[ Page 521 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Budget debate

On the amendment.

Mr. King — 521

Mr. Lauk — 524

Mr. Lloyd — 530

Mr. D'Arcy — 532

Mr. Barrett — 536

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 543

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1977

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, might I just say to you before you start this evening that you have 22 minutes left to speak.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): I accept that, Mr. Speaker. I'll try to condense my criticism of the government. If it were to take its full-blown course it would undoubtedly take two and a half weeks. I'll try to condense that into 22 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, prior to the adjournment, I had recited for the House my disenchantment with the fact that the government has failed to participate in the amendment to the budget, which deals precisely with the kind of action that is necessary to get the economy of B.C. moving again, to try to generate the investment climate in the province which would put the 92,000 people to work who are presently unemployed.

When I say 92,000 people, I think for the first time in my life I am being a conservative, because I suspect when the next statistics are released by the Department of Labour the figure is going to be in the area of 100,000 people who are unemployed in the province of British Columbia.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Shame!

MR. KING: Needless to say, this affects government revenue as well as imposing tremendous hardship on people who have lost their regular income, who are confronted with an unyielding and a rigid Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), to try to provide some alternatives for those who fail to qualify for unemployment insurance because of the strengthening of the federal regulations. Unfortunately, many of our working people have not worked long enough during the summer to obtain the necessary stamps to qualify for short-term benefits, much less benefits for the eight and 10 months that many of the people have been unemployed.

I have recited personal experiences within my own riding of people who fall between the gaps of all these social services. They fail to qualify for unemployment insurance. They fail to qualify for any social assistance from that less than charitable Minister of Human Resources because of a rigid, insensitive, inhumane administration. For the first time, as I indicated earlier, in my political life, I have encountered people in this province — in my own hometown — who were confronted with actual hunger.

I don't find that very amusing. I find it less amusing when the opposition moves an amendment in an attempt to develop some rational debate on what thrusts the government's economic policy should take, and we find a complete absence of any willingness of the cabinet and the back bench to participate in the kind of discussion that we are paid to be here and engage in, to come to grips with the problems of people in B.C. I can only interpret it in one of two ways: either as unmitigated arrogance and contempt for this institution as the forum for dealing with people's economic problems, or as complete and utter subservience to the interests of the small group of millionaires and the corporate giants in this province to the complete exclusion of working people, the senior citizens, the handicapped and all of those groups.

AN HON. MEMBER: Small-business people.

MR. KING: Yes, the small-business people. I predict, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have a bankruptcy rate in the year 1976-1977 of unprecedented levels simply because this government, through their taxation policies, through their lack of any policies to stimulate the economy, are centralizing funds in Victoria, are shrinking and eroding the disposable income of people, with the end result that there is no purchasing power in the hands of the people to buy those meals at the restaurant, to buy those clothes at the haberdashers. Yes, when you look at the exodus of British Columbians from our fair province down to the U.S., just south of the 49th, to stock up on groceries and clothes and other household effects, it simply gives emphasis to what I am saying. There is adequate evidence.

We like to chide and kid the new Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) about purchasing his suits in Calgary, to escape the impost of the 7 per cent sales tax which this government has placed on commodities in the province. It's a symbol, Mr. Speaker. It's a symbol, but it's real, and the economy of British Columbia is the loser.

I expected a bit more from the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) when he spoke in the debate yesterday. He represents a ministry that is certainly basic to the economic health of this province. The primary resource, the base of this province, is founded on the forest industry.

Many people are fond of tossing out the observation that in excess of 50 cents of every dollar

[ Page 522 ]

is derived from the forest industry in the province of British Columbia. Yet the minister made some interesting comments yesterday, in terms of assessing the state of the industry as it is now. He fell very short of offering any new policy directions that would stimulate the industry or that would provide employment. But he talked about getting big or small companies that are sitting on large blocks of timber moving. He talked about getting them moving, or returning to the Crown, the timber that they are sitting on. He not only made that comment in this House, but he has made it at a variety of public meetings that he has addressed around the province over the past few months.

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker: You should not blow your little faint kisses at me. You should blow your faint kisses at the 92,000 people who are unemployed in this province at the moment.

They are the ones who would like a little bit of charity from the minister. I certainly don't want to become physical with him. I would rather wax philosophical and try to appeal to his mind, if that is possible, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which one?

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, he talks about this timber that companies are sitting on — that are excess to their needs — and he makes rumblings about either demanding from them that they utilize the wood that they hold or removing it. I think that's a pretty good direction. But rather than the minister going around rattling sabres, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that he give notice to those companies now that either they fully utilize the Crown timber that they hold, or they'll be required to relinquish it. I think that that's an eminently reasonable position to take.

But I say to the Minister, Mr. Speaker, let the public in on your policy. Don't go around wiffle-waffling all over the place and making brave statements at public meetings. Develop a policy. You are now a minister of the Crown, despite the fact that you seem to be unable to take it too seriously. I say that it is the obligation of a minister of the Crown, particularly one in such a crucial area, to develop policy, to let the public in on it, and to serve fair notice on the industry so they know where they stand. Vague threats that this timber may be removed from them do little to add to the stability of the industry. It fails to provide the necessary timber to those small and medium operators who are now lacking in wood products to retain their work force and stay in operation.

I think the minister has a further obligation, Mr. Speaker, to identify the areas to which he's referring. It is not good enough for a minister of the Crown to go around with vague allegations. If there are companies in the forest industry in British Columbia that are sitting on large tracts of timber that they are failing to utilize fully — or lack of technology and the efficiency to utilize fully — then the minister has the obligation to identify those companies, to serve notice, and to let the public in on his conclusions and is criteria. His brave statements are not good enough. He has the authority to act.

Mr. Speaker, such a direction was advocated in the Pearse report and certainly I would have no argument with that. I think that the availability of timber to the medium- and small-size operators would indeed stimulate employment in the province of British Columbia. I have discussed privately with the minister the needs of certain operators within my own constituency who are operating on a fraction of their capacity because of an unavailability of wood products, and I'm certainly familiar with the same problem that exists in many other areas of the province.

Now, the Pearse report, I think, to which he has paid lip service but refused to act upon, supports the minister's general statements. The Pearse report criticizes extremely the former Social Credit Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources for letting MacMillan Bloedel sit on some of the old tenures in the province of British Columbia that were never fully utilized — timber that was underestimated in the first instance and proved to be far in excess of the needs of MacMillan Bloedel. That is a very strong thrust contained in the Pearse commission report. Unfortunately, not only was that production lost to British Columbia, but as commissioner Pearse noted, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources of that era allowed this kind of situation to prevail beyond his statutory right. He violated the provisions of this authority as minister to let this position prevail. He was shocked, he said. He found it highly improper that MacMillan Bloedel was allowed to sit on good timber that was in excess of their needs.

Now is the new minister, who has criticized this very proposition, going to act on the basis of his own observations and on the basis of the recommendations contained in the Pearse commission report? Is he going to demand of MacMillan Bloedel that they either utilize this timber and employ people, or relinquish that timber and make it available on a competitive basis to many of those small- and medium-size operators no longer able to get a piece of the action? I think he has this obligation, Mr. Speaker.

Is he going to open up these holdings, holdings that were improperly put in cold storage by his predecessor in the Social Credit government, Mr. Williston — holdings that were improperly allowed to be put under the control of MacMillan Bloedel by his predecessor, an action for which he was roundly criticized by the commissioner, Mr. Pearse? I think they should be opened up. I think the small people of

[ Page 523 ]

the province should have an opportunity to bid for them, get a piece of the action and generate some employment, particularly throughout the rural regions of this province.

The minister gave us a dissertation about inefficiency. He said that inefficiency bothered him a great deal and he pointed to the work force of the province as a prime area where inefficiency is affecting the competitive position of the forest industry. I say that's fine; I endorse those remarks — we certainly have to be competitive, we certainly have to be efficient and we certainly have to maintain our productivity on as high a basis as possible. But I resent the preoccupation of not only the Minister of Forests, but also that of his colleagues, with efficiency in the labour force without ever acknowledging the evidence of efficiency, as was revealed in the Pearse commission report, on the part of some of the large forest industries in this province.

Their inefficiency is manifested by their failure to replace physical plant. Over the past number of years profits earned in British Columbia were diverted to investments in other areas of the world where perhaps the labour market was much cheaper, perhaps safety standards much lower and exploitation of working people generally allowed to run rampant. Now there are two sides to the productivity and the efficiency story. We cannot only demand it of the workers; we must demand it of the industry as well if we are to have a healthy forest industry in the province.

What about the minister himself, Mr. Speaker? He demands efficiency on the part of the trade-union movement involved in the forest industry, and I find it somewhat curious that he sets himself up as some kind of sidewalk superintendent to comment on the efficiency of the work force. I doubt that he has done any research.

Interjection.

MR. KING: I hope the minister is not going to attack me. (Laughter.) Mr. Speaker, what do we find that minister doing? He is new, he is naive, he is green, but he is well-meaning. He is well-meaning. But here we have a royal commission that files an exhaustive report on the state of the forest industry, and the minister comes in here, quotes it and says: "You know, these are good ideas." But does he get moving on the basis of the recommendations of that royal commission? Not on your life, Mr. Speaker. Not on your life! Do you know what he does? He appoints a committee to investigate and to analyse the report of the royal commission into the ills of the forest industry. A committee to analyse the committee, Mr. Speaker — is that the minister's idea of efficiency and productivity?

He is the man who is criticizing the workers in the forest industry. He has set up a committee of bureaucrats from his own department to conduct an investigation into the Pearse report. They even had the nerve, Mr. Speaker, to invite me to make a representation to that committee of the minister's bureaucrats.

MR. BARRETT: You've got to be kidding!

MR. KING: Would you believe, Mr. Speaker, after the Pearse commission conducted hearings through the length and breadth of this province, invited submissions from the trade-union movement, from the large operators and the small operators, any interested politician, any interested citizen, spent a considerable amount of the taxpayers' money — exhaustive hearings, one of the finest, most detailed reports in recent history into the forest industry — then that minister sets up a committee of his bureaucrats from his department, then writes me a letter — presumably the Liberal leader got one, and the Tory also, as the forest critics for their department — and, would you believe, asks me to make a submission to the bureaucrats within the minister's department?

Mr. Speaker, I have the idea — and perhaps it's a bit quaint — that we were elected by the people of British Columbia to come into this Legislature and talk about the ills of the economy.

Mr. Speaker, I have the idea — and perhaps it's a bit quaint — that we were elected by the people of British Columbia to come into this Legislature and talk about the ills of the economy and try to come to grips with the needs of the people of B.C. Again, Mr. Speaker, I say to you that this reveals an attitude of contempt which the government holds for this chamber. They don't want to enter into the debate; they don't want to speak on the motion; they do not wish to defend their budgetary thrust. Perhaps they are bereft of any stomach for that task. I can understand that, but surely to goodness it's going a bit far when that minister criticizes inefficiency in the industry over which he has control and then sets up a committee to study the committee report which is exhaustive, detailed and intelligent, deals with the ills of the forest industry and makes precise, detailed recommendations on the moves that should be undertaken to remedy those ills. It's a bit much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I just draw your attention to the fact that you are on your last three minutes.

MR. KING: Yes, I was hoping you wouldn't do that, Mr. Speaker.

I want to suggest to the, minister that he holds a portfolio in the government that certainly is one that is basic and fundamental to the economy of British

[ Page 524 ]

Columbia. Certainly, in terms of creating jobs, in terms of getting the economy going again, that is one area of our economy that requires stimulation.

We have a report conducted by the Pearse commission.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I demand another five minutes until you get the House under control. No one can hear me, and I am sure everyone in the gallery really wants to hear what I am saying.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would be quite prepared to acquiesce to your request if you were the first member of the House who had ever been interrupted. But I must say to all the members of the House that the roar is getting a little too high. The member has an opportunity to complete his speech, I hope, with everyone listening.

MR. KING: I feel better already, Mr. Speaker. I may not be the first member who has been interrupted but I am certainly the last and the mostest. But anyway, I appreciate your intervention.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to conclude by saying to the Minister of Forests that his speech was shocking. He is the person above all, I think, other than the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who should have come into the House with some advice, some strategy plan, some thrust to really lay before this House a policy based on instituting the Pearse recommendations. After all, those recommendations were developed with the broadest possible consultation with the industry and with the public of the province of British Columbia.

We don't need a minister who sits on that report for another six months before any action is forthcoming. We have a report by a well-qualified individual, Dr. Pearse, who has done an excellent job which has been hailed in almost every sector of the province. I suggest to the minister that rather than coming in here with a lame-duck way, criticizing the productivity of the work force of British Columbia and striking a committee to study the committee report, that we expect from him and his colleagues who are the government of the day, and yet seem to fail to recognize that.... We demand from them and the people of the province demand from them a precise strategy, a precise and dynamic policy to get the economy of this province moving again and to put the 92,000 citizens of British Columbia who are now unemployed to work. There are 92,000 citizens of British Columbia unemployed, with regions of the province running up to 18, 19 and 20 per cent unemployed, with the spectre of that situation becoming much more aggravated and much more severe over the next and more harsh winter months.

It's a terrible performance by this government. In the one sense, I still state, Mr. Speaker, that it's arrogance for the government members not to get up and engage in this debate. On the other hand, I must express some sympathy and some understanding for their reluctance to do so when their ammunition and their defence of their just impossible position is so weak and so pale.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): It is a pleasant surprise to have such a greeting, Mr. Speaker. To think if one of their members got up and spoke they could have avoided all of this that is about to happen to them! (Laughter.)

I notice that the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) is reading this week's copy of Oilweek. I am delighted to see that. Way to go, Jack! Maybe you can find out how it is that Alberta and Southern, Westcoast Transmission and others have determined that there were insufficient gas reserves for the Grizzly Valley pipeline. Two million dollars later — and several thousand shares and Arthur Weeks — somebody found gas. I think most of the gas, Mr. Speaker, is on Howe Street. Perhaps he could find that in Oilweek and tell the House in this debate.

I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) when he decries the lack of response to the opposition critique in this debate on the amendment. But seeing they won't defend themselves, I will. No member of the government back bench or no front bencher has risen to defend themselves, and I would like to take the opportunity to defend them now, Mr. Speaker, on the debate.

I deny that the reduction in welfare and Mincome payments is crass and unfeeling and heartless. I deny that on behalf of the government. I am defending the government on that. Somebody has to pay for the drop in resource revenue and succession duties. Somebody has to pay, and I'm really quite surprised at the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) criticizing this government because some members have had $1.33 — I think it was the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) — off their Mincome cheque, and others $2.10. It all adds up, you know. It's necessary. It's got to add up to the $25 million or $30 million that's been taken away by succession duties and resource taxation in this province.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Why don't you let the Premier make a defence?

MR. LAUK: No, no, no. That's the only defence there is. I'm giving it. The defence is: somebody has to pay, and it always is the people who are least able to defend themselves. It is the people who have been cut off from the mainstream of society because of

[ Page 525 ]

economic conditions who are bullied by this government….

MR. BARRETT: It's the rich what gets the pleasure and the poor what gets the pain.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does the defence rest?

MR. LAUK: This budget, while doing nothing to create employment, Mr. Speaker, and wealth for the people of British Columbia during an economic and unemployment crisis, does contrast quite clearly the kind of philosophy expressed by the right-wing Social Credit government with the philosophy of the New Democratic Party. The NDP is of the view that a reasonable increased burden of taxation be borne by the super-rich and the corporations of this province — particularly resource corporations. The people of British Columbia own the resources. This is not in dispute by anyone on either side of the House.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Oh, I wouldn't say that.

MR. LAUK: The people of this province own the resources. However, the people of British Columbia, under this present government, are receiving less and less return for the exploitation of those resources. The NDP administration, through its progressive policies of increasing the burden of taxation onto resource companies, set up the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, and if it were not for that Petroleum Corporation this year, an even greater burden of taxation would be placed on the average British Columbia working family.

Last year we pointed out that by the increased taxes and charges of the budget for 1976-1977, the average working family would have to pay an additional $1,200 a year over and above their regular taxes, charges and expenses towards governments of all description. In one year we have seen that there is absolutely no effort to change this unfortunate situation and, in fact, Mr. Speaker, it has been reversed. We won't even go back to the New Democratic Party's administration budget which relieved the ordinary working family from taxation to a great degree. A little over 29 to 30 per cent of the taxation burden under our administration were resource and corporate taxes in this province. I will catalogue for you how that has changed under the Social Credit administration.

Last year, in 1976-1977 budget, the total budget was $3,587,250,000. Are you listening? That was the budget. The people of the province, through their taxes — social services tax, sales tax, the personal income tax, Mr. Minister of Finance — totalled $2,732,850,000. The burden on resource companies and on corporations was $854,400,000. The burden on resource companies was 25 per cent on the budget; the burden on the people of British Columbia was approximately 75 per cent of the budget. This budget, giving rise to this amendment, totalled $3,829,900,000.

The people's burden was $3,062,510,000, 80 per cent of the burden, an increase of 5 per cent of the total budgetary burden on the people of this province. There was a decrease from last year on the resource companies and other companies of the province of $767,390,000, only 20 per cent of the burden.

I want to refer you to some speeches. Let's play the guessing game, Mr. Speaker. Could the hon. members guess who said this on February 12,1974, in discussing the budget of that year?

"We have difficulty in relating this budget to having received the bulk of this revenue from resources, because in going through the estimates of receipts we find that most of the taxes still come from people. Property taxes, fuel taxes, personal income taxes, succession taxes" — he includes that — "sales taxes, contributions from other governments which come from taxes, contributions from government enterprises. We know people pay those."

He has included taxes in there that I haven't in my estimates: succession duties, I haven't; contributions from other governments, I haven't.

He says:

"And in reality very little of this budget is coming from the resource industries directly in the way of privileges, licences, natural resources and royalties. So I don't think that this can necessarily be called a Robin Hood budget, or a resource budget, or a share-the-wealth budget. What it is is a very big budget reflecting the economy of British Columbia and burdening the ordinary people of British Columbia."

This was William Richards Bennett, after having recently taken his seat in the House, February 12, 1974.

How about March 3, 1975? Again, it is a different budget. He says:

"It replaces an expanding reliance on revenue income from resource industries with dependence on people taxes, Mr. Speaker. Taxes which directly affect people are up on a staggering scale, while revenues from forestry and mining are dramatically down. Property taxes, Mr. Speaker, just to the province, not concerning the rise in property taxes to the municipalities, are up $5 million."

What are they up today? Those are people taxes, not corporation taxes. Sales taxes, which our people pay, are up $155 million; personal income taxes are up $172 million. They're up $310 million under this

[ Page 526 ]

administration in one year and he's complaining in 1975, the worst inflation year, that personal income taxes are $172 million up from the previous year.

Then he goes on to talk about gasoline taxes being up $60 million.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I don't want to embarrass him.

MR. BARRETT: I promise not to tell.

MR. LAUK: It's the member for South Okanagan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: The member for South Okanagan said hotel taxes are up $3 million, especially at the Capri. And look, liquor income is up $50 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: Shocking!

"I guess the only escape, " he says, "in British Columbia these years is to drink more because liquor taxes are predicted to be $50 million more this year. On the other hand, forestry is down from last year's estimates; mining is down $6 million. More from people and less from resources, Mr. Speaker," he says.

Again, on March 24, 1975, on the 1975 budget, he says:

"We see that the pressure developing in this budget as a greater share of the budget than ever before is paid by the people of this province. Taxes from people. The sales tax, the personal income tax — more taxes from people. Property tax, as the member for South Peace River says, is escalating as a provincial revenue source and escalating to people in the municipalities because they're not being financially fairly dealt with by this province's provincial government."

Now, I don't blame the Premier and the real Minister of Finance for turning his back and talking to the man reading Oilweek. I don't blame him at all, because it's very embarrassing. Property taxes have been increased over last year's budget in this present budget by 4.5 per cent, an increase of almost $1 million; sales taxes have increased by — are you ready for this? — $32.1 million; sales and service fees are up 13 per cent or $6.5 million; liquor sales are up by 21 per cent; personal income taxes are up more in one year than in any other year in the history of this province — 37 per cent, $300 million.

It's not good enough to explain that this will be partly the two federal points that we've got from them. The federal government has given up two points of taxation and we're supposed to be taking over two points. That only accounts for approximately $80 million. The other $220 million is on the backs of the working family of this province that has to pay for the giveaway policies of this government in mining, succession duties and forestry.

Contrast this with the income the government intends to receive from other sources such as resource corporations. Natural resource taxes royalties are down 16 per cent by $87 million over last year.

Somebody has to pay the millionaires' share of taxation, and that of the corporations. It is now the working family. It is unfortunate, indeed, that when one makes an attempt to point out the frailties in the approach of this government they seem unwilling and uninterested to listen. They will not, with some great degree of arrogance, enter into this debate. I find that a very contemptuous thing for them to do.

Well, I ask them to listen to one thing. The people of this province elected all of us. We were elected to represent the people and so were you. The Legislature is a forum of debate to bring out contrasting philosophy and approaches and alternatives to government, and we made this amendment for that purpose. For you not to enter into debate and for you to completely ignore the critique by the opposition parties is a total failure on your part to accept the democratic system. People are saying all over this province that your arrogance and your contempt should not go unanswered and will not be forgotten.

Well, now that I've got everybody's undivided attention, I'll deal with M.E.L. Paving. You know, it amuses me when there's a great call for reason and rational debate in the province of British Columbia. It amuses me when there's a call in this Legislature to have an exchange of rational thought, to contrast each other's philosophies and approaches to the administration when this kind of thing occurs, every time someone gets up and makes a rational speech. It happens every time, and the contempt and the arrogance that that shows is something that must disappoint visitors in the gallery, because I'll tell the people of this province what you….

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Do you know what the visitors expect? They expect a rational debate. But do you know what gets their attention? It's called a 2-by-4, and after a year in government we didn't expect that we'd have so many 2-by-4s with which to get their attention. After 12 months we have a government riddled by scandal, a government that's on the ropes as far as its reputation is concerned, a government whose honesty, as a whole, is very much in question across this country — after only 12 months. They didn't even make it to the end of the year. The hands were in the cookie jar before they took office — the

[ Page 527 ]

anniversary date of their taking office. Their hands got slammed shut in the till. Poor Arthur Weeks.

The one thing about Grizzlygate that bothers me…. It's certainly directly applicable to this amendment, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad that you're looking very carefully over here. What I can't understand is why everybody is concentrating on these share transactions, and this insider trading, and Arthur Weeks' cookie-jar routine, and his Howe Street raising of money to buy shares, and the rumours that are floating around. Let's not worry about that. How did it start? All the evidence shows — and this isn't the subject of the order-in-council but it should be — that there's no gas.

Now ask yourselves these questions about what kind of situation has arisen here. There was not sufficient gas. There were no tests to prove that there was gas. The Premier stood up in the House the other day and said it was supervised by the Petroleum Corporation. That's not correct. It wasn't. There was no Petroleum Corporation officer, no official from the B.C. Petroleum Corporation in the field. There was none in the field. So when he stood up in this House and he said that it was supervised, he didn't know the truth. I'm sure he wouldn't have told an untruth, would he have, Mr. Speaker? I mean, he's not the type that would twist the truth, although it's been recently suggested.

So why the Grizzly Valley pipeline? And why the $2 million? You've got to ask yourself the question — $2 million, out of money that we need in this province, to the consortium that's going to build the Grizzly Valley pipeline. Was it a payoff? Was it a payoff to Alberta and Southern Gas? How did they get out of that contract? Alberta and Southern Gas expended almost $30 million exploring in that area, and now they don't seem to be a participating part of the consortium. What was that $2 million for?

Mr. Speaker, that pipeline is never going to be built. It's nothing but a stock manipulation, pure and simple. It is a hoax on the people of British Columbia, and Arthur Weeks has already made his money — money which should be in this budget.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you know that the whole matter of the development at Grizzly Valley is before a commission. Now I suggest to you that you are drawing hypothetical conclusions…

MR. LAUK: Inescapable conclusions.

MR. SPEAKER: Hypothetical, hon. member.

…which would perhaps be construed to try to influence decisions which will be made. Now, I would hope that in the profession in which you are employed you'd realize you can't try to predetermine the facts that will be presented, or the evidence that will be presented before that commission. I would hope that you would be the last to try to introduce into the House something that would in any way be taken by the appointed commissioner as interference in his particular area at the present time. So be guided by that, please.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I am within the proper purview of debate in the forum here. The judicial inquiry is to investigate Weeks and others who may have profited by insider knowledge by virtue of the announcement to build the Grizzly Valley pipeline. What I'm talking about are the reserves and the background to the building of that pipeline, which is not within the purview of Mr. Justice Kirke Smith, and which has to be debated somewhere along the line. That's why I want to know where that $2 million came from.

MR. SPEAKER: As long as you relate your remarks to the amendment before us, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, those are the comments I have to make. It's unfortunate that the inquiry will not go into the whole basis for building the pipeline because if the scandal started anywhere, that's where it started — that's where the scandal is going. How do you build a pipeline when there's no gas? How do you do that? I mean, that's amazing.

The administration that I was a part of had the most detailed reports that there was no gas. Now we've had a lot of gas in this House, with no pipeline, but how do you have a pipeline with no gas? What are they going to pump through it? Fertilizer?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): There's a lot of that in here, too.

MR. LAUK: Since I spoke in the throne debate, Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments on M.E.L. Paving. I am concerned that recently there have been a number of proposed settlements that may put a stress on this already threadbare budget. I am rather concerned about it. Since I spoke in the throne debate, several developments have taken place in the M.E.L. Paving scandal.

After my speech in the throne debate the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) gave birth to an afterthought. He announced a retroactive, secret investigation within his ministry, misdirected to criminal fraud when the issue is really civil fraud. Let's discover whether that's there first, then we can discuss criminal fraud. We know those provisions very well.

M.E.L. Paving charged civil fraud, and if the directors of the railway or the staff were involved in any way in civil fraud, then the public is entitled to know all about it. That's what I think. It is not

[ Page 528 ]

something to be hushed up in a non-public, in-House inquiry. If the evidence also shows criminal fraud, then of course this must be dealt with too, but I stress that the only charges made to date are civil fraud, and that charge must not be sidelined, resulting in the Attorney-General reporting there is no criminal fraud there, everything is fine so it is not necessary to look any further.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I am waiting patiently for you to relate your remarks to the amendment before the House.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, the hon. minister knows how to do that very well. He's the only gentleman of this House I've ever seen cram a five-minute speech into two hours. (Laughter.) In any event, Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly glad he's here.

MR. LEA: Air West isn't running.

MR. LAUK: No, he doesn't need to go to Point Grey — those are the old days.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): If I'd known you were speaking, I'd have stayed away.

MR. WALLACE: Well, you can still leave, Pat.

MR. LAUK: You know, that's not unusual for you.

How I'm relating this to the amendment, Mr. Speaker, is just this: if these cases go on being settled, there won't be any money left in the budget. There just won't be any money left. Where will it stop? How much fraud do we have to pay for? How much sweeping under the carpet does this meagre budget have to pay for? Does it mean that the senior citizens are going to lose their campsites to pay for these settlements?

MR. LEA: And their free passes on the ski tows — you overgenerous group.

MR. LAUK: I'm saying that this in-house inquiry could be used as a red herring by this government to cover up the fact that there was civil fraud, and I make that point very clearly. I'll say it again: this government could use this in-house inquiry as a red herring to cover up the fact that there was civil fraud. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) stressed, and the Premier also emphasized this fact, that a major part of this in-house inquiry will be a review of the transcript of evidence in the M.E.L. Paving trial. Well, everybody's had a review of that. We saw it reprinted in the press after some prodding. That transcript only tells half the story is what I'm trying to say. The evidence in the transcript alleges that the railway's directors and Mr. Broadbent, the railway vice-president, were involved in a civil fraud that was admitted when the government settled out of court. But none of the directors, or Mr. Broadbent, gave any evidence at the trial. No review of evidence can be undertaken unless the directors give evidence and are open to cross-examination in public, as they would have been in court.

Now, there's a contradiction, and I asked the Attorney-General but he wasn't here.

MR. LEA: He hasn't been here for a long time.

MR. LAUK: He's been sick. I think that we should send him some flowers. I hope he gets better. But Mr. Williston denied that the board of directors ever dealt with the M.E.L. Paving contract, in direct contradiction to Mr. Broadbent who said that they did. And wouldn't it be interesting for the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) to table the BCR minutes dealing with the M.E.L. Paving contract? I don't have a photographic memory, but I do recall something in there about the M.E.L. Paving contract, going back to 1972. Maybe that would help Mr. Williston's memory. You remember Mr. Williston, Mr. Speaker? He knew all about budgets.

Mr. Speaker, I have just so much to say about the M.E.L. Paving case. Everybody's called for an open judicial inquiry — even Jim Hume, or should I say especially Jim Hume? Let's be fair. Jim Hume of the Colonist says….

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Hume. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: Mr. Hume. That's right. I'm quoting the real substantial part of his entire article right now: "Their call for a judicial inquiry has merit." (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: What was the case?

MR. LAUK: Way to go, Jim! The Colonist, January 30, 1977, hot off the press.

Frances Russell of the Sun says:

"The Attorney-General's in-house investigation won't satisfy the legitimate need of the public to know the truth of this sordid case. This investigation will not be public. The results will not necessarily be public and, indeed, the exercise could serve as a mechanism for keeping information from the public."

Heaven forbid! The Vancouver Sun, January 28, 1977.

Victoria Times editorial…. Victoria Times — that's where they had a cartoonist once. (Laughter.) Do you remember that fellow? I think I heard

[ Page 529 ]

someone screaming out the back. A couple of ministerial executive assistants were dragging some poor fellow out to a stake. He looked very much like this cartoonist fellow. Anyway, the Victoria Times editorial said:

"Without an independent judicial inquiry into the M.E.L. Paving case, a shadow will remain over this government and its Socred predecessor. It is ironic that the NDP's call for an independent inquiry was enjoined by the current Attorney-General as early as 1974. Nothing has changed except Gardom's political affiliation and the odd out-of-court settlement effected by the government last December 24."

All we need now is a death-bed repentance from Paddy Sherman. Have you checked the Telex? (Laughter.)

I think that the public opinion in this province is quite clear, Mr. Speaker. It's not only this side of the House that's calling for some sunshine in — it's the whole province. I think that would be the honourable and the gentlemanly and the responsible thing to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: They won't do it.

MR. LAUK: But, you know, the cherry on the cheesecake has to come tonight — tonight's Vancouver Sun. You know, we warned them. There are two reasons, economic and in principle, why we shouldn't settle the M.E.L., Paving case, not to mention the fact that counsel advised that the government could win it.

HON. MR. McGEER: Do you want to try those facts again and get them right?

MR. LAUK: You know, ever since he left his brains in Point Grey…. He used to work at Point Grey on brains, you know. No, really, we paid him something over $35,000 a year to get people's brains and unfold them and fold them out at Point Grey. Then he was appointed to the cabinet and he left his brains in Point Grey and came here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Folded or unfolded?

MR. LAUK: He bought himself a new suit, told people to sell their cars, and he's happy as a clam, Mr. Speaker. He just loves it. He's the Minister of Health, Minister of Education, Minister of ICBC.

MR. WALLACE: A man for all seasons.

MR. LAUK: Mostly winter, though. (Laughter.) In tonight's Vancouver Sun it says: "And we knew that everybody would line up at the wicket as soon as these dunces settled with M.E.L. Paving for $5 million or whatever it was." Oh, sure. "Here, fellows — let's keep this quiet! Here's the money."

MR. BARRETT: Christmas Eve!

MR. LAUK: Santa Claus gave M.E.L. Paving the settlement, then the line-up. They're all the way around the block, Mr. Speaker. Everybody that even provided sandwiches to the BCR is down there asking for a renegotiated contract.

Let's talk about the cherry on the cheesecake. You remember the cherry — Ben Ginter. Oh, the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and the Premier know Ben Ginter.

AN HON. MEMBER: So do you.

MR. LAUK: He's an old Okanagan Valley crony; he's one of their pals. Old Phil and Ben used to walk arm-in-arm down the street. They had a little bit of a tiff the other day.

"A fifth company, Argus Construction Ltd., is negotiating with the B.C. Railway for payment of over $2 million in connection with overruns experienced on the Fort St. James extension of the railway.

"Argus owner, Ben Ginter, confirmed Monday he has been negotiating with the railway for a week and he said he expects to meet with railway officials later this week. He said the amount he is seeking is an original claim made in 1971 of $1.6 million plus interest. 'The total is over $2 million,' he said.

"Ginter made a claim to the railway in October, 1971, after Argus suffered overruns of 60 per cent."

M.E.L. Paving and Red Deer and Keen Industries….

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): You paid him off and you know it.

MR. LEA: For another one of your stupid contracts.

MR. LAUK: Derril Warren has advised….

HON. MR. CHABOT: He joined the party after you paid him off, too.

MR. LEA: I think your leader would be a lot happier if you didn't bring that up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

Interjections.

[ Page 530 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: I wish the hon. members of this House would provide me the same courtesy I provide them, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.) I didn't mean that.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sure they will.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Speaker, Derril Warren tonight has advised KRM and Keen to consider legal action against the BCR, as the BCR has refused to renegotiate. Warren has advised Keen and KRM to retain counsel.

I understand that Mr. Ginter was on TV tonight. That might get him off unemployment. He's been having a tough time lately, and boy, does he know a good thing when he sees it! Bush league. He knows the rules; he knows it when he sees it. Or did you know this would happen but you settled anyway? What kind of motivation was there?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Someone said: "Don't nag. I know I'm a little bit crooked and a little dishonest, but don't nag." We're going to nag. We want this government to be honest. You may ignore the legislative debate but we are not going to. We want governments in this province to be as honest as we were. It's not too much to ask; it's the least we can ask.

Take a look at this budget, Mr. Speaker. It is an absolutely dull budget. I have to associate myself with the hon. Liberal leader's (Mr. Gibson's) words in this budget: "It's so uncreative it's beyond description." We're in massive unemployment and an economic downturn. The budget provides for no jobs, no economic stimulation, nothing.

The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) memorized his telephone number…

MR. BARRETT: Finally.

MR. LAUK: …finally. He's careening and reeling under scandal after scandal. He should be relieved and relieved now, so we can get other than a lame-duck minister in there. I have nothing personally against that minister; personally, I like him very much. He's a very, very pleasant person. As a small-town businessman, he's just perfect. Everybody likes him. But that's not the issue. I hope he doesn't take any of this personally.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, I'm speaking for myself. But I will say this: he is impaired in his present position. He cannot carry on as Minister of Economic Development and provide jobs for this province. Every day he is concerned with one scandal or the next; he is every day careening, and wheeling, and bouncing off walls. We need a person who is clear-headed, without any shadow over his responsibilities, to get down to business and to provide the economic development in this province that we need. For the Premier to mother-hen him at this time is a big mistake. He is enough of a man to step down from the cabinet until such time, and if such time arrives, as he is cleared and his ministry is cleared of any suspicion.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, if you haven't noticed it, you are on your final three minutes.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The reason I say that is that in this budget at a time of unemployment which will only decrease revenues to this government, at a time when they are placing more burden on the working family with a 37 per cent increase in personal income taxes, they are occupying their entire concentration on M.E.L. Paving, on Grizzly Valley and on every other scandal that comes by. In the meantime the real, proper responsibilities of a government to administer the economy and the affairs of this province are being neglected, to the great sadness and the great suffering of the people of this province and particularly, as has been pointed out so ably by my colleagues, the little people, the people who are cut off from the mainstream of society, who don't have a million dollars that allows them to feel rather comfortable at this stage of time, the people whose only gift from the government this year is a free campsite. The little people in this province, the ordinary working people of this province who provide the bulk of your revenue — over $3 billion, over 80 per cent of the budget — have been ignored.

It takes so little, Mr. Speaker, to provide that kind of economic stimulus. But the one thing we know it does take is a clear-headed minister, who is not distracted by scandal and other matters, to concentrate purely on economic development.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): Mr. Speaker, I was quite impressed with the opening ceremonies, the blessing we had from Reverend Rex Krepps where he mentioned that we should sit in this Legislature and deal with our hearts and not our heads, and he mentioned that we should disagree without being disagreeable. He also made mention of the weary round that saps the strength, frays the nerves and adds nothing to the usefulness of carrying on the government business, I thought that was very fitting and I would certainly like to see us get back on that particular track.

As backbenchers over here, we have been

[ Page 531 ]

tantalized to get up and respond to the opposition. Mr. Speaker, I find it pretty difficult to respond to a tirade like we had from the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). I looked very closely and watched very closely and I couldn't see where he was saying anything constructive. What kind of a response does he want — just somebody to get up and throw mud back across the House? All he really spoke of was the Liberal menace in the Social Credit ranks. Then he continued to carry on and tried to intimidate the whole back bench. Sound and fury, but no substance, no suggestions for improvement. That's really dealing with the province's business, isn't it?

However, I'm not going to carry on. As I said, I didn't get up here to throw mud back at the opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: We promise not to haunt you any more.

MR. LLOYD: I would like to stress, Mr. Speaker, that during the opening of the House, when I seconded the throne speech, I made particular mention that I don't think our province's fault is all the fault of labour. I think everybody is trying to take too much out of the system. I mentioned that the business markup is too high. I stressed that $10 for an electrician and a $30 charge for his service isn't necessary; that isn't the kind of thing that built our province. I think we have to watch all the way along the line. The professional rates are too high — lawyers are charging far too much for their services.

I have a close friend in the law business in Prince George and he told me that if their costs and their rates keep going up the same as they have in the last three years, the average person won't be able to hire a lawyer anymore.

MR. BARRETT: How lucky can we get.

MR. LLOYD: Possibly we could take the socialist theory and try to have the government pay for it all. But just because it's a closed association, I think it's about time they looked at this and policed it themselves. They are not the only ones — the other professionals that have closed ranks are in the same boat. We have the accountants, the dentists and the engineers. Since they changed the tax laws, nobody can do his own books any more. It now costs more to have somebody look at your books than it used to cost to have them done. I think it's about time everybody had a close look — that's what's been ruining the competitiveness of B.C.

The member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) at least has something constructive to say when he gets on his feet. He did bring up the topic that we do need more pulp mills in the province. I certainly agree with that. We have a tremendous surplus of chips that has been accumulating for the last several years and I think it's really important that we get more pulp mills on stream in British Columbia. It would also be important to help keep the price for chips at a realistic value, if there was more competition for buying these.

But we ask why they are looking at Quebec, then. Why are they not looking at British Columbia, to put a pulp mill in here? It is a company that made all its fortune in British Columbia, so why don't they'put it back into British Columbia? There must be some pretty good reasons.

Looking at the news announcement on that pulp mill, they are looking at a $300 million project. BCFP will get a 40 per cent share in equity in that company for $28 million. That doesn't sound like a very bad investment to me. They have a great deal of federal and provincial assistance on this, quite possibly some of the assistance that B.C. pays into the equalization grants.

But you can see why they would be willing to go down there. They also guarantee them a loan: $25 million at 6 per cent interest with no repayments for the first 10 years. I know an awful lot of people in British Columbia would like to see those kinds of terms, if we could afford it. The opposition would be the first to jump up and say we're giving the province away. But I think it's important that if the federal government can do it in Quebec, they also do it in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, let's look at a couple of other reasons why they don't do it in British Columbia and why they're not looking at British Columbia. John Fryer, in an article the other day, stated that the government is way out of line criticizing the B.C. government employees. He stated some of the wage levels in that same article. He said that a labourer working for the government gets $7.10 per hour. When he works in the private sector, he gets $ 9.10 an hour. He didn't just say what the private sector was. In the IWA rates in the forest industry, a labourer gets $6.89 an hour and quite often it's for seasonal work. He also went on to say a truck driver gets $7.54 an hour for driving a truck in the public service. He said in the private sector they get $8.84. In the logging profession, from the IWA rate, for driving a heavy logging truck, they get $7.95 an hour. They're getting more than the government's $7.54, but they're working away from home and they're working on seasonal employment. I think he has to look at that. They are definitely being leaders in setting rates that industry can't afford to pay.

The IWA is proposing a $1-an-hour raise for 1977 and, when we look at the rest of the wages around, I shouldn't wonder that they would. But we're already the highest-paid woodworkers in North America. What's another $1 an hour going to do to the industry? We aren't competitive now, and certainly

[ Page 532 ]

another $1 an hour isn't going to help.

I find it kind of remarkable that the construction industry can tie the whole province up and hold them up to blackmail, stop the construction of all the schools and all the projects until public pressure says: "Sign at any price." And yet Jack Munro, the big hero of the labour movement, never gets up and stands up for those woodworkers and says: "Hey, you fellows, hang on. I can't ask for that kind of money for my men because it isn't there." I find it kind of surprising and I find it kind of tiresome, too. We say in British Columbia that 50 cents of every dollar comes from the forest industry. Up in my sector of the country it's probably closer to 80 cents out of every dollar that comes directly from the forest industry. And I know the others in my profession are getting a little tired of carrying the ball for all the service people and all the government people who have it sewn up. They've got the public blackmailed.

The Statistics Canada report of January 14 says, again, that weekly earnings in the province are the highest in Canada. Of those, construction leads, with mining following closely and forestry in third place, and it's one of our prime industries. And yet we allow construction and the service industries to bypass us. I say this is one good reason that the pulp mills aren't looking to British Columbia right now. We've got to straighten out this imbalance in wages and costs,

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to compare the NDP socialist theory of how money should be spread around to people watching a poker game. The NDP has the theory that they should never have to invest in anything and that they should be able to sit back and watch the poker players play. And as the pot gets bigger and bigger, they all of a sudden decide they should get a share of it. They don't want to risk any of their capital. They don't want to play the game. But they want to get their share of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't want to do any work.

MR. LLOYD: I think they have the same approach to business. Their thoughts on the inheritance tax — they are quite upset about this. Yet I don't think they have any impression of the problems that people go through and the risks that they take to stay in business and build up some of these minor fortunes. Someone mentioned Ben Ginter over there a while ago. Well, I think Ben was doing pretty well for a lot of years and he did most of it the hard way. But like all fortunes, it's only worth as much as you can cover. When you spread yourself too thin and you get into a bind, nobody picks the tab up and you're on your own.

Some of the people that they criticize for building up a small fortune in the forest industry…. They don't look at how many people out of all the people who got into that business ever come out of it. They don't look at all those people who go broke. They sit around and look at the ones who happen to get lucky enough to make it. And I say lucky enough, because it's a lot like farming. You have to get the breaks. You have to get the weather and you have to stay with it to do it.

I think it's about time we took that inheritance tax off. The member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) mentioned that they took it off farms; he didn't mention any of the restrictions on that. Why just farms? Why pick them out? Why not the logging companies? Why not the forest companies? Why not the rest of them? Are they interested in seeing that ownership pass to foreign hands? I know of a good many people up in my riding who retired from business and took their money quickly to Alberta or to the United States where they wouldn't be hit with this heavy inheritance tax.

It's also a major cost of doing business, carrying the insurance premiums you have to have to protect your investment in the company in case one of the partners goes down the tube. I think it's an expense we shouldn't have to live with, and I certainly welcome the removal of that inheritance tax.

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to say that I think it's really important we all take a forward step if we're going to get the employment back on the track, and that we all watch our spending. We should all either take part in the poker game or don't expect to take the profit.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Speaker, I have to rise in support of this amendment. Before I go into my remarks I would just like to discuss briefly the reason M.E.L. Paving took B.C. Railway to court, because I don't think that reason has been covered very much in this House or in the press, and a great deal about the case has been discussed.

The fact is that M.E.L. was not the first company to allege fraud in the issuing of contracts and in the estimation of dirt to be removed by the B.C. Railway. They were away down the list. There were a number of firms that alleged that before, but they were simply paid off by B.C. Railway. It didn't matter if it was $100,000, $200,000 — in some cases over $1 million — they were simply paid off by B.C. Railway, up until 1972 when the New Democratic Party became government in British Columbia. After that, when contractors came to B.C. Railway they were told: "We're sorry, we can't accept your allegation. If you feel you have a case against us you're going to have to prove it in court." That's how that case came to be. No doubt other cases would have arisen and still would be arising had not that policy been reversed last year — again with the change in government.

[ Page 533 ]

I've always been of the opinion that a contract was a contract: if you signed for a certain amount, you expected to be paid that certain amount.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of items in the budget which particularly concern me. Generally speaking, though, I am very, very disturbed because there has been absolutely no provision to control gasoline and fuel prices in British Columbia. More importantly, and perhaps connected to that, there is absolutely no protection offered — either in the Speech from the Throne or in the budget — for independent lessees in service stations and bulk plants in British Columbia.

We know that there is more and more vertical integration in this field, that the major oil companies are entering more and more into the retail field, and all the time there are fewer and fewer small operators exercising their right to hold prices where they think they should be to stay competitive in a free retail market.

It's interesting that the Federation of Independent Businessmen has recently called for action — not just in British Columbia but in all provinces — to prevent oil companies from getting into or staying in the retail marketing of their products. They are already in the exploration and drilling field; they're already in the development field; they're in the refinery field and in the transport field, and now they're getting into the retail field as well.

Many dealers have written to me saying that they have evidence that the same oil company that's selling them fuel and gasoline and diesel oil, coming from the same refinery and the same tank truck, is selling to them at a higher price than they are retailing even through their own outlets. The same truck will sell to a gas station at 70 cents a gallon, then go down the street and sell at 60 cents a gallon to one owned by the oil company. That gasoline can be retailed at a lower price than the individual lessee can even buy it. I don't consider that a free market, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

One other item before I get into the details of my remarks regarding the freedom of an ordinary businessman to do what he wants in the market. Recently I had a letter from a constituent who runs a cocktail lounge in a hotel in Trail. Last summer he did something in his bar which is a common marketing thing in North America, in Europe and in Asia as well — and certainly anybody who's been to Hawaii will know about it. It's called a "happy hour." He took it upon himself to lower prices of bar drinks during the late afternoon and early evening hours because he had staff on for the evening anyway, it was a slack time, and it introduced goodwill from the customers.

I always thought in British Columbia — and certainly under a Social Credit government — that any businessman would have the right to cut his prices anytime he wanted for his product. Apparently that's not the case here, though. He was told very smartly by the liquor administration branch — perhaps appropriately, or inappropriately, now under the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs — that he couldn't do that. He wasn't allowed to do that in British Columbia. That was illegal. He did not have the fundamental right that any businessman was supposed to have to lower his prices. Indeed, all he wanted to do was extend a rather civilized practice to British Columbia that is becoming increasingly common around the world.

It would be interesting to know what the government thinks — how they would apply that to other businesses, and how the consumer would react if the automobile dealers of British Columbia were told they couldn't have sales on their cars, or there couldn't be sales in furniture stores, or in supermarkets, or in any businesses at the retail level in British Columbia and they were stuck with a set price that they had to keep at all times. I really wonder where the government's commitment is to the free market, but then some people have suggested that they really only have a commitment to the free market and to laissez faire when it applies to everybody else, not when it applies to themselves. When it applies to themselves there's one way to do it, and that's the way the word comes down from Victoria.

My colleague from Victoria (Mr. Barber) spent some time the other night talking about the 5 per cent tax which liquor licencees must pay to the liquor administration branch on gross sales, and I really wonder if in the case of the happy hour, the liquor administration branch and the government were far more concerned with their 5 per cent of gross sales than they were with their own apparent philosophical commitment to laissez faire because, of course, it's obvious that 5 per cent of a 1-oz. shot of whiskey retailing for $2 is twice as much as that same shot retailing for $1, because the tax is on the gross sales, after all, not on the sale from the liquor store.

I'm wondering, too, Mr. Speaker, how far the government intends to go with setting up Crown corporations to do things which normally, and in every other jurisdiction in Canada, have been done under Crown agencies, usually termed as the civil service. We have the B.C. Ferry Corporation. It used to be that the ferries were part of the civil service. Now we have the ferries corporation and we wonder who they're responsible to, because the government doesn't like to give us any information about them anymore now that they're a corporation. What is going to happen when we have the BCBC — the B.C. Buildings Corporation? They're going to own all the buildings and all the provincial real estate, and how

[ Page 534 ]

are we going to find anything out about that?

We could carry this further. We could have a B.C. Education Corporation.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): A highways corporation?

MR. D'ARCY: Yes, as my colleague from Mackenzie says, a B.C. Highways Corporation. Oh, you can't ask questions about that. They're not directly responsible to the Legislature anymore; they're now a Crown corporation. "We don't have to produce estimates. We don't have to produce statements of expenditures. We don't have to tell you anything about their plans at all, but you can call their directors before a committee, of course, of the House." But then we know that committees of this House are never called because they're called at the whim of the government.

We could go even further. We could have a Crown corporation to run the hospitals of this province, and then where would we be for any information or insight into what is happening in the health-care field? It could go on and on into a human resources corporation, a water resources corporation. If we think it's a tough time exerting any sort of influence or control over British Columbia Hydro, where would we be if the water resources branch was its own public corporation? We could end up where even the Speaker's office, Mr. Speaker, actually worked for the Speaker's Office Corporation of British Columbia, and we indeed could be going in that direction.

Mr. Speaker, I've called in the past for tax cuts in British Columbia, both last year and this year. This government has refused. They say they cannot balance the books if they cut income taxes and sales taxes, but they've given us figures to show last year and this year what they were going to spend and what they intended to spend — or, at least, what they told the House they were going to spend — on some of their major departments and portfolios. I know last year's budget says that the Department of Education intended to spend $840 million, but we don't know how much they did spend. I suggested it could be a good deal less than $840 million. The Department of Health told this House that they were going to spend $870 million, and yet we don't know how much they spent because the government has only given us the six-month bulletin and not the three-quarterly bulletin. And, of course, there is already evidence that Human Resources have substantially underspent their budget.

Many people besides myself have talked about the old Social Credit ploy of deliberately underestimating revenue. I think we see a major new twist on that in last year's budget, however, and I fear that may be perpetuated in this year's budget. The figures were put before this House and debated before this House in good faith by all members on both sides. In fact, the government across the way cynically knew all the time that they were falsely inflated figures and that they never had the slightest intention of spending those amounts of money on people services, on health services, on human resources and on education. Never the slightest intention, Mr. Speaker. But they were there because, of course, if they weren't there they couldn't justify the punitive tax increases that we saw last year. They wanted the public of B.C. to say: "Oh, where would you have gotten the money?" They wanted them to say that to the New Democratic Party.

Of course we had to raise taxes. We had to raise taxes to balance the books because we couldn't have provided even this minimal level of services if we hadn't raised those taxes. Yet, Mr. Speaker, there is now evidence that there really was never any intention to meet those budgetary expenditures — only in service departments. It's interesting that in other fields, such as the Ministry of Highways and Public Works, the opposite ruse was used. There was a deliberately low figure put forth. When I say deliberately low, I mean much lower than what the government, indeed, intended to spend on highways. Of course, last fall, when the time was thought to be appropriate, it was announced that there was going to be an extra $40 million expended by the Ministry of Highways and Public Works.

Interestingly, if one takes not the budgeted expenditure but the actual expenditure of 1974 and 1975, and makes allowances for inflation in the cost of building highways, we find that the figure comes to something like $140 million to $145 million. In fact, with the big $40 million announcement last fall, that only takes the Highways capital budget to $149 million, almost exactly equal to what the capital budget on Highways would have been had there been a proper budget put forward last year to continue the programmes that were already underway.

When are these taxes going to be reduced? Because this year, the government has reduced resource taxation. At least, the budget shows reduced revenue from resources. It shows reduced revenue from minerals. It shows reduced revenue from the forest industry. And, of course, it shows reduced revenue from succession and gift taxes.

Mr. Speaker, it seems that there is a bit of a go-around here. You tell the public that you're going to spend a dollar, but before you can spend a dollar you have to tax them a dollar. Then you tax them a dollar knowing full well that you're really only going to spend 50 cents. That's what's happened each and every month. There has been a misrepresentation of the expenditures on people services in British Columbia for the last 13 months. The justification was that that way we can keep taxes up and then at the end of the year we can reduce revenues. We can

[ Page 535 ]

reduce revenues from the resource sector, and from the gift and succession duty area.

The philosophy behind it over there — the rather dogmatic philosophy — is that development capital in the natural resource field will go where the resource taxes are the lowest. For the sake of British Columbia, I hope in my heart that you're right. Because whether I like you or not, you happen to be the government, and I'm rather more concerned about the well-being of British Columbians than I am about whether the government of the day looks good or not.

Mr. Speaker, suppose the philosophy is wrong. Suppose the theory is wrong and suppose we are all being asked in British Columbia to participate in a horrible experiment. Suppose that resource development capital is far more concerned with getting access to the resources and getting a long-term supply assured than they are in the kind of resource taxation, stumpage and royalty fee structure under which they can extract those resources. Suppose that was the case. You know, it has been suggested by some people that there's some evidence that that may be the case in some industries already.

A couple years ago there was a firm in Japan that was interested in building a steel mill in British Columbia. I am sure most members of the House will recall that. We in British Columbia weren't too sure that we wanted a steel mill or that we wanted that kind of major industry, because of environmental problems and effects on the quality of life. But we did know that somebody was serious about wanting to put one here and wanting to pay the entire shot and wanting to supply a lot of investments and jobs in British Columbia in an industry that we'd never had before. In fact, we'd been told it was not viable before. We didn't know that for sure. But then, last spring or early summer, the new Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) went to Japan.

MR. BARRETT: They gave him a steam bath.

MR. D'ARCY: Well, he went over there and he said: "Don't worry, boys, your problems are all over. Those crazies have gone now. And you know what I'm going to do for you? I'm going to guarantee you a permanent supply of coal. No strings attached, no questions asked."

And they said, "Oh, thank you very much."

AN HON. MEMBER: And "Don't increase the royalties."

MR. D'ARCY: He said: "Don't worry about royalties. We may even wipe those out. But for a while, for political purposes, we're at least going to keep them low. But don't worry, they're only going to be two-thirds of what Peter the Red up in Edmonton charges. He wants $2.50 a ton on the average; maybe up to $9 in some grades. We're only going to charge you $1.50."

At first they couldn't believe their ears. Then they came back a few minutes later and said: "We certainly appreciate what you've said. We regret to inform you that we have suddenly lost interest in the steel mill. We don't think we're going to build anymore. Our capital requirements have changed; our marketing surveys perhaps didn't tell us all that we thought; the world situation has changed. Don't call us about it; we'll call you."

There was a great deal of discussion about a copper smelter, or copper smelters, in British Columbia a couple of years ago. Afton Mines was all set to go, apparently — they told us they were, anyway. Now all of a sudden they're dragging their feet; we don't hear too much.

Even Cominco Ltd. was ready to go, or so some people said, in Kimberley. They had a big copper claim, which they still have, in the Highland Valley. They have lots of empty coal cars going back to the Kootenays from the coast through Kamloops. Transportation didn't seem to be a problem, therefore. They already had a number of the necessary pollution control devices in place in Kimberley. Why not think about going there?

Some people actually had the temerity to suggest that the interest that Afton Mines had and the interest that Cominco Ltd. had may have had something to do with a guaranteed long-term supply of high-grade, or relatively high-grade, copper ore, and even something to do with drastically reduced copper royalties, providing they put in smelters. Well, they don't seem to have those concerns anymore. They don't seem to be concerned about copper royalties; they don't seem to be concerned about a long-term supply; they're certainly not concerned about putting a smelter in British Columbia — either company, in my opinion. They're not in a hurry.

It's rather interesting, this movement of capital resource industries. If your philosophy over there is correct, we will see some investment, but if it's not — if it's a cut-and-get-out thing, if the main interest of the resource development companies has been access to resources — it won't matter if the stumpage duties and the mineral resources are absolutely zero in British Columbia. They're not going to come here because they no longer have any incentive to be here, because they know they've got it made.

Mr. Speaker, I am rather interested in a few statements made by the chairman of MacMillan Bloedel. I'm certainly not going to take this opportunity to attack that company or that man, but he had some interesting things to say about his own industry in British Columbia. Mr. Knudsen said: "We

[ Page 536 ]

have seen a drastic reduction in capital investment in British Columbia over the last six years. We hit a high in 1970; last year, we hit a 12-year low. You know," he said, "our production costs are continuing to go up. We're going to have to put in some more capital."

But, Mr. Speaker, suppose that that company and other companies operating on the coast of British Columbia find that they don't need to increase productivity, they don't need to increase efficiency, because they have a pliable government, and every time they complain the government lowers the stumpage and the resource revenue and says: "Don't worry, fellas. Let's run with a 15-, 20-, 25-year-old plant facility. We don't need to smarten them up at all. We don't need to introduce new technology, because every time we complain the slice going to government is going to go down."

He says some other things that are rather interesting. He says: "Productivity has declined because of a lack of investment in new facilities." I wonder where we've heard that before. He also says: "Total labour costs have risen more quickly in British Columbia." Notice the word "total," Mr. Speaker — "total labour costs." There are more people employed than perhaps should be employed to generate the kind of productivity that our international competitors are getting.

And here is the real catcher from this captain of industry: "Both we and our analyst have complained and will complain of other disadvantages, notably heavier taxes." That's what he says.

Mr. Speaker, I have another concern about the future of British Columbia and the bottom-line government, because there is some evidence that the bottom line is dripping red in some aspects. There's another article that caught my attention. It said: "Can that mounting foreign debt load maim Canada?" It's rather interesting, Mr. Speaker, but some people were very concerned here that foreigners in 1976 were lending so much money to different Canadian governments and their Crown corporations. It was an incredibly high figure, they said — $9.2 billion from abroad last year. That's in all of Canada.

We know that British Columbia Hydro borrowed over 20 per cent of that $9.2 billion, or will be borrowing it in 1976-1977, because bills have been put before this House and will be put before this House to guarantee that kind of borrowing.

So we have a government on the one hand that is concerned, so they say, about the bottom line but yet allows a major Crown corporation to be one of the largest importers of foreign mortgage money in all of Canada, at a time when economists are saying we're getting into a great deal of trouble because our total foreign borrowings are too darn high.

It wouldn't be so bad, Mr. Speaker, if we had some evidence that this money was needed. But we keep hearing that there is an excess of power. We keep hearing that projects aren't popular and they aren't needed. We keep hearing that excess power has been sold to the United States. And, Mr. Speaker, 55 per cent of the capacity of British Columbia Hydro is only just now, and in the next few years, coming on line. We have three major projects that are either nearing completion or about halfway there and that, when on stream, will increase the power production we presently have in British Columbia by 55 per cent. And still we go further hundreds of millions and billions into debt. And that is a debt load that each and every one of us — when we pay our light bill, when we get on the bus, when we buy our natural gas — are going to be paying. Our employers will be paying and that will be part of their cost when they compete in the international market. And our children will be paying, because these debts and bonds go on for years and years and years.

I consider that bad business and bad business management. And yet how do you get at that, Mr. Speaker? The minister responsible is not in the House tonight, and when asked questions on B.C. Hydro, he said: "I think this sort of thing is justified under the circumstances, but if you want to know anything else, you're really going to have to get hold of the directors of that corporation." But the House committee that would have to talk to those people has yet to sit during this parliament, not just during this session but during this parliament.

Mr. Speaker, this debate has carried on for some time. It's getting late in the evening and, while I have some more notes here, I believe I will sit down. I think I have made the points that I think are most important. I think I can continue for a while. There seems to be a small cabal in the corner, including one of the members whom I signed. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I had anticipated that someone from the government would give a defence of their position or non-position on this amendment.

HON. MR. McGEER: No defence is needed. You haven't made a case.

MR. BARRETT: We haven't made a case. Well, Mr. Speaker, let us assume that that member is a person who knows how to make a case. He said we haven't made a case, is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what he said.

MR. BARRETT: There is a basic assumption here, related to that member's attitude to the House, that he can make a case. Is that correct?

Interjection.

[ Page 537 ]

MR. BARRETT: Well, I've got two of them in the act now, after I've gotten up. Now they start chattering away. But when it comes to making a case, they were very good at it when they were in opposition. I remember the member for Vancouver–Point Grey with some of the comments he used to make when he was in opposition, about employment and about the expenditure of public money. Why, here's a quote from that member, Mr. Speaker, related to employment on the railroad. This is what the former Liberal member for Vancouver–Point Grey said in this House about those things. On October 3, 1973, he said about the railroad: "But the point about it is that the system of accountability has been totally absent in all these years in B.C. Railway." That's what you said.

lnterjection.

MR. BARRETT: Because of that, and because of the inadequacies of the members of the boards of directors who were there for reasons of politics and not railroad experience. The experience of those people was vitally effective in that railroad's decisions. Those are the people who are on the board of directors and, quite frankly, they did a lousy job. On the basis of that speech we ordered Swan Wooster's report. On the basis of that speech we ordered the comptroller-general to go in. On the basis of that speech, where you made those accusations, we ordered the studies to be done on the B.C. Rail, and a study of those speeches….

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, now. Let's go on further to what the member said, He's applauding himself. Let's keep up the applauding. He's doing very well. He's like a responding student and he's passing his exam very well, Mr. Speaker. Now I want to listen to the rest of his essay.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's getting cultural.

MR. BARRETT: Oh! You're getting Social Credit lessons, Mr. Liberal Member.

Let's go on to hear what you said: "The method of letting contracts, the accounting procedures, the way decisions were reached for development would have been a disgrace to a private corporation, much less a Crown agency."

During all this time speeches were being made by the former president of the B.C. Railway in this House about what a magnificent railway it was, all the jobs it had been doing for British Columbia, how well it was run, and handsome the profit picture was, and so on and so on. Then he goes on to praise me, Mr. Speaker! This is what he said….

HON. MR. McGEER: I take it back!

MR. BARRETT: You can't take it back now, just like you switched parties. You can't change the words in Hansard. This is what he said…. Don't cough now!

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm choking!

MR. BARRETT: You certainly are choking! You'll be choking on your words in a minute! You'll be choking on your own words.

All those statements were accepted without question by the press, who played along with the former Premier in letting the public know a story that was not true with regard to that railroad, that has only been brought out now by the new Premier. He was praising me for bringing up a story on the B.C. Rail.

Would you bring me that piece of paper? I got so excited in quoting him, Mr. Speaker, I may even ask permission to file this because this is not a message from an ambassador. (Laughter.)

It's all the more reason for a judicial inquiry asked for by that member and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), and they are Liberals. They are eating their words tonight, and that member is choking on them. Do you favour a judicial inquiry now that you are in government and part of a cover-up, Mr. Member? Do you?

HON. MR. McGEER: Wait and see!

MR. BARRETT: Wait and see? Oh!

MR. MACDONALD: There's a struggle going on, eh?

MR. BARRETT: Oh, there's a fight in the cabinet, Mr. Speaker, The decision has not been made.

MR. MACDONALD: Wait and see!

MR. BARRETT: Wait and see who's going to win in that push-pull of power politics. Oh, now we're getting a picture of what's going on. Someone's conscience is emerging, and who will be the victim? The victim will be the former Socred cabinet minister who'll be sacrificed for Liberal ambitions in that cabinet. Oh, how sad! Oh, how sad, that member who spoke in this House so eloquently about Can-Cel with wild accusations. Oh, what a hatchet job he used to do, Mr. Speaker, par excellence. Without substance, without fact, but with rhetoric. Wild accusation, think up anything, say anything, do anything, to get the NDP. How ironic! Within a matter of 15 months he's the man in the frying pan, and who's shaking the griddle but the man from West

[ Page 538 ]

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer), saying: "Wait and see. We're going to get him yet!"

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Certainly the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) doesn't like it when his cabinet colleague says "wait and see" on a judicial inquiry. What does it mean? What is it we see that late this time of night, Mr. Speaker? What is that quote from Lear, my friend? "Get thee glass eyes…"

MR. D. COCKE (New Westminster): "…and like a scurvy…"

MR. BARRETT: "…and like a scurvy politician…"

MR. COCKE: "…seem…"

MR. BARRETT: "…seem to see only…"

MR. COCKE: "…to see the thing…"

MR. BARRETT: That's right. (Laughter.) They've got it.

MR. COCKE: "…to see the thing thou dost not…"

MR. BARRETT: "To see the thing thou dost not see." My friend, you pass! You pass! And he fails, because what we've had revealed tonight in this timid moment is that there is a struggle going on, there is a twinge of conscience left in that group, and some of them want that judicial inquiry that they asked for. Some of them do. He doesn't want it! Oh!

MR. LEA: That's because he joined the Conservative Party.

MR. BARRETT: Now it's 10:30 p.m. and they know the press is at rest so the truth can come out. Only at this time of night will they allow this little bit of exposure to come out. The score so far, Mr. Speaker, within five short minutes is: one for and one against and one in doubt. He's for it. He's against it. And you don't want to even hear about it!

Mr. Speaker, the only thing that makes me hesitate to even discuss this subject is the fact that I do have a great residue left of being a social worker. I know what kind of pressure people go under when they're under this kind of attack, when their own chickens come home to roost. I don't want to belabour this point because through it all and despite it all I happen to like the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), and I offer my professional services of comfort and love to him anytime he wants to come to my office.

One for, one against, and Garde is sick over it! One for, one against, and Garde's sick over it, and the head man doesn't know which way it's going or coming. Like my friend the member for Vancouver said, they're lining up outside the office. We ought to get Mr. Vander Zalm to do the interviewing for these welfare applicants because we know that the means test has been dropped. The court case was settled and it said: "Come on in, gang, the trough's available." One for, one against and one on the griddle.

Now, too, that the press has gone I want to bring up something that otherwise might embarrass them. Oh, they're here, but it's 10:30 p.m. and their pencils are done. I want to relate to you, Mr. Speaker….

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, calm yourself, Doctor. Calm yourself. We know you are for the judicial inquiry; we know your colleague is against a judicial inquiry and we know Garde's sick about it, so we have got you three pegged.

We know there's a fight going on in the cabinet. But I don't want the press to write about it because it will embarrass them. Put your pencils down — this might upset you, too.

Now, Mr. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), this is for you to ponder on because I know that you attempt to give yourself the appearance of the only rational member in this House, the only fair member in this House, the only one who doesn't speak for a vested interest, i.e. the ordinary people or the mining companies. You speak right up in the middle and down the fence, or whatever way it goes — anything to survive — and I understand completely. You wouldn't jump over there; you wouldn't do that. You know why? Because your dad would never let you do it. (Laughter.) That's why!

Look at this in the paper this morning, my dear friend, the former Attorney-General. This is not a front-page story. It won't be the emotional screaming of any hotliner. It won't be the subject of great television interviews. It won't be the announcements made by pontifical economic observers of British Columbia. Why, it's just a timid. little story about a mine closing on Texada Island.

MR. LEA: Where?

MR. BARRETT: On Texada Island.

Interjection.

[ Page 539 ]

MR. BARRETT: Blubber Bay. Yes, Mr. Voice from the Ceiling, Blubber Bay. If this mine had run out of ore 15 months ago, we would have had three demonstrations, four emergency debates demanded by the opposition, attacks on the legislative lawns with vicious language against cabinet ministers by screaming Social Crediters standing up in this House saying that the NDP is scaring out the mining industry. We would have had commercials on the radio from the mining industry saying that the NDP has done it again — a mine has closed in British Columbia — and we might have one or two paid people sleeping on the steps, protesting that they've lost their jobs.

Why, 14 months, what a difference it makes. Not one government member has spoken about this mine closing and the loss of jobs. Not once has the Liberal member got up in this House and said: "Oh, a mine has closed — the socialists took the ore out of the ground." Not once have we heard the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) saying: "Jobs are fleeing!" That's the way his colleague used to say it — the one who is the Minister of Mines. He's the Minister of Mines! Jobs are fleeing, and what kind of story do we get in the press? Not a headline scare, not a series of vicious editorials, but a polite story saying: "Oh, too bad — the mine ran.out of ore."

I can guarantee you folks in British Columbia — and don't you spread the word, press gallery — that if this had closed under the NDP, the headline would have been: "NDP Scares Out Investors." Now the mine ran out on its own, and they can't even blame us. What a sad night this is for the mining industry — with jobs going down the drain, the ore runs out and the mine closes, and they can't even blame the socialists. They planned it wrong. They should have run out of ore when we were still in office; they could have blamed us.

Where are the scare headlines in the Vancouver "Fun" and the Vancouver "Pravda"?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, the Vancouver "Pravda" is the official mouthpiece on the editorial pages for that little coalition, right-winged group over there.

Here's the heart-breaking story of the town closing up, here's the heart-breaking story of this mine closing — and not a single word blaming it on Social Credit. Not a single word! Why, it's an act of God. He's back now that the socialists are gone! Oh, there they are; the righteous pound their desks in glee while the jobs, away they flee.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's 180 jobs down the tube.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, 180 jobs down the drain, and not a word. I want to bet you, Mr. Speaker, that if we had been in office there would have been screaming, hollering, yelling, and the member for North Vancouver–Capilano would have come in in the middle of the screaming and the hollering attempting to steer the middle course by saying: "Don't be emotional when you attack the socialists — do it rationally; it's their fault."

My, my, my. The Vancouver "Fun" and the Vancouver "Pravda," and there won't be one front-page story saying that Social Credit scared the mine out of British Columbia; Social Credit drove the investors out; Social Credit turned the ore rotten; social Credit used terror tactics; Social Credit is losing jobs. The hypocrisy of the big city press, the hypocrisy of this now government — oh, it makes one weep, if I had any tears left.

You know, Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign they went around this province and said 100,000 unemployed, which was false — 92,000 people out of jobs in British Columbia. There is a major amendment on their budget and what do they put up to defend them? A guy way down in the corner who, when he stood up, was mistaken for an attendant. Only when he got up to speak did they find out that he wasn't reading from a mislaid message in the House and that he actually was an MLA. That was the defence they had against this amendment — throwing that member into the cannon fodder only to be chewed up by his own leader who went out and had coffee.

What a disgraceful performance this government has put on with this feigned silence, this new demonstration of control. What a mockery they made of the sentences they spewed out of their public relations offices about mining, forests and jobs. People are losing jobs all over this province, and not a single cabinet minister has stood on his feet and defended the government against this amendment. Not one! They even had the Tory leader (Mr. Wallace) and the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) supporting our amendment. Things really must be hard up out there for that to happen. Even the free enterprisers who are left down there — the two of them — who sit in opposition can appreciate the serious problems in this province — 92,000 people unemployed: cutbacks in health, cutbacks in social services, cutbacks all the way through on services to people. It is an opportunity for that cabinet to stand up and justify itself, and they push in a guy who sits down in the corner. Then when he stood up to speak, the Premier looked down there in amazement and said: "Who cut that string?" That's right.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Chabot said in the newspaper on January 29 that he is going to put some confidence back in the

[ Page 540 ]

mining industry. You're going to put some ore back in the ground, Mr. Minister? "B.C. Copper, Light Dimmed." There's another one.The Story here on Friday, September 17, 1976: "The future of the industry remains heavily dependent on world market conditions." Do you know who said that? It was a chief spokesman for the mining industry. World market conditions! A year before they were blaming the NDP, and so were these fellows and ladies. My, there goes the lady who knew all about the secret police force. Yes.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I do believe I have an echo. (Laughter.) I believe it. Yes, I believe I have an echo back there!

MR. LEA: Little Sir Echo.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, little sirocco. Oh, it's not an echo, it's only Jim — excuse me, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) . We have always known that we have heard hollow sounds reverberating in that empty chamber. Once in a while they sneak out involuntarily, but it's okay, Mr. Minister, you made it back in the cabinet. Whew! Yep, he almost didn't make it! But now he's been trained; now he's whipped into shape. Now he sits there and hasn't got a single word to say about an amendment that damns this government for not finding a job. He's okay, gang. He's back in where he wanted to be, and he was one o f the say-anything do-anything, write-anything-to-get-back-into-power gang. The only thing is, he is going to be lonely because, through you, Mr. Speaker, his old buddy who used to be yappier than he was in demanding jobs, is on the skids.

Do you remember how it used to go for him, Mr. Speaker? Not the little mousy meow that we get tonight, but it used to be the heavy, machismo — "Jobs!" he used to scream. Why, my goodness, it put out 100-watt light bulbs in this very chamber when that member screamed for the ordinary people of this province. Now he's back in the cabinet, and all we get is…"meow." Can't you see his fighting constituency when the people hear what I have to tell them, when I report what the minister said when we debated this amendment and we demanded jobs and social services for people? I'll have to get up and say: "Oh, yes, one cabinet minister did speak. He said 'meow.'"

MR. LEA: A pussycat.

MR. BARRETT: He's turned into a pussycat. You're right. Mr. Member.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, some people have been given relief. Do you remember that word used during Depression days — "relief"? Yes, some people have been given relief. The millionaires on Monday gave $30 million relief to the millionaires while 92,000 people go without jobs. Not one move, not one twitch, not one wink of the eye of any initiative from this government to help these people who are unemployed in this province get jobs. The $30 million given to the municipalities of this province would provide a lot of jobs in building roads, sewers, sidewalks that are much needed all over this province, but you're giving it to the millionaires, and then you use the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) to get up and say: "Oh, we've got to let the millionaires stay happy."

Mr. Speaker, who comes first in this province, the millionaires or the ordinary people who deserve some security and jobs? The silence is deafening. You don't show one iota of concern for the average people. You got exactly what you wanted — power. You said anything, did anything; you've got it and you don't care a fig what happens out there.

It's been 15 months when you could have demonstrated what you believed free enterprise to be. It's been 15 months when you could have said the private enterprise system can provide jobs, can provide security, can provide social services, and now you say: "Well, we're leaving it to the private sector and nothing has happened."

Your philosophy is on trial and your silence condemns it. There are people out there, Mr. Speaker, who believed those ads that the free enterprise system and its competitive nature would provide them an opportunity to make a living. There were people out there who believed, because of your advertising, that private investment was going to bring a bonanza to British Columbia if we could only get rid of the NDP.

You say that you don't want to interfere in the private sector, Mr. Speaker. Let the public of this province know that after 15 months, because of your laissez-faire attitude, there are no jobs. I ask the people of this province to consider what would have happened if Ocean Falls had been happening under their government when they were going to close it up, and Can-Cel, and Plateau Mills, and Panco Poultry, and the Princess Marguerite, and Kootenay Forest Products. Every single one of the basic industries that you brag about in your Crown corporations was started or initiated by the NDP. That was dangerous socialism, but you have not sold a single one of them off — not a single one of them.

Are you prepared to say that perhaps private industry and the free-enterprise system sometimes need a helping hand and some leadership by a direct investment through equity? Not on your life. You give

[ Page 541 ]

the millionaires $30 million in a tough year and say: "Okay, gang, we hope you'll put it in the economy!" It's an incredible performance by a self-satisfied government sitting there under orders to play the game in this House, remain silent, and hope that all the problems will go away.

Mr. Speaker, it has already been catalogued in this House as to the revenue projections for next year from the natural resources. It is already a catalogued fact that those natural-resource revenues will be down. We had one of the most convoluted speeches ever given in this House yesterday from the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) when he stood up and said: "Just because the industry is making more money, just because sales are better, does not mean that we should collect anything more in taxes. As a matter of fact, they are going down: from $80 million projected a year ago on revenue from lumber sales down to $50 million." The minister stood up and gave us industry's dictated speech with the imprimatur of the Premier on it saying that laissez faire means: "Good for you, gang!"

The working people of this province who are already working, who that member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) spoke about, are asked to pay more out of their income tax. You have the nerve to come into this House and start attacking working people who are on hourly wages and say to them, "tighten your belt — you're asking for too much, " when it was your government, Mr. Member, who doubled the ferry rates, who put up four points on the income tax, who socked it to the poor? Mr. Speaker, while they give these huge handouts to industry and while the millionaires get $30 million, he's got the temerity to come in this House and say: "Oh, we're paying the workers too much per hour." Who's going to buy the cars? Who's going to buy the gas?

Interjection

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, Mein Kempf speaks again. Mr. Speaker, that's right.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Speak up.

MR. BARRETT: What's that again? I can't hear you, Mr. Member.

MR. LEA: You haven't spoken in the debate! You speak up!

MR. BARRETT: Stand up and speak in the debate!

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: What's that? You're not eligible for campgrounds — you're not old enough.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Ohhh, Mr. Member! Ohhh! He's afraid to repeat it in the House. You know, you stand up in the debate, Mr. Member, when you talk about guts. You stand up in the debate! Let's hear you stand up! Let's hear you….

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, those are those great little voices from the back benches: "Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip!" Stand up and defend your government, and defend yourself. When it comes to the kind of….

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes. Right, Mr. Member.

There has been a decrease in the number of jobs in the mining industry. There are more people unemployed than at any time since the Depression in many ways, in many areas; a 13 per cent increase in bankruptcies in one year under Social Credit, and you sit there all afternoon, all evening, and not one cabinet minister stands up to defend the government's actions.

Had you ever considered that you might be part of getting this province going again rather than wrecking it?

Had you ever considered announcing an immediate reduction in ferry rates so that we can get ready for, hopefully, a better tourist year next year?

Had you ever considered an immediate reduction in the sales tax, as suggested by the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), so that the building industry could get going? Has it ever occurred to you that that $30 million collected could go into the municipalities and get jobs going at the local level, so that people could pay taxes and keep their homes?

Has it ever occurred to you that with the amount of underestimating you've done in the budget — up to $125 million — there is enough work in reforesting in the forest industry that could be planned for this spring and initiated by this government?

There is not one single positive step to provide jobs in British Columbia; there is not one, single statement to give some comfort and succour to the people who have relied on basic guaranteed incomes such as Mincome. You have set up a Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) who panders to every base, ignorant prejudice against people who need help.

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a smug, content, powerful group in power, representing powerful

[ Page 542 ]

groups that wanted to have power in British Columbia. It is the last hurrah of the old downtown Vancouver establishment, back in power through a coalition one more time. But there is not a bit of leadership, not a bit of commitment, not a bit of understanding.

I find it ironic that not only did they reject the member for Nanaimo's (Mr. Stupich's) challenge to have public debates on the budget…. That's what the member for Nanaimo said to the Minister of Finance: "Let us have public debates outside this chamber and around the province to discuss the budget if you believe so much in what you're doing." Not only did they reject that, but when the opportunity comes in the House — they won't even participate in the amendment in the House, let alone outside.

Mr. Speaker, I have to wistfully recall some of these experiences to you about the wild bleatings of that group when they were in opposition, and their deep concern for the ordinary citizen. I remember the Premier when he was Leader of the Opposition running around British Columbia saying, "Not a dime without debate." Mr. Speaker, for the millionaires it's millions of dollars without debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. BARRETT: Millions of dollars without debate — that's what's going on.

We find that in the time in North America when a new President in the United States has recognized that there is a need for government entry into the economy, when they have attempted to stimulate our neighbour's interests in the south by $30 billion in a budget supplement presented by President Carter, what do we find here in British Columbia? We find a completely opposite direction.

You are bereft of a single idea, a single commitment, a single direction that would give those people out there in this province who are waiting on you as a new government some hope, some thought that you care, some belief that someone in Victoria is listening to them in their anguish as they wait for unemployment insurance or welfare, or as their mortgage payments become due on their houses.

Who was it that said it more eloquently than I in this House? One single voice from the past of Social Credit said it more eloquently thanI. It was Cyril Shelford, the member for Skeena….

MR. MACDONALD: Speaking in the halls.

MR. BARRETT: Speaking in the halls. That's right, Mr. Former Attorney-General.

He's no millionaire. He joined Social Credit when it was really a grassroots party. He stood in his place and said: "What is your philosophy? What is it that I can take home to my community?" He has to go home to a community that has unemployment of over 20 per cent; he has to go back to a community that has hundreds of homes for sale; he has to go back to a community that has many storefronts available because small businesses have gone broke. Sooner or later that member will have to leave this chamber, go back and be confronted with questions on the Main Street in his small town. What message can he bring them from a government he had so much hope in?

MR. WALLACE: Come on across, Cyril. You'd be better off over here.

MR. BARRETT: No, he wouldn't, Mr. Member. I want to tell you why he wouldn't be better off.

I have witnessed in this House MLAs who have gone from this side into Social Credit, and they are not vilified. But you know better than I, Mr. Member, one member whose name I won't mention who left Social Credit on the basis of principle and how he was vilified. I wouldn't suggest any names, Mr. Member, but I saw the abuse given to a member for Oak Bay when he left Social Credit on principle. The abuse he took! But when it goes the other way, it's all right. So don't suggest that to the member for Skeena. He's had enough pushing around as it is.

Mr. Speaker, 92,000 are unemployed, hundreds of people now available for what they thought was Mincome are not getting it, and handicapped people have been shown absolutely no sympathy or understanding by this government, but just the smallest example of all is one I want to conclude with, because it demonstrates the absolute indifference this government places on the problems that people have in a very complex society.

What is the value of all your dollars, what is the value of all your material possessions, if inner peace and inner happiness and some personal comfort and security can't be found in terms of personal relationships? Mr. Speaker, while the family life in North America is being devastated, while a complex society rages on with great battles of complex political structure, while complex and intricate communities are developing and abolishing themselves all over North America, that greatest fabric of all, family and family life, has been torn asunder in North America, and not because of any particular political belief but because of the absence of deep roots of any family life in an atavistic society that measures success only on the basis of the acquisition of material goods.

A quiet all-party move was made in the chamber by the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) to bring

[ Page 543 ]

together religious communities in this province on a cooperative venture to examine what politicians, the state and church could do to preserve family life — the first time that the religious communities in this province have been challenged by an all-party committee with no political advantage for any group to gain. No publicity boasting any particular political philosophy in advancing this idea, but four sincere, dedicated elected MLAs cooperating in a way that we see plaintively appealed to by letters-to-the-editor and editorials all across this province: why can't they get together and work together? They did, Mr. Speaker — four of them, and they are to be congratulated for it.

They met with the religious communities of this province, representing the established churches, evangelical churches, Wesleyan, Calvinist — every single secular approach — the East Indian religious community and the Jewish community. Every religious community was brought together and asked: "Would you help us as we are the lawmakers and you are the people who appeal to spirit? Help us to re-establish some roots and strength in the basic family life in a very complex society." The community worked for a year and a half, and did outstanding work, quietly. It brought together a semi-ecumenical movement, not only in politics in that committee but also in the religious community itself.

In December of this year, after that conference was held, as a measure of economy, this government cut them off. And it's not the $60,000 this government cut off that is the measure; it is the philosophy, or absence of it, that would allow a government to stop this kind of development in a community that needs healing. The $60,000 was not an issue to make or break the government; it was a statement of the basic philosophy of a government that says: "Make a buck. Survive. Acquire goods. Family life will survive on its own." I tell you that the cutting off of that conference is a more symbolic argument in favour of this amendment than anything else. I said earlier that you are shameless, and you've proven it so far in the debate on this amendment.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I accept the invitation of the opposition for the government to respond to this debate. We've been waiting for them to speak to the motion but, quite frankly, I've been a little discouraged. We've had personal attacks. We've had discussion about everything except the amendment, so after I move adjournment, tomorrow the government will take the full day and evening to respond to this motion.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:03 p.m.