[ Page 1293 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply; Executive council estimates.

On vote 18.

Mr. King –– 1293

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1293

Mr. Lauk –– 1304

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 1309

Mr. Skelly –– 1312

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

(continued)

On vote 18: executive council $713,648 -

continued.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Chairman, I had asked the Premier a series of questions prior to leaving his estimates a couple of days ago - I forget what day it was.

Interjection.

MR. KING: No, the Premier did not answer, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps to refresh his memory, a number of other opposition members asked questions following my plea to the minister to give some statements to the House. Then the minister changed the order of business to consideration of bills. So, Mr. Chairman, to refresh the Premier's memory, I had talked about the severe unemployment rate which is evident in my own constituency. I pointed out that recent figures released by the Unemployment Insurance Commission in the city of Nelson indicated an unemployment rate that tops 20 per cent in that particular area of the province. With some categories of workers it is in the area of 33 per cent.

Mr. Chairman, I submit that this is an emergency situation, one which we have not witnessed in the province in postwar years of that type of unemployment. I suggest to the Premier that it calls for some very unusual and very decisive initiatives by the government. I'm particularly concerned in that area because a number of small mills have had to close down or curtail their production because of the unavailability of cedar supplies.

I have discussed this matter with the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) on a number of occasions and I know that he is trying to do something about it. But basically what I'm suggesting to the Premier and what I'm requesting of him is that he give some indication to the House of what the government is planning to come to grips with what is an extremely acute emergency. I recognize that this situation is not just peculiar to my own riding. I recognize that there are other areas of the province where pockets of unemployment reach the same enormous proportions. The overall provincial rate is severe enough.

But I think the very least the government can do, Mr. Chairman, is to try to initiate and mount some special employment programmes in those areas of the province where unemployment is most severe. It's not just a hardship on those people who are out of work at the moment. The overall impact on the local communities and the local economies involved threatens and jeopardizes the continued existence of many of the small businesses in the area.

Mr. Chairman, to highlight what I'm saying I think a report in the Vancouver Province just the other day - February 23 - gives classic emphasis to the point that I'm making. There's a headline on the second front page of the Vancouver Province of February 23 indicating: "B.C. Bankruptcies Heading for a Record." It goes on to list the number of not only personal bankruptcies which have been experienced this year, but certainly many of the small businesses that are being forced into bankruptcy also.

The problem is, Mr. Chairman, that unless something is done it is going to take many, many months, even if the economy does pick up, to recapture the lost incentive, the lost production, the lost thrust of the economy caused by this kind of situation, this kind of lag and bankruptcies. It certainly has an impact in the terms of reducing the confidence in the climate for investment in the province of British Columbia, and consequently the creation of employment opportunity.

I think the Premier will agree that this is a very severe, very acute situation. So I'm basically asking of the Premier as the leader of the government, as the president of the Treasury Board, as the chairman of the executive council, that he give to the House some clear and definitive statement on what programmes the government has in mind on a short-term basis.

I recognize that in terms of trying to turn the economy around that's a long-term proposition. But I'm suggesting that in the meantime there are tragic circumstances for many, many people in particular areas of the province and I think the government has an obligation to come to grips with those particular situations on a short-term basis. So I would ask the Premier if, indeed, the government has any definitive plans and, if so, what they are and through what particular mechanism he intends to initiate those plans, Mr. Chairman.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, I've covered it before, but through you to the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, one of the agreements we expect to sign with the federal government under DREE is the incentive part of the programme. The member quite rightly brings to light that there are several pockets in various areas of the province of high unemployment. It is because what little DREE we've had has been so limited and limited to such a small area of the province that we've never had a

[ Page 1294 ]

comprehensive programme to come to grips with in all of the province of areas that suffer in this manner. Earlier in debate on estimates - the Minister of Economic Development's estimates and others -we've identified areas that have had high unemployment for some time, not just this year but last year and the year before and the year before. The member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) speaks of Terrace, and it's been a continuing problem and there are these areas in various areas of the province. That's why the proposal we have before the federal government on the incentive part of the DREE programme would declare the total province an incentive area. That's why, under the five-year programme which would start April I of this year, that would be immediate. We're hopeful to have some immediate confirmation or early confirmation because the time of the agreement to this programme is drawing close. The various aspects of the incentive programme would deal specifically with areas such as this. There are a variety of options within this programme that are now under discussion and that's the final fine tuning that's going on with the government of Canada. It's questioning some of the programmes we've suggested as to the ways we can help the small businessman and work in this area. Hopefully, this will be ready for April I - to take force April I - and that's exactly why we've asked to have the total province declared a DREE area. Picking a particular region just hasn't worked and the member, as well as all of us, knows full well that that hasn't helped the province and has been one of the reasons why it's been very difficult to come to agreement on the incentive part of the DREE programme.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry that the Premier's remarks do very little to encourage me. I want to point out to the Premier that the DREE programme is generally a very, very poor one in terms of coming to grips with employment opportunity in the province. I want to point out and explain to the Premier precisely what occurs as a result of the federal DREE programme being used to stimulate new industry in the province. I say that by and large it's been an utter failure. Rather than serving to stimulate and increase employment in the province, the converse is true, because DREE basically provides dollars for new plants related to the number of jobs created. Over the years, I have personally witnessed many, many DREE approvals. for plant renewal -where plant renewal either took the form of the transfer of the physical facility from, say, Vancouver Island to the lower mainland, or to somewhere up into the interior, or, indeed, right out of the province.

The problem has been that the moneys are related to the jobs created, but the ultimate result was the closure of an old plant, employing perhaps 100 employees, to a new and automated plant employing 50 people. So in fact, the government subsidy resulted in a net loss of jobs of 100 per cent. The Premier should be intimately familiar with this problem because I have on my desk today a copy of a letter, directed to the Premier's office from a trade union in the lower mainland area, outlining precisely this problem which is going on today. Now the Premier has that letter, I presume. I have a copy of it. So I want to say to the Premier, Mr. Chairman, that the DREE programme is not an adequate mechanism for coming to grips with unemployment of the proportions that we face in British Columbia today.

Now it's true that unemployment, generally speaking, has been a problem over the past number of years, regardless of the administration in office. There's no question that it's more severe and far more acute today than it has been in any postwar year. Aside from the political rhetoric we can get involved in as to why that is the reality of the situation, I am, quite frankly, extremely concerned when 112,000 -and I suspect that's a very conservative number - of our people in British Columbia are unemployed. I am extremely concerned when I see in my own riding 20 per cent, and in the riding of my colleague for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) an average of 20 per cent unemployment with pockets of particular people - young people - exceeding 30 per cent.

Now this is an emergent situation, and I say that it's not good enough for the provincial government to hold out the obligation to the federal government to come in and accept the responsibility for coming to grips with this emergent situation. That's not good enough. Certainly that should be a continuing goal over the next few years, as it indeed was over the past.

Mr. Chairman, I want to draw to the Premier's attention the fact that our government, in 1972, introduced the Special Provincial Employment Programmes Act. It was funded in 1972, 1 believe, with $20 million ... I beg your pardon - 1973 was the first years. In 1973, it was funded with $20 million to create job opportunities, not only for university and high school students, so that they could gain some career experience in various areas of potential employment. In 1974, we funded that programme with $30 million, Mr. Chairman, and the unemployment was nothing near the level of the problem that exists today. In 1975, we funded that programme with $20 million.

Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, this programme was not solely directed toward university and high school students. Those hard-core unemployed cases and those welfare cases who were capable of working qualified for assistance under this programme as well. It was a great success. These weren't dollars lost. The administrative cost was kept very low because there was no bureaucracy hired to run the programme.

[ Page 1295 ]

Many of the jobs created were those in the field of co-ordinating the programme; many were in the government service doing worthwhile tasks in the forestry branch and the Highways department;, many were in the communities assisting municipalities with projects that they could not otherwise have afforded. The regional districts and small businesses and farmers all benefited under this programme, and the multiplier effect from the wages stimulated the economy, created the constant demand on the small store-owners and the small businessmen in those communities. That's the kind of economic initiative we need today.

Mr. Chairman, it's not good enough to wait till the end of April in the hope that the federal government will come in with funding. After all, Mr. Premier -without being very nasty or trying to embarrass the Premier, Mr. Chairman - this government campaigned just 14 months ago on the basis that they were going to move this economy and create employment and initiative.

Economic times are tough, and I've seen no initiative, I've seen no imagination, and, Mr. Chairman, I'm just reluctant under these circumstances to pay the Premier, to give him his salary, until 1 get some assurance, some indication that this government is even sitting down as a cabinet and considering positive initiatives that can be taken now. Mr. Chairman, it's fine for the Premier to wait till the end of April, but I want to tell you that every day of this week, and every day of this month and next, working people in this province are running out of unemployment insurance benefits simply because they did not gain enough employment opportunity last year to provide them with the necessary stamps to gain benefits for a year. Many of them have been on those benefits now for five, six and eight months, and each and every day, as we sit here debating the Premier's salary, working people and their families are running out of any source of continued sustenance for themselves and their families. Their homes are being jeopardized. They have mortgage payments to make. 1 talked about this bankruptcy rate. They're real people we're dealing with, and 1 don't think it's good enough to sit here and say: "Well, perhaps at the end of April we'll get some DREE money from the federal government."

The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is proud of all the cutbacks he's been able to make in welfare to people. Now people have to be sustained on something. Either - and preferably - they have to be sustained through gainful employment, where employment opportunity is available, but if indeed it is not, then they must have available to them either unemployment insurance benefits or social assistance through the Ministry of Human Resources.

Mr. Chairman, not only is unemployment higher than ever before since the last world war, but the Unemployment Insurance Commission has cut drastically back on benefits. There is a much more stringent test before one can qualify. We are witnessing precisely the same thing here in British Columbia through the Department of Human Resources - a much more stringent test before people can qualify. I ask the government to think seriously - about what the consequences of this approach are going to be.

I suggest that if we stick our head in the sand and we allow these people to fend for themselves without an indication of concern, without any special programme being mounted to assist them, we are going to see an unprecedented increase in crime in this province because no British Columbia father is going to watch his children go hungry. It's a natural reaction. These things are all related socially. On top of that, it has a negative effect on the whole economic cycle. It is self-defeating.

1 ask the Premier to think very seriously and '. to reflect on the plight of real people out there who cannot wait until the end of April to get some support, and some glimmer of hope that they are going to be restored to a productive role in our society. Mr. Chairman, I hope the Premier doesn't become petulant like he did the other night and accuse me of filibustering his estimates. It is not that at all. 1 know the Premier is a very wealthy man, and that's fine - no problem. But I suspect that because he is he really does not understand the reality of some poor individual with a wife and children to look after, with a home to support, burdened down with payments and with no source of income.

Mr. Chairman, 1 can only conclude that because I think the Premier owes to this House and owes to the people of this province some clear statement of initiative. He promised initiatives when he ran for election. He promised to get the economy going. He talked about freedom. He talked about "working with BilF' in a team effort to get the economy moving.

Well, there are 112,000 people out there tonight, Mr. Chairman, who are waiting very, very anxiously for the Premier, who claimed he had a dynamic team, to demonstrate that dynamism and waiting for some indication that relief is in sight for them either in the form of job opportunity - and that's the preferable objective - or certainly some commitment from the government that there is at least an understanding and some grave concern about the plight of so many people in the province tonight.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the member is - I hate to say it - ill-informed or doesn't keep up with announcements that have been made by the government, because the very concerns he expressed about DREE are the very reasons this government

[ Page 1296 ]

announced that it was advocating a new approach to the DREE incentive programme to the government of Canada.

These programmes are in place and ready to go. They get away from the concept of dealing in one single pocket. We asked the federal government to co-operate with us in declaring the total province available for the incentive grants. Also, we have asked for the money to be developed over a five-year programme. We have a variety of programmes that will deal regionally through local governments in various ways without giving direct grants to specific industries to solve the very problem that that member mentioned, problems that I identified with the old original incentive grant that was altered, that was first introduced in the mid-I 960s.

That is why we are breaking new ground in this new DREE proposal. On the incentive part of the DREE proposal this province is breaking ground -ground that should have been broken before, ground that would end the type of programmes that didn't do the job. The fact that this province never, in the last few years, put this type of effort forward to developing those types of approaches and never came to any substantial agreements with the federal government is the reason that these areas have some problems today. We are doing something about it.

I would have expected that that member, during the very numerous days that they had to deal with the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , would have posed those questions to that minister whose department has developed these programmes, has developed this proposal and has broken this new ground with the federal government. It is unfortunate that those days were spent attempting to smear and turn up scandal. Those members have spent more time looking backwards trying to fight the last election, trying to find some reason why they lost and explain it away to their supporters and their friends.

This government has broken new ground with the government of Canada. We have created a programme that will make a meaningful contribution to raising the level of employment all over this province. When that member mentions confidence, Mr. Chairman, let me tell you that confidence is returning to this province, confidence that was lost during the administration in which that member for Revelstoke-Slocan was a minister of the Crown. It was a time when many people lost confidence in a province that, until their administration, had a record of growth and economic success unparalleled in this country. That confidence that took British Columbians - and I say British Columbians, not governments - years to earn in providing opportunity, and seizing opportunity in this province, was lost in just three short years of administration by that government.

Now I had no intention - as that member has done - of bringing back their record, because ever since we came into this session that party over there has spent more time in looking backward, trying to justify to themselves and their supporters why they lost. Every time we've tried to deal with the present and the future they keep coming back to the old election in 1975, and when that gets tough they go back to 1965, and when that gets tough they go back to 1955, and when that gets tough they go back to 1945.

1 want to say that confidence is returning to the province. That member, Mr. Chairman, mentioned confidence. Let me tell you that confidence is returning - with individuals, with small business, and with large business. Just recently we've seen a witness of confidence that didn't take place while those members and that party was government, with Crown Zellerbach announcing a major investment programme in this province to upgrade the facilities in the forest industry, in the lower mainland and in the coastal area. That was followed, Mr. Chairman, by a major announcement just this week, from MacMillan Bloedel, of $450 million over the next five years in an investment programme. That's in the forest industry, which has gone through some difficult times. But they're showing confidence because they feel the opportunity is there today in British Columbia, an opportunity that was being denied them these last few years.

It's not just happening on the coast; it's happening in the interior. In Quesnel a new plywood mill is proposed. It's happening in Houston, with new sawmill facilities being proposed by Weldwood and Eurocan. That's just in the forest industry and those are just the larger companies. But I can tell you that if those members would take the trouble to go out and speak to the people you find investment coming back by individuals. You don't have to wait for the statistics, because statistics are a year late or two years late. Go out and talk to the people who will be creating the statistics which will be reported next year.

Mr. Chairman, these are the people who, when I was in Vancouver today, came up and said they're bringing their money back from Alberta because they know there's opportunity now in British Columbia. Or, as a person told me last week, they're bringing their money back from Washington state because opportunity has returned to British Columbia. These were just ordinary people. These weren't the MacMillan Bloedels or the Crown Zellerbachs. These are the people who were afraid to invest in their own province, who lost confidence during the administration when that member for Revelstoke-Slocan was a minister in that former government. The people are regaining confidence in this province. The investment that they;are prepared

[ Page 1297 ]

to make now - the initiative they're starting to show - will create the jobs next year and the year after and the year after. Some of that activity is starting to create jobs immediately.

That member well knows, Mr. Chairman, as he was formerly the Minister of Labour, that it takes lead-in time to start projects, to get them rolling and to create the opportunity to work. He knows full well that, at this particular time, we're bearing the results of three and a half years of no confidence and not much public investment in this province. Mr. Chairman, I find it strange that that member continually tries to justify in this House, by those long speeches - the same speech over and over and over again - fighting for the leadership of that party, trying to pretend that he wasn't there with Dave and that it was all Dave.

AN HON. MEMBER: Looks like he's winning, too.

HON. MR. BENNETT: And if you don't know who Dave is, he's the fellow sitting next to him with the sick smile - the sick, forced smile, sitting next to him, and everybody remembers him.

AN HON. MEMBER: We'll never forget him. ,

HON. MR. BENNETT: Let me say that confidence is returning, and that is going to be the key to increased employment opportunity in this province. You know that last year, Mr. Chairman, 29,000 new jobs were created in British Columbia - more jobs than were created in 1975 - at a time when the Canadian economy was starting to slip.

British Columbia today, just like it was in 1975, is going in the opposite direction to the Canadian economy. When the Canadian economy was going up during their administration, the British Columbia economy was going down. Now that the Canadian economy is slipping, here we are in British Columbia reversing the trend. What do all the economists predict? They predict that British Columbia will lead the way in economic growth this year, along with Alberta. The people believe it too. Those who invest and create jobs believe it and are showing that belief. Crown Zellerbach and MacMillan Bloedel don't invest hundreds of millions of dollars without the confidence that this economy will grow.

More important than that, it's the people, and all of us in this province.... Talk to the people. Don't wait for the statistics. They'll tell you they're bringing their money back. They're starting to invest. These are the people to whom you talked a year ago, or last year ... and everybody in the province knows at least one person who said he was taking his money out of the province or he was leaving because there was no opportunity. You can't deny that fact, because the people all know someone, or have heard of someone who has done that, but they're the same people who are coming back. They're not the big people. They're the people who want jobs: the welders who went to Calgary, the people in the trades who found no opportunity here.

The Leader of the Opposition can sit over there and mutter. It's called whistling up your spirits. He knows full well that this province is on the move again. He knows full well that those very people in this province who are showing confidence again know that it wasn't very long ago that he was in the Maritimes. ',

HON. R.J. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): What did he say there?

HON. MR. BENNETT: What did he say there? He said he hoped things were bad in British Columbia and he was enjoying every minute of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

HON. MR. BENNETT: He doesn't care about the people, Mr. Chairman. That former Premier and Leader of the Opposition would rather see people miserable and hungry and unemployed so he can try to use it for political advantage. He has no hope. He has no feeling for this province. What he has a feeling for is his doctrine of socialism - it's more important to him than people. It's more important than anything. He goes around with his phony stories.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What's he saying now? He's talking about proposed pipelines, pipelines that haven't yet been heard. Once he said "I've told them in New York. I've told them we'll take 15 per cent of any throughput on any oil pipeline that comes into British Columbia." He said: "The New York bankers are quaking because they know I'll do it." He's not even aware of the accord that is being signed between the federal government of Canada and the government of the United States that says: "Pipeline treaty close to signing." What does it say? Everybody knows this in the Legislature. It says:

"The Canadian and United States governments are ready to sign the treaty on pipelines initiated a year ago and considered a key step towards the approval of one or two competing pipelines to carry Alaska gas across Canada. The treaty, which still must be ratified by both governments . . ."

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): It still must be ratified!

[ Page 1298 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT:

". . . would be changed. It covers all hydrocarbons, pipelines, both present and future, carrying products for one country across the territory of the other. One of the key provisions prohibits. . .

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, if I could have some order....

MR. BARRETT: He's on my estimates!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Premier has the floor. Please proceed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, there's this shrill voice that keeps interrupting.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It says:

"One key provision prohibits the imposition of any throughput taxes or similar charges for hydrocarbons in transit. In effect, they would be treated as if they were traveling in bond. Just as important, it guarantees the security of products traveling in bond."

That member has had ample time to protest this treaty. You've heard not one word. Instead he goes around making empty threats to the air, talking as if the New York bankers were in steady communication with him.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Have you protested?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll tell you one thing, Mr. Chairman, and one reason to have a strong country and a responsible country, and one reason why I'm proud to be a Canadian: this country has always acted responsibly. It is irresponsible statements by some politicians on the provincial level that make me hope that this country never breaks up and falls into the hands of politicians like that.

As I was saying, this province has got proposals before the federal government concerning DREE and the incentive programme, but this province has made and taken initiatives on its own. We have restored vitality to the mining industry resulting in jobs to our people. Exploration is up; claim-staking is up; all the activity is up that will bring on stream the mining activity that didn't take place while that former government was in power. We've taken the initiative because, yes, that's one of the things we campaigned on - the government creating the opportunity for investment to take place so our people could work.

We said that when government's hand became too large for the resource dollar, larger than labour's, labour would suffer. We felt that suffering in British Columbia while they were government.

We've taken the initiative. Our programmes started last year and in just 15 months this province is starting to move because all the economists across Canada are saying: "The high-growth area of Canada against the national trend will be the west. British Columbia will lead Canada along with Alberta in all economic growth this year." We ourselves think that the gross provincial product will grow between 5 and 6 per cent this year, far in excess of the national average for other parts of Canada with the exception of wealthy Alberta, the only western province that's never had to suffer under a socialist government. It has never had to feel the heavy hand.

Here we had two days ago one of the members across there asking me if we would use the government to work against the property owners. "Use your authority, " he said. "You have ways in which you can do it." That identifies their thinking: expropriation by confiscation, by taxation; confiscation by regulation. I said that a better way to deal with the telescope in Similkameen is for the federal government to meet its responsibility and buy out those property owners around the 919-acre reserve the provincial government put on in 1960 -not confiscation, as was suggested in this House by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) .

I said we have the right to protect our citizens, and one of the rights they have is the right of ownership of property. It was one of the questions under which we fought the last election. It was one of the reasons why we have a new member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) in this House and one of the reasons why that new member for Coquitlam will be returned with a greater majority than ever. The people from Coquitlam who knew him best, knew him well, threw him out.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the noise is getting louder. I find it hard to make my words heard among this august gathering.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The Premier has the floor.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the investment confidence that's starting to be shown, the announcements that are being made, the fact that our people are coming back, the fact that things are

[ Page 1299 ]

starting to happen.... That's being felt out there in the constituencies, out there where the people are creating the activity that is going to create the jobs. We've had the experiment that the answer was in big government, and it has been a failure in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BENNETT: We've tried that experiment; we live with its results. Today we are on a rebuilding programme. That programme recognizes the rights and opportunities for individuals, and that this province can only be built now, as it was in the past, by individuals. Individuals will never build this province with government controlling them but with government giving them the opportunity to use their initiative, Mr. Chairman. It was that initiative that was destroyed; it was that initiative that was taken away. It was the lack of opportunity for them to show initiative that made them seek that opportunity elsewhere, to the detriment of our province.

It's easy for those members to show hatred of anything successful. They shout out their silly slogans, as the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) has done. They pick on firms or individuals - anyone who has created anything in this province is a subject for their attack. They hate success. They put failure on a pedestal because failure is the only thing they're used to. And I must say, with that as their goal, when they were government they met their goal very well.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, that was indeed a very pathetic performance. His dad used to be much better. The former Social Credit Premier used the old psychology of turning the attention from problems with his government by getting up and making emotional speeches in the House. The only difference between the father and the son is that the father made emotional speeches, not hysterical ones. That is the main difference.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not impressed by the performance. I made an appeal on behalf of real people in this province who are suffering today. I did not engage in discussions of the last election which the Premier condemns us for and then immediately launches into a tirade about.

Mr. Chairman, he hasn't answered the questions that I'm concerned about. Those are questions that face the province today. Those are questions that pose economic hardship to people.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier talks about investment by Crown Zellerbach and MacMillan Bloedel. The Premier knows very well that not one new job has been created in British Columbia by the announcements from Crown Zellerbach or MacMillan Bloedel. What they have done, Mr. Chairman, is simply announce their ordinary maintenance costs over a five-year period. That's plant renewal. It's ordinary maintenance costs! There is not one new job to be created out of any investment policy announced by either Crown Zellerbach or MacMillan Bloedel. That's true, Mr. Chairman.

So the Premier should take no hope from that. The Premier talks about return of confidence to the province. Mr. Chairman, if confidence is being returned to the province, surely that should manifest itself in his own riding. Surely there should be some indication in his own riding that there is confidence, that the economy is picking up and that employment opportunity is there. I talked about 20 per cent unemployment in my own riding. Mr. Chairman, would you believe that here's the Kelowna Today: "Local Jobless Rate Hits 20 Per Cent" - in the Premier's own hometown? And he gets up in this House and puts on a performance like that - a hysterical performance.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's never been that high.

MR. KING: The irony of it is, Mr. Chairman, that after attacking the leader of our party who had not been involved in the debate, he then has the gall to talk about hate. Hate exuded from his every pore when he made that inflammatory speech, Mr. Chairman.

He can't get over the fact that his popularity is waning in this province. He sees that the leader of the New Democratic Party is the real alternative in the province of British Columbia. Then he tries to come up with some artificial little gibes about some leadership contest going on on this side of the House. What a laugh! Mr. Chairman, we are a party that believes in one philosophy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Failure!

MR. KING: We have been consistent in that philosophy. Well, Mr. Chairman, that was the Premier's line. He said we had a philosophy. We put failure on a pedestal, he said.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you, I never had the Premier on a pedestal. Never did I put the Premier on a pedestal. Mr. Chairman, if there was ever a failure in this province, it is the son of a notable politician who governed this province for 20 years but who had a heart and who had some compassion for people. The former Social Credit Premier earned his money, Mr. Chairman. He didn't have it handed to him on a silver spoon. He's not an artificial millionaire who gets up and makes speeches and condemns other politicians to dissipate his own responsibility for the shoddy performance of that government.

Interjections.

[ Page 1300 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. KING: What a sickening performance it was!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. KING: What's your problem, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: On all sides of the House, may I have just a little order, please? May says at page 418 of his 18th edition that good temper and moderation.... Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't you interrupt the Premier's speech?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! "Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language."

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: "Parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of his opponents in debate." I would suggest that that is good wisdom for this moment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: And it goes for both sides of the House.

MR. KING: 1 accept that, Mr. Chairman. 1 must admit 1 became a bit angry at times, particularly when our leader - for whom 1 have the utmost respect and confidence - is attacked, as a ruse to absolve the government of their responsibility for the terrible unemployment crisis in this province tonight. When I see the Premier accusing the Leader of the Opposition, who was not even involved in this debate - the debate is on the Premier's estimates - and when I see an accusation hurled across the floor at any politician in this House - never mind one who has served this province for far more years than the boy-Premier of the province who had his seat passed on through the dynasty to him.... This man has earned his position in this province in public life. And when the accusation comes across, Mr. Chairman, that this man is deliberately trying to injure investment confidence in this province 1 think that is distemper. Absolute distemper! I wish, Mr. Chairman, you had drawn it to the Premier's attention. I'm happy to do so. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): He's demanding he retracts it.

MR. BARRETT: Shame on you, Garde.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan has the floor. Let's hear him.

MR. KING: I wanted to make this point, Mr. Chairman. I am concerned about the reality of unemployment. That is what I rose in my place for tonight to discuss, not to involve myself in an hysterical performance by the Premier on events past. I got no indication from the Premier that any new DREE programme is a fact, is signed. He talks about discussions with the federal government, Well, we had discussions with the federal government too to improve the DREE agreement, to improve the Vocational Training Act in this province, to obtain more dollars for British Columbia. Every province has been undertaking these discussions since time immemorial. My point is that there are some successes, some disappointments. I suspect that the current government will certainly experience the same frustrations - no problem.

My point is, Mr. Chairman, that there are real people out there suffering tonight. I simply wanted to get an indication from the government as to whether they intend to undertake any special programme to ease the suffering, to ease the emergent conditions under which I would suggest possibly 250,000 people in this province find themselves tonight. There are 112,000 unemployed - with families and children involved we are talking about something like 250,000 British Columbians.

I don't think, Mr. Chairman, that this is an issue of such insignificance that we can cast it aside by some hysterical diatribe in this Legislature. If the Premier takes the position that, "look, our government is going to wait and rely on the private sector, " he should be frank enough with this House to state that. If he doesn't believe in a special employment programme, let him say so. He can say so in rational terms. That will be a difference of opinion and philosophy between our party and theirs, Mr. Chairman.

That can be done in rational, responsible terms, in moderation that one should expect from the leader of this province, not in an exercise in petulance, an exercise in spoiled-boy ramblings. That is a shocking thing when we are talking about people who are facing a crisis in British Columbia tonight. I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that I am not a bit impressed. I am prepared to stay in this House and discuss the dilemma of these people as long as it takes to get some indication from that government that there is even an understanding and a concern for the plight of

[ Page 1301 ]

those people.

Mr. Chairman, before 1 close 1 want to say this. You know, this business of our leader being in jeopardy over here is a laugh and a ruse to divert attention from the government's responsibilities.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's certainly irrelevant!

MR. KING: Yes, it's irrelevant, Mr. Chairman, absolutely irrelevant. I want to point out to all the members of this House that we are a party that is united in a philosophy which you don't agree with, and that's fair enough. We should be mature enough to understand what each other's philosophy is and disagree like mature human beings. But I accept that every member of this House, regardless of the philosophy, hopes for the best for the province of British Columbia. Our difference of opinion is in terms of the methods of achieving our goals.

I hate to see the hate and the venom spilling across the floor, Mr. Chairman, particularly from those people in government who should be responsible for setting a better climate. It starts in this House. But 1 want to say that we are people united in a common approach to economic and social problems. If anyone thinks for one moment that we lack confidence in a man whom 1 think is one of the outstanding public servants in Canada, they are deluding themselves.

1 would point out that we do not open up our ranks to people from across the floor to serve the convenience of some election victory. We would not take in people who swear allegiance to other parties. You are the people across there with a coalition of opportunists. 1 think it ill-behoves the Premier to point the finger over here at a united party with a leader whom we are very, very proud of.

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make that point, and 1 won't dignify it with further discussion again.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: I think the point should be made. 1 think it is a bit crass and thick-skinned of a young Premier leading a coalition of opportunists to have the gall to point across and say there is some split over leadership in this party. That's a laugh. That's a real laugh!

But, Mr. Chairman, in any event, as I indicated earlier 1 presume that's a ruse to divert attention from the government's responsibility to deal with the economic and social ills of this province. The Premier has his salary before this Legislature tonight. He should be attempting to justify that salary by indicating what firm economic plans he has for this province, not indulging in attacks on members of the opposition. That's of no benefit to the unemployed.

Interjection.

MR. KING: It's not our estimates. They are the Premier's estimates. So, Mr. Chairman, I certainly hope that the Premier matures. I think if he talked to his father, perhaps he would understand that he has a more mature obligation to this House and to this province tonight.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I always enjoy the sanctimonious member for Revelstoke-Slocan who one day deals in the worst sort of diatribe and the next day stands up and puffs himself up and acts as some sort of conscience. What a sham we see in this House. I'm talking about a member of this House, Mr. Chairman, because after two weeks of estimates in which we've had the Economic Development minister talking about the proposals this government has made in a very serious way and after my estimates coming on the floor of this House last Friday - dealing in a very real way with proposals we've had for the incentive programme on DREE, the proposals we've got for economic activity and agriculture under ARDA - we've been subjected to all the shrill attacks from that opposition. I find it very strange for the member for Revels took e-Slocan to get so sanctimonious this evening.

I had expected that every member of this House would want to see British Columbia grow, because in growth and economic activity there will be employment for our people. It's easy to talk about caring for individuals, but when you're the very same people who destroyed that opportunity for them to work, then I think you should hang your head in shame.

I want to read an editorial from The Vancouver Sun. It says: "Odd Approach." And it says:

"To quote from the opposition leader and former Premier of British Columbia, David Barrett, speaking to a convention of social workers in Halifax, and after telling his audience that British Columbia has not been receiving any free-enterprise investment despite the election that turned out his New Democratic Party government and brought in a so-called free-enterprise coalition; and after saying that the new Social Credit government would not spend any money to develop resources and that things were getting worse in the province, Mr. Barrett concluded: 'And I'm loving every minute of it.' "

That's what the Vancouver Sun says and that's the report that came out of Halifax.

The Vancouver Sun editorial goes on to say:

"The general sluggishness in the economy was developing long before his government left office; the troubles that British Columbia resource industries are having selling their

[ Page 1302 ]

goods; the rise in unemployment that is tied to the industry's troubles - and Mr. Barrett is 'loving every minute of it' - an odd approach to public service."

And there were editorials in the Province - in fact there were editorials and news articles across this country. I say that that has never been my position, when we were in opposition or now as government since the day we were elected. In fact the reason we were elected is because the people of this province wanted the opportunity to do something about making their province grow. We campaigned, quite rightly, on getting British Columbia moving again, because it was going downhill. We campaigned that we would do something about helping the people of this province to help themselves by creating opportunity for the people of this province to show initiative. In the last session of the Legislature, and in this one, Mr. Chairman, we are giving them that opportunity through legislation. We are giving them that opportunity through regulation. But, above all, by attitude and conviction to the rights of opportunity for individuals, we have given them that opportunity.

I say tonight that they have seized that opportunity - whether the corporate giants of MacMillan Bloedel or Crown Zellerbach - and it's irresponsible to write off major announcements as merely normal expenditures because - it's funny -those expenditures were not very normal for the last four years when we had that other government.

It's significant that they think those announcements worthy of major announcement to signal their new re-found confidence in this province that they're willing to invest those type of dollars. We've talked about our lack of productivity in this province and our inability to compete. The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) keeps talking about how many jobs this expenditure will create.

MR. SKELLY: I didn't say that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, how many jobs would we lose if this expenditure was not made? How many jobs would we lose? Without this expenditure, without the new efficiency and better productivity, there will be no market for our lumber and our pulp and our wood products. And when there is no market, there'll be no employment for anyone. Your shortsighted economics of grab for so much as government - when you destroy the whole economics of an industry - is not the right way to serve the workers of this province in giving them opportunity. Government must share equitably with capital and labour to allow the industry to compete, and management has a responsibility to make sure they maintain and improve their facilities, so that those facilities can give greater productivity, so that that merchandise that we sell on the competitive market against our competitors in the whole world can price itself along with other countries who lately are unable to undercut us because of better production and lower costs.

It's no secret that British Columbia has lost markets in plywood to the United States. In fact, we're not even competitive in our own province. Plywood can come up here from the United States and undercut our own plywood. Yet it was British Columbia, a few years ago, that opened up the whole plywood market in Great Britain. And yet they stopped! When a company shows the type of planning and concern and confidence in this province to invest $450 million, they pooh-pooh it - how ridiculous! Mr. Chairman, I'm shocked. That could only be said by a party who would go down to Halifax and make the type of statements which are referred to in the news articles and the editorials in the Sun and The Province that were given such wide publicity across this country.

Mr. Chairman, we are doing something, and we have been doing something. It's not easy. Yes, there is high unemployment. There was high unemployment when we came in. It takes a long time to stop a slide downhill that we encountered when we took over government. It wasn't just a matter of increasing momentum. It was stopping the momentum that was going downhill, turning it around, and pushing uphill.

Mr. Chairman, we have achieved great success in turning around the psychology that there was no opportunity left in British Columbia.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Do you really believe that?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, today the people of British Columbia have renewed faith in their province. It was no secret that during the years of 1973,1974,1975, many people lost confidence in their ability to participate in building this province. They lost confidence, and I don't blame them when you have governments that talk about confiscation by taxation, when you have them with the philosophy that the only answer can be found in big government, and that perhaps there's no room left for opportunity for individuals except as employees of government, or government organizations, or quasi-government organizations.

Mr. Chairman, we've tried to create that opportunity for people. Those who are being employed and those who are involved in the major activity of claim-staking and renewed mining exploration are individuals - hundreds of individuals - who were denied the opportunity to go out and seek new minerals and create and add to the wealth of this province with new-found minerals. It's the individuals, the prospectors, who have renewed their

[ Page 1303 ]

faith in British Columbia. There are statistics today that show that claim-staking is up threefold that indicate they have seized the opportunity that was denied them before. There are the results of increased activity in the search for petroleum and natural gas products, and the fact that this has even helped the Crown in revenue to the treasury. We've received more money than ever in the bids for petroleum and gas rights in the Peace River country, and that's money to the treasury. That activity is employing people. There are more rigs drilling, and that activity will continue and accelerate.

But what about small business, and what are we doing in a major way that the government can provide additional opportunity?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Premier has the floor. Hon. members, please!

HON. MR. BENNETT: This government, Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to say, has led this province back into Confederation, and when we go to hold discussions on money that has been left lying on the table previously, and by that last government in programmes such as DREE, money that would have been there to help create jobs, money that was left lying because the last government could not conclude an agreement.... They even admit to that failure tonight. The fact is that we've shown new initiative, new proposals for new ways to make the incentive part of DREE work, and I'm not just saying we expect or we hope for an agreement. I say we'll have a new agreement that will take effect not the end of April, but April I of this year, when the anniversary date of renewing agreements will take place. Mr. Chairman, I say we'll have agreements dealing with northern roads to help develop the northern part of our province, and that will create jobs for our people. There will be more work on the Stewart-Cassiar road, Mr. Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) , and not only that, but this province is taking a long look and is involved in major studies with the government of Canada in finally working towards developing the northern transportation system - the northern transportation system which is of major economic interest not only to our province, but to Canada.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): They would have bought the Northland Prince.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, along with that, we're also studying ways to bring new value to our province with the development of additional commodities and major commodities such as coal.

This government is also working in ways to help small business and small businessmen. The B.C. Development Corporation has activity. The government also will be announcing new programmes during this year, and during this session, to help small business in this province and to help the individual. We take no comfort that we came in during an economic slide and that we're having difficulty turning it around, but I assure this House that that turnaround has taken place.

I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the strong economic base is being rebuilt. I assure you that economic activity by the large companies, by the medium-sized companies and by individuals in this province is starting to happen. I assure you also that this government is trimming its costs so that we won't have to go back in future for more and more dollars or involve ourselves in heavy borrowing against future generations to pay for services.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that of all the members of this government no one has worked harder than the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) .

MR. COCKE: Oh, brother! Nobody has run as fast, Bill! Come on!

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for New Westminster says nobody has run as fast - except those who talk so much but ran so fast away from giving any testimony to the hearings.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Who was that?

Anyhow, Mr. Chairman, that Minister of Economic Development has shown more initiative, more study and more involvement between the two governments in trying to solve the problems of this province than that former minister did in all the years he was in office in this province. When the results of these programmes are felt by British Columbians I am sure that they will thank this minister and this government. There is a lot of initiative being taken.

I want to assure the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) that the initiative being shown by that minister, the initiative that was discussed when his estimates were on the floor of this House for.... What was it - four, five, six days? The initiative that he explained to this House will bring back economic benefits many fold to the people of this province in the way of employment and in the way of opportunity. One thing you'll never hear this government say or that member say is the remarks attributed to some politician by the editorials and the newspaper reports from a certain member's speech in Halifax. I had hoped that we would have had a retraction to those remarks some time before this.

[ Page 1304 ]

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it is the tradition in the House that we sit in and that if there is an incorrect statement made the member waits until another member yields the floor and the correction can be made.

That editorial, Mr. Chairman, is incorrect. There was a letter written by one of the students to The Vancouver Sun that is yet to be published. There was a discussion, and the discussion took place about the economy. Then immediately after that a student asked me how I felt about being back in politics. I then made the statement that I had never enjoyed it more being back in politics. It was distorted, Mr. Chairman, to leave that.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Was the press wrong?

MR. BARRETT: The press is wrong and the editorial is wrong, Mr. Member.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Hon. members, it's an explanation that we are hearing. Let's listen to it.

MR. BARRETT: One of the students who was at the meeting sent a letter to the Victoria Colonist correcting the editorial and kindly sent me a copy. I have not seen the letter printed. That is, in fact, what took place, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: Do you want to see the letter?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Certainly. I would certainly give you a copy of the letter.

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! That is an attack upon the Chair and I ask you to withdraw.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Before we proceed, hon. members, I think that out of this evening's proceedings we can draw an illustration which has been.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

We can draw an illustration which perhaps would draw us all to the conclusion that orderly business cannot be conducted in this House when we disregard the time-proven standing orders and authorities. Beauchesne says it in perhaps the quaintest fashion when he says:

"A personal attack by one member upon another is an offence against the House in the person of one of its members which, on account of the respect due from every member to the character and dignity of the House, as well as the importance of preserving regularity in the debates, calls for the prompt interference of the Speaker in order that any irregularity into which a member may have been betrayed in the warmth of debate" - that's the part I like - "may be rectified, and that any expressions which may be disrespectful to the House or painful to the feelings of individual members may be explained, apologized for or retracted."

Any personal attack is an attack against the House, hon. members, and I think that our proceedings this evening are an indication of that.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver-Centre): What we heard tonight was a shrill, desperate speech on the part of the Premier. Your comments were very appropriate, Mr. Chairman. However, I don't think they would have been necessary had not the Premier launched the kind of speech that he launched this evening. In a fit of pique two days ago....

Oh, Mr. Ambassador. You just arrived in the nick of time, Mr. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) ; we've been having a glorious time.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Is some diplomacy needed?

HON. MR. GARDOM: There must have been a snowstorm in Maui. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: We've been bathing in the warmth of debate. Welcome into the tub.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier's speech was marked with rhetoric and abuse; it was filled with superficial homilies and cliches. He answered none of the charges nor answered any of the questions that were posed to him by opposition members. He went on to create illusions and mis-statements. Deep down, his policies - if they're to be represented by his speech - are shallow.

He describes a major announcement of $450 million. He knows full well, Mr. Chairman, that in this province capital investment has been stalled in

[ Page 1305 ]

the last 14 months and it continues to be stalled. That $450 million is the regular maintenance and upkeep of the existing plant of MacMillan Bloedel. He says new markets will be created by the maintenance and upkeep expenditures. Absolute nonsense! There are no new plants, no new jobs, and over a five-year period, $90 million a year into the economy of the province. The Premier believes that if you say something often enough - however outrageous it is -somebody, someplace might believe it.

HON. MR. MAIR: How about MEL Paving over and over and over again?

MR. LAUK: He says that all we were doing is trying to raise scandal. I want to make a correction: we did raise scandal in here. We did expose scandal on that side of the House.

HON. MR. MAIR: Innuendo! You exposed nothing!

MR. LAUK: We didn't try; we succeeded. We succeeded in showing that that scandal-riddled administration is trying to keep things under the table.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Say that outside the House!

MR. LAUK: Oh, I always say it outside the House. (Laughter.) Don't be so ridiculous!

The DREE programme for the total province was designed in 1973 by the NDP administration and it was announced in this House by me in 1974. There was an agreement in principle about the whole province having DREE assistance. But the Premier pretends he's got a new agreement. Any agreement that he's going to sign, or he thinks he's going to sign, on April 1 will include no more money and no newer concept than was already planned and already in the works.

HON. MR. MAIR: That's not what they say in Ottawa.

MR. LAUK: Oh! You know what they're saying in Ottawa? This government's about the biggest joke that ever came down the pike. For pure political reasons, they're taking our rather naive Premier by the hand during a rather difficult political period of time for the federal government, and they're wooing each other.

They're giving him nothing. He's coming away with nothing that wasn't already on the board. There is very little money in the DREE budget and there's very little money designed for British Columbia. When he talks about northern roads, good heavens, where was he for the past three or four years? Those agreements were signed a long time ago.

The only thing that's happened in 14 months, Mr. Chairman, is that he's lost an agreement that was negotiated by the NDP, the northwest rail agreement. He's lost it. He's going to try and recover it; but I'll tell you, you've lost a year's use of federal money. And these substantial losses that he's brought before this House and his so-called hard-working Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) he's talking about.... Substantial BCR losses are $70 million this year, and they threw away, for purely political reasons, the northwest rail agreement. The burden of those losses is on the ordinary taxpayers of this province. He has got the gall to say "investment confidence - things are rosy; happy days are here again." What a joke.

HON. MR. MAIR: No thanks to you.

MR. LAUK: What a joke. He says he is success and the NDP is failure. He says he is success. Success to him, Mr. Chairman, is protecting the millionaire. That's what he calls success. He goes out to say to the ordinary working families: "Why don't you have enough gumption to inherit a hardware store? What's wrong with you?"

I'll tell you what success is to me and to this party, Mr. Chairman. Success is a society that provides maximum opportunity for everyone, not just the elite few. That's success. That is the kind of success the NDP is talking about in this province, not protecting the elitists, not allowing for scandal, not calling free enterprise "insider trading" on the market, not calling open government the Christmas Eve settlement of a scandalous case involving MEL Paving. We call those situations, Mr. Chairman, failures.

I'll tell you what the most extravagant failure of this government is: it's 112,000 unemployed in this province. That 112,000 unemployed is failure. Bankruptcy is at its highest rate ever in the history of this province. No new capital projects are on the drawing boards.

It should be pointed out that in 1974 alone, during, the New Democratic Party administration, there was a 10.6 per cent increase in capital investment projects planned for that year and, indeed, expended. A 10.6 per cent increase - the highest percentage increase in the history of this province. It certainly wasn't equalled in 1975. There was a decrease in capital investment projects in this province - a decrease.

Homilies, superficialities - but let's deal with the facts. The Premier may make his ranting speeches denigrating others, but what does impartial Statistics Canada say about the jobless rate and how it reflects on provincial government policies? In 1971 the average annualized unemployment total in B.C. was

[ Page 1306 ]

65,000 people. In 1972, in the first few months, it rose to 74,000 people. In 1973, towards the end of the year, after the impact of New Democratic policies came into place....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: No, I'm editorializing. It fell to 67,000. In 1974 it fell down to 65,000 - at a time when there was a 3 per cent growth rate in the population of this province. While 65,000 people a year were moving into this province, we created jobs for these people as well as reduced the unemployment rate during those years. And this Premier has the gall to stand up and accuse the former Premier of being happy at unemployment.

That Premier's administration had the courage and the creativity to create projects all across this province at a time when foreign-owned corporations were deserting the entire northwestern region -deserted again by this new Premier who rejected the northwest rail agreement. He allowed Canadian Cellulose to close down its plant, putting 300 more people out of work. This is the Premier who's done that. That is the Premier who saved those jobs; that's the Premier who saved the whole northwest economy from going down the tube.

Oh, you're great at high-flying speeches, Mr. Premier, but no action. No action, just hand-holding PR work, torch-carrying nonsense in Ottawa with no results. You have desperately said tonight, "April I we're going to announce the roads programme" that we announced in 1973. Yes, April Fool's it will be. But I'll tell you one group of people you won't fool. You won't fool the people of British Columbia anymore.

Just remind yourself of what old Abe Lincoln said - because it is true, it does work out in the end. You can't fool all of them all of the time. On April Fool's your come-uppance will be there, and the April Fool will be on you, sir. It'll be on you.

I had questions to ask you, and you've refused to answer these questions. You wonder why your estimates aren't getting through? You stand up and you deliver the kind of rhetoric and abuse to the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) who time after time asked a series of researched and cogent questions which you just gave the back-of-the-hand treatment to, and stand up and give us this kind of rhetoric and abuse, requiring the Chairman at the end of this exchange to caution the House. It only happens when you come into the House. You have no control.

You talk about small-business loans. A little bit late, sir, a little bit late. Robert Dohen, regional director of the Federal Business Development Bank, said: "The bank made loans of $79.3 million in B.C. businesses during the nine-month period to December 31,1976; that's down from $108 million in the same period of 1975, "he said in a speech to the Professional Economists Association.

Who is the Premier trying to kid? Himself? Every day there are headlines about bankruptcies. Small-business loans are down. Bankruptcies are up. Even when the interest rates are going down, Mr. Chairman, the business loans are still down. And he's talking about economic recovery? Desperate nonsense.

Oh, and he talks about his great regional programme of Confederation. It reminds me very strangely of the inconsistency last spring. On the one hand he said user traffic will have to pay the bulk of the traffic on the B.C. ferries system and in the same breath he came back from meeting with Premiers in the western provinces and said that user payments for rail traffic across the country are totally unfair. He's blowing hot and cold; he's approbating and reprobating. He doesn't know what he's saying from one day to the next.

Well, he was green last year. But what's his excuse this year? Out of one breath he talks about regional power and greater power towards regions and provinces and then he has the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) saying. . . .

This is an article on the PWA curb: "Gardom Seeks PWA Curb." Here are some of the comments of the Attorney-General. He's responding to a ruling on Tuesday by the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in the land, that the purchase by Alberta did not need federal approval.

" 'I hope Otto Lang will be in touch with us soon, ' Gardom said in an interview openly. Gardom added: 'The province will study what legal channels are available for an appeal to the federal cabinet.'

" 'The ruling, ' Gardom said" - and listen to this - " 'opens the way for bold-faced interprovincial takeovers, hardly a unifying factor in the light of talk of separation.' "

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: What do you want? Is your talk about regional power part of the province's hypocrisy? Don't you really mean it? Because your Attorney-General is running to the federal cabinet now for protection through the back door. Which one of you is telling the truth? Which one of you represents the policy of that government? How long can you run around the country having your ministers giving totally contradictory statements on policy? You talked about negative income tax in the Blues, I see, on February 22 in Hansard. You said:

When it comes to the guaranteed annual income or negative income tax, Mr. Chairman, quite clearly my statements are on record, not only during this

[ Page 1307 ]

committee but in representations made formerly at conferences to the government of Canada or to our other First Ministers. As such, it's the position of British Columbia that as Canadians there is a much better use to which our money could be put in meeting in this country income support to individuals. I have said that we need to rationalize the various income support programmes that are presently available on a federal and provincial basis.

You made statement after statement supporting negative income tax.

There was a very good and well-researched speech by the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman) . Then we had the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) ...

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Oh, no. He's into governmental affairs. He runs everybody's department.

MR. LAUK: ... wishing to throw the heat off himself making these statements to the press. Now some columnists and some outside observers say it's because the Minister of Human Resources doesn't want to deal with any pressure on his own portfolio and he'll throw anybody to the wolves, including his own Premier. But what is the answer? Where do we stand? Do you say one thing to Ottawa and another thing when you get home?

AN HON. MEMBER: Of course!

MR. LAUK: Do you treat the troops here differently than you do when you go to Ottawa? Are you moved and taken and swept away by the glitter of the Chateau Laurier?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please direct your debate to the Chair.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this Premier is a country Premier. That's fine. But I hope he's more sophisticated than to be swept away by the rather subtle approaches that are used in the drawing-rooms of Ottawa. There is no money in DREE, Mr. Chairman, no more money than there ever was. No amount of rhetoric and abuse and magic wand-waving is going to change that one little bit, and the Premier knows it. These are promises of pie in the sky. Let's deal with the future of our economy on a sober basis, Mr. Chairman.

It gives us no solace to talk about these figures. The Premier knows that the province now faces, after 14 months of his administration, an unemployment crisis and, as a consequence of that, an economic crisis. Let's deal with this in sober terms. It's not entirely his fault. It has to do with the economic situation in the world today.

The official unemployment total in the province at the moment is 112,000 persons. They are looking for work - this is the participating rate - and they are unable to obtain it. But as some of the newspapers have reported as a result of leaks from the federal government, the actual total of unemployed in British Columbia has reached a staggering 147,000 people. There are 147,000 people unemployed. Labour market outlooks project the situation....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, this is restricted, but 1 don't know how it got on my desk.

The Pacific region and management area's labour market outlook, Manpower Canada - 147,000, when those who have given up hope of finding needed jobs are counted. This amount is a staggering loss to the unemployed and to the employed alike. Those who can't find jobs must still survive. Those who are working, and also the small businessmen and other employers, must pay the economic price, Mr. Chairman, of an unemployment problem that this government refuses to come to grips with. It's an unemployment problem, in fact, that this government's policies of overtaxation have seriously aggravated.

The cost of this enormous problem is easily computed. The budget shows that the gross provincial product that sums up all the goods and services produced by 1,038, 000 employed British Columbians has reached the total of $21.3 billion. That means that each person produced an average of $20,520 worth of goods and services in that year. That means, Mr. Chairman - and I'll do the arithmetic for the Premier because I've already done it and he doesn't seem to understand the size of the problem that the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) is talking about - that if 100,000 of the unemployed could be put to work in our province, the province in one year would be $2 billion richer. That's the enormity of the problem that we're talking about.

Did we. lose $2 billion in strikes last year? Not a chance! Not close. Not a fraction of that amount. He talks and his ministers talk about solving the labour-management problem in this province. And with a back of the hand, with no positive policies, with his Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) collecting subpoenas, $2 billion is out of the gross provincial product.

Instead of that, employed British Columbians and their employers must pay higher unemployment payments to pay those unemployed, higher taxes, and even higher prices, because this government is overtaxing and refusing to stimulate our economy through any positive programme.

Even talking the official unemployment figures, which the federal government is projecting over the

[ Page 1308 ]

next three years, frightens any person who is concerned about our economy. I'm not saying it's entirely this government's fault. It partly is. But what I am saying is that it's an absolute travesty - an abdication of responsibility - not to bring in positive programmes to put these people to work.

Fifteen months in office, in the middle of this session, and there are no job creation programmes -just the puff of wind we got on Thanksgiving Day, which meant nothing, and the promise now of an April Fool's announcement. Because the projections of the federal government with respect to unemployment, that I'm talking about, show the picture will be worse before there can possibly be any improvement. That's the fault, to a considerable extent, of this government's failures and economic blundering with two disastrous budgets.

On page 5 of the government-labour outlook for the 1978-79 fiscal period, here's some of the bad news: First quarter, 1977, it projected an unemployment total in British Columbia - this is a projection, Mr. Chairman; this was done before we found out the actual facts and shows you how conservative these projections are and what we're going to face - of 101,000 unemployed today. We officially know of 11.2,000; we unofficially know of 147,000 people unemployed in the province. The projection was 101,000. They were out. If the 147,000 figure is correct they were out by 30 per cent.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): How many new people came into the labour force?

MR. LAUK: Very few. In the years 1973,1974 and 1975, there was a 3 per cent growth rate. Now it's well under 1.5 per cent, something easily coped with by a government that had positive programmes.

MR. SKELLY: They're all selling Chryslers in Surrey.

MR. LAUK: It is projected, as I say, that only 101,000 would be unemployed. Now it's 147,000. That's far less than actual experience so we know that they are very conservative figures. The conservative government projections show that in the next quarter, the spring surge of the year that we're supposed to have, unemployment will still be at 100,000 because there's virtually no improvement in sight. And as these projections are conservative - we have 147,000 unemployed now - we'll have 147,000 unemployed in the spring. In the final quarter it's supposed to dip a few thousand to under 100,000. Remember, these are extremely conservative figures, It will be the first summer we ever went through in this province with more than 100,000 people still unemployed.

We'll be back to 100,000 unemployed in the first quarter next year, up to 102,000 in the second quarter - projected by Manpower - 101,000 in the third quarter and 100,000 in the final quarter. No improvement, Mr. Chairman.

These are the grim statistics, even at their most conservative levels, that this Premier and this administration have to face. And you can't face it, Mr. Chairman, with pie in the sky. You can't face it with rhetoric and abuse. Oh, sure, it gets the troops excited. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen) can pound his desk and feel he's doing something useful. But what we want and what we need, Mr. Chairman, is not political rhetoric and partisan nonsense, but positive, job-creating, economic stimulation programmes, none of which have been forthcoming from the Minister of Economic Development or from the department of the Premier.

The prospects quoted in this restricted document - and I'll read this to you:

"The B.C. economy, although showing signs of recovery, has to date put in a mediocre performance relative to the previous upswings with more of the same expected over the forecast period."

It is not an NDP document. It's a federal report. Are we going to take it seriously, or are we going to go on with rhetoric? Are we going to talk about $450 million which the Premier says will create new markets? You can't create new markets. New markets will give rise to new capital projects in this province, and that's why there aren't any.

Let me go on to review the projections for the hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) while the Premier's listening:

"As for the mining industry in 1975, over half the value of production was generated by coal and copper sales. Copper demand, as lumber demand, is largely dependent on the demand for residential construction. Copper prices, which suffered a severe setback in 1975, began to revive in the second quarter of 1976 only to drop sharply in recent months."

HON. MR. CHABOT: How about exploration?

MR. LAUK: Oh, come along! Grow up!

"The forecast, however, does foresee strengthening copper prices in 1977 . . ."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time is down to three minutes.

MR. LAUK: but not sufficient to stimulate further mine developments."

Interjection.

[ Page 1309 ]

MR. LAUK: May I repeat: not sufficient to stimulate further mine developments." It goes on to say: "It will be nowhere near the copper price highs of 1974, or in any other peak period."

Mr. Chairman, what I'm saying is this - and let's talk about forestry while the little member ... oh, I retract that.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: That's right, the big minister. When I was sitting over there, remember we used to hear "the great little minister"? Well, I didn't appreciate those remarks. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The great big Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) .

Here's the bad news: the importance....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: No, this is out of your office. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: It says: "Received by the Minister of Economic Development and approved by Arthur Weeks." And there's Arthur Weeks' fingerprints on it. It was left on the washroom wall down here.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. Let the member continue.

MR. LAUK: I wouldn't blame him for leaving it there. It's bad news: "The forest industry passed through a period of rapid expansion and change in the early 1970s, but it faces serious obstacles to further growth."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Time! Time!

MR. LAUK: I'll just read the passage and I'll be finished:

"The industry's profit margin has declined, partially the result of higher labour and capital costs, but even more critical to the industry's future prospects is the erosion of the advantage in superior timber traditionally enjoyed by B.C. producers. As a result, there has been an inadequate capital investment for either expansion or modernization leading to increasingly outdated, less competitive mills. Consequently, the improved lumber demand projected for 1977 is not likely to spark major expansion projects, as was the case in the past."

Now this survey, Mr. Chairman - and I'll just conclude for the moment - has been described by the Fraser Institute, that well-known socialist front, and other economic institutes as an extremely conservative and dependable projection, from Manpower. It is, and the Minister of Economic Development knows this well - or he should know it well. It's a very dependable document that his department uses quite often rather than ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time has expired.

MR. LAUK: ... original research. It happens at all times. I would insist, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier stand up on a non-partisan basis and say: "Look, we've made some mistakes. Let's bring in some programmes that we can all support."

MR. KING: The Minister of Defence.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few words to refute some of the statements made by the previous speaker suggesting for a moment that there was a great deal of activity in this province when his party was in government. The only thing that comes to mind, the only kind of economic activity that took place, was press statements from that former Minister of Economic Development.

I never forget questioning that former Minister of Economic Development in the Legislature when he was planning one of these large press-oriented trips -costly trips, lavish trips - to Japan. He suggested to me that one of the major emphases on this trip to Japan was to study aquaculture. It was a great thriving industry in Japan. There was a need to pick up the kind of techniques that existed in Japan and bring them back to British Columbia to create jobs for people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bring 'em back alive. Did he do it?

HON. MR. CHABOT: He came back, but he never made a report to the Legislature. I never checked the public accounts but I'm sure that that trip was a very costly trip indeed. But it lacked benefits for British Columbians. All it was was a holiday for the former Minister of Economic Development.

He prided himself in establishing industrial parks in this province. That was the only emphasis as far as BCDC was concerned when he was the minister. What he did was destroy some of the prime agricultural land in this province. That member, when he established that massive industrial park at Tilbury Island, destroyed 726 acres of the best agricultural land in this province against the wishes of the former

[ Page 1310 ]

member, Harold Steves, who objected to the kind of desecration of agricultural land that took place under your Ministry of Economic Development.

They weren't satisfied in destroying land in the Richmond area. They had to go to Kamloops as well - hundreds of acres. They were taken by some developers in that community when they bought out hundreds of acres of agricultural land there. It was in the freeze where an access had been denied these developers. But no, they picked up an option to purchase. The minister said at that time that if the BCDC makes application, it will be on a different basis that the Land Commission will deal with the application. He suggested that there's preferential treatment for the destruction of agricultural land, providing it's BCDC applying. That's the kind of economic activity we had when that minister ...

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, are we debating vote 18? Would you please let me know?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on vote 18.

MS. BROWN: Would you mind telling the hon. Minister of Mines that that is precisely what we're trying to do?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, there's been wide-ranging debate tonight on a variety of subjects.

MS. BROWN: There has not been wide-ranging debate....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, hon. member. Order, please. Take your seat, please. There's been debate concerning the responsibilities of the First Minister of this province, and it has covered many of the subjects addressed by the hon. Minister of Mines. Continue, please.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat. ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, what I'm discussing is a subject which has been discussed for several hours now: economic thrust. The former speaker, the former Minister of Economic Development, talked about the thrust that existed when his party was in government. The only thrust that was generated by his ministry, Mr. Chairman, was a destruction of agricultural land in this province, and the creation of a $60,000 job for his friend Mr. Korbin at BCDC.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, I would hope you would confine your remarks more closely.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, I'm talking about the 10 per cent growth....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Your friend, David Korbin, got a $60,000 a year job, and I'll say it out in the hall too. I've said it in public accounts before too.

Mr. Chairman, he talked about the economic thrust; he talked about the 10 per cent growth when his party was government. I'll tell you where the thrust was and the growth was. Here's where the thrust and growth were: B.C. Railway took a 40 per cent interest in Brameda Resources. That's investment; that's part of the 10 per cent growth that the member for Vancouver Centre was talking about. An investment in Can-Cel was part of the growth.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: B.C. Savings and Trust Company was part of the 10 per cent economic growth he was talking about. B.C. Steamship Company was part of that growth. Dunhill Development Corporation was part of that growth. Fruit Growers Mutual Insurance Company. The taxpayers were ripped off $737,000 for buying out some of their friends when they established ICBC. Ocean Falls Corporation, "Pinko-Panco" Poultry, Plateau Mills, Chef-Ready Foods Limited, 10K Poultry, Kootenay Dehydration Limited, Pan-Ready Poultry Limited, South Peace Dehy Products Ltd., Swan Valley Foods Ltd. That's the kind of economic thrust we had when they were government. That's what contributed to the 10 per cent which the member for Vancouver Centre talked about.

BCDC attempted to create jobs by its loaning of money in British Columbia. I'll mention one of the loans and the kind of jobs they created. They loaned to Alpine Car Co-operative, automotive service and repairs in Port Alberni - $55,000. Number of jobs created and/or preserved: one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hogwash!

HON. MR. CHABOT: One! $55,000 of the taxpayers' money down the tube to create or preserve one job.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): It wasn't down the tube. That loan was repaid. Stick to the facts.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Down the tube - that's the kind of thrust there was. The member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) talks about the great thrust they

[ Page 1311 ]

had in northwestern British Columbia and how they signed the DREE agreement. Well, I recall that on July 27 he issued a press release: "The provincial government is extending the thrust in northern development to the northeastern sector of the province and will concentrate on expanding and diversifying economic activity in the Peace River area." That was July 27,1973.

MR. LAUK: Come on! Read the whole thing. Don't be a cheater.

HON. MR. CHABOT: He says:

"As you know, the government has been very active in establishing programmes to assist in northern development. For historical and economic reasons the focus was on the northwestern sector."

The northwestern sector - that's where the focus was in July, 1973.

"It was clear in the northwest region of this province that the private sector is becoming, to say the least, uninterested in the economic growth of that region. We therefore concentrated our efforts in that area. As you know, the government has announced a railway agreement with the co-operation of the federal government on rail freight rates for the carrying of freight for both Eurocan and Can-Cel."

That was July, 1973. The Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce of the day talked about great programmes. In July, 1973, he talked about railway agreements, about the great economic activity that was taking place in northwest British Columbia, and nothing took place. Then when they were questioning him a little later, six months after his press release, what comes out in the newspaper? "Williams, Lauk, Just Won't Talk." (Laughter.) "Ottawa word is awaited on massive projects, " they said. That was their excuse. "B.C. Industrial Development minister, Gary Lauk, said Monday" -and I want you to note this was December 18,1973 - "a massive development programme for northwestern British Columbia is nearing agreement but it isn't likely to be announced until sometime next month." That's January, 1974. We're still waiting for the announcement.

In March, 1974, their secret report came out. "Secret B.C. report sees 21,000 new jobs. Vast development mapped for the north - 21,000 new jobs in northwestern British Columbia."

AN HON. MEMBER: It never happened.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We had the press announcement in July; we had the December 18 "Williams, Lank, Just Won't Talk." Then we saw this secret report released in March, 1974, and the people in that area couldn't get any answers. Northern mayors in March, 1975 were still waiting for some sign of activity from that press release made in July, 1973, but they suggested they couldn't even get a reply to their letter to Lauk.

Then lo and behold ...

MR. BARRETT: That's a backbencher's speech.

HON.MR.CHABOT: ... we signed an agreement. I remember, Mr. Chairman, when the then Minister of Economic Development, or Trade, Industry and Commerce at that time - Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce.

MR. SKELLY: Don't worry about getting it straight. You haven't had anything straight so far.

HON. MR. CHABOT: He signed with Ottawa.

There's the member who participated in the creation, or maintenance, or preservation, of one job. He's part of the $55,000 that the taxpayers wasted in the creation or the preservation of one job.

MR. BARRETT: Crank it up, Jim!

HON. MR. CHABOT: He didn't get me when I told him a few moments ago. I'll just have to tell you that BCDC made a loan to Alpine Car Co-operative for automotive service and repairs in Port Alberni. The total financial programme was $55,000; the BCDC loan amount, $55,000. The number of jobs created and/or preserved was one.

Now they signed a general development agreement when they were government, and that was March 28,1974. 1 remember the little minister when he stood in his place and talked about the great development that was going to take place in northwestern British Columbia because they'd just signed a general agreement with Ottawa. He didn't think we could read when we were in opposition in those days, Mr. Chairman, because this general agreement made provisions for subsidiary agreements which were never signed, which meant nothing could ever happen until the subsidiary agreement was signed. All we got was talk, talk, talk and promises, promises, promises, and nothing ever happened.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about the stolen telegram.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Beyond studying aquaculture, destruction of agricultural land, promises in July of 1973 that were never fulfilled and promises of 21,000 jobs in northwestern British Columbia, nothing ever happened. Nothing ever happened except for the creation of a job for one Korbin at $60,000 a year at BCDC, who had the gall

[ Page 1312 ]

to charge interest on a deferral salary for his benefit.

MR. BARRETT: Gillen's going to sue you.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, he charged interest on deferred salary - deferred for his benefit.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, Mr. Chairman, times have changed in British Columbia.

MR. BARRETT: They sure have!

AN HON. MEMBER: Booo!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No longer are there phony loans from BCDC that create or preserve one job -$55,000.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No opportunities have come back to British Columbia. Opportunities have moved away from Whitehorse. They're coming back. People are interested in exploring in British Columbia again because they have a government that cares for the little people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. CHABOT: They have a government that cares for job opportunity. They have a government that believes in mineral exploration. It isn't out to destroy mining. The evidence is very clear because, in 1975, Mr. Chairman, there were 11,000 claims staked. In 1976 it almost tripled, up to 28,000. We see around the corner the development of mines coming on the horizon - a mine that will create many jobs in the vicinity of Revelstoke for the development of Goldstream Property. Rexspar, north of Kamloops, is coming on stream as well. Equity mining is coming on stream just south of Houston as well, in due course.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Investor confidence is coming back to British Columbia.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Credibility is being restored.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, credibility is being restored. But I must suggest that it's been a little slow in coming because there was that apprehension and fear that that terrible socialist government might come back to office. But now that they've seen that there is no hope for that socialist party over there to ever become the government, investment capital is returning to British Columbia. They're sure that that party will never darken the horizon of government again. No, confidence is coming back, Mr. Chairman. Jobs will be coming on stream, with announcements flowing almost on a weekly basis. More jobs will come because confidence has been restored at last. At last we've conveyed the message out there that the climate is right in British Columbia so let's get on with the job and create these jobs for the benefit of British Columbia and let's forget the dark three years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Alberni. The hon. the Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, go ahead.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It surprises me that when a member has been on his feet and been recognized that you would then recognize the leader of the government in preference to someone who has already been recognized.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon member.

MS. BROWN: You're a poor chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I will not take that sort of aspersion. You're rebuking the Chair. Order!

Interjection.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't change your recognition for the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Alberni has been recognized.

AN HON. MEMBER: You shouldn't take the chair if you're going to do that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Quiet!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, hon. member.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I've never seen a

[ Page 1313 ]

demonstration on the part of a government like I have seen in this House tonight. It's disgusting. I have never seen a hysterical speech on the part of a Premier of any province like I've seen on the part of that Premier tonight. And the old minister of smear gets up and makes statements about Alpine Car Co-operative and B.C. Development Corporation loans. And I understand that....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Yes, I'll make a statement about the Alpine Car Co-operative. It was a darned good idea, an idea that everybody in this House should have backed. It was a darned good idea.

AN HON. MEMBER: It went broke!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Alberni has the floor.

MR. SKELLY: Other automobile firms have gone bankrupt on that side of the House. But this firm did not go bankrupt and I'd like to correct some statements that have been made in the press. I understand that they were leaked from a certain minister's office or the minister didn't deny them leaking from his office.

AN HON. MEMBER: They were in the files.

MR. SKELLY: They were in the files, were they? Alpine Car Co-operative was set up in April of 1973, in response to a situation in Port Alberni in which gas costs 15 cents a gallon more than in other parts of Vancouver Island. The Energy Commission did a study of gas prices in Port Alberni and found only one-half cent per gallon was attributable to transportation differences - the difference in cost from Parksville to Port Alberni.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I don't live in Port Alberni. I live in Parksville. There were difficulties with automobile repairs and the cost of replacement parts in Port Alberni, Mr. Chairman. There is a trial just recently completed under the Combines Investigation Act where assertions have been made that the cost of replacement parts was fixed. Faced with a situation such as this, the people of Port Alberni decided to get together and form a co-operative to defeat this kind of collusion on the part of industries in that area to drive prices up, and that's precisely what they did. The member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) is a member of the same type of movement -the co-operative credit union movement - and probably proud to be a member of that movement, because that movement was set up to do precisely the same thing that the Alpine Car Co-operative succeeded in doing in Port Alberni. Gas now costs less in Port Alberni as a result of the activities of the Alpine Car Co-op than it did before we established that co-op, and I'm proud of the part that I played in that co-operative.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Even though, Mr. Chairman, I did not attend a single membership meeting of that car co-op, even though I was not a director or an officer of that co-op, even though I did not approach the B.C. Development Corporation on the part of that co-op, the co-op did a fine job. It was a worthy business for the B.C. Development Corporation to invest money in and it was successful in doing what it set out to accomplish - that is, to reduce the cost of servicing automobiles in Port Alberni and to reduce the cost of gasoline in Port Alberni.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's the $55,000?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member for Alberni has the floor.

MR. SKELLY: The member says: "Where is the $5 5,000? " That company did not declare bankruptcy. The directors of the co-operative decided to get together, after having succeeded in what they set out to achieve, and they went into voluntary liquidation. They wound up the affairs of the co-operative.

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened to the money?

MR. SKELLY: They sold the building and the purchaser assumed the B.C. Development Corporation loan. The B.C. Development Corporation lost nothing.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much were your shares worth?

MR. SKELLY: In reply to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) , my shares right now are not worth anything, but it cost me $90, the same as everybody else who invested in that co-operative. It was one person, one vote - the same as any co-operative association in this province. It could not be construed under any definition of the term as a significant financial interest. One share out of 1,100 shares.

MR. BARRETT: A shabby attack!

[ Page 1314 ]

MR. SKELLY: It was a darned good idea. It was an excellent community effort on the part of all those working people in Port Alberni.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The hon. member for Alberni has the chair. Oh, floor.

MS. BROWN: No, you have the chair!

MR. SKELLY: I'm correcting an error which was made by the hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) in which he says that only one job was created. Many jobs were created in the Alpine Car Co-op - management jobs, mechanics jobs, gas pump jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not what BCDC says.

MR. SKELLY: You'd better tell BCDC to get the facts right because they're not! And you'd better check out the facts before you go making wild statements in this House.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: You'd better go check your facts before you make wild statements in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member for Alberni has the floor. Please proceed.

MR. SKELLY: The minister of smear from Columbia River.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair. ]

I talked to that minister a year before B.C. Development Corporation was proclaimed.

AN HON. MEMBER: About the loan?

MR. SKELLY: No, there were no loans available then because the Act wasn't proclaimed. It was not proclaimed. There was a year before the Act was proclaimed.

The Premier got up in the House and he made one of the most hysterical speeches I've ever seen made in this House. He said that the socialists always go back to 1975 and 1972 and 1965 and 1945, and he said we're always looking back over the past. It wasn't me who looked back at Alphine Car Co-op; it was that minister over there.

It was an hysterical, political statement, and it didn't address the issues that the member for Revelstoke-Slocan brought up. That issue was the fact that over 120,000 people are out of work in this province as a result of the economic policies proposed by your government. And we have to look back, Mr. Chairman, because that's the type of economic policies they have - policies that were applicable before the 1929 stock market crash.

He accuses us of looking back, and yet his economic policies are so old that it's impossible to look at them in any other way.

The Premier says that socialists elevate failures. Well, he's failed. He's failed to attract industry to this province; he's failed to create employment in this province; he's failed to restore the economic vitality of this province that was present before he became government and which, through regressive tax measures, through exorbitant increases in corporation taxes, policies that he brought in that destroyed the economy of this province, it's going to take years to recover from that regressive imposition of taxes and government charges.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I missed that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Don't let the members disturb you. Please proceed.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: No problem there, Mr. Member.

Every move, Mr. Chairman, that this Premier has made has been destructive of the economy of this province. He gets up tonight and he makes an hysterical speech....

MS. BROWN: He lost control there for a while.

MR.SKELLY: ... a political speech ...

AN HON. MEMBER: No, certainly not!

MR. SKELLY: ... a speech which refuses to address the issue that was brought before him by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , and that is the problem of people being out of work in this province. This is a problem that that Premier has neglected to address all the time he has been in office except to make the problem worse.

Every time he gets up he recycles the same speech over and over again. He talks about his visits to Ottawa; he talks about getting new DREE agreements by April 1. He has recycled the same speech as he made last week, yet he neglects to read the papers in the province. He says that the economy of British Columbia is one of the bright spots according to the Economic Council of Canada and the government of Canada. He neglects to mention that last year we had a growth rate of 5.1 per cent in our gross domestic product, and this year it's expected to drop to 4.6 per cent.

[ Page 1315 ]

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): No, he didn't say that.

MR. SKELLY: He didn't mention that. In the same news articles that the Premier quotes where the province is supposed to be one of the brightest spots in the Canadian economy, Mr. Chairman, he neglects to mention that our gross domestic product will be declining from 5.1 per cent to 4.6 per cent in a single year.

He neglects the reports from the chambers of commerce throughout the province. Here's one from Prince George. The member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) will be interested in this, Mr. Chairman. January 29,1977, the Vancouver Province: "The Prince George situation was poor and likely to remain so this year. The economic outlook is depicted as unfavourable due to poor market conditions, especially in the forest industry."

AN HON. MEMBER: Signed "Alf Nunweiler." (Laughter.)

MR. SKELLY: Signed "Prince George Chamber of Commerce." It called on both federal and provincial governments to implement programmes to get the B.C. economy moving again.

"Phillips Predicts No Drop in B.C. Unemployment Rate This Year" - February 8,1977. " 'There will be no drop in B.C.'s unemployment rate this year, ' Economic Development minister Don Phillips said this Monday." This is the province whose economy is turning around as a result of Social Credit mismanagement - or management, sorry. Confidence is being restored in the province. Yet his own Economic Development minister says: "No decline in unemployment is expected this year." Who's telling the truth over there?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's hard to tell.

MR.SKELLY:

" 'Real economic growth will match last year's figure of 5.1 per cent, ' Phillips said during the tabling of his departmental estimates. Yet the federal government says it's going to drop to 4.6 per cent."

Who is telling the truth? We're not getting the straight stuff from the people over there.

"Banks See Slower Growth Rate for B.C. Economy This Year." Who's writing these articles? The Premier tells about his trips to Ottawa through his negotiations with the federal government, and skating on the Rideau Canal.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're skating on thin ice too. (Laughter.)

MR. SKELLY: Oh, you used that one last week and the week before, Mr. Premier; it's getting pretty thin itself.

"Bill Bennett's three-day tour of the nation's capital was, as has been mentioned before, something of a diplomatic coup."

His used to be the empty chair in Ottawa.

"Within this context, a coup can said to have been attained whenever any provincial politician can remain within sight of the Peace Tower for 72 hours without saying something nasty."

Some coup!

He talks about a DREE agreement. This comes right from a party that was thrown for the Premier by Marjorie Nichols in Ottawa, so it must be the straight stuff. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

MR.SKELLY:

"A five-year DREE plan calls for expenditure of some $70 million, with Ottawa picking up half the bill. Last year B.C. received only $8 million from Ottawa under the DREE programme."

Now that's a $70 million programme over 5 years with ...

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Attacking Marjorie Nichols. Shame on you!

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: With the province paying half the cost, that means only $7 million is being spent in British Columbia, whereas last year they spent $8 million. We're getting less now as a result of the negotiations from that Premier than we got in the past. What kind of diplomatic coup is that? Maybe that's the April Fool's announcement. April Fool's: this year we're getting $1 million less from Ottawa than we got last year. What a diplomatic coup!

Mr. Chairman, the performance of this minister, the Premier of the province, in this House tonight has been nothing less than shameful, political and hysterical. I move that the committee rise, report regress, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member like to rephrase the motion? The motion is not a proper motion.

MR. SKELLY: "Progress, " I'm sorry. I'd like to amend the motion.

[ Page 1316 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: If it was an error in phrasing, I think we should allow the member....

MR. SKELLY: Yes, sorry. It was an error in phrasing, Mr. Chairman. I move the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:03 p.m.