might be a slight change."

Then it goes on to say: "However, changes in U.S. tax laws concerning convention expenses will have a negative impact in Vancouver." Well, I'm not blaming the present Social Credit government for that, but when they're faced with these negative impacts and policies from other areas, what are their alternatives? We find none, none at all.

We look at the comments made by the restaurant association, in which it points out.... After all, if you don't maintain good restaurants, you're not going to have much enticement for tourists. What do they say? They say that although the rate of new restaurants opening in Vancouver has picked up in the last few years, more of them are also going broke and closing down.

The managing director of the B.C. region of the Canadian Restaurant Association stated two reasons for this: more people are entering the industry; and lately, the B.C. economy has not been strong enough to support all of them. There we are. Yet this government just has one glib line in here: "We want to make the citizens of B.C. aware of the benefits of tourism."

What are their plans in this area? None at all. How can anyone have confidence in a throne speech that has obviously no plans in an area where we should be bringing increased revenues into this province?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I do believe you're slightly out of order.

MRS. DAILLY: No. If I couldn't relate it....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You're referring to the throne speech. Would you refer to the amendment?

MRS. DAILLY: I will refer back to the amendment, Mr. Speaker.

In dealing again with the amendment, which is based on the failure of this government to do anything positive in the very tragic area of the high unemployment rates, I would like to point out that we have a very serious problem in seeing the economy of this province increase. To quote from an article in The Vancouver Sun, from the business editor: "One of the most serious problems we face is the Premier himself." In this article, it states:

"The truth of the matter is that quite a few businessmen in British Columbia suspect that the Premier" — here it's quoted "Bennett" — "doesn't understand the world of big business."

The Premier does not understand the world of big business as much as he should. They even feel that perhaps he is even suspicious of big business.

If you don't have the confidence of business — where have we heard those words before, over and over again? — if a government doesn't have the confidence of big business, and business period, how is the economy going to be improved? We heard that shouted across this floor at the NDP government for three years.

Now we have business very concerned about their confidence in the present Premier's whole understanding of business and economy in this province. We only have to look over last year's history of the fiscal policies brought in by this Premier which have created almost entirely the mess we're in, in the status of unemployment in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to take up any more time of the House. There are other members in the opposition who wish to speak on what we consider to be one of the most vital amendments that has been put before this House, of course, to date. We haven't been here that long, but no matter how many are put forward, this is one of the most vital. We certainly hope that the government backbenchers will give consideration to ensure that when they go back to their own ridings they can look at their constituents in the face and they will stand up and support this amendment.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to be very short because I think there are others in the House.

I'm glad to see that the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) is present. He can make very useful information available to the public in this House with respect to the state of uncertainty that the province is in surrounding the central ministry in terms of unemployment, and, as the minister says, economic sensitivity to everything he does. I'm referring to the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips).

He has a very clear responsibility if this government is sincere in doing anything about the alarming figures and projections which have just been retailed by the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). That member says that he has a cloud over his head — it's certainly not a halo. That cloud, and what has happened in his office, has engendered in the province of British Columbia in the important area of economic development an aura of incompetence, uncertainty and want of trust.

Mr. Speaker, in the British parliamentary system there are ways of dealing with that in accordance with the usages of parliament and democratic government that have been handed down through the centuries. Oh, it's just, you say, a little thing — no effect on jobs? — that two sensitive personal assistants to the Minister of Economic Development resigned within a few days for trading on inside information of a confidential nature on the stock market.

[ Page 148 ]

Then another assistant came in — I don't know that story. A Michael Ellis came in, presumably from the Premier's office. Well, the member shakes his head but I wonder.

Because he was involved, as he said in the Vancouver Province, in a divorce case.... He said he was terminated by Standard Chevron for being involved in a divorce case.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you are going to relate this to the amendment at some point in time.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I certainly am. Because there is the central minister in terms of economic expansion and jobs in the province of British Columbia.

That little cloud that he talks about hanging over his head is creating a cloud, and darkness, and lights out, and hunger, in many homes of the unemployed throughout the province of British Columbia. It is not just light talk that two confidential assistants to that minister had to resign under those circumstances in a short space of time; it is at the very least incompetence and, as I say with the third one, why should he be fired from Standard Oil-Chevron for a personal divorce case and then be terminated after two days in the minister's office? Why should a man be fired twice for one divorce? The Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) fired his deputy twice instead of himself once, but why should this... ?

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: No, the public of the province of British Columbia is entitled to an explanation, because the explanation we have had is something that offends against every concept of human rights, and something that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) should be concerned about.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): You're misleading the House.

MR. KING: He's abolishing the Human Rights people.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I think there should be an explanation, Mr. Minister, because on the surface there has been a gross violation of human rights if that is the story: that a man should be discharged by Chevron for a personal divorce case and terminated by this government for what he says was the same reason, after two days. If that isn't a matter of human rights and something demanding explanation, and something which does not stand up with the explanations given by the government....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I fail to see where the hiring or firing of Michael Ellis relates to this amendment.

MR. KING: He's unemployed now! The man is unemployed! (Laughter.)

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I think you've got a valid point, but the incompetence, the want of trust, and the uncertainty in the office of the Minister of Economic Development has a lot to do with unemployment in the province of British Columbia in the year 1977.

I'd like to refer you, Mr. Speaker, because you're following my remarks very closely, to some of the parliamentary traditions I referred to. What does a democracy do in these circumstances? I refer to Birch on Representative Government, at page 139, where it says:

"The positive aspect of this is that members of parliament wishing to query any action of department know there is one man to whom they may address their questions who cannot evade the duty of answering them" — and that member is silent, which is unusual for him. "The negative aspect of it is that civil servants are not answerable to parliament for their actions and are protected from political controversy by the minister."

As Gladstone said: "In every free state, for every public act, someone must be responsible." The question is: who shall it be? The British Constitution answers: the minister and the minister exclusively. It's all very well to fire two people in the office, Mr. Speaker, and say that's nothing to do with the minister. That is not the British parliamentary tradition.

The second point, Mr. Speaker, I make, in terms of how the unemployment is being increased in this province as a result of the inaction and the actions of the government, is to be found in the Parliamentary Ombudsman at page 43:

"More realistically, what the doctrine seems to require as regards vicarious responsibility is that a minister should resign if important errors made by civil servants under his control are such as to indicate that he has failed to establish and maintain an adequate system of delegation and supervision."

Now, at the very least, Mr. Speaker, that Minister of Economic Development, central to the question of unemployment, has failed to establish an adequate system of delegation or supervision. There has been incomprehensible incompetency in the office of that minister, and if any member in this House is going to laugh about it — the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) — and say that's got nothing to do with the unemployment that we're going to experience in

[ Page 149 ]

1977, he is mistaken.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Then throw away your Ministry of Economic Development if it has nothing to do with unemployment.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: It is not funny to many of the families in the province of B.C.

In terms of this uncertainty, want of confidence, and incompetence that has been engendered around that minister, I would like to say that there is one hon. member sitting in this House who is a mine of information, and so far he volunteered it very nicely on this subject, Mr. Speaker: the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers). When the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was speaking, the member for Vancouver South volunteered that his meeting with people who were trying to bring wrongdoing to the attention of the government did not occur outside of a liquor store, it occurred outside of a butcher store, and we accept that correction. The hon. member is beginning to provide this House with information which it is his obligation as a member to give to the public.

I say that the silence of that member to date has been deafening. He knows who approached him. He knows when they approached him. He knows who the ministers of the cabinet were, Mr. Speaker, whom citizens tried to reach with information of wrongdoing on the stock market. He knows when they made those attempts. He knows which ministers were attempted to be contacted and why the rebuff took, place, when at the slightest suggestion of wrongdoing brought forward by a citizen, that minister and his assistants in office should be open at once to the sensitivity and importance of the information being conveyed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, matters that deal with the trading of shares on the stock market are now before a royal commission, and I would ask that you not discuss this.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, I am not going to go into any details of that kind, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I fail to see where it has anything to do with the amendment.

MR. MACDONALD: But I do say that the responsibility of this minister is before this House. I do say that it is obligatory in terms of his oath of office and his membership as a Member of the Legislative Assembly for the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers), who has either said too much or said too little, to rise in his place and give to the public and the Legislature the information he has at his disposal and so far has not divulged. After he made the kind of humorous remark about the butcher shop last night, he took off out of this House like a buckshot rabbit. But he is here today and I am saying — I am speaking through you, Mr. Speaker, but I am looking right at that member — that member has information of importance in terms of the Minister of Economic Development and in terms of other ministers to whom that information of wrongdoing attempted to be conveyed. He has an obligation to stand up in this House without delay, in terms of his oath of office.

He's silent.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, this is a debate in which members of the government side of the House, who had all the answers between 1972 and 1975, are suddenly very silent. Now we have the greatest unemployment, probably in numbers, that this province has ever seen. We have headlines such as, "Jobless Figures Up 1.5 per cent In British Columbia." We have nothing in prospect but more restraint, more belt-tightening and more excuses coming from the cabinet benches of this government.

I am glad to see that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) is in his seat. When he was asked about the Farm Income Assurance Programme at the B.C. Fruitgrowers' Association annual meeting in Vernon just recently, he wouldn't give any reassurance that the fruit industry had a future in this province. Probably those 2,000 members of that association will add to the already 90-some-odd thousand people who are presently unemployed. Perhaps they, their families and the other industries they support indirectly, such as agricultural machinery supply companies, fertilizer and farm products suppliers, can also be added to the rolls of the unemployed if this minister continues to be an apologist for his government rather than a champion of agriculture.

We see that the agriculture industry was quite optimistic about this minister because his immediate predecessor was an absolute disaster as an Agriculture minister, as he is today as a Minister of Economic Development.

This is the unemployment figure today, and how the Province can conclude that things are going to be a little bit better in British Columbia is rather doubtful.

Something else that the provincial government doesn't seem to realize, and which is just lying on the horizon, is that the present high level of housing starts, which was first generated during the NDP administration, starting in September of 1975, and the crest they have ridden — because these things take

[ Page 150 ]

years of planning, years before the approvals take place and years before the starts are actually initiated — this is again something that is going to be turning around.

If one looks at some of the recent statistics from Central Mortgage and Housing you get an idea of some of the vacancies, the vacant new dwellings which are on the market, and we see that as of September things have become steadily greater — vacancies of 1,700 apartment units in greater Vancouver.

There are also similar figures for single-family units, leading to predictions about future employment by HUDAC, the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada, in their economic research committee newsletter. It says that there will be a large carry-over of completed and unsold units going into 1977 and this evidence of overbuilding in 1976 will probably result in a slow beginning in the first quarter of the new year. At the end of the newsletter it cautions people: "Builders should assess their markets very carefully at this time, taking these factors into account. Heavy demands for advance mortgage commitments reported by the lenders do not indicate that this advice is being followed, but caution is advocated." In other words, what HUDAC is telling us is that there is going to be a turn-down in one area that has been providing employment for the last 18 months and will add to the problems of this government. They have not anticipated this. In fact, they had no sooner taken office, Mr. Speaker, than they made one of the most calamitous decisions. The calamitous decision was to take housing which was destined for the one area in which there is not a surplus — that is, affordable rental housing for low-income families — and to change it into market housing, which put it into competition and created part of this over-supply problem which HUDAC is now indicating creates reason for using caution before embarking in any new market.

So we're going to see thousands more unemployed. The unemployment figures are going to go over 10 per cent in British Columbia if this administration continues upon its present course, particularly if the present Minister of Economic Development remains in his present position.

It's rather interesting that the Premier has used some of his opportunity to speak in this House to lecture us on the great injustice being perpetrated on British Columbia because we don't have enough members in the Senate. The Premier, who is now leaving the House and who hasn't been in here very much this afternoon because, I'm sure, he doesn't have any answers to the serious problem of unemployment, has other priorities.

He goes back to Ottawa and he fights for the people of British Columbia. He wants more senators in British Columbia: give us another Ed Lawson; give us another Nancy Hodges; give us another Ray Perrault. That is his answer to fighting the serious problems which we have here in British Columbia. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, there are more important problems in this province today than the lack of senators. In fact, if you wanted to make any point back there at all, he should ask for the abolition of the Senate.

What he could have been talking about among some of his arguments concerning balance of payments between federal and provincial governments is the shafting which British Columbia is getting in terms of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I don't know if these members take the odd time out from their trips down to Hawaii — I notice most of them have good tans — but if they would do as I do and have open office hours, and have people come into the office.... Advertise it; let them know you're around in the riding; have them come in to your office and tell you about some of their problems.

I have seen people who have been working steadily. One lady had worked steadily for 16 years as a retail clerk. She quit that employment because she felt, after 16 years, that she should try to better herself and that she could only find employment by quitting and devoting her full time to looking for employment.

What happened? Of course, she had to serve the mandatory two-week waiting time, and because she voluntarily left her employment, she had to serve a further six weeks without any income, and with a daughter to support in high school. She accepted that as fair and as being the rules. But what else happened? She was called in by an investigator, who asked her some questions.

The investigators ask people in Nelson questions such as.... They suggest to them that there's a job in Castlegar at the High Arrow Arms. They suggest: "Would you be willing to take that job?" The person says: "Well, I have a daughter in school. I don't have a car." Then they are limiting themselves as to location of employment.

Why didn't the Premier go back east and tell the federal government about this? Why didn't he tell them that they are forcing people and taking away their right to unemployment insurance? "You're tricking them, entrapping them, forcing them onto the welfare rolls of British Columbia when you should be providing jobs in the first place, helping us to provide jobs and working together to provide jobs, rather than entrapping people at the time of highest unemployment." That's the programme of the federal government.

Of course, we have some similar programmes here in the provincial government with the welfare agency. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there are trained police officers

[ Page 151 ]

leaving the police of British Columbia every day — that is part of the problem that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) has — and they are going to work for the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) . They don't have to face the danger of being shot at, high-speed chases and insults about being pigs and various other things.

These are some of the things that are going on. We are spending so much money to investigate, entrap and disallow people their right. A person who has worked for 16 years has a right, at least once, to collect her unemployment insurance.

The Premier shouldn't be going back east talking about senators. He should be talking about the ripoff of the federal government on this government and what we're doing to the unemployed in this province.

Since the crackdown by UIC, which coincides with the crackdown by the Department of Human Resources, there has been a correlated increase in the amount of shoplifting. This information can be supplied from the report, the annual monthly report….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I fail to see where shoplifting has anything to do with the unemployment.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, you might fail to see it. That doesn't surprise me, Mr. Speaker, but I'll certainly try to relate it to my remarks. It's related to unemployment. People are being denied their right to work and they have to steal, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, will you return to the amendment? I'm trying to be as lenient as possible.

MR. NICOLSON: I hope you see the point. This government is criminalizing people. This government is not giving our young people a chance to work. This government has only one out of five young people, in the age bracket around 20 years of age, working; four out of five unemployed. What are those people doing? I am in no way condoning what these people are resorting to, Mr. Speaker. I am not condoning it. I am saying that this is what would be told if the Premier were not to smirk, but if he were to go and talk to the police chief of the Vancouver police force; if he were to talk to the police chief of the New Westminster police force, or the Nelson police force, or the RCMP. There is a coincidence. And if the Premier would like to check the criminal justice monthly report, and check it with the unemployment rates, and check with the incidence and the instigation of the crackdown on unemployment insurance, then I think he would see that my point is valid, and I hope that he would start to fight for the people of British Columbia. Senators are not the issue; unemployment is the issue, and I say that high unemployment is criminalizing our young people, where four out of five people are unemployed, and I say it's serious, and I say that members of the back bench and I say that the members of the government should get up and they should express their concern.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Without my glasses I'll need a little assistance here.

I don't get too much opportunity to address the mass gathering of MLAs. There seem to be more people in the galleries on their own time than we've got down here. Anyway, welcome to you in the chair, Mr. Speaker. You're an easygoing, nice guy — a real sleeper. Something like the last member for Burnaby-Willingdon. I heard that he was a sleeper, too. We know you'll come on strong, though.

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: Not the same type, eh?

MR. COCKE: This guy's not a tiger.

MR. D'ARCY: He's not a tiger, eh? He's not a sleeping tiger; he's a sleeping something else.

I would like to add a few words to express my concern over the present state of economic inactivity in British Columbia. I deplore the apparent lack of concern by this government. I say "apparent." I think in their hearts they have a great deal more concern and they may have some plans that they haven't told us about, but they're not in evidence to us as yet, and they're certainly not in evidence to the business and investment community. Maybe that's more important than whether it's evident to us or not. Not only do we see in British Columbia a distressing vacuum in planning for new primary or secondary industry, but the present administration will not move to show concern for existing industries.

You know, we've heard of plans, very recently, to scrap or emasculate the Farm Income Assurance Act. Now this has been in spite of some rather — at least to me — unexpected federal help to supplement the provincial funds which were earmarked for this programme. Now what would be the economic effects of a collapse of the tree-fruit industry in the southern interior, just to take one example? Who would pay the unemployment insurance cost, the social assistance, and the general costs of people being driven off their land and out of their jobs? Well, we know who will make these payments — the same people who always make payments for these things, and that is the rest of everyone else who is still employed or who is still fortunate enough to find themselves in business.

You know, we are committed, both by philosophy — I think all parties in the House are — and by

[ Page 152 ]

statute, to educate and protect the health of all people, at public expense, whether or not those people are employed. Yet the government doesn't seem to care that the tax base shrinks, that there is less money available from land taxation for schools and for hospitals at the local level. It may be rather elementary to point out, Mr. Speaker, but when people are unemployed or go bankrupt through no fault of their own, the general economy not only loses the value of the productivity of their labour or business skills, but the remainder of the public, who are fortunate enough to be still carrying on, must work harder and have a greater proportion of their income taxed by all levels of government, just to maintain the status quo — sometimes not even to maintain the status quo, just to maintain minimal standards of health and social services.

Mr. Speaker, no wonder there are so few British Columbians with money these days to invest in job-creating enterprises. For those who do, why should they have any confidence in our economic future? Why, if it takes more and more money and harder and harder work just to stand still, to stay in one spot, to maintain a business or support a family, should people put money aside to invest in B.C.? I hope they do. I really hope they do, but, frankly, there's very little incentive there. I believe that there is less incentive to invest in British Columbia today than at any time since the Dirty Thirties. That may be an extreme statement but, in fact, I believe it is true.

Very little is being put aside for new buildings and for industrial plants. I emphasize very little for new things because it is quite true. I think the government has said this, and I quite agree — that large sums are being spent, and have been spent privately, in repair and maintenance of existing facilities. But these massive expenditures, Mr. Speaker, do not create new jobs and business opportunities. In fact, I think as everyone knows, they are necessary if B.C. primary and secondary industry is to survive at all. In fact, some major repair projects, by adding needed efficiency, actually eliminate jobs. I don't blame industries here; they have to do this to stay competitive internationally.

What does the government do? Nothing of significance, especially in the matter of attracting capital for job-intensive industries. Oh, we've heard of more billions for Hydro projects, which are not job-intensive in comparison. In construction they leave no permanent jobs and are sometimes — nowadays, at least — not even popular in the communities in which they are built. That's a change from a few years ago when everybody jumped on the bandwagon when a billion dollars was going to be spent on a dam. There's just been too much publicity and too many complaints from too many city councils and environmental groups, and I'm no longer convinced that massive public works expenditures are popular in British Columbia.

Indeed, we are told that last year energy consumption actually went down in Canada, and yet we are told that we need a $1 billion-plus project at Revelstoke Canyon. You know, north of Revelstoke Canyon there's a massive dam, the Mica project. It's not fully operational as yet. The Seven-Mile project in my riding is not complete; Site 1 on the Peace is not complete. No generators — nor are there plans for any generators, to my knowledge, at least — have been installed in the Keenleyside Dam, and yet more billions are going into more grandiose projects whose need at this time is somewhat suspect.

I have some personal interest, and political interest as well, in where the borrowed money is coming from for these projects. It could come from Canadian sources, I suppose, but apparently the present government has no faith in money borrowed in our country. They borrow it on the U.S. market and the funds are repayable, Mr. Speaker, in U.S. dollars at 10 per cent, plus interest; U.S. dollars, Mr. Speaker, which are now worth 5 per cent more than they were when they were borrowed. We are told that the Canadian dollar may eventually settle down in a few months at 92 cents U.S., plus 10 per cent interest — a built-in 13 per cent surcharge, Mr. Speaker, plus 10 per cent interest to build a dam which is not needed, is unpopular, and is not job-intensive in the construction stage, let alone in operation.

Mr. Speaker, hundreds of millions that could be expended on job-intensive health and educational programmes or, alternatively, passed on directly to our economy through tax cuts, savings to the consumer, are wasted. You can build a lot of bulk-water systems, pave a lot of streets, save a lot of farmland, fill libraries with books, buy a lot of dialysis machines — you name it — for $1 billion. No jobs, no investment — no wonder.

There is widespread fear in B.C. that major sectors of our resource-base economy could collapse or go into a serious decline, and the statements regarding the Farm Income Assurance Programme don't help those fears. Mr. Speaker, I would emphasize that those fears have not been created by the business community; they've not been created by the opposition; they've not even been created by government statements. They've been created by government actions — government actions only. I ask: is it good business for an investor to sink money into secondary and service industries in British Columbia in that kind of an apprehension?

The hotels association estimated that the hotel vacancy rate in the tourist season in B.C. may have been as high as 25 to 30 per cent. What is it now in the winter — 50, 75 per cent? Why would anyone invest in hotels and in restaurants? Prime retail space is vacant in many of our major cities and has been so

[ Page 153 ]

for months on end. How much of our existing secondary industry is running at less than capacity because of soft markets right here in British Columbia? Indeed, I suspect, and some of my information indicates, that the only firm markets much of our secondary industry has are international or interprovincial. Why would an investor invest for a new plant here, or to expand a plant, when there is a continuing soft local market and they have to sell their products across the line, or in other countries, or in other provinces?

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we have soft markets here because the consumer has no money and because there are too few business and job opportunities available. Those who are active find their taxes are too darned high to put anything aside for investment.

Last year, more families left British Columbia, according to Statistics Canada, than moved in. This rather dismal statistic has recently been reconfirmed after the preliminary figures disclosed it, and I don't think this has ever before happened in British Columbia, even in the depths of the Depression.

Many of these people who are leaving, I believe, possess precisely the kind of skills, qualifications and professional expertise we so desperately need. When they go, Mr. Speaker, they take their ability, their productivity and their entrepreneurial drive. In some cases they even take their capital if they can get it out.

Now we may often, whatever side of the House we sit on, deplore the under use and misuse of natural resources, but I submit that our most important resource is our human resource, and that imaginative productivity that enriches us all. The government, in my opinion, is squandering that resource, and all of us are the poorer for it. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this amendment.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in this very short debate on the question of unemployment — in which I had not originally intended to participate, and my participation will be brief because I presented most of my opinions and comments on unemployment during my longer speech on Monday — what I find most revealing is that not one single government member has spoken on this subject; not one cabinet minister, not one backbencher has seen fit to stand up and defend the government's record on unemployment.

This is a government that spent many aggressive hours throughout this province and in this Legislature attacking the former administration on its economic policies, attacking individual ministers and making rather wild promises during an election campaign about providing jobs for British Columbians. One clear year after having full and complete power in this province, with an overwhelming majority, with no obstruction politically, not only have they not produced jobs in this province, but they have not availed themselves of an opportunity to stand up in this Legislature and state why. The silence, Mr. Speaker, is deafening.

An issue that was of paramount importance to that group when they were in opposition, an issue which they spoke on with passion and seeming conviction, an issue upon which they presented themselves to television studios, to newspaper reporters, to constituency meetings, saying: "Vote Social Credit and we'll get British Columbia moving again" — not a word. Not a statement, not a sound in participating in debate that has now been on this amendment for some number of hours. Not even a rallying cry.

The Minister of Health and the backbenchers are suggesting I sit down.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Give us all a break.

MR. BARRETT: I'm suggesting that you don't even get a break to make your own announcements; the minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) makes the new hospital announcements. Even that is robbed in terms of your opportunity to say anything about unemployment.

Mr. Speaker, where are they now that they won the election? They convinced the people of this province that they were going to create boom times, that there would be jobs, that there would be investment, there would be confidence. They said last fall, through the mouth of the Premier, that the economy had turned the corner, that they had solved all the problems they had inherited — real or imaginary — that they had turned the corner.

There are 10,000 more unemployed people in this province this month than there were a year ago, and not a single word in this debate from the government defending its policy. It just sits there numbly, waiting till the debate is over so they can get on with the vote that they know they can win. Is there no unemployment in those constituencies that those members represent? Is there no concern, no commitment over the fact that you told the people of this province that you had the economic answers necessary to provide jobs? You appealed to the private sector — you believe in that — yet the major part of capital investment in this province in the past year has been through massive borrowings to support the public sector.

In the forest industry the major commitment in the production sector has been through the publicly owned Crown corporation Can-Cel. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that after one year of a so-called private-enterprise government, the only areas of the economy that are functioning well and creating jobs, or maintaining the existing jobs and making a profit, are the Crown corporations.

[ Page 154 ]

Do you remember, Mr. Speaker — I don't think you would, but you might recall or ask some of your colleagues to recall to you — the vituperative statements made about Panco Poultry? Yet that's provided and maintained those jobs in Surrey. Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, the attacks on the Princess Marguerite and the attempt to shut that off? Do you remember the statements on Can-Cel and Kootenay Forest Products that are publicly owned?

Mr. Speaker, don't you find it somewhat ironic that just a matter of months ago the only ribbon-cutting done by the Premier on a new job situation was at Plateau Mills in Vanderhoof, which was publicly owned, which we bought and which was attacked by Social Credit? The only sector that has maintained some semblance of balance in the economy of this province has been in the public sector of the Crown corporations or those industries bought by the previous administration. Don't you find it ironic, Mr. Speaker, that Can-Cel, Plateau, Kootenay Forest Products, Panco Poultry, Ocean Falls, Princess Marguerite, the B.C. Petroleum Corporation — all of the major economic thrust made by the former administration have become, in essence, the backbone of what's left of the continuing economy of this province?

Social Credit has been in power 14 months, and not one significant capital investment by the private sector has been made — not one! Afton, the copper smelter outside of Kamloops, was started and initiated by the NDP, and that is a matter of record, Mr. Speaker. That Afton commitment was made while we were in government. Not one member, not one cabinet minister, has stood up in the debate on unemployment and catalogued any single action taken by this new government to bring in one private dollar to stimulate a brand new job — only a pathetic reference, Mr. Speaker, in the throne speech to Crown Zellerbach's $125 million investment that even Mr. Bill Hamilton of the Employers' Council shot down as a committed five-year project anyway.

What about these vaunted connections, these praised connections, these quiet tones of businesslike government that said: Vote for us and we'll bring private investment into British Columbia. There is not one, major, single project on the drawing boards of any engineering firm in British Columbia for a major project in this province in the private sector. Not one!

Our shipyards are idle, while our coastal communities are awaiting the opportunity of having some transportation services. Our young people are idle, waiting to go to work while this government sells off its ferries, only to buy them back from Toronto.

Our older people, who do have the skills of plumbing and carpentering and other journeyman efforts in the labouring field and vocational fields, are lining up, waiting for jobs, and Social Credit has produced absolutely nothing! And oh, how they used to howl; oh, how they used to cry about jobs when they were in opposition! The private sector has been a complete failure under a private enterprise government. The private sector has convinced this government that the major economic developments should come in the northeast sector by coal. What is the private sector asking for before the project will go ahead? It's asking for welfare. How ironic! The nerve of this government, to go to Ottawa and say: we need $500 million in handouts for infrastructure to allow private industry to develop a coal project. If there's to be $500 million spent on this province for infrastructure, then the infrastructure of that industry should remain in the hands of the people who provided that money in the first place.

It was a charlatan's election, Mr. Speaker: say anything, do anything and promise jobs. Do you remember the slogan: "Let's get British Columbia moving again!"? Young, married people are leaving this province every single day because they cannot find employment here in British Columbia next to the bosoms of their families or their friends.

MR. LEA: "Work with Bill!"

MR. BARRETT: "Work with Bill!" The only work with Bill is lining up, waiting, as my friend from Omineca said, for their unemployment insurance cheques or welfare cheques.

MR. LEA: Just another bill to pay.

MR. BARRETT: It's a disgraceful, dismal performance by a government that deliberately went out to the people and campaigned on the argument that they were going to revive the economy. Not one major capital investment by the private sector will be available in the next year, not one!

Even the announcement of the pipeline is public funds to back up that pipeline, and that's a fact. I'd like to acquaint the Premier with the small print on the contract that, if the pipeline is not able to carry its full capacity load to return the basic cost on a capital to those private investors, then the B.C. Petroleum Corporation has to pay the money. That's a fact. And the member who sits over there, who was on the board — if you weren't aware of that by shaking your head, I suggest you go back and read the initial contract. As a matter of fact I ask you to challenge.... If you're shaking your head, table the agreement here in the House. Table the agreement you signed,, and if my statement is incorrect, you prove it in writing. But I tell you this: unless that pipeline carries the full capacity, the people of this province will have to pay.

There are no jobs, but what is even more hypocritical is that there are not even words — not a peep; not a murmur; not a squeak out of that smug

[ Page 155 ]

group over there who knew very well that they had it in the bag. Just say: "Stop socialism. We'll create jobs." You haven't done a thing.

You have taken money out of working people's pockets — ferry rates, income tax. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) made a speech to teachers recently saying: "Well, our taxation policies have not had the economic stimulation that we anticipated." Does that mean that you even over-estimated the amount of revenues you had?

The unemployment figures in this province are now 8.8 per cent. Stand up and defend it! Stand up and tell us why, after your bleating blandishments to the people of this province — "Work with Bill! Let's get B.C. moving again!" — you've caused us a depression.

Not a word; not a sound; not a murmur! The timid backbenchers sit there and the cabinet waits for the debate to be over. Oh, perhaps my words will stir a little twinge of conscience in some of them and they'll stand up and say: "Well, we're hoping for the private sector to come back. We do hope the chappies in New York or Montreal will help us out. But if the private sector won't invest, oh, golly, gee whiz, we'll just have to wait."

Where's government action? Where's leadership? Where's investment? Where's direction?' Where's commitment on behalf of the people of this province? Certainly the world conditions are not perfect. But do you have the ability, or the desire, or the commitment to do things for ourselves, as we can, as we should be doing, as we did with Can-Cel, Ocean Falls, the Princess Marguerite, Plateau Mills and Kootenay Forest Products?

You said you were against public ownership. Have you sold off Can-Cel? Have you sold off Plateau Mills? Have you sold off Ocean Falls? Not on your life. You even opened a new sawmill which is publicly owned and which had been planned and built by our public administration. I hope the Premier had the decency not to cut it with a blue ribbon.

Silence, silence, silence, when you had so much to say on this issue. Every one of those backbenchers who campaigned with that motto, "Let's get B.C. moving again," sit condemned over the fact that they haven't had the ability or the desire or the commitment to stand up in this House and justify why we have 8.8 per cent unemployment under Social Credit and its economic policies, which have not brought in one major bit of capital investment.

We will have to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars more to feed into those project-conscious areas like the Crown corporation of B.C. Hydro, as my colleague from Trail (Mr. D'Arcy), has said. Hydro is being used now as a whipping boy to continue massive borrowings to give some appearance that the economy is being stimulated, while in actual fact there is no rational reason why we should rely entirely on that kind of borrowing.

What is the plan? What is the development? Is it something more than the kind of blandishments we receive in the handouts and press releases that say world economic conditions have sadly affected us? If we had sat on our arguments about world economic conditions, we would have allowed Ocean Falls to close as you would have. We would have allowed Kootenay Forest Products to close as you would have. Can-Cel would have gone; Panco Poultry. Yes, make fun about that, but there are tens of people working there making a living there.

MR. COCKE: Four hundred and fifty jobs.

MR. BARRETT: Four hundred and fifty people. You may be smug and smiling about that, but those people have the decency and the dignity of bringing home a pay cheque that is their own.

But the crowning irony of everything else, Mr. Speaker, is this amendment in itself. The crowning irony is that while they have not said one word after those appeals by their leader of, "Work with Bill! — "Confidence in British Columbia!" — the crowning irony after all of those lines about, "Let's get British Columbia moving again!" — is that the wording of this amendment has been debated in this House before.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: This amendment, Mr. Speaker, is an exact duplicate of one initiated in this House four years ago in the throne debate in rancour, in bitterness, in hostility and with vicious debate against the New Democratic Party government that at that time had just saved Ocean Falls, had moved on Can-Cel, and was planning the Petroleum Corporation. This motion that has been presented by us and that has not heard one single word from Social Credit is a duplicate of a Social Credit motion placed in this House on January 29, 1973.

Yes, the mover now has found an exalted position in black. The mover is now the Speaker of this House, and those speeches are on record of what Social Credit would do when there were 10,000 less unemployed in this province at that time. Unemployment was 8 per cent when Social Credit brought that amendment into the throne speech. When they made vicious, vituperative attacks against the government, they had all answers, they had all the speeches. They knew what they were going to do and they brought in this motion and debated it. Irony: four years later unemployment is even worse, the economy has seen no stimulation from the private sector, and we have dumb silence from the government, its government benches and the backbench.

[ Page 156 ]

Oh, well, I've got to tell you about this, Mr. Speaker: we're two years away from an election; let us all hope that the private sector will come and rescue us from New York. You are laissez-faire; you have no plans, no initiative other than the one stated — that you want public welfare for that one corporation development in the northeast sector of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the embarrassment on the vote of this particular motion does not include you now in your non-partisan, exalted position. It would be worthy of us, though, to check and see who was the seconder of this motion so we could see how the seconder will vote now that the shoe is on the other foot — when you said, when you were in opposition, that you knew all the answers and that you knew how to solve every problem: just let private enterprise do it. Not even a peep! Not a murmur! Not a whimper! Not a sound — just a well-disciplined silence that in the armed services is called dumb insolence. "Get British Columbia moving again!" "Work with Bill!" Mr. Speaker, who are they trying to kid?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A tough act to follow, isn't it?

HON. MR. CHABOT: He always was.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I think it very appropriate that I take my place in this debate because in my riding I would suspect that I have probably the highest rate of unemployment of any riding in British Columbia. I am not sure about that, but I would suspect that the 15 to 18 per cent figures that were given to me by Canada Manpower are probably approximately correct.

The economic recession: I would like to take a few minutes to discuss why we are in an economic recession and relate this to similar problems, perhaps, in my riding. By the way, Mr. Speaker, I guess if you are working, it is a recession. But I have hundreds and hundreds of people in my riding who do not have jobs at the moment and they call it a depression. As far as they are concerned, it is a depression. I know the government says: "Let them collect unemployment insurance; let them collect welfare."

MR. LEA: They don't say anything.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: But the fact is it's not easy to get welfare, and people are not always eligible to collect unemployment insurance, particularly in many parts of my riding.

You know, Mr. Speaker, about a month ago — as a matter of fact, on the first anniversary of the election of the present government — our party marked that event by issuing a little bit of a pamphlet entitled: "How to get B.C.'s economy moving — backwards — in 37 easy steps." Now I am not going to go through all 37 steps, but I think I should mention a few of the highlights of this little pamphlet. This little pamphlet is no secret, by the way; I think we sent out 30,000 just to make sure that people in the province would know what the cause of this recession or depression is.

AN HON. MEMBER: A Christmas card, wasn't it?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Send me a copy.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'll send it as soon as I have finished with it, Mr. Minister of Mines.

Okay, let's start. The increase in automobile insurance by 100 to 400 per cent. Amazing — 100 to 400 per cent. You have taken that money out of circulation in this province, out of people's pockets.

Increased the electricity rates by 10.8 per cent. This is all under the present government, Mr. Speaker, and all within the last year.

An increase of 12 cents a gallon in the home heating oil, and it's going to go higher, as we all know.

You eliminated the price freeze on propane and on gasoline so it could go up eight cents a gallon. It has gone up more since and it's going to go up again, as we are all well aware, unless the government, of course, implements and brings in the legislation that we feel is necessary. I don't think the government will, Mr. Speaker.

Cancellation of the plan to introduce rent control on commercial premises; an increase in the allowance for residential rents from 8 to 10.6 per cent.

Elimination of the price freeze on food, drugs and beverages; allowal of price increases on bread and milk.

They introduced a budget that increases sales tax by 40 per cent — unbelievable! — when it was not necessary, Mr. Speaker.

They increased personal income taxes by 15 per cent, increased ferry rates by 100 to 200 per cent — and that, Mr. Speaker, is a big item in itself. It had a great effect on Vancouver Island and the people all up and down this British Columbia coast. I will discuss that at more length in a few minutes.

They increased bus fares by 40 per cent, increased provincial campground fees by 100 per cent.

They cut back on grants to hospitals and schools, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, I think it's projected that the increased cost to the taxpayer for this fiscal year, in regard to school taxes, will be a total of $56 million — which is after a $60 million increase, a direct burden to the taxpayer last year, Mr. Speaker.

There are a number of other items here in this leaflet — all of them correct and well researched. But, Mr. Speaker, I thought I would relate these items to how they affect areas in my own riding. First of all, I

[ Page 157 ]

would like to discuss Ocean Falls Briefly. The future of that community, because of this government's policy in regard to transportation, is in serious doubt at the moment. We have had no indication from this t government into what direction they may be going in regard to the modernization and upgrading of that community. Transportation to that community has been almost totally cut off. What it means is that 400 to 450 jobs could be lost in that community. There should be room in that area for 1,000 jobs — 1,200 jobs — in my opinion, if the upgrading and expansion programme, as envisaged by Simons & Co., would be allowed to proceed.

The Powell River Co. in my area reduced its work force over the last 18 months by 200 people. Now that doesn't seem like a great deal out of 2,300 people directly employed; but it's quite a few. It affected another 500 to 700 jobs directly in that one community — under this government, Mr. Speaker. Texada Mines shut down. Texada Mines is a wholly-owned Kaiser operation, iron mine operation, on Texada Island. It shut down December 17; the last ore left that property. I wish the minister had been there to help shut down that mine, just to see what the effect on 170 people...what it's like, how many homes are for sale, how many families have been dislocated, all of the horrendous impact of 170 people in a small community being arbitrarily placed out of work. I hope to discuss this matter further under the minister's estimates.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, as a matter of fact, I think we might be able to make a case that there is still a significant amount of ore that has been left underground, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We will do that. I will absolutely do that, and under your estimates. But in the meantime we have 170 people out of work, Mr. Speaker, in that one area alone.

Namu, another quite large fishing village and canning plant in my riding employs, in the peak of the season, approximately 180 to 200 people. I was informed just this week that there might be serious cutbacks and/or a possible closure of that operation because of transportation problems. I hope not; that community as well serves up to 800 to 1,000 people during the peak fishing season, in terms of supplies and the rest of it. I understand that that village will be hoping to resume operations February 16 or 17, in a small way, with the herring season, but we have no idea how long that operation will continue. And the ferry workers that have been laid off, many of whom live in my riding, Mr. Speaker, and the impact that that act alone has had on some of the small communities in my riding….

Well, the list goes on: young people — many of these young people who aren't registered with Manpower or anyone else — looking for work. Some of them are now leaving the province. The list goes on and on. But anyway, Mr. Speaker, I see nothing positive from the Speech from the Throne to indicate hat the severe unemployment situation in my riding or in the province will be alleviated, so I will be supporting this amendment and cannot support the Speech from the Throne. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KING: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that since this is the first opportunity I have had to speak in the House this year I would like to disagree with my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), and offer some small congratulations to the government, and that is with respect to the fact that they have made an attempt — albeit a pallid one — to ease the pangs of unemployment in this province by appointing three of their backbenchers with time on their hands to occupy cabinet benches for the new session. I certainly want to extend my congratulations to the Hon. Jim Hewitt, who is named in the throne speech, the Hon. Samuel Bawlf, and the Hon. James Chabot.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: The hon. member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) was resplendent in a new suit on opening day.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bought it in Calgary.

MR. KING: I don't know whether that was to celebrate his elevation to the cabinet. I trust that he bought that suit in Golden or Invermere, and didn't go down to Calgary across the provincial border to escape the punitive taxation that this government has put on the people of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: He bought it in Skookumchuck.

MR. KING: He bought it at Skookumchuck! (Laughter.) There are those who perhaps might agree, Mr. Speaker.

I want to briefly reinforce and re-emphasize many of the points that have been made by my colleagues in this debate on the motion of lack of confidence in the government for failure to introduce and initiate programmes that would, in fact, get the economy of British Columbia moving again; that would, in fact, provide a sound base for employment growth in the province and ease the tremendous and damaging burden of unemployment that our people are now

[ Page 158 ]

suffering under.

What is the state of the B.C. economy at the moment, Mr. Speaker? I submit to you that it is one of stagnation. It is one of a complete standstill in terms of any capital investment, and in the face of this dormant economy that B.C. is facing, we find absolutely no programmes, either contained in the throne speech or in any of the policies introduced thus far by this coalition government, to actually stimulate the economy and get this moving again — which was, indeed, their election campaign promise. Now mention is made in the throne speech of the one vestige of capital investment that has been made in the province in the past year, namely the investment by one of the major forest corporations. I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that is a completely empty boast by this government to attempt to take credit for an investment by Crown Zellerbach which was initiated, indeed, three years ago under the New Democratic Party government. In any event, that investment meant nothing in terms of generating new employment in the province of British Columbia. I want to read to you what the president of the Employers' Council of British Columbia had to say about that investment which this government is desperately trying to latch onto as some indication that they are even capable of generating some life into this sagging and deathly sad economy of B.C. I quote from the Colonist of November 11, 1976. Mr. Hamilton, the chairman of the Employers' Council, is quoted in this article, and I wish to quote him too. Mr. Hamilton said:

"Work stoppages stemming from negotiations may be proportionately less than usual because of high unemployment and an uncertain economic climate, and the AIB's limitations on wage increases. Commenting on the decision by Crown Zellerbach to invest $125 million in its B.C. operation, Hamilton said the move is not a major expansion programme and should be considered in context. He noted the Crown Zellerbach programme calls for a $50 million investment in upkeep and maintenance and only $75 million on expansion, and considering Crown Zellerbach has been planning the expansion for about three years, Hamilton said the expansion plans really cover a five-year period."

I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that when this government points their finger in the throne speech to that kind of development as justification for their sorry record, it shows you how desperate, in fact, they are for some indication that their policies are doing something beneficial for the province of British Columbia. One other area, Mr. Speaker, where any economic activity is proffered by this government, and that is in the northeast area of the province related to coal development. I want to suggest to you that the problem the government is having in getting that coal development off the ground relates to the demands of the mining industry that the provincial government put up all the bucks, all of the funds, for the infrastructure to support the mining community that would grow, incident to the mine — not only the infrastructure for the community, Mr. Speaker, but the transportation facilities, which are vital as well.

I want to predict that the capital cost of such infrastructure will be at least as much, if not in excess of, the capital investment involved in developing and bringing the mines into production. That is the kind of welfare that the mining companies are asking this government to deliver before they will invest in this province and create some jobs.

That is why the Premier and his lame Economic Development minister — the lame-duck minister — have been so desperate to obtain the involvement of the federal government. They are desperately trying to get some cost-sharing arrangement to deliver this welfare to their friends in the mining industry; which would allow them to get out from under the political hot potato of bearing that total burden themselves, and the political consequences that would accrue when the people of British Columbia realize the social welfare ripoff that is being perpetrated upon them. That is the only major economic activity that this government has a hope of bringing to fruition over the next period of years.

They are desperate, Mr. Speaker, and hysterical to try to bring that to reality at almost any cost, because it means saving their political skin — not one other area, not one other activity in terms of any industrial development, in terms of the creation of jobs, in the face of certainly higher regional unemployment statistics than this province has faced at any time in postwar years.

I predict again, Mr. Speaker, that before this winter is out the overall general unemployment statistics are, indeed, going to transcend any level, in postwar years. That is the kind of depressed, desperate state that the economy of British Columbia is in under an administration that bragged and boasted they were going to get the economy moving again, under an administration that claimed they were shrewd, competent businessmen. What are the reasons for this sorry state of affairs?

Mr. Speaker, who in their right mind would come in and discuss economic development? Who would discuss an orderly development of resources or any other business transaction with a lame-duck Minister of Economic Development who is labouring in his portfolio under a cloud of suspicion — incompetence, at the least, and certainly, if not, gross negligence at the outside.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition has studiously stayed away from any incursion into the jurisdiction and the

[ Page 159 ]

terms of reference of His Honour Judge Smith who is investigating this whole matter surrounding the Grizzly Valley affair. But there's another side to that whole question, which is political responsibility and political accountability.

I submit in the strongest possible terms that any minister of the Crown has an obligation and a duty which should be enforced by the Premier to operate his office on behalf of the people, with full confidence in the knowledge that the propriety and the confidentiality of negotiations and discussions are going to be maintained, free from incidents of abuse.

That cannot be done under the present circumstances, Mr. Speaker, and that is one of the underlying reasons why people are suffering. Hundreds of people, thousands of people — indeed, I would suggest in excess of 92,000 people at the moment — are suffering without the hope of any employment in the foreseeable future. Mr. Speaker, the throne speech is bereft of any programme, any winter works programme, any crash programme, to try and put these people to work.

We hear members of the government benches suggesting, well, they can go on unemployment insurance. I want to say to this House, Mr. Speaker, that unemployment insurance is not that easy to obtain. In the first place, one must have had employment to obtain 15 weeks' stamps to their credit before they qualify for unemployment insurance. I submit that due to the record of this government there are not that many British Columbians out of those 92,000 who are unemployed who have had the benefit of working long enough this summer, this year, to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits.

I want to state further, Mr. Speaker, that someone in the unemployment insurance department of the federal government must have been listening to our provincial Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), because they've cracked down and become real Scrooge-like in terms of granting benefits to those people who are unemployed.

Mr. Speaker, for the first time in my public life, which started long before I entered this chamber, the last time in my riding I encountered no less than three constituents who visited my office, not only seeking unemployment, but actually asking for help to obtain social assistance so they could buy a meal. They were hungry. They did not have a dollar in their pockets to buy their next meal and, Mr. Speaker, I have not seen that. Certainly in post-war years, when I was a small child, I can remember the assembly lines and the soup lines of the great Depression, but in a very vague way because I was quite young, fortunately.

What we find is a real double-shuffle for those people who are unfortunate enough to be in that position — a double-shuffle between the unemployment insurance office, where they haven't got enough stamps to qualify, and an insensitive, inhumane administration in Human Resources that will not grant them any benefits, even to the extent of food vouchers, unless they are prepared to mortgage their souls. We actually, for the first time in my history of public life, find British Columbia citizens going hungry, and I think it's scandalous. When I see this gang of well-fed, well-clothed coalition cohorts sitting in here in mute silence, I become angry, Mr. Speaker. I become very angry.

Admittedly, any government is going to have problems with the climate we have in world affairs today. And certainly we don't want to be unrealistic and unfair in demands on the provincial government. But my goodness, when they came in with such great promises, and when we find their throne speech absolutely devoid of even a recognition of the plight of almost 100,000 British Columbians, I say that's too much. I just can't understand how any person in this assembly who is sincere, and who feels a commitment to his constituents, can sit here mute today and not even involve himself in this debate. I say it is a scandal, and I want to say to you that every politician — I don't care of what stripe — has a higher obligation to the people he represents than to his own party.

I wonder what the people back home will think — when they find this whole debate on a serious matter, completely neglected in the throne speech, without any indication of a contingency plan by this government in recognition of these grave economic circumstances — when they find out that you sat there like mute, silent ghouls, even refusing to participate in this debate. You were sent down here to represent people, not to come down here and do the silent bidding of the leader of the Social Credit Party.

I see him nodding his head today on who could answer what question in question period. Talk about arrogance! One short year in office and we get statements like: "I train my dogs in two weeks!"

Then today, when questions were asked, Mr. Speaker, the Premier nods his head. Pretty soon he's going to be gesticulating like his father; he turns them on that way and he shuts them off that way. You remember, Mr. Speaker; you were on the receiving end of those gestures. The boy is learning well. But it's a scandalous thing when those mute members sit back and take that kind of dictation and control. Where's your independence? Where's your character?

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that my assessment of the unemployment situation is not unrealistic. I want to tell you that the general terms we talk about pale to insignificance when we look at the regional statistics throughout this province. I want to quote, Mr. Speaker, the situation right here in the city of Victoria when, on Thursday, November 4, 1976,

[ Page 160 ]

there was a report in the Colonist — or the Victoria Times, I beg your pardon. I'm going to read some of it to you, to indicate what the regional circumstances are. These are not obscure, impersonal statistics; these are real people we are talking about. It's fine to average it out and say, well, there's only 9 per cent across the province, but in certain areas, Mr. Speaker, it's upward to 20 per cent. I want to read what Canada Manpower and Mr. Stan Purdy say about the situation in Victoria on November 4,1976:

"The need to attract new plants to Victoria has become an urgent issue because of the closure of important industries, Canada Manpower regional manager Stan Purdy said today.

"The flow of jobs is one way — out of Victoria."

"Out of Victoria," he says. Out of Victoria! That was the government that was going to get things moving. They did; they got people moving eastward!

"'Victoria is losing 26 jobs with the closure of the Alberta Wheat Pool elevator, December 31, and we'll lose about 100 jobs when the Quadra St. winery is phased out over the next 12 months.

"'Up Island, the Ocean Cement Plant at Bamfield is moving to the lower mainland. Meanwhile, almost nothing is coming into Victoria,' he said."

I don't know whether he was referring to the government when he said that, Mr. Speaker, or the state of the economy. Almost nothing is coming to Victoria.

"'We must attract new industries because the loss of these jobs is producing ripple effects in the economy.'"

Among the ripples:

"'The supply of jobs in service industries is declining. There are 11,000 people registered at Canada Manpower as looking for work, and only about 100 jobs are posted on the board. The supply of clerical jobs at the Canada Manpower Centre Wednesday was 'four.'" — four, an all-time low — "'Retail sales are slumping in Victoria. Merchants are expecting Christmas sales to be low.'"

I'm quoting a further section of this report:

"'There is a surplus of unsold single-family homes and condominiums because few people are moving to the city. For the first time Victorians are applying eagerly for relocation grants to the Prairies.'"

To the Prairies, Mr. Speaker. Remember how the old Socreds used to stand up and say: "Oh, under those socialist governments in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, they're driving all the people out, they're coming to B.C. and that's why we have unemployment."

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in those socialist provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba there is virtually full employment today. Under this coalition group, for the first time in history of Canada Manpower in Victoria — as well as many other centres — there's an eastward migration pattern. For the first time relocation grants are being dispersed by Canada Manpower to assist British Columbians with relocation on the Prairies and points east. Are you proud of that, Mr. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)? Are you proud of that? You were brought into the cabinet, presumably, to help.

Where are the employment programmes? Where's the capital investment and expansion? It's a scandalous situation, Mr. Speaker. And what is the outlook? The outlook for both construction and the forest industry is poor for the winter, but some improvement is expected by spring. It may be 1978 before markets are rated as good.

Now, in the face of all this, Mr. Speaker, I would have expected a government, any modern government — even the most right-wing modern government, and certainly conservative government — to try to prime the economic pump with some public spending. That's an economic standard approach in the western world, certainly since the Roosevelt days. But we have here an administration that is reverting to the era of the Ghengis Khan, they are not prepared to expend any dollars to prime the economy and put people to work. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, as has been so ably and eloquently pointed out by many of my colleagues, the policies they have pursued, and the centralization of funds in Victoria, have compounded the problem, absolutely compounded it.

I want to remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that last year when the punitive, unrealistic increases in ferry rates were introduced, the absolutely stupendous increases in automobile insurance, in the sales tax, in hospital premiums, and the whole gamut of virtually every social service was being inflicted on the people, the opposition, not only the official opposition but the Tory leader (Mr. Wallace) and the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) — I don't know how much longer he'll be a Liberal either, but at that time he was steadfast in his position — reminded the government, and they pleaded with the government, to recognize that the cumulative effect of all these policies could do no other than generate massive unemployment within six months to a year's time, and that is precisely what's happened.

The part that alarms me, Mr. Speaker, the part that really alarms me, is that I believe there are people on that side who are intelligent enough to know exactly what is happening, and I know that in their hearts they have to concede that what I am

[ Page 161 ]

saying is true. There's no question about it. The business world is saying it. The trade union movement recognizes it. People of all political persuasion understand what has happened. Too much money has been taken out of the economy. It's been centralized in Victoria, and there's simply no demand, and people cannot go to work under those circumstances.

What's frightening and very disconcerting to me is the fact that I believe the government understands too. I believe that they are pursuing a policy — a hardhearted, Scrooge-like policy — of saying: "Let them suffer; and at the appropriate time, at the convenient time, at the politically expedient time for us, we will trot out the goodies, a year and a year and a half ahead of the next election campaign, and we will buy the votes of those people who suffered, with their own money. In the meantime, let them suffer." I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that in this modern era that is an inhumane approach to politics and public service. I believe it's totally cynical — yes, and that's what the government is indeed attempting to do.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other people who managed to come up with jobs in the last year — not very many. I don't think they affected the unemployment statistics in any substantive way, but a few people came up with some pretty good jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bob Williams.

MR. KING: No, I had Bob Bonner in mind, quite frankly, Bob Bonner who used to be a Social Credit Attorney-General. He's head of B.C. Hydro and Power Corporation for a fat salary of about $44,000 a year, I think. He is sitting there pulling the strings and increasing the hydro rates to the people of B.C. — not only those who have a job but those who are unemployed — and he says he sees a continuing pattern for the next number of years of increased rates.

Someone else got a job, Mr. Speaker, a man who used to sit in this House also as Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources at that time; a man by the name of Ray Williston.

MR. LAUK: He knows about M.E.L. Paving.

MR. KING: Yes, he knows something about M.E.L. Paving. He was on the board of directors at that time. I wonder if he'll be subpoenaed for the hearing, Mr. Speaker.

It's interesting to note that this former minister of the old Social Credit government was brought back to British Columbia from New Brunswick to head up Canadian Cellulose, and the Premier and all of his ministers have protested loud and long that they don't believe in patronage. They do not reward their friends with plums. If that's the case, I suppose we have to assume that Mr. Bonner and Mr. Williston were the best-qualified people around the province for the two major jobs that they were appointed to fill. Well, I don't know about.... I think it's public knowledge what benefits Mr. Bonner's stewardship of Hydro has brought to the people of B.C. But what about Mr. Williston? What credentials does he bring? What is the expertise that he is going to bring to Canadian Cellulose, a corporation which was set up under our administration and doing very well for the people of British Columbia in terms of a return?

I found an interesting article, Mr. Speaker, in the Financial Post of November 27,1976. It's entitled "Sawmill Sorrow," and it reads as follows:

"Still another failing business venture threatens sleepless nights for New Brunswick government officials. The $4 million Brunswick Mills Ltd. at Bathurst, N.B., is a pilot sawmill project that once was heralded as holding the key to revitalizing New Brunswick's vital forest products industry.

"Brunswick Mills, the province's largest sawmill, is capable of turning out 50 million board feet a year. It was set up with Department of Regional Economic Expansion assistance by Clear Lake Timber Limited of British Columbia, but is yet to make a penny of profit. Since its inception in 1974, Brunswick Mills has run head on into problems of wood rot, poor markets and general management problems."

Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that a former British Columbia cabinet minister went down to New Brunswick to show that province all of the newest technology and managerial techniques in the forest industry. I believe he was associated with this company, Mr. Speaker, and it's in trouble today. It's suffering from dry rot, and I'm not sure that's confined to the trees. Management problems — and now this government has brought that individual back to British Columbia to head up Canadian Cellulose. I find it curious, Mr. Speaker, that they claim innocence in terms of any kind of patronage political debts and yet they appoint someone whose background and expertise is as questionable as that in terms of performance.

Mr. Speaker, the consequences of this government's policies thus far have been damaging not only to the economy — certainly to the people. They've been debilitating to almost 100,000 British Columbians who are out of work today. And it is a bitter pill. It's a bitter pill to recall that'this was the government who ran for election on promises, expensive advertising campaigns, and apparently — at least the people thought — a sincere campaign, a sincere belief that they had the competence to get B.C.'s economy moving in a healthy and dynamic way. That must be a bitter pill for those people who

[ Page 162 ]

were taken in by that campaign and supported that government, an absolutely bitter pill.

Here we sit tonight, this evening, debating the throne speech and an amendment thereto, wherein the opposition is trying to bring to the attention of the government and elicit from them some programme, some indication of concern even, that a special employment programme will be mounted, that some public spending will be undertaken to generate some activity in the economy, that perhaps their harsh taxation increases of last year will now be reviewed in light of this faltering economy. And what do we get? A mute, stony, recalcitrant silence. Mr. Speaker, I'm amazed.

There was an article by Paul St. Pierre, which I think is worth quoting from because it points up the very thing I'm saying, the very thing that the opposition has said ever since last year when this government introduced all of their punitive rates on social services, automobile insurance, ferries, campgrounds — you name it. I think it's something that this businessmen's government should be reminded of. Paul St. Pierre is a very good columnist with The Vancouver Sun. He's a former Liberal Member of Parliament in the federal House and a pretty earthy kind of guy. He made some observations that I think are worth repeating in this House. It was November 13,1976:

"A thousand years ago, more or less, I had my first lesson in the spending habits of the rich while working on a sad little eastern Canadian newspaper for $15 a week. It was a dark, dismal place staffed by tired men who lived in constant fear of the bill collector.

"The paper, later eaten up by a rival, was owned by one of the province's wealthiest men. He also owned a bank. His interest in the paper's editorial policy seemed as scant as his interest in the welfare of his employees. I could name him, but he is dead and, what the heck, he can't answer now.

"My strangest memory of this titan of local finance was the day when one of the paper's senior staff members was detailed to make an investigation of chicken prices privately and not for publication. The paper's owner had heard that chicken might go up 2 cents a pound shortly. If so, he was anxious to buy chicken in bulk for his household, he being the owner of one of the first home freezers known to those Depression days. This was a lesson to be repeated often.

"Gordon Gibson, Sr., who is well-known in this province as a wealthy man who does not mind paying high and spending well, provided another. He built a luxury hotel on the island of Maui some years ago. It did not show a profit in its early years and he once told me why. 'I thought I was building a resort for the rich,' he said. 'I would spare no expense in building and running it and they would come and spend their money without asking the price of anything. Why I didn't recognize the fact, I don't know, but I didn't. After all, it's such a simple fact: the rich don't spend money.'

"The Maui Hotel, he said, began to cater to the kind of people who sometimes borrow money for their vacation and spend part of the rest of the year paying for their memories. These, he found, were the pleasure-seekers who, however briefly in their working year, could spend money joyously and without regret."

Mr. Speaker, they are the very people whom this government and their policies have crippled, the very people from whose pockets they have extracted any disposable income that they might have had to take those trips, to make those demands on tourist facilities, to patronize the local haberdasher and the local restaurateur. They've deprived them of their money because of their punitive increases in virtually every social service, every essential service as home heating fuels that people need and must have.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would just like to interrupt long enough to tell you that you are on your final two minutes.

MR. KING: Final two minutes, Mr. Speaker. I wish I had more time because I certainly could recite chapter and verse of many of the other debilitating and absolutely painful situations that obtain in this province now because of this government's conduct.

I want to reiterate, Mr. Speaker, that in addition to those programmes that have hurt the disposable income of our people, and hence had a negative effect on employment opportunity and investment, we now face a unique and unusual situation in this province where the government is inhibited and restricted in its ability to aggressively meet the challenge of stimulating the economy again by the black cloud of suspicion that hangs over the Minister of Economic Development's office.

Mr. Speaker, he is the No. I minister in the government responsible for economic affairs in the province. As I indicated earlier, without full confidence in that minister, without full confidence in his department, certainly no investors are going to come and visit and discuss capital investment, job creation and so on in the province.

So there are a number of things that this government is guilty of, to say nothing of their hard-hearted insensitivity. They are guilty of mismanaging the economy; they are guilty of crass insensitivity to the plight of almost 100,000 citizens who are out of work.

[ Page 163 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: More.

MR. KING: It will be in excess of 100,000, I fear, by the time this winter is much further gone.

They are guilty also of maintaining an administration brought under suspicion by the Minister of Economic Development's conduct and his lack of respect for the parliamentary system by standing down when his ability to function is under a cloud and a public inquiry has been struck to investigate the circumstances under which information left his office allowing preferred….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I have allowed you some latitude, hon. member.

MR. KING: All right. I'll wind up very quickly, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to make the point that while this investigation is going on, I think it is incumbent by tradition and by concern for the economy for the minister to step down. I certainly advise him to do that in the best interest of all British Columbians.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): It really is incumbent on any opposition member in this House not simply to vote on issues without making some contribution to the debate, although inevitably some of my comments would be repetitious since I dealt with this issue in the throne speech debate yesterday. But I would like to add some new thoughts and some information to try and validate some of the criticisms that not only I offered, but criticisms offered by other members of the official opposition, in two particular respects.

One is to return to the question of trying to provide jobs and provincial revenue with minimal disruption to the environment and the ecology, and that is in the area of tourism. Without repeating the actual figures of utilization of the B.C. ferries after June 1 that are on record in yesterday's Hansard, I have since obtained some figures dealing with tourism in Alberta and Manitoba during the same summer months.

I could just briefly point out the rather simplistic answer which the government has given to explain the lack of tourism on Vancouver Island this past summer — namely, that we had Bicentennial celebrations in the United States, and we had the Olympics in Montreal, and we had bad weather. Those are three of the excuses that have been put forward.

I just want to quote figures from a report in Alberta. For example, the national parks experienced an increase in Alberta of 0.3 per cent; sales in restaurants were up by 13.4 per cent; hotel business in Calgary was up by 16 per cent; and hotel business in Edmonton was up by 27 per cent. What the tourism business describes as "direct entries" from the United States was virtually unchanged — a minimal increase by 0.2 per cent. But overseas direct entries into Alberta were up in the first nine months by 18 per cent. So I think it is clear that other parts of Canada — certainly our neighbours — who are equally concerned about creating employment by fostering tourism, have shown a very different result in Alberta in the past summer months than we have had in British Columbia. The figures that I have been able to collect from Manitoba at the present time show that tourist spending in Manitoba last summer was up by about $7 million. So I would just add, as I mentioned yesterday, that this subject of tourism and its value with regard to employment and revenues should be discussed in greater detail in the budget speech, and I hope to do that. But it seems so ironic that the Social Credit government was elected on the basis of the solid commitment to get the economy rolling and to deal with unemployment. As I said earlier, all members of the opposition have referred to the kind of advertising which apparently convinced the voters in British Columbia in December '75 that the government could bring about this very desirable goal.

I also acknowledge that the failure to do so is certainly not entirely that of this government. Anybody with a fair mind would recognize that there are external factors which make it very difficult to compete — for example, in the forest industry these days, and in the mining industry, with low-grade ore and high overhead costs. Therefore, surely it behooves the government to act in those areas where it does have some control, where it can have some realistic influence. I'm talking again particularly in two areas. One I've mentioned — tourism — where it not only has the advantage of providing jobs and revenue without disturbing the environment but, to be very cold and calculating, one can say that the tourist also presents minimal demands on the budgets of education and hospitals.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) may interject that the tourist comes by camper and doesn't spend his money, and I've just tried to point out that, at least as far as Alberta and Manitoba are concerned, in the past summer months that has not been their experience. But at any rate, having mentioned tourism, the other area refers directly to the Minister of Labour, and I'd be glad to have his attention perhaps rather than his Interjections.

I am referring again to the fact that any economist or person in a field of experience and knowledge regarding the labour field and labour industrial relations, has said many times, and I quoted from some of the sources in my speech yesterday, that

[ Page 164 ]

labour unrest and uncertainty is also a very negative factor in the thinking of potential investors, than strikes and lockouts are all too frequent on the British Columbia scene, and if there were some ways in which at least that could be minimized by government action, there would perhaps not be what we see on one of the editorials that was published. It was entitled "The Exodus."

I'm referring to an editorial that was in The Vancouver Sun on September 23, and that was the title. Again, admittedly the information on which that was based is incomplete and lacking in detail. It was referring to the statement by the Minister of Economic Development at an earlier date as to how many companies had left British Columbia. But if one of the reasons is labour unrest, could we ask the government, and particularly the Minister of Labour, what initiatives, if any, are underway to benefit from the information that was brought back to Canada by Mr. Chuck Connaghan, for example, and by some federal representatives who went to Europe to determine why they seem to have so much better a record in countries like West Germany, just to name one, with a much lower incidence of strikes and lockouts and higher productivity?

I know even from some of the limited amounts of publication of profit-sharing, for example, in this country that…. There was an article the other day about a company here in Victoria called Frisia Construction, It's a small company which specializes in apartment framing. Mr. Speaker, it may be a small company but I think some of the points are worth mentioning, and I'll read them very briefly.

The company is owned by a Mr. Hoogland, and it says here that his philosophy of business is simple:

"He wants to make money, and he long ago realized the only way to make money is to offer incentive to his employees. He said: 'I want them to be happy on the job and they can only be happy by enjoying their work, and if they have an incentive they will produce more and they will be paid accordingly.' A year and a half ago Mr. Hoogland had 15 employees but this summer he had 70. He had been talking about buying one crane for the business, but the business was so good that he now has a 12-ton crane and a 50-ton crane. The reason he gives is profit-sharing."

Of course, in this interview with Colonist writer Gorde Hunter, the first question he was asked was: does he pay union wages? In this situation the answer is:

"We pay union wages or better, and we pay on a merit basis — that if a worker works and works well, he gets added benefits. A fixed percentage of the profit goes to the workers on a quarterly basis and the bonuses are paid out of company profits."

I'd just like to put a figure on record on this particular company, Mr. Speaker:

"Two weeks ago the extra split to the workers came to $23,000, and Mr. Hoogland is quick to point out that profit-sharing cannot be accomplished without full cooperation on all matters pertaining to the business, and this system is built on cooperation as the cornerstone."

It's also interesting to mention, Mr. Speaker, that this progressive company pays apprentices full wages to attend classes at Camosun College.

That may seem like a very simple example of a small company in the construction business with 70 employees, and I suppose some people would say: "Well, 15 jobs to 70 jobs; so what does that mean when we've got 90,000 unemployed?" But the point, Mr. Speaker, is the principle underlying the reason why at least one company, at a time when unemployment is increasing, has created 55 new jobs based on incentives and rewards, which I thought was very much an underlying principle of every conservative government. On that principle, jobs are created; the people in these jobs are perhaps happier and more satisfied than most; and the outcome, of course, is that these 55 new workers are not only happily employed but they're earning money on which they pay income tax, they buy consumer goods, and in various ways they are not only self-reliant, but in their own way, in fact, are providing some of the revenue to pay the unemployment benefits for people who are not lucky enough to have jobs.

The other element that the minister, I hope, will comment upon, either in this debate or later, is what initiatives, if any, he is taking to encourage worker representation on boards of management. This again is no panacea to the problems of labour unrest, and I never suggested that it was. But again the whole field of industrial relations is so complex and involves so many factors that surely at least we should be tackling some of the more prominent ones which, in other countries, seem to have brought about a very substantial decrease in the number of times that strikes and lockouts occur,

I would end my comments, Mr. Speaker, by saying that any objective person who looks back on the impact of taxation changes from last year's budget would have to acknowledge that while some degree of adjustment in taxation was necessary, the manner and extent to which it was imposed was excessive and represented an over-reaction by a new government facing many problems.

In regard to such items, I will just choose two out of several available. The question of ICBC rates: not only were they exaggerated in amount, but they certainly removed consumer spending which, spent on other goods, would have kept many people in the

[ Page 165 ]

retail business employed. Of course, the same applies with even more force….

I am delighted to see the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) back in his place looking and listening very carefully, because the other single item in last year's budget which caused perhaps as much or more hardship than any other was the very punitive 40 per cent increase in sales tax. The sales tax, in the first instance, is a very unfair tax since it strikes much more severely at low- and middle-income earners than those with greater incomes. So it is not a good tax in the first place.

If, indeed, the minister has to adjust taxation to bring in more revenue, this was perhaps the least fair method by which he could have achieved that goal. I won't go into quoting chapter and verse again but will simply repeat the references I made yesterday to the retail industry and to such well-operated businesses as Woodward's stores, which for, I believe, the first nine months of 1976 was in the red for the first time in 50 years. If we can't be impressed by those kinds of cold facts and figures, then I suppose it will be very difficult to convince this government of anything.

These are some of the ways in which taxation changes and lack of initiatives, particularly in the field of industrial relations, have contributed very considerably to the fact that unemployment is as high or higher than it was at this time a year ago. It is difficult to be precise in criticism when we are on the verge of a new budget, the contents of which we cannot know at the present time.

I would suggest to the Minister of Finance in particular that if there is any one single step that he could take which would have greater impact in relieving unemployment than any other, it would be by putting the sales tax back to 5 per cent and making that kind of money available in the form of consumer spending. I would go further and say that if the loss of revenue in doing so has at least to be replaced in part, then there have to be better ways and fairer ways of raising the required revenue which would be lost by a reduction in sales tax.

The people on the low end of the income scale in this province and in this country are having a very tough time in the face of inflation. The government's Crown corporations have a law unto themselves which puts many of the costs to the low-income earner up far above any increase that these income-earners are receiving under AIB guidelines.

But I would say that the primary responsibility in finalizing the coming budget must surely be for the government to do what it can, first of all, to help the low-income-earner. One of the ways in which they could do both that and stimulate employment would be to zero in on sales tax and reduce it again to 5 per cent. I say that believing that the economy of British Columbia has no easy solution for many of the external reasons that we are all agreed upon, national and international. But within these constraints there are ways in which the province could move and should move.

It's with that conviction that I appeal to the Minister of Finance to take the very closest look at the sales tax in particular, and to the Minister of Labour in the course of the rest of the session to give us some encouragement to think that profit-sharing and worker representation on boards of management are very much integral parts of his planning in tackling the problems of unemployment.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, in the few moments that are available to me, I would like to have the opportunity to respond to the rather pale presentation we have had from the opposition in support of this amendment.

I enjoyed the speeches; I've enjoyed them before. I have listened to these same members say these same things, but there was some truth from some of the members. I must compliment the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) for recognizing the skills of his leader when he suggested that it was a tough act to follow. I've watched the hon. Leader of the Opposition perform in this Legislature for many years. Quite frankly, while it may have been a tough act to follow, I think he has lost some of his skill.

It was interesting to listen to the members of the official opposition question the activities of this government. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) was particularly frank, I thought, in his remarks when he referred to this government as the people who are charged with the responsibility of bringing this province back into the black — the first time I have ever heard that member, or any of the other official opposition, acknowledge what we said a year ago, that the NDP in government had taken this province into the red and had left us in a position where, in these particular times of difficulty, we find ourselves without the financial means, having been wasted by that government, to provide some of the measures which have been suggested here today as a solution to the problems which face this government and the people of this province.

It was interesting, too, to listen to the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), as he trampled upon the rules of this House, speaking of want of trust. It was interesting to hear the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) saying that the government has the responsibility to encourage the private sector and to convince them that B.C. was a place in which to invest.

It was interesting to hear the member for New Westminster say that the business community must have its faith restored in the government. Obviously these members now clearly recognize that during the period that the NDP was the government they sent

[ Page 166 ]

shock waves through this economy and through this province, the consequences of which we are experiencing today.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, it is true that in the throne speech mention was made of the capital investment proposed by Crown Zellerbach. It is true that this is a five-year programme. I would have thought that the official opposition would have recognized the trap into which they were falling when they made reference to this expenditure, because in saying that it's a five-year programme they know just how difficult it is to convince the private sector, having been through a period of socialist government, that things are okay again in B.C., and that there is confidence in this province — a confidence which the official opposition does not have.

MR. KING: Question.

AN HON. MEMBER: Uncomfortable, Bill?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I'm sorry if the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan is uncomfortable at these remarks, but I would ask him to take very close cognizance of some of the things that he said and consider what actions were taken by him and his government when they had the opportunity to direct the affairs of this province — or perhaps I should say misdirect.

I thought the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) made some good points. I would like to deal with this one of the question of labour unrest in this province. Yes, there is no question that labour unrest is one of the features which results in some lack of confidence on the part of the private sector, but it's not the only one. While we have had increasing costs which have interfered with our competitive ability in world markets, and in domestic markets, as well, we have also been faced with a turndown in productivity which alone is not the responsibility of labour; it is the responsibility of management as well.

This is where the NDP really destroyed the economic base of this province, because when they forced the private sector to lose faith in their ability to engage in their activities in this province they turned back the kind of investment that Crown Zellerbach is now prepared to make, investment which will ensure that the plant and equipment in this province is maintained in the highest level of productivity, so that we can compete with those other plants in this nation and elsewhere in this world with which we must compete. New plant, new equipment, is what is required in this province and we must instil. In the private sector the kind of confidence that was here before 1972, for them to come back and ensure that we remain productive in that way.

MR. LEA: You said it wasn't….

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, it's coming; it's coming back. It's a difficult task to overcome what that government did. But the Minister of Economic Development, who's been subject to all kinds of criticism from the NDP, announced the other day the involvement of British Petroleum in the northeast coal. The forecast was that this would be a $400 million operation by the private sector. And what does the official opposition do? They criticize the possibility that the public sector may be involved in providing the infrastructure; you know, that's roads and towns and port facilities.

Who provides them now? Who would the NDP look to to provide those facilities? Would they hope that the private sector would come to this province and build the highways and build the railroads? It didn't happen when the NDP was the government. As a, matter of fact, the NDP, when they were the government, did everything to make sure that the railroads wouldn't run at all, and we suffered the consequences of that during 1976.

You know, the NDP have made this whole debate out of these terrible unemployment statistics that are facing us today.

MR. KING: Tell us what you're going to do.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: But they've been very selective in their reading. They didn't consider the report of the Conference Board of Canada, which indicated that Alberta and British Columbia are the bright spots in this nation for 1977. They didn't refer to that.

MR. NICOLSON: Read the whole thing.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: They didn't refer to that prospect.

MS. SANFORD: Read it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: They didn't refer either to the fact that the national government is basing its present policies on which I think is a gloomy outlook for the future of Canada, that we will have continuing high levels of unemployment. The national government has embarked upon make-work projects that ignore what this government realized is the true basis of our success, and that's the private sector. The national government and its policies are going to provide you with more LIP grants, and LEAP, and JEEP, and every other kind of word that it's possible to make by putting four letters of the alphabet

[ Page 167 ]

together. That's the kind of money that they're going to provide. They'll all be inflationary, and they will all provide no stable base upon which the future economy of this nation will stand in the years to come ...

MR. MACDONALD: Let them eat cake.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: …because they do not….

MR. MACDONALD: Let them eat cake; that's your attitude.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, let them eat cake. That's not the fact of the matter at all. You know, as I was saying, you are selective in your selection of statistics. You aren't only selective but you're inaccurate.

Yesterday, when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) was speaking, he was talking about the young age group was having an unemployment rate of 19.6 per cent. It's in Hansard. Well, the fact of the matter is the research department of the Department of Labour has considered the most recent statistics and the figure's not 19.6 per cent, it's 12.3. You're only 6.6 per cent out.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Fifty per cent.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Fifty pet cent wrong again.

AN HON. MEMBER:That's not bad. That's good for them.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's not bad.

AN HON. MEMBER: Almost a record.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That is a high level of unemployment, and let no one believe that this government is not concerned. But, you know, when you look at the situation…

MR. KING: Are you talking about what you're going to do?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: …you find that the unemployment situation in the Vancouver metropolitan area has improved over the past month. You find that, among all the provinces of Canada, only Nova Scotia had a marginal improvement. Only the prairie provinces and Ontario remained below the national level, and all provinces except Alberta, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland had larger increases in unemployment in the past month than did this province.

MR. LEA: They'll be glad to know that.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Now you'll say: why do I refer to those statistics? Well, you know, we've been told that we have a seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in December of 1976 of 8.8 per cent. It's higher than it was in December of 1975. But, you know, you would think, to listen to the official opposition, that all this is something new.

Well, let me read you what the seasonally adjusted unemployment rates in this province were for the entire year of 1975: January, 7.9; February, 9 per cent; March, 8.8; April, 8; May, 8.5; June, 8.2; July, 8.1; August, 9.1; September, 9.8 — October, 9 per cent; November, 8.5 per cent.

Now, those are all high. I didn't notice the NDP referring to those unemployment statistics when they were the government.

MR. CHABOT: Shame!

MR, KING: We had programmes to deal with them.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You had programmes to deal with it? If you had programmes to deal with it, why were they so high? Here's the minister of Labour from the former administration, who has all this information before him, and he will know that the experience in 1976 in this province is similar to what it was in 1975; and in relation to the other provinces of Canada, the same as it has been in 1976. The Prairies have always had a low rate; the eastern provinces, always a high rate, and for the last two years the province of British Columbia at the same measures in which it is proceeding today.

MR. LEA: That's that.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: But there is another factor that we as government have had to face, along with the other governments in Canada, which has had an impact upon the programmes for this next year — programmes that, as all the members know, are not capable of announcement until after the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has had the opportunity to present his budget, and to give the members of this House and the people of this province an opportunity to see what the economic situation, what the financial situation, is facing this government and the people of this province. It is something again which is the legacy of the New Democratic Party.

MR. KING: Nothing more extreme than a convert.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: But what we have, in addition to what faced the government in 1975, is a sudden realization on the part of the Government of

[ Page 168 ]

Canada and of the 10 provinces of Canada that we were in an inflationary spiral that could not go on. The sudden realization was that we were not competitive within our own nation and with the rest of the world. As a consequence, all of the provinces of Canada, and the national government, have had to take serious consideration of what programmes they could do and undertake that would meet the needs of their people, but would not feed the fires of inflation and send us back again on the dizzy spiral that has brought us into a situation in which there is difficulty in being competitive with the other nations of the world with whom we must compete. This is a factor which is of particular concern to a province like British Columbia, which is an exporting province, and we export or we die. It's as clear as that. But no, the opposition made no mention of that. Nor did the opposition make any mention of the support that many of them have given to actions on the part of some of our citizens who would oppose attempts of government to bring inflation under control. All of these things, together, have imposed upon government necessary restraints that were referred to clearly in the throne speech given by His Honour a week ago.

I'm sorry that the official opposition had difficulty reading the throne speech and understanding the implications of the words which are there used, words where this government, with cautious optimism, is approaching this next year…

MR. KING: That'll make the unemployed feel good.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: …recognizing that there is a continuing need for restraint on the part of all of our segments, and particularly on the part of government. This is one province which has recognized what the people of Canada have been telling all of the governments, and that is that your actions in the public sector, your incautious actions with regard to activities which we undertake, themselves are one of the major causes of inflation. And this government is not going to fall into the trap, as other governments have, of taking incautious actions, difficult as they may be to avoid, that are going to result in further difficulties for the people of this province as the years go by. We will build from a solid base, with government making as little demand as it can upon the people. And one thing for sure, we will not fall into the trap, into which the NDP would move with open arms, of borrowing and mortgaging the future in order that we may have the benefits of today, that follows directly upon the…

MR. COCKE: Three Crown corporations.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: …giveaway attitudes that were engendered by the New Democratic Party during the time that they were the government.

MR. LEA: Let him talk. We need the votes.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the debate. I thought the opposition could have done a much better job. But unfortunately, having listened to it all, I must conclude that this amendment should be defeated.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

NAYS — 29

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

Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:16 p.m.