[ Page 21 ]

CONTENTS

Presentation of new member

Mr. Stephens (Oak Bay) takes his seat –– 21

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Interim report on Fort Nelson line study. Mr. Barrett –– 23

Audiologist hiring policy. Mr. Gibson –– 23

Mr. George A. Rigsby. Mr. Barnes –– 23

Free airline services during campaign. Mr. Cocke –– 23

Participation at dinner at Chez Pierre. Mr. Davidson –– 23

Function of Edward Hameluck. Mr. Levi –– 24

Possibility of Doman Industries pulp mill. Mr. King –– 24

Free airline services during campaign. Mr. Cocke –– 25

Cook Bicentennial promotion. Mr. Nicolson –– 25

Election Campaign irregularities. Mr. Cocke –– 26

Throne speech debate

Mr. Barrett –– 26

Amendment, Mr. Barrett –– 44

Statement

Resignation of Hon. Mr. Davis. Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 44

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate

On the amendment:

Mrs. Dailly –– 44

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 49

Mr. Lauk –– 52

Mr. Gibson –– 57

Presenting reports

Milk Board annual report, December 31,1977. Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 58

Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, 2nd report. Mr. Bawtree –– 58

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Ministry of the Provincial
Secretary and Travel Industry Parliament Buildings
Victoria, B.C.
March 30,1978.

Mr. Ian M. Horne, Q.C.,
Clerk of the Legislative Assembly,
parliament Buildings,
Victoria, B.C.

Dear Sir:

RE: By~election, Oak Bay Electoral District

March 20,1978.

1 enclose herewith certified copy of the certificate of Mr. K.L. Morton, Chief Electoral Officer, respecting the election of Victor Albert Stephens to represent the Oak Bay electoral district in the Legislative Assembly.

Yours very truly
Gerald H. Cross,
Deputy Provincial Secretary

Mr. Gerald H. Cross, Q.C.,
Deputy Provincial Secretary,
Parliament Buildings, Victoria, B.C.

Dear Sir:

RE. By-election, March 20,1978, Oak Bay Electoral District.

The resignation, effective December 31,1977, of George Scott Wallace, the elected member for the Oak Bay electoral district, caused a vacancy to occur in the Legislative Assembly. A writ calling for a by~election -to fill that vacancy was issued on February 10,1978, polling day being March 20,1978. From the writ now returned to me, I hereby certify the election of Victor Albert Stephens as the member to represent the Oak Bay electoral district in the Legislative Assembly.

Yours truly,
K. L. Morton,
Chief Electoral Officer and Registrar-General of Voters.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to move, seconded by the Attorney-General and House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , the following motion: that the letter of the Deputy Provincial Secretary and the certificate of the chief electoral officer of the result of the election of a member be entered upon the Journals of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I with my colleague the hon. member from Revels toke-Slocan (Mr. King) have the honour to present to you Victor Albert Stephens, member for the electoral district of Oak Bay, who has taken the oath and signed the parliamentary roll and now claims his right to take his seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Let the hon. member take his seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I would like to correct a misleading statement made by the Premier.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. member perhaps defer to other members who were standing to introduce guests, which we normally do at this time, without prejudice.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today I would ask the House to welcome a distinguished former member. When the government House Leader saw that he was there, he told me that I had better be on my best behaviour, with relatives in the House. I said: "Is it all right if I act the same way he used to?" (Laughter.) I'd like the House to welcome my father Gordon Gibson and his wife Gertrude.

MR. BARRETT: I too would like to welcome the former member from North Vancouver. He did an outstanding job when he was a full-time Liberal member of this Legislature, served the people and his party faithfully, will go down in the record books as an outstanding personality in this Legislature, and as good as the member for North Vancouver-Capilano is, even if he tried he couldn't be as good in his behaviour as his father was. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I never had the opportunity of being a member of this

[ Page 22 ]

House while Mr. Gibson was a member, but I had some opportunity to observe him. I also know the delicate position that his successor over there may f eel f rom time to time on comparisons such as just given by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) .

I want to extend our best wishes to Mr. Gibson Sr., and I'll reserve my best wishes for Mr. Gibson Jr. when we find out what he's going to do. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery we have the presence of Dr. John MacIntosh, the member since 1966 in the United Kingdom for Berwick and East Lothian. Dr. MacIntosh, Mr. Speaker, is also the head of a department at the University of Edinburgh.

He's a well-known scholar and author, and a columnist for the Scotsman and the Times.

Dr. MacIntosh was the closing speaker at the national conference on the legislative process held at the University of Victoria the past weekend. I think the fact that he talked on the future of parliamentary democracy and is our guest today is indeed gratifying to each and every one of us. I would hope all of the members wish him an excellent welcome and a good journey home.

MR. KEMPF: With us in the gallery this afternoon are Mr. and Mrs. Sonny Imrie and their wonderful family. This group of people is from Houston, in my constituency of Omineca, and I would ask the House the make them welcome.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today are two distinguished visitors from the city of Revelstoke, Mr. and Mrs. J. McGiven. Mr. McGiven is an outstanding personality in the transportation field. I would ask the House to extend a very warm welcome to the McGivens.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I first would like to welcome, as other members have done, Mr. Gordon Gibson Sr. Unlike the present member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) , I had the pleasure of sitting next to Mr. Gibson in the House, and of course this is where I've learned all my good House habits.

Mr. Speaker, we have the pleasure in British Columbia of being the hosts to an international congress of anatomists. One of the very distinguished speakers and his wife, Dr. Eugene Roberts and Mrs. Roberts, are up in your gallery, sir. They are brain scientists and they particularly wanted to see our Legislature. I wonder if the House could bid them welcome.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to your attention today, and to the attention of the members of the House, a group of visiting students and their teacher, Mr. Larson. The students are from the senior secondary high school in Fort Nelson. They are traveling to Victoria and to other parts of British Columbia on a student tour, and I'm sure the House would wish to make them welcome.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I wish to correct a misleading statement made by the Premier on a TV programme last night that reflects upon me....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of privilege?

MR. STUPICH: The misleading statement was to the effect that my daughter was appointed last year by the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, of which I am a member, and that this appointment was similar to that made by the chairman of the legislative committee on crown corporations when he appointed as consultants Mr. Lorne Fingarson and Mr. Norman Kelsey. The appointments were not similar. The Select Standing Committee on Agriculture appointed Mr. Norman Duce as chief consultant. My daughter was one of the temporary employees selected by that consultant after he was appointed by the committee, whereas the chairman of the committee on crown corporations has stated that he personally, without any reference to the committee, appointed Messrs. Fingarson and Kelsey.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This requires no further action by the Chair unless it is attended by a motion.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I also want to correct a misleading statement that has just been made. The individuals' names and.... In fact, one of the individuals was introduced to the subcommittee and not without reference to the committee. The statement is completely false.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Perhaps just for the edification of the House, matters of privilege are not meant to create a debate in the House nor are they intended by the standing orders to be a matter of dispute in the House. They are simply made and

[ Page 23 ]

accepted and if there is a motion attached to them, further action is required. Other than that, this closes the matter.

Oral questions.

INTERIM REPORT ON

FORT NELSON LINE STUDY

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier: Is it the intention of the government to table the royal commission's interim report on the Fort Nelson line today?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the government to table the interim report on the Fort Nelson line within the time requirement of that report having to be made to the Legislature which is, I believe, within ten sitting days. Such a deadline will be met, and it will be placed before the members of this Legislature.

AUDIOLOGIST HIRING POLICY

MR. GIBSON: I have a question for the Minister of Health: Is the minister aware that there is a requirement in the Public Service Act that qualified Canadians should be given preference for public service positions, and with that in mind, can the minister outline to the House what evidence he has that UBC-trained audiologists are not qualified to serve the needs of his ministry?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, yes, I am aware of the requirements of the Public Service Act and at the present time there is a four-man committee, including representatives from UBC, looking into the whole situation of audiology training.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary question: I am advised that recently there ~, ;as a report on this subject of the training of audiologists commissioned by the Universities Council, prepared by Dr. Fred Greenberg, director of audiology at Edmonton's Glenrose Hospital, which is apparently rather critical of the treatment accorded UBC graduates by the ministry. I would like the Health minister to tell me if he has seen this report and why it is being kept confidential.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, 1 haven't seen the report and it's not me who's keeping it confidential, it's the Universities Council.

MR. GIBSON: On a final supplementary: Mr. Speaker, would the minister take steps to ensure that this report is seen by him, since it relates directly to his responsibilities, and to ensure that it's made public before that committee reports on April 28?

MR. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. members that oral questions are not to anticipate parliamentary proceedings, but if the minister wishes to answer the question....

MR. GEORGE A. RIGSBY

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, the question is addressed to the Minister of Highways and Public Works: Can the minister confirm that a Mr. George A. Rigsby, a former agent in a provincial election - official agent, pardon me - is now working for the B.C. Buildings Corporation as a director?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, Mr. George Rigsby was appointed a director of the B.C. Buildings Corporation, that's correct.

MR. BARNES: To re-emphasize my first statement, he was your official agent - is that correct? Was he your official agent on a provincial election?

MR. SPEAKER. Order, please. The answer to the question, I believe, is obvious.

FREE AIRLINE SERVICES

DURING CAMPAIGN

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that reminds me of a question (laughter) to the Minister of Public Works. Were there any free services received by you or your campaign committee or officials during the 1975 election campaign from any of the following corporations: Air Canada, CP Air, Pacific Western Airlines or AirWest?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

PARTICIPATION AT DINNER

AT CHEZ PIERRE

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Leader of the Opposition. Did the Leader of the Opposition or any other member of the New Democratic Party accompany officials of the B.C. Federation of Labour or participate in a dinner at the Chez Pierre restaurant on the evening of March 29? (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 24 ]

Interjections.

MR. DAVIDSON: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is unusual under our standing orders. I would refer all hon. members to standing order 47 (l) , which is the only reference in our standing orders to questions being sought from members other than ministers of the Crown. This refers only to written questions. Therefore, I would suggest that in order not to establish a perhaps dangerous precedent, we should have leave before a question of that nature is asked.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, now that the question has been asked, I should be entitled to an answer. The answer is no - first, because I'm not bilingual; second, because they didn't ask me.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it's a little difficult to ask a supplementary on a question that is not in order.

MR. DAVIDSON: With leave, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Speaker, a final question. In that case, was the Leader of the Opposition aware of any photographs that were taken at that meeting?

Subsequent to that, Mr. Speaker, is the leader of the Opposition aware, and is it true, that the vice-president of the New Democratic Party, Mr. George Johnston ... ? Did Mr. Johnston or any member of the New Democratic Party seek to withhold the picture that was taken that resulted in publication, and was representation made by that party to the staff and management of the Victoria Times newspaper to hold back that picture?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, Beauchesne, at section 171 of his 4th edition, says: "Verifications of reports made in the media are not to be substance for questions in oral question period." So I must rule that question out of order.

MR. BARRETT: ... accusation made by way of bending the rules, Mr. Speaker, and I should be entitled to respond to an accusation in an attempt to bend the rules.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to respect the fact that the question , as called out of order.

MR. BARRETT: The member was out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, may I correct a statement?

MR. SPEAKER: You wish to correct a statement made in this House?

MR. COCKE: I wish to correct a statement made in this House by the member for Delta, who indicated that George Johnson was a member of the NDP executive - in fact, vice-president. He is not a member of the NDP executive, nor vice~president or any other official in the party.

MR. SPEAKER: The statement stands corrected.

FUNCTION OF EDWARD HAMELUCK

MR. LEVI: Can the Attorney-General inform the House what job function Mr. Hameluck has with the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll take the question as notice.

MR. LEVI: While the minister is ....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I cannot accept a supplementary question when the original question was taken on notice.

MR. LEVI: Could he bring back some other information?

MR. SPEAKER: This is question period, hon. member.

POSSIBILITY OF

DOMAN INDUSTRIES PULP MILL

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Forests. Does the minister have an absolute legal guarantee that Doman Industries will build a pulp mill in British Columbia?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for New Westminster.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the minister, I believe, was getting up to answer. I think the question is a valid one. I would appreciate a response.

[ Page 25 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: In reply to the member's question, Mr. Speaker, no.

MR. KING: Is the press report contained in the B.C. Government News of January, 1978, which indicates a statement by the minister that there is a firm guarantee incorrect then?

MR. SPEAKER: We cannot allow the question for the same reasons that the member for Delta's question was not allowed. I'm sorry.

MR. KING: Well, what's that, Mr. Speaker? This is a public statement by the minister. I'm just seeking clarification.

MR. SPEAKER: Beauchesne, at page 171, says we cannot ask for verification of reports made in the media.

MR. KING: All right. A supplementary. I'll rephrase.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary question of a different nature?

MR. KING: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, do I understand the minister correctly, then, in indicating that there is no contract with Doman Industries Ltd. concerning a pulp mill in British Columbia at this point in time?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Again in response to the member's question, no, he is not under a correct understanding. The terms of issuance of a timber licence to Doman sawmills are predicated upon them building a pulp mill and a sawmill. If they don't build them, they don't continue to have a timber licence.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the enthusiastic Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) drowned out the response and I didn' t receive it all from the Minister of Forests. The minister has indicated there is no legal requirement on Doman Industries, but he has indicated there is a commitment to build a pulp mill, if I understand him correctly. But there is no signed contract -is that correct, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: That member has difficulty understanding, I believe, Mr. Speaker. The terms of the bid proposal submitted by Doman Industries were to the effect that if awarded a timber sale on the mid-coast they would build a sawmill and they would, when economic conditions are correct, build a pulp mill. Those are the terms of their commitment. The government's commitment to them is reciprocal of that: if they build the pulp mill and the sawmill, then they will have the timber allocation. It's that simple, Mr. Member.

MR. KING: A final supplementary. Can the minister indicate what the timeframe is for their undertaking to build a pulp mill if the issuance of the licence is made to them? Is there a timeframe on their commitment?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Doman Industries right now is proceeding with attempts to find a site to build their sawmill on. Once that is finalized, they will also proceed to build a pulp mill, when economic conditions indicate that such a pulp mill should be built.

MR. KING: I'll give you that commitment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I know the members opposite would have industry build in British Columbia when economic conditions are wrong and are therefore sure that the industry should fail. This commitment is a commitment both by the Crown and by Doman Industries, and I'm sure that both sides will honour their commitments.

FREE AIRLINE SERVICES

DURING CAMPAIGN

MR. COCKE: I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. Were any free services received by you or your campaign officials or campaign committee during the 1975 election from any of the following corporations: Air Canada, CP Air, Pacific Western, or AirWest?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

COOK BICENTENNIAL PROMOTION

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Provincial Secretary. has your department ever made it a prerequisite of giving a grant to a festival committee that an invitation be issued by that committee for the actor who is portraying Captain Cook to attend such activities?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Not that I'm aware of. It's not a policy of my ministry.

[ Page 26 ]

ELECTION CAMPAIGN IRREGULARITIES

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. Were any free services received by you or your campaign officials during the 1975 election campaign?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, a similar question has been asked of two other ministers. The question is inadmissible in that it does not relate to the administrative responsibilities of the minister.

MR. COCKE: I certainly would argue with that, Mr. Speaker, if in fact anything like this occurred. I would suggest very strongly that it would influence his decisions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, as a guideline for questions in this House we have only the authorities to refer to and they have clearly designated for us the guidelines by which we can have questions admissible or inadmissible. It is apparent to the Chair that that question is inadmissible by virtue of the fact that it does not relate to the administrative responsibility of the minister in his ministry. If the House wishes to change this, it can be done, of course, by substantive motion.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, with every respect, certainly I'm not going to pursue the matter because you have indicated the way you want to go. But, Mr. Speaker, I would like you to take this whole question and think about it, because I do really think there is some very definite aspects that make this admissible, and I'd be only too pleased to talk to you about it.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to add my personal congratulations to those of many others about your elevation to a new high post in this Legislature. I know that you will do your best to serve the House in its traditional demand for an impartial Speaker and we look forward to the development of a good, rational debate during what may be the last session of this parliament.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, which may be the last session of this parliament. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Premier has rattled his election sword twice and he has said that if we don't watch out he'll call an election. I told my fellows not to watch out, because I'd love nothing more than the Premier to go right now to the people of this province. I'd like the Premier to campaign on the throne speech because if there ever was a loser, that throne speech was a loser, Mr. Speaker. You know, Mr. Speaker, I'm always amused by the Premier's ability to duck responsibility, and duck questions, and duck any approach to any kind of direct answers that are focused towards him. lie rewrites history almost immediately. We had a very sad and unusual experience in this House that I thought was dead. I thought it was over with and buried. TI-e sadness and the unfortunate aspects of the Speaker preceding this Speaker resigning - that matter was laid to rest by that Speaker resigning and it was no longer a matter of public debate. Who reopened the debate? Why, the very Premier of this province. Once the issue was decided and the Speaker had made his decision, the Premier couldn't wait to reopen this debate and take issue with interpretation of facts a matter of hours after the business was done with. The to television to announce his version of history and he said, as quoted in the newspaper: "Bennett. spoke during the taping of Capital Comment. He said that 'two years ago the opposition used trumped-up, phony excuses to criticize him. The opposition parties had opposed his appointment and recently demanded his resignation.' Bennett said that, in his opinion, Smith was less than partisan and fairer than any other Speaker, and he indicated that it was the opposition that had trumped up the charges against the Speaker."

I want to clear the record, Mr. Speaker. At no time did I call for the resignation of the former Speaker. At no time did I call for the resignation of the former Speaker. Once the Speaker had resigned I made it clear that, in my opinion, he had done the honourable thing and that was the end of the matter.

I find when the Premier of this province attempts to re-write history to his political advantage rather than dealing with the problem fairly and openly and squarely as he should as Premier of this province, it's a bit much for me to swallow within a matter of hours.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of this province said that he wanted to speak with the leader of the Liberal party and myself, and he made that invitation to the press. I answered the Premier and I said I was willing to meet in his office. At no time was that letter even

[ Page 27 ]

acknowledged by the Premier. That letter was not ever acknowledged while this whole controversy ~, us swirling in the public press, and remember, all the time I said that the Speaker should do the honourable thing.

If the Premier is correct and the Speaker was forced to resign on trumped-up charges, then the Premier is saying that he will not support anyone who he considers to be under charge of trumped-up charges. What you're saying is that you're washing your hands of any responsibility, you're saying that the Speaker did not get into any kind of trouble and that his resignation was purely and separately caused by the opposition calling for him to resign.

MR. BENNETT: You're wrong.

MR BARRETT: I'm wrong? Well, Mr. Premier, why didn't you answer my letter? Why didn't you deal with it as gentlemen should in a closed room discussing a very delicate situation? Instead of that you didn't acknowledge the letter, you did not deal with the problem, and after the matter is buried to the satisfaction of everyone you go on television and give the public a whole brand new version that is separate from the truth entirely. I say: "Shane on the Premier of this province." I hope this matter is laid to rest. But I tell you this, Mr. Speaker, if the Premier insists on going around this province after the fact, giving a distorted view of what took place, then it demeans the office of the Premier more than anything the Speaker did.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm sure the hon. Leader of the Opposition is not casting aspersion upon another member of the House.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am not casting aspersions. I am just recounting to you that the Premier resurrected a matter that ~, us dead, finished and over with, and he resurrected it on the basis of giving a false interpretation of what the events were - a false interpretation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: And that matter is closed as far as I'm concerned, Mr. Speaker. However, if it is raised again on that basis by the Premier, then we will deal again with the facts as they took place.

MR. KING: I'm not finished with it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: You didn't give the facts.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: My friend from New Westminster has asked some very interesting questions today, and both the ministers to whom he addressed the questions chose not to answer. I find that very interesting and I hope that the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) will pursue these matter that he has raised today.

Mr. Speaker, before the throne speech was delivered there was a group of people lobbying us MLAs. The purpose of their lobby was to discuss serious unemployment in this province. They were told, I think by the Premier, that they should unit for the throne speech because there would be some answers to the problems they're having as the unemployed in that throne speech. Well, Mr. Speaker, let us deal with that situation, what's led to that situation and the government's response.

When Social Credit took power in this province, Mr. Speaker, in December, 1975, B.C.'s actual unemployment stood at 82,000 or 7.5 per cent - actual unemployment. The latest figures for February '78 show 109,000 unemployed - 9.3 per cent. There is a difference between those months, Mr. Speaker, a little over 26 months, of 27,000 more unemployed in British Columbia. The record of Social Credit since its first months in office up until today has been one of creating 1,000 more unemployed persons in British Columbia every single month that they've been in office. A pretty dismal record and it's getting worse.

So far this year the average monthly increase in the number of unemployed has jumped to 4,500. Last January's 115,000 jobless was 3,000 higher than the previous January's, and February's 109,000 unemployed was 6,000 worse than February, 1977.

In these two months alone unemployment was 9,000 higher in B.C. We started out in 1978 on a higher unemployment plateau than ever. But worst of all, Mr. Speaker, the latest figures for February show that a total of 152,372 British Columbians were actively seeking work.

Mr. Speaker, was there any mention in the throne speech of massive projects by a government to provide jobs in this province when this government campaigned that they would get British Columbia moving again, when this government proclaimed that it would freeze taxes, when this government proclaimed that it would find jobs for people in British Columbia? They ran huge ads in the newspapers

[ Page 28 ]

saying, "We can't afford the Barrett okay; we'll make it worse with the Bennett way."

AN HON. MEMBER: Work with Bill!

MR. BARRETT: "Work with Bill!" was the answer. "Work with Bill!" That's hardly the kind of situation that we really find in this province when we show the registration figures from Manpower throughout this province. In the lower mainland there are 78,598 people looking for work; in the Okanagan region there are 15,271 people looking for work; in the Kootenays there are 8,640 people looking for work; in the central interior there are 8,694 people looking for work; in the north there are 15,321 looking for work; and on the Island and mid-coast there are 26,145.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: After the next election they'll all be looking for work.

MR. BARRETT: Well, if we can all of the assistants these fellows have hired .... Of course they're there on a non-patronage hiring scheme. They said: "One thing this government has done is abolish patronage." Yes, it's partly true, that statement. They have abolished modest patronage and they've made it blatant, open, come-and-get-it patronage right across the line for anybody who's around.

I don't want to go and catalogue all those executive assistants who've been hired, some of whom got fired. One guy got canned two hours after he got hired.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, he's the only one who publicly said "Thanks" and as a result he got canned, for crying out loud. The motto is: "If you get a job, shut up about it."

MR. GIBSON: He fell from Grace.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, if you're going to get hired and you haven't even worked in the campaign and you, go and put an ad in the paper saying: "Gee, I want to thank everybody because I've got a job, " he lasted two hours. The rest of them know when to shut up; they don't want to talk about whom they know or whom they're related to. Just send the pay cheque. This guy was from the Maritimes; he didn't know how things worked in British Columbia. Two hours on the job, ; down the tube he went.

Now you know, Mr. Speaker, what really bothers me is what must be going on within the Social Credit Party. The ones who've got jobs are okay but can you imagine the back-biting and scrambling that's going on for the ones who have yet to be taken care of? One beautiful thing about their approach to unemployment, Mr. Speaker, is that even though some of the cabinet ministers change parties, they didn't change their allegiances when it came to patronage. All those ex-Liberals over there have hired ex-Liberals to work for them. I think the Attorney-General has got one; I think the Minister of Labour has got one or two; the Minister of Education has a couple -that is, for those spots he doesn't fill with Americans he hires ex-Liberals. Who else has got some of their old buddies from the other parties with them? How have the Tories done?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: The Bank of B.C., the chairman of the committee .... Public Works. You've got your official agent, is that right? He's on the board of directors of BCBC. That's right, Alex, you might as well smile; you've got stuck with it anyway.

Now folks, that's their approach to solving unemployment in British Columbia. You want a job - join the Liberal Party. Tell them you've been converted and you'll get a job.

MR. GIBSON: Our membership has gone up lately.

MR. BARRETT: Your membership has gone up. They found out how to get jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I want to particularly zero in on the serious problem in the Okanagan. I mentioned that the Okanagan region has 15,270 unemployed. They vote for the Premier; they hope for something in government that would keep their businesses going. I wonder if the Premier saw an advertisement in a recent issue of the Kelowna Capital News. The ad offers for sale some 200 different business enterprises in the Kelowna area alone. The list includes eight restaurants for sale; 21 motels and hotels for sale; 26 small business for sale; five beauty shops; six service stations; 11 grocery stores; two repair shops; four clothing stores; 10 restaurants; three bakeries; four mobile homes, just to name a few. Here is the list from the Kelowna Capital News.

MR. KING: How about a hardware store?

MR. BARRETT: Not a single hardware store on the list, no, that's not true, Mr. Member. There are three bakeries; 11 revenue lands; 26 revenue buildings; 10 restaurants; two drapery shops; four clothing stores; two repair shops;

[ Page 29 ]

28 industrial businesses for sale; two tobacco shops; four flower and craft s ho ps ; six service stations; five beauty parlours; 30 commercial spaces; 26 small businesses; seven retail spaces; 18 warehouses; 14 office leases; 19 industrial leases; eight franchise restaurants. What is this proclaiming in Kelowna, Mr. Speaker? The economy in Kelowna is in desperate shape. Businesses are closing or are on the edge of bankruptcy and are for sale in that town at a faster rate than ever in the history before of that community since the Depression. And the Premier of this province, in representing that very area, tries to tell us that things are going great.

It's so bad in Kelowna, Mr. Speaker, that the last time I was in Kelowna I spoke during a snow storm when I normally can command about 12 people for an audience and three flies. Seven hundred people jammed a hall in Kelowna at a public meeting for two reasons: (1) they wanted to hear what I had to say in terms of criticizing this government; and (2) they wanted to see a real live politician since they couldn't see their own MLA publicly and are complaining about that.

There were 700 people in Kelowna at a New Democratic meeting. There is one of the highest unemployment rates ever in the history of that area, the largest number of stores and businesses closing down; and the Premier offers them no comfort and no direction. Business bankruptcies, not only in Kelowna but throughout this whole province, are UP dramatically. And of course, Mr. Speaker, if you're a small businessman and you worked very hard to elect Social Credit, you thought things were going to come along just swimmingly and just fine. Why, you were even told that in the throne speech there would be some help for you in small businesses. The dollar value of the first eight months in 1976 and 1977 and business bankruptcies in British Columbia are a very interesting comparison. In 1976 under Social Credit - their first year in office - in the first eight months, there were 231 bankruptcies - a dollar value of $65 million. Now I know that the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) said: "Well, they went broke long before they got elected." So we'll wipe out that year and say it was our fault - the 231 bankruptcies at a dollar value of $63 million. But what happened under your first year? If we- grant you that year, then the next one is yours. In 1977, in the first eight months, there were 408 bankruptcies, with a dollar value of $124 million. Vote Social Credit and you get twice the bankruptcies and twice the dollar value.

You know, Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot from the Minister of Economic Development about coal - how he ~, as going to open the northeast, how they were going to expand the development of those coalfields. Sukunka %, us going to be the great thrust. Why, even the Premier himself got on that bandwagon, but he learned quickly enough to hide from that particular promise. There's been no action up north; there's been no major investment in British Columbia. As a matter of fact, there is even less sign now than ever before in the history of British Columbia - especially the last 10 years - of any kind of economic growth or development led by a provincial government. Even the former Social Credit government understood that government had a role to play in stimulating the economy.

The New Democratic Party created Crown corporations that this government is trying to sell off. They're making profits. And what is it that this government has done since it has come to power? Cut back, cut back, on everything and every investment, except for millionaires and large corporations. That's a fact, Mr. Speaker. The millionaires were allowed, as my friend from Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) has coined, a new philosophy. The millionaires v~ere allowed to develop that new philosophy after the removal of the succession duties. The millionaires can now say: "All men are not cremated equal." That was his line, and I think it' s a pretty good line. Sixty million dollars in taxes that should have been collected from the wealthy estates of this province which made their money in British Columbia, should have been collected in this province and re-invested in this province, ~-were not collected, were left off the board by Social Credit.

While that was going on, what was going on in the housing field? Mortgage foreclosures. The Vancouver real estate board has announced that the figures for mortgage foreclosures have doubled in 1977. Every indicator that anyone wishes to pick indicates that under Social Credit there's been a massive turn--down in the economy and massive insecurity for ordinary citizens, either through jobs or protecting their investments in small businesses or in their home mortgages.

Mr. Speaker, the doubling of the number of foreclosures has led to over 2,313 in the last nine months in this province alone, and there may be more. Henry Block is upset by it. He's so upset he was on radio with my colleague from Vancouver-Burrard agreeing with him. Now I don't know who I want to check out, Henry Block or the member for Vancouver-Burrard, but if they both agree on a problem, then there

[ Page 30 ]

must be something wrong.

The fact is that in housing fields alone there's been a drastic turn-down in investment in that area. Single family starts in 1977 in Vancouver under Social Credit went down 31 per cent that year. In Victoria they dropped 29 per cent. At the present time there is an average of 30 per cent unemployment in the construction trades alone.

Mr. Speaker, did you hear that? Thirty per cent unemployment in the construction trades alone; and one of the proposals in the throne speech, to get people back to work again, is to train more apprentices. Where are you going to place those apprentices? Did the Minister of Labour write that section of the throne speech? He did not; he knows better than that.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You didn' t read it? I don't blame you for not reading it - I would have been embarrassed, too, if I didn't read it.

Thirty per cent unemployment in the trades and they're going to expand the apprenticeship programme. Well, one thing about it is that Social Credit will be able, if they train all the unemployed, to say to the whole world: "We have 'the best fully trained work force unemployed anywhere in North America."

MR. LEVI: They're training people to be out of work.

MR. BARRETT: No, no, they're not training people to be out of work - that's a Social Credit in-service programme. But it is ridiculous, Mr. Speaker, for the throne speech to say that there would be training in the area of apprenticeships when we have so many people in the trades unemployed.

Mr. Speaker, this government said that they would bring capital back to British Columbia. They said that they had the magic, through private enterprise, to deal with the problems facing us. And there are people, Mr. Speaker, who actually still believe in this day and age that private enterprise can provide the answers in a modern economy to solving unemployment. They view British Columbia in a non--competitive position, they view British Columbia as an isolated economy, and they view this province as being the happy hunting ground of the era that was long since dead, that was typified by the Wenner-Gren one big shot proposals.

The old Social Credit administration had a Wizard of Oz approach to economic development. At the time of high-booming years, they would go back into a closet and wind up that old smoke machine and come out with Westcoast Transmission. You remember what McMahon said in 1960. When that didn't work they came out with the two-river policy; that one cost us a billion dollars. Everybody is paying $100 million a year in interest payments on the Columbia River Treaty, left as a legacy by the previous Social Credit administration. Then they have the Wenner--Gren Rocky Mountain trench proposal. You remember that, Mr. . Speaker? At least the former Socreds had a flair. When they thought up some dandies, they were real dandies, but at least if you couldn't enjoy the lack of jobs, you could develop a sense of humour.

The old government at least talked about providing jobs, talked about proposals, but this outfit says: "We can't do anything; we won't do anything; we're waiting for big daddy in the private sector to come and give us welfare and help. We'll make everything available to you out there, international capital. We'll make the conditions good. Why, you can build in your own sweet time when it comes to signing contracts for a pulp mill. We'll knock off taxes; we'll give you incentives. Please come." They would never ask the Minister of Human Resources to treat people the same way they treat international corporations. What has arrived on the doorstep? Absolutely nothing. They still wistfully talk about the hope that private capital will come to British Columbia, and we wring our hands and say: "We can't do it ourselves; we need help from someone else, and if they would only come and help us, then we could make a go of it!"

What happened to the confidence, and faith, and leadership in the British Columbians ~, ho built this province before us? The Gordon Gibson Seniors of this world didn't wait for someone from the international market to come and help them carve out a business in this province. The W.A.C. Bennetts didn't wait for international corporations to cane and help them carve out a success in this province. My own father didn't wait for international corporations to help him carve out a success in his business. They believed that, given the opportunity in this province, they could do well, as all three of them did. But that opportunity has vanished. Vanished. It has vanished in the forest industry simply because there's no such thing as a small operator any more. That was all killed after the Sommers affair; that's a fact. There is no small operator of any validity, Mr. Minister. You've got to have over $1 million or $2 million before you go into the forest business in this province. The last small outfit allowed to

[ Page 31 ]

develop in the forest industry in this province was the Babine forest complex that allowed the native Indian people to run a share of their own forests. The last one! No public working circles, no access to timber, no moves by the minister responsible, and we hoped that that bill will show some leadership.

But while all this handwringing is going on, and while all this begging is going on - and it humbles me to see this government beg for international capital and international leadership, while it does nothing itself -while all this is going on, the whole world doesn't even notice us. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? Because the whole world has got problems of its own, and as much esteemed as this government is, the whole rest of the world is moving rapidly through their governments to deal with the problems they're faced with. As a consequence, when our government does nothing, we are left standing at the starting gate with no action whatsoever.

What can he announce, Mr. Speaker? The Premier who closed Railwest, and then allowed B.C. Hydro to lease American-built railroad cars after he closed Railwest - what is he going to announce? We're not going to do anything for ourselves. We'll lease from the Americans or we'll hire from the Americans. Is he going to announce a Wenner-Gren trench? Not on your life! Is he going to announce a continuation of B.C. Rail? We don't know. The people in Fort Nelson, who were told that the Premier saw it as an emergency matter - the question of extending or keeping the Fort Nelson line in operation.... He's had a report since December. "Never been released, " he announces, "but it's going to be released in 10 days."

What does this government intend to do? They have no plans. They have wistful hopes that someone is going to come along and rescue them from the morass that the international western-world economic situation is presently in. There are no sugar daddies out there, and if 1 may quote the Premier back some of their own right-wing cliches as they apply to the economics of the world: "There is no free lunch." That doesn't just apply to people on welfare, Mr. Speaker; that applies to governments too. There is no free lunch. They're not waiting out there to rush into this province. If we're going to carve away, then we have to carve away for ourselves.

The Premier said that he wanted to restore confidence in British Columbia. Well, he's gone about it in a very backward way. 1 won't even use your own 'Ministry of Economic

Development's statistics, which are more favourable to my argument. I'll stick with Statistics Canada. But in actual fact, whichever statistics you use, capital investment in British Columbia has dropped off dramatically under Social Credit. In 1975, there was $4.003 billion spent by the private sector in this province, while $1.82 billion was spent by the public sector. In 1976, the first year under Social Credit, the private sector dropped back to $3.007 billion and the public sector dropped back to $1.004 billion. In 1977 the private sector remained just about the same as it was in 1976, in total dollar figures of $3.9 billion. The public sector went to $1.7 billion.

In 1978 the projection for this year's private-sector spending is $4.459 billion, up $459 million from 1975 in total figures. But if you take a modest loss of 7 per cent of inflation over the past four years, you're looking at a 28 per cent loss on the purchase value of those investments. In actual fact, under this government there has been a dramatic drop in the value of private capital dollars spent in this province, even though it's taken them three years to struggle back to the same level in total figures as 1978.

You cannot have this government demonstrate one single area where this government has enticed, cajoled, begged or dealt to bring into this province one new major project or semi-major project to provide jobs in the last three years, and that was the whole thesis of their election campaign - that they were going to get the private sector to invest in this province. They have been a total failure in attracting any new private dollars to this province. Whether or not it is their fault is a matter for the economists to argue about; whether or not it's your fault or world conditions is a matter for the economists to argue about.

However, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it perfectly clear that when they asked for a mandate, they left the distinct impression that it had nothing to do with world conditions - that they had the answer. Now that they have a mandate, they are saying they can't do it because of world conditions. That was never clearly spelled out when you were in opposition. Were you fibbing then? Were you saying things for political advantage? Tell that to the people in Kelowna who are losing their businesses. Tell that to the unemployed who are standing in line in Kelowna looking for a job. if you're not prepared to tell them that, the least you could do is tell your Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) to ease up in insulting some of those

[ Page 32 ]

people.

Along with this bad news, Mr. Speaker, that Social Credit has not created any new jobs in this province is another blow from the private sector. For good or for worse, it is another blow from the private sector . I quote from the Vancouver Province, Wednesday, March 29,1978: "U.S. firms slash Canadian investment. Budgets reduced by $830 million."

Mr. Speaker, our best friends and our best customers are kicking us, not because they want to, not because they are anti-Canadian; it's simply a matter of their own economic survival. When the going gets tough, the tough get going. And when it comes to the Americans, they are the ones who lead the way in knowing what they have to do to survive. And, in the framework of their economy, for them to survive they have to determine government policy to patriate as many industries and jobs and as much investment back into the United States as possible to bolster their own economy, their own balance of payments and, yes, to bolster the sagging dollar. And what is the way to do it? It is to patriate funds and jobs back to the centre of their own structure. But it is not wise to do that in other jurisdictions of the world if the American dollar has an opportunity of providing a better return in the balance, in the long haul. So selective retreat has to be made. And where is the retreat made from, Mr. Speaker? From a weaker neighbouring economy. Those who allow this country to become a branch plant, those who believe that American ownership of our resources and our industries would be the best ~, way to go, have never been proven wrong by speeches of the Walter Cordons of the Liberal Party or the Tommy Douglases of the NDP; they have been proven wrong by the actions of the American international corporations who say that we have, as those branch plants, our jobs in the bank and we're calling those jobs home.

What has Social Credit done about it? Absolutely nothing! What has the Premier done? Absolutely nothing! One of the most profound statements he gave to solve this problem of investment and jobs in Canada was to announce that he, believed that the Senate should be reformed. He has allowed himself that Lorelei call of entering the -national stage of dealing with the problem of the constitution. He has spent more time worrying about getting a few more senators from British Columbia than he has about finding jobs for the regular unemployed in this province. Mr. Speaker, the pressure is so great on him to hire political hacks that they've got to open the doors of the Senate somehow to take that pressure off.

Nonsense! Leadership? None! Ideas? None! Decisions? None! Just a hand-wringing approach to hoping that everything will go away and solve itself.

U.S. investment cuts have been indicated in the second of two polls, which show investment plans in June and then in December, 1977, for 270 of the largest multinationals and their nearly 4,000 affiliated companies abroad. When asked in June, the firms put spending by their Canadian subsidiaries at $6.77 billion in '78. By December they had sliced their estimates to $5.94 billion - a cutback by the Americans in one year of proposed investment in Canada of $830 million. Who's going to make up for that money? Who's going to make up for that investment? Is it the private sector in Canada? No evidence of that. Is it the multinational corporations operating outside the United States? No evidence of that. Is it the government of British Columbia that says there is a vacuum and we must have the guts and the leadership to move into these areas on our own and in a businesslike manner? No evidence of that.

The United States government is directly involved with its economy. Great Britain is directly involved with its economy. Do you remember, my dear friends, when they used to say: "Oh, the Labour Party is destroying Britain."? I can guarantee you won't hear too much about that. One of the greatest things that ever happened to the British Labour Party was an accident of fate: they found oil in the North Sea. It makes them look like geniuses. And do you know why it makes them look better? Because while a Labour Party is in power, they've had the guts to see that the revenue from that oil goes back to the people of Britain, not into the hands of the international corporations.

In Great Britain in 1919, one farsighted politician, who was a Conservative ....

HON. MR. GARDOM: John Wood.

MR. BARRETT: No, it was not John Wood. And you don't know what it is, Mr. Member. You were a Liberal in those days; he was a Conservative then. In 1919 you were a Liberal; in 1920 you were a Tory; in 1921 you were something else. You finally made it to Social Credit, after many years of agony.

MR. SPEAKER: Please address the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the only way he could get all his Liberal friends hired was to infiltrate. If there's any one regret for the old Social Crediters, it's their regret that

[ Page 33 ]

that party has now been taken over by the Liberals. That's a fact.

Talk about a subversive plot! The Liberal hierarchy in British Columbia has been totally ripped out and dumped into that party. The only man that stayed is Gordon Gibson, and we don't know how long he's going to stick around. We hope he stays in this House because he is an ornament to this Legislature. And now there are two of them to occupy the middle ground, Mr. Speaker - they can both walk the fence together.

AN HON. MEMBER: With both ears to the ground.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in contrast to the American investment in Canada which is dropping $830 million out of this country in one year, the total new investment by the United States in all other countries is put at $31,600, 000,000 - a 10 per cent advance in 1977. Canada doesn't look too good for the United States. They're not going to invest here. With all your handwringing and your wishing and hoping and your belief in private enterprise, there are no new dollars coming to this province. You are the government; if you are concerned with people, you have to make up that vacuum and you had better come up with some jobs and leadership in filling that vacuum that the private sector is riot doing.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the Chair and point out to the Speaker that while his constituency is not directly related to the next group of problems that I wish to bring to the attention of the House, the Speaker himself will be aware of the severe devastation caused by these particular problems.

Where is the Minister of Mines going? Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Mines just to sit down a little while. Thank you, Mr. Minister of Mines. Would you care to answer a question? Did you or did you not?

Mr. Speaker, do you remember the hysterical speeches - and I think you would recall them, Mr. Speaker, because you are a calm member -made in this House attacking the New Democratic Party's mining policies? "Oh, " they said, "it's terrible what's happening. Mines are closing down because the socialists are turning the ore rotten. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the poor mining industry is collapsing in fear of the Socialist adder that the electors have clutched to their breasts. Let us do away with this terrible menace of socialism and the mines will flourish, jobs will be created and all those who wait with bated breath on the lawns of this Legislature, we'll find jobs for them in the mining industry."

What is the record? Let's listen to the record in the last two and a half years under Social Credit. Closing , June 30, Granduc. Mines, 325 employees out of work, under Social Credit. Mines Minister Jim Chabot, quoted in the Colonist, says, when asked about this: "The government will take no action to prevent the closing." Now I ask you, my friends, to just examine in your minds with the kaleidoscope view of Social Credit, how it would look if the expression in the newspapers was as follows: "Granduc. Mine closing on June 30 - 325 employees out of work. Mines Minister Nimsick will do nothing about it." Can you imagine the hue and the cry and the screaming and the moaning from Social Credit over those 325 jobs going down the tube?

MR. KING: Remember Jordan River?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, remember Jordan River. There were demonstrations on the lawn and the miners were paid by the mining companies to come down and visit their politicians and tell them how they protested. Where are those miners now? Where is the Social Credit opposition now? Oh, my goodness gracious me. Granduc - 325 employees; June 30, Mines Minister Chabot says: "Can't do anything about it, won't do anything about it."

Craigmont Mines will close down early in 1979 under Social Credit - 350 jobs lost there. Don't leave yet, Mr. Minister; you might as well get the whole lousy record you've got - 350 jobs going down with Craigmont Mines.

I want to ask the mining industry where those full-page ads are that used to put Kelly's .... What was that cartoon outfit that had that crying alligator? Pogo. The mining industry outdid Pogo with crocodiles and tears flowing when ve were government.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a seagull now.

MR. BARRETT: I don't know if it's a seagull.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tho se aren't tears.

(Laughter.)

MR. BARRETT: No, those aren't tears. Well, seagulls can cry too, you know.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, where are those full-page ads now in the Vancouver Sun and the Vancouver Province by the mining industry attacking socialism? Where are those hysterical speeches? Where is the speech from the former mayor of Surrey who said: "We don't want no jobs in Surrey with an oil refinery." Remember that? Nice guy. 'Course, he was a Liberal

[ Page 34 ]

then. It doesn't count and he's in a different category. Any criticism they made of the New Democratic Party while they were Liberals or Tories doesn't count, because when they joined Social Credit they were born again and all their sins were washed away and everything they said and did doesn't really count any more. It's all a new record, bad as it is.

Noranda, Mr. Speaker. We've done Granduc -325 employees, closing, no ads, no demonstration. Craigmont - 350 jobs, closing down, no ads, no demonstration. Noranda has announced exploration cutbacks under Social Credit.

Bethlehem cut the work force by 10 per cent in 1977 - no ads, no demonstrations.

Gibraltar warned workers of possible closures - no ads, no demonstrations.

Two closures, one cutback, one exploration dropoff and one threatened to close and not a single ad, even under "help wanted" or "business opportunities".

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't forget Texada Mines.

MR. BARRETT: Are they going too? They're gone. Three closures, no ads. Western Mines cutback? Two years. All under Social Credit. Now if we didn't rot the minerals in the ground, who did?

Mr. Speaker, ever since the Minister of Mines was appointed to his job, it's been one closure after another. (he great thing can come out of this, Mr. Speaker. Can't you see how we can take advantage of this, as our Provincial Secretary does of every opportunity, to promote a ceremony? Instead of opening ceremonies, we can have closing ceremonies; we can bring up the Royal Hudson, she can blow the whistle, blow up the mine and close it down and say: "Look what we're doing for tourism in British Columbia." As every miner comes out of the mines, she can personally hand them their "Smile" button as they leave and head for the unemployment office. A whole new method of dealing just can't you see? If it isn't Captain Cook - why, first miner? Was it Dunsmuir? We'll have a Dunsmuir celebration and when we're through with Dunsmuir we can maybe resurrect the Wenner-Gren revival group. What else have we got?

MR. LEA: She could pretend she's Peter Pan.

MR. BARRETT: No, she could never pretend she's Peter Pan - that' s going too far. A closing ceremony with the Royal Hudson. Then there's Vanply. Vanply announced it was going to cut back 500 employees at its plywood plant in Vancouver. They said the closure was going to take place in September. They, announced it in January. They didn't tell their workers that they were going to close, Mr. Speaker. The closure was not to take place until September but in January the government said "it's not acceptable for us" so in February the company announced a 30-day delay in the closure. Nonsense, Mr. Speaker. A partial closure has now been arranged of 250 jobs going down the tube and another 500 to go later.

How did MacMillan Bloedel make its money, Mr. Speaker? It made its money out of the God-given resources of this province. Does MacMillan Bloedel have a moral obligation to the people of this province after using its resources? The answer is yes. Who is to tell an errant company when they do not fulfill their moral obligation? It is the spokesperson of the people to tell a company that they have a moral obligation. Did this government tell MacMillan Bloedel: "You had better not close down or we will deal with someone who can handle the resources better."?Not on your life. Huge fortunes have been made out of the forest industry by that corporation. Huge profits have been made by that corporation, and part of those profits have been taken out of British Columbia and invested elsewhere and w*a are told as a docile population that %B can't go any other way. There is not a single government in the whole western world outside of Canada, Mr. Speaker, that would stand by and see itself misused by international corporations and stand back and let jobs be pulled away without directly interfering in the process. What are governments here for in a modern society - to be the handmaidens of giving away resources, or to come up with new ideas and new approaches?

Mr. Speaker, one of the worst disasters this province has done is in its selling job. It sends its ministers out to sell British Columbia. Why the Minister of Economic Development went to Japan. What did you sell in Japan? Totem poles? Ouija boards? Old used cards? 1 said "cards, " Mr. Speaker, but I can imagine him going to Japan, with his approach, trying to sell used cars to Japan. What have you ever done for this province as Minister of Economic Development other than bluster and bumble your way through that whole administrative responsibility you have been given? You haven't created one single job, and you used to be the biggest talker in the whole opposition. "Old Don will get up; he's good for 14 hours."

AN HON. MEMBER: He hasn't been the same

[ Page 35 ]

since Arthur Weeks.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, when he used to be a member of the opposition, he would stand up in his corner and the old windmill arms would be flying. "Just give me a crack at that job! I'll show you what I can do! " Yes, "Leatherlungs" was the name of almost admiration w- gave him. We admired his ability to get up and expound his ideas, state his point of view, express his determination. Now he's been a minister for three years and he hasn't produced one single new job in this province in that portfolio, but he has abided over the closure of mines, plants and Railwest and done absolutely nothing, Mr. Speaker. What about Sukunka? What about your coal announcements? What about the infrastructure? What about all that big development?

I want to tell you, Mr. Minister, we don't listen to you any more because someone is talking for you, and you know who has been talking for you? The guy behind you. 'They've shut him up in almost everything. They took away the ferries from him. Now they're giving him airports. What for I don't know. he's got six aircraft and he ~~ants to land them - got to get out of town fast, that's why. What does the minister behind the minister announce? He announces we don't need a railroad into the north; we're going to do it all by barge - up the river without a paddle. And after he made that announcement, that singular walking disaster who the federal Liberals were happy to get rid of, who the Premier .us happy to get rid of , he was in charge of the ferry fleet and has had maritime projects on his mind ever since. He got caught tying up his little boat on the government wharf and now he wants to build barges up the coast.

He has never gone to a cabinet meeting and agreed to shut up. He has never gone to a cabinet meeting and announced: "I'm with you, gang." He's always going off on his own in four directions at once. His latest disaster announcement is that they're going to ship up the coast. Is that government policy?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, what about they the investors that the government says it is corralling out there to come to British Columbia? What's the security of transportation? No report from the royal commission, no plans from this government, but that minister goes in and tells them: "Boys, it's okay; we're going to do everything by tug and barge."

The Minister of Forests (Ron. Mr. Waterland) went to Japan. He said that he was confident that one Japanese company wants to build a pulp mill in B.C. with thousands of new jobs, Mr. Speaker. Is it terribly nasty of me to ask the minister: Please, humble sir, what company is going to build a pulp mill? Please, humble sir, when are they going to build it? Please, humble sir, could you tell me how many jobs will be involved and when they'll be available?

MR. KING: When economic conditions are right.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, he went to Japan; both of them had a steambath; they come back clean.

MR. LEA: They got laundered.

MR. BARRETT: And he announced they're going to build a pulp mill in B.C. with thousands of new jobs. But you know why it isn't going to happen? Because Grace wasn't there to make the announcement. Who are they? When is it coming?

Then the minister went up into Merritt, his own hometown. They were glad to see him until they found out who he was. Then he said in The Merrittonian on January 1, to give real help to his Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) , that there is no need for a copper smelter in B. C. now.

Then vie had the Premier going to Europe . He made a good impression and I want to commend the Premier's staff. They do a first-class job in selling him - prepare his papers, hold his hand, read the stuff out for him. The only time he gets in trouble is when he's on his own. If he sticks to the script it's good stuff. he's got $100,000 worth of staff in his own office, I understand. That's great! Good stuff.

He went to Britain and he said: "Come to B.C." Not a single job as a result of that trip, not a single job as a result of your trips to Japan, but phony announcements and no action again by the government.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, there has been an area ~, here this government has moved decisively in economics. They've provided no jobs, no economic investment, no new programmes to create a climate of investment in this province, no new initiatives themselves to create jobs, not a single statement of a philosophy of direction they want to go in the resources. Cabinet ministers say we're going to log in the parks; another one says we're not. Cabinet ministers say that we're going to go up the coast with a tug and barge while the former Speaker said that we'll

[ Page 36 ]

always keep the railroad line open. That is known as covering all bases. Say anything at any time to appease anyone that comes to you. But, Mr. Speaker, this government does deserve credit for some decisive action. They have made decisions and they've made them ruthlessly and they've made them skilfully and they have made them with no hesitation at all.

The list is as follows: They have increased ICBC rates. They have increased ferry rates. They have increased the sales tax. They have increased the hospital insurance. They have increased medical premiums. They have increased the bus fares. They have increased electricity rates. They have increased ambulance costs. They have increased natural gas rates. They have increased gasoline costs. They have increased school taxes. They have increased home-heating oil costs. There are increases in bankruptcies, foreclosures, unemployment, overruns.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh!

MR. BARRETT: Overruns? How did that get on the list? Who put this on the list? What naughty person on my staff dared to put down that they've increased overruns? You know that the Premier of this province swore solemnly that he would never have another overrun as long as he was Premier. I'm ashamed of my staff for putting this "overruns" in here. But now that they have, I have to recount to you, Mr. Speaker, much to my embarrassment, that the highest amount in overruns under the New Democratic Party was $135 million. Not to be outdone, Social Credit has overruns now totalling $214 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh!

MR. KING: Oh, the financial genius.

Financial wizards.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, these financial wizards then announced, as an excuse for the overruns, that their overruns were different than ours. It's true they were different -they're a heck of a lot larger. That's the difference: $214 million worth of overruns.

I'm waiting to see what the Provincial Secretary's (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy's) overruns are. Oh, it will be agony when we find out that perhaps in her $1.5 million budget she might have spent $3 million or more. Oh no, that wouldn't be nice. Maybe half of it has gone for the secret police force. I am embarrassed by the effort that is going to be made by the opposition during the estimates to discuss the overruns. Please, friends, don't bring it up again. They are different than ours.

There is no difference in the overruns. The overruns are granted by warrant. They were covered by funds in our day; they are covered by funds in your day too. There is absolutely no difference - none whatsoever. Mr. Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , through you, Mr. Speaker, let's have an end to that nonsense.

MR. LAUK: Be honest.

MR. BARNES: That goes too far.

MR. KING: Don't ask the impossible.

MR. BARRETT: Now look, my dear friend, you are a newer member here. One of the words that is absolutely forbidden in this House is honesty.

MR. BARNES: It's unparliamentary.

MR. BARRETT: It's unparliamentary to ask. A government that swore up and down, black and blue, green and white, that they would never have an overrun has been caught with their hands in the cookie jar to the tune of $214 million. One of the departments is right out of control. The Premier slides away from any responsibility and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) says: "They're different." You know, Mr. Speaker, they protest too much.

Overruns, increased political patronage, increased rent, increased mining closures, increased income tax, increased chronic-care hospital rates, increased housing costs -anything that costs the ordinary people more money to survive, they've increased. Anything that makes life a little more difficult, a little less able to plan, they have touched and eroded in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself to a comment that the Premier made about the Oak Bay by-election. The candidate in the Oak Bay by-election announced that this would be a test of the government policies.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was that Brian Smith?

MR. BARRETT: %, that was not Brian Smith. Brian Smith made the major mistake of his career.

MR. KING: He's not a car dealer.

MR. BARRETT: Nb, it is not a question of not being a car dealer. He picked the wrong road map, Mr. Speaker, and he is just a novice in politics. If he had come to my office, I would

[ Page 37 ]

have told him how to do it. First of all, you get a Liberal card, announce that you are a member of that party, get the Conservative nomination, get elected on that ticket and then cross the floor. That's how you would have made it, Mr. Speaker. Poor old Brian Smith, he didn't understand that. He had a talk with the Premier and the Premier said: "I'll fix it up in Oak Bay for you." That's as far as the Premier goes to get close to the peasants, you know. "Keep in touch with the grass roots. I'm going to go visit Oak Bay." Yes, Mr. Speaker, he was going to yet him the nomination in Oak Bay.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, the Premier didn't talk to ... guess ~, ho? Grace and the former Premier, who had other ideas. They understand what the winning formula is: if you win with 11 car dealers, why not make it 12? So while the Premier was trying to finagle Smith to be the candidate, they were out there railroading the other one. They packed the nominating convention, got him nominated. Smith's whole non-career went right down the tube - that'll teach you to talk to the Premier.

MR. BARBER: He lost by 205 votes.

MR. BARRETT: My friend, you go to every meeting in town; you ought to know what's going on there. Thank you, my good friend. If the Premier Aunts any advice, speak to Charles Barber, because he knows more about what's going on around the lower island than anyone else does. Through you, Mr. Speaker, there's only need for one in their %way in Victoria; the other one doesn't do anything.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps we should maintain the tradition of the House, and not refer to hon. members by their names.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, yes, the name. Excuse me. I will not refer to Mr. Barber. I will refer to him as the member for Victoria - there's only one member.

No, the Premier said: "Carson's got a good chance." That's what be said; it was in the Colonist. "Carson's got a good chance." Then he gave sort of a horse-race rundown. I don't know that lingo, but I understand, you know -he's the front runner.

No. 2 was Vic Stephens: "Late to enter but may show well."

"Bennett-Camp, a moderate candidate for the NDP, might do well and be the dark horse."

Then there was the Liberal. He said: "Will come in last. A fantastic candidate, but handicapped with a disaster of a federal government."

And Larry Tickner - he's an off-shoot of us! (Laughter.) Poor old Larry! Well, I'll tell you, the whole world will turn up-side down when he jumps to Social Credit. (Laughter.)

What was the result, Mr. Speaker? On television, lo and behold, as I'm sitting there watching this colourful array of news reports, and 1 see the candidates being the gentlemen that they were, congratulating each other .... 1 congratulate the winner and welcome him here today and hope that his term is long and successful. And I hope you honestly can rally the true Conservative colours in this province. If there , as ever a need in political debate in this province at this time it is a debate based on policy, principle and philosophy, not on expediency.

Mr. Speaker, the Tory won, and the tube turns, and who's on but the Premier, tanned after his holiday in Saskatchewan. The Premier is the kind of guy to keep the American dollars at home and the Canadian dollars at home. He took the Prime Minister's advice. Everybody thinks he went down to Palm Springs. I want to put an end to that rumour: he went to Regina and spent two weeks under a sun-lamp.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, he got on television, and what were his words? "Why didn't you help in the by-election?"

"Why, it's traditionally said that the Premiers don't get involved, although some of my people say if I'd been involved I might have turned it around."

Such modesty overwhelms me. As long as the Premier of this province believes that he alone, with his magic personality, can go in and turn a constituency around, 1 can guarantee you that this government is headed for defeat in a disastrous manner.

Your candidate in there was a good candidate, and 1 want to tell you it says one of the most mature campaigns in a by-election that I've ever seen. I also want to criticize some newspersons, spokespersons, who said that all the candidates were lightweight. Anybody who stands for office is to be measured on the basis of their experience and categories, and 1 don't like a blanket condemnation of people standing for office as being lightweights. 1 just don't like that.

It is difficult enough at times like these to get citizens to stand for public office. And, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you that it is difficult at times like this to keep people in public office because the unspeakable thing about being in a public office - and I've been

[ Page 38 ]

around long enough to talk about it - is that many of the people in this House are suffering severely financially while they are serving the people of this province, and that is a fact. If anybody tells you that the politicians are over-paid, every one of you who said that during the election, I'm sure, has come to regret that. But the fact is that most of you in this House are sacrificing a great deal by being here. It's something we don't like to talk about it, but it's the truth. And when four or five people let their names stand for public office, then I say: "Good for them, and good for democracy." A general condemnation of those candidates is unworthy of any reporter.

Mr. Carson was a fine spokesperson. He had a bad record to defend and he lost, but the message , as not lost on Mr. Carson. lie said that the people had an opportunity to express their opinion on the government, and they certainly expressed that opinion, because they left Social Credit in droves.

Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, there is a message from Oak Bay. The message is loud and clear. They want some leadership; they want some action; they want some directions; and they want some decisions by this government. They want to know whether or not this government, indeed, has a philosophy; whether it has any plans for the future; whether it has any basic commitments to get British Columbia moving again; or if it indeed knows where it is really going.

Mr. Speaker, I want to read to you some quotes attributed to the Premier of this province in a newspaper story in the Vancouver Sun, dated December 21,1977. I'm sorry, it's not the Vancouver Sun; it's the Vancouver Province. The little headline in the paper says: "'Action, ~bt Words, ' Says Bennett."

"The Canadian economy requires government action rather than taxpayers' optimism, Premier Bill Bennett suggested Tuesday in response to Prime Minister Trudeau's call for faith in the future of the economy." Now, Mr. Speaker, how can the Premier tell Trudeau to have action, but ask for faith at home? When he's telling Trudeau. that, when he asks for faith in Ottawa, that's not enough.

I want to read something here the Premier said - and I want you to listen carefully to this and if it's an incorrect quote then I will withdraw it and I'll gladly have the Premier correct me. I quote the Premier of British Columbia: "I would love to be a part of government when we- offer the people the type of specific action that can give them faith in the economy, and their country and their government. But something is happening."

Mr. Speaker, he would love to have that opportunity. He was given that opportunity two and a half years ago; he had that opportunity last week. Now when he talks about the federal government, he says he wants action, and not words, and he says I'd love to be part of a government that's doing something. He's got that opportunity. Then he gets nasty at the elbow and says: "The opposition is criticizing too much; I'll call an election." Mr. Premier, you were elected to govern, you were elected to lead, you were elected to make decisions to give hope and comfort to the people of this province.

Your government has been a disaster, but you have separated yourself from your government in the most closeted manner that I have ever seen. Any time, Mr. Premier, any time you're asked a problem about a minister, you say: "I don't deal with that." Any time you're asked a problem about a Crown corporation, that's got nothing to do with you. Any time it's bad news, it doesn't concern you whatever; it's not on your agenda as Premier. I have never seen a Premier divorce himself from a government so constantly as this Premier does. He runs away, runs away at every possible opportunity, from facing questions about the lack of decision or about the conflicts in his cabinet. And as for the Crown corporations, why, the Premier doesn't say that he's got any responsibility at all to deal with the problems in this province.

"Action" was your word, Mr. Premier. Where is the action? Mines are closing, investment is down, unemployment is up, bankruptcies are up. Do you have one imaginative idea or new idea? You're going to sell off the successful businesses we have - through you, Mr. Speaker - the successful businesses which we own and control and which should be used as an instrument for economic expansion within our own jurisdiction. They are going to be sold off by this government into the hands of private owners, and again the best interests of British Columbians will not be served.

Mr. Speaker, what are the things we can do, and should be doing, in this province with imagination, with drive, with some verve and excitement and with the leadership that has been the hallmark of governments in this province? Since its very inception, from the second Premier of this province, Amor deCosmos, through Premier Robson, through Richard McBride, through Hart and through W.A.C. Bennett and through the NDP administration, it has always been a measure of governments in British Columbia that at a time of stress governments themselves have acted on behalf of the people of this

[ Page 39 ]

province. Even Duff Pattullo, even Duff Pattullo had enough vision and nerve to deal with the petroleum corporations in this province. Even W.A.C. Bennett understood the role of B.C. Rail, even though he did get into a little bit of hanky-panky with the railroad,

A little bit of hanky-panky, but that's not unusual in British Columbia politics. You know what that little bit of hanky-panky was, Mr. Speaker? The Vancouver Sun ran a headline saying that the BCR losses were hidden under Bennett senior. Look at that, Mr. Speaker, what do you know about that? The Vancouver Sun discovered something that we had tabled in the House two years earlier.

But I want to tell you, when w- talked about it, what the Premier said when he was Leader of the Opposition: "Selective memory, selective memory, my dear colleague" - Mr. W.R. Bennett, leader of the Opposition. What is the date? November 18,1974 - "Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand" - and I quote the Premier when he was Leader of the Opposition - "an audited statement of the British Columbia Railway in which it shows losses last year of $3,300, 000" - not bad compared to your losses, not bad compared to your losses - "and profits the year before of $900,000." But the interesting part of my question is that this report was done by Buttar and Chiene, an auditing firm that's done the books of PGE and the B.C. Railway since 1916, and that on September 11 they resigned because" - I quote the Leader of the Opposition at that time -"they weren't prepared to change the auditing procedures because of the mounting losses that the railway wished to hide this year." That was the accusation he made when he was leader of the Opposition, that we had changed the auditors because we were trying to hide the losses. A false accusation, just as false, Mr. Speaker, as when he said that I'd hired relatives to work on B.C. Rail. Now it's disclosed by the royal commission that there were hidden losses. And who was in power when the losses were hidden? Social Credit was in power when the losses were hidden, Mr. Speaker; Social Credit was in power when the losses were hidden.

Has the Premier ever retracted any one of those mis-statements? Oh no, that would be too much. He's got nothing to do with his cabinet colleagues, he's got nothing to do with government action and certainly, Mr. Speaker, he's got nothing to do with statements he made a year ago, or two years ago. Separate yourself from everything and run and hide.

Mr. Speaker, there are three areas that I think this government could move in, and move in rapidly, to start providing jobs in this province. One, Mr. Speaker, is to show to the people of this province that you have confidence in their skills and their abilities. End forever the nonsense that labour is pricing itself out of the marketplace internationally and understand that labour and shopkeepers and small businessmen demand enough profit from the return of their labour or their investment to at least survive in this high-cost economy of British Columbia.

What can they do? This is not theory; this is fact. When we were in power, Mr. Speaker, we had our shipyards humming. Six major vessels were built in three and a half years under the New Democratic Party, all of them paid for. My friend for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was the one who launched the new ferry for Prince Rupert, built in British Columbia by British Columbia working people, who spent their wages in British Columbia, in small shops and stores here in British Columbia. We collected taxes on their wages.

What is the name, my friend, of the ferry we built for the Charlottes?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: The Koona. Yes, he's up there far more than you're in Vancouver East. I mean, you don't want to dirty your hands too much. You call them by phone.

Mr. Speaker, the Koona. Then there was the Queen of Coquitlam, a beautiful ship built in British Columbia by British Columbia working people, paid by the British Columbia taxpayer, now in service. There's the Queen of Alberni, a beautiful ship built in British Columbia shipyards by British Columbia workers, paid for and now in operation. There's the Queen of Cowichan.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: The Queen of Surrey we bought because there was a desperate shortage of space at the time.

You've just broken the rule. You're going to be fined five bucks for heckling me. You know that you're all supposed to keep quiet when I'm speaking. You're doing more to destroy your leadership chances than any other guy I know. Now play it cool; your time will come. Pick up the old pitchfork.

Mr. Speaker, a young man came to me in Vancouver Fast and said to me: "I want to thank the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) for being a wonderful training person for people coming into politics. Never mind four years of political

[ Page 40 ]

science in university. Never mind slugging it out within a political party. Just go out and pick up a shovel for a couple of hours in his nursery and you'll be dealing with the kind of stuff that gets you into Social Credit easily." A terrible thing for that young man to say. I said: "That was from the old Liberal days.

Mr. Speaker, vie built those ships in this province. They are paid for. And what was the act of faith of this government? To turn around and sell those ships off and then lease them back. Stupid! Absolutely stupid. We're going to pay twice for our ships. They put us into debt to the tune of almost $100 million to sell those ships to an eastern finance firm to beat the federal government's change of regulation by a matter of hours. Even the federal government got choked up on that deal. They tried to stop it, but it was too late. They sold off our ships and put the money into general revenue, and they have practically closed down our shipyards ever since.

Where will we get the money to build ships, Mr. Speaker? I'll tell you where we'll get the money: by bargaining for our resources. Alberta, which is not exactly a socialist state, now has coal royalties up to $9 a ton. Ours are still at $1.50. It' s an old story, Mr. Speaker. When we came to office, it was 25 cents a ton. Yes, I have to go over it again because you are still giving away the resources of the people of this province. Get that coal royalty up, Mr. Speaker, to $2.50, to $3.50 a ton. Use that money directly in our shipyards, employing people to build ships at a slow, steady pace to carry our coal to Japan in British Columbia-made ships, manned by British Columbia citizens, returning jobs here in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) had not destroyed the contract we had with NKK of Japan, we would now be in a position to have a small steel mill operating in this province. Under the leadership of the former Minister of Economic Development (Mr. Lauk) , that mall steel mill would be providing steel for our indigenous economy. Yes, from our own economy, and building those ships, using our steel and saying to the Japanese that as part of the price of bargaining for our resources, Mr. Speaker, they will be required to carry coal in Canadian ships.

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the CPR, one of the largest private corporations in this country, is so totally irresponsible that it is not made to build and buy its ships out of Canadian shipyards. Even after they buy their ships off coast, they don't even register them in Canada and they don't even hire Canadian crews. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell that minister that vie used Canadian shipyards, used Canadian workers and hired Canadians to run our corporations. We have faith in people in this country.

Even the Minister of Human Resources (Ron. Mr. Vander Zalm) , who spoke out against the hiring of an American for ICBC, knew exactly what the score was. We want to give that minister an opportunity to put that opinion on record too, because we know he's got enough toughness and enough guts to stand up when he's got a chance to vote on that particular issue to deal with it. I know that he would never say in the newspaper, "I'm opposed to hiring that American, " and then, when given the chance to vote against that, would change his point of view. So we're going to give him that chance in a few minutes. We're going to give you that chance.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Don't hang your head down. What you said was right then. All you have to do is vote for it when you're given a chance.

Mr. Speaker, we can build ships in this province. We should build ships in this province. And we should say to the Japanese, as every other administration is saying, that part of the price of buying our resources is that it must be in the area of transportation and we must get a share of the carrying of those resources to that Japanese market. Is it new or radical what I'm proposing? Not at all. When this government comes back and says we're not in a competitive position to bargain this way because others will undersell us, let me tell you that the government of Brazil has already made it policy that 40 per cent of all raw materials leaving Brazil must go in Brazilian ships, built in Brazil, manned by Brazilian crews; that the government of Australia - a right-wing administration - is now dealing with the same philosophy in terms of their resources; that the United States has had the Jones Act in force since the 1930s. I say that if you've got any guts at all, then you'd say that if that same policy is good enough for the United States, it's good enough for us here in British Columbia.

There' s a second thing I want to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker. We should set up immediately a British Columbia shipbuilding corporation and funnel the profits from increased royalties on coal into that corporation and begin to build our own ships, manned by our own crews and dealing with our own resources.

[ Page 41 ]

The next matter which I wish to deal with is an area of positive involvement by the government. It is the legislation w passed when we were in government and the report that was given to the Premier of this province, and kept secret ever since - kept secret ever since. On that institution, the report ~, us done by the B.C. Central Credit Union and a committee associated with them. We say I’d through legislation that w are sick and tired of being kicked around by a private banking system that takes massive profits out of western Canada and has no direct policy in terms of making regional or local decisions about investments by small, private entrepreneurs or small businesses. We said we were sick and tired of being kicked around by a private banking system that was protected by the Bank of Canada, as a public guarantee of their operations, when they make massive profits and show no leadership at all in meeting western regional needs and, in particular, British Columbia needs. We set up that new financial institution, Mr. Speaker, and we said that we wanted to increase the degree of competition in financial markets and thereby narrow the spread between borrowing and lending rates. What is the word I said? Competition! Why are the banks afraid of competition? One thing private enterprise hates more than anything else is competition.

2. To allow British Columbians to allow their own deposit funds to support the further economic and social development of British Columbia. Why shouldn't we give British Columbians an opportunity to put money into their own financial institutions and use that money right here in British Columbia to provide jobs and development in this province instead of in the hands of the private banks?

3. To ensure the maximum possible retention of funds within the province.

4. To attain a better balance between loans and deposits among all regions of the province.

5. To increase the amount of credit extended to low-- and middle-income earners, to farmers and to small businesses. Do you hear that? To have an instrument to do that if this government would have the guts to proclaim the legislation: to increase the amount of credit extended to low- and middle-income earners, to farmers, and to small businessmen; to provide a wide range of credit facilities and services such as mortgages, processing of government bills and accounts. Why not, Mr. Speaker? Why not a little vision? Why not a little leadership? With our own financial institution, B.C. Savings and Trust, vie could operate a new financial institution, a competitive alternative to the chartered banks. British Columbia Savings and Trust could become the fiscal agent of the government of British Columbia and offer all British Columbians low-cost loans, mortgaging and other financial services.

It used to be a Social Credit theory, Mr. Speaker. It actually used to be a Social Credit theory that monetary reform included easier access to people, through their own institution, for money. And the one fellow who understands that and who is nodding his head today is one of the true Social Crediters left in this House, the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) . The member for Skeena understands that original Social Credit philosophy was based on an egalitarian approach to the financial resources of a country. The original Major Douglas theory, all of ~, which I don't agree with, held as one of its basic premises that people should have the right to collectively use the strength of the finances of their own production out of their own banks.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You're right, Mr. Member.

That's absolutely right.

The Liberals are against that. The Conservatives are against that. They always have been, in every vote. That group over there is now opposed to it simply because they are no longer Social Credit. They wouldn't allow that member to be in the cabinet. You have been captured by right-wing Liberals and jumping Tories, and you have no resemblance whatsoever to basic Social Credit. Even Gerry

McGeer understood it - and I'm no fan of Gerry's. The Liberals that Trudeau got rid of are now running the government of British Columbia.

Here's the vote in the House. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I'm shocked. Look at some of the names who voted for this legislation, this financial institution. I want to thank you for drawing it to my attention. These are the ones who voted against it . Messrs. Williams, McGeer, Gardom, Anderson and Gibson. Where are Messrs. Williams, McGeer, Gardom, Anderson and Gibson? One of them isn't here, three of them jumped and one of them is still there holding a flag for at least another 30 days.

Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to read from the records for those who believe that the people of this province should have the right to use their own financial instrument to provide jobs, investments and loans for mall businesses and people in this province? I an

[ Page 42 ]

honoured to read from the list:

Mr. Lewis, Mrs. Webster, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Schroeder.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: Yes, voted for the bill.

Mr. Morrison, Mr. Curtis, Mr. McClelland, Mr. . Frank Richter, Mr. Steves, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Anderson, ~X. Rolston, Mr. Wallace, Mr. . Fraser, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Bennett. Would anyone suggest that any one of these hon. members would place their name in this honourable book of records only to vote for it because they thought it was politically expedient, but never to act on it? I challenge any member to say such a thing. But the public might think so.

Mr. Smith, Mrs. Jordan, Mr. Dent, Mr. Cumnings, Mr. D'Arcy, Ms. Brown, Mr. Calder, Mr. Hartley, Mr. Stupich, Mr. Nimsick, Mr. Strachan, Mrs. Dailly, myself, Hon. MT. Macdonald, Mr. Lockstead, Mr. Gabelmann, Mr. Skelly, Mr. Nunweiler, Mr. Nicolson, Mr. Lauk, Mr. Radford, Ms. Young, Mr. Lea, Mr. King, Mr. Cocke, Mr. R.A. Williams, Mr. Lorimer. They all agreed with it. They understood the very day that that was being debated that this financial institution could be a major departure from the stranglehold of vested interests controlling our financial institutions in western Canada. They even spoke in favour of it.

MR. LEA: The Liberals turned them around!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) understands exactly the powerful instrument this could be in the hands of a government in helping the people of this province. It could be a fantastic success.

For two and a half years this government has kept secret a report dealing with this financial institution and has never had the guts to release that report to the people of this province. I challenge you today, Mr. Speaker, to release that report. The people of this province paid for it. What are you afraid of? You voted for it.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you trying to hide?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, is it the Liberals who are running this government, or is it the Premier?

MR. KING: The Liberals!

MR. BARRETT: You voted for it, now let's see the report.

Do you want to help small businesses, Mr. Speaker? Dc) what your traditional party said at one time - give those private chartered banks some competition. Let the people have the power of their own money back in circulation again.

Mr. Speaker, I have dealt with alternatives. One of the other alternatives is the use of the Crown corporations that the Premier of this province is making a terrible mistake in selling off. Mr. Speaker, I went to allude to one corporation that thankfully is not being sold by this government, and that is the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, one of the most successful corporations produced by a government ever in the history of Canada, if not the most successful. I want to thank the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) and the others who instituted this.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know that Social Credit, having voted against this corporation, having fought against it, having screamed against it, having yelled against it, announced after they were in government: "Oh, really it isn't a corporation after all; it's just another way of collecting taxes." Well, Mr. Speaker, isn't that a modern revelation? The fact is that in their very teeth they were opposed to that corporation. I'm proud they kept it. I'm proud of its success, and I'm proud that, as of the last recent figures, $550 million has been returned to the people of British Columbia that would have gone, under the old Social Credit members' methods, into the hands of the oil companies.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. BARRETT: I ask the Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, why that price of natural gas hasn't been increased. Why are you still selling natural gas at cheap prices to the Americans? That price should be increased and that money should be withdrawn and patriated to the people of this province. It increased twice by pennies. When we came in Social Credit was selling it at 32 cents. We got it up to $1.65 when we left office.

MR. MACDONALD: No, we got it up to $1.97.

MR. BARRETT: To $1.97. What is it now Have they got it up to $2.10 yet? No. A penny f or the oil companies.

Mr. Speaker, you are not collecting enough for natural gas. You have allowed the oil companies ....

Interjections.

[ Page 43 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

MR. BARRETT: I'm telling the Premier of this province that unregulated natural gas is selling from Texas and other American states at $2.60. What is yours going for now? Less than $2.20.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: What is it now, then? You tell me. You don't know.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, well, you're wrong, Mr. Speaker. That gas price has yet to reach anything near the American unregulated price.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, American dollars. Now he's trying to rationalize why we shouldn't sell it. That means because the American dollar is .... Mr. Speaker, that's what it is. We haven't increased the price in gas; we're just making a few bucks on the exchange. Is that it? That's it.

Well, to give our American oil companies a break, this is how it works, folks. When you go across to Regina for your southern holiday and you go to buy American dollars, you pay 120 on the dollar. But if you're sending gas across, we don't increase the price because we're getting more in American dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're wrong.

MR. BARRETT: You're wrong, huh? You show me where we are getting the equivalent of unregulated gas at $2.60. You show me why Texas should sell its gas for far more than what British Columbia sells its gas in the United States. Is that wrong? Not on your life it isn't. The United States is now negotiating to bring in natural gas in a liquified form from Indonesia at $3.50 per thousand cubic feet with only an 8 per cent loss in liquefying the gas. We're still underpriced under the Americans. Giving away our resources! You fought against that corporation, you fought for the oil companies to have an increase in price of gasoline, you fought for the oil companies to increase the fuel prices to British Columbians, but you haven't fought for a fair price for our natural gas. Why not?

These are just some of the things, Mr.Speaker. There is no leadership. There are no decisions. In the face of shrinking world opportunities, those other democracies who compete with, Mr. Speaker, who also believe in the myth of private enterprise, are withdrawing their sources and leaving us to wither and there is no leadership from this government or that Premier to deal with those economic problems. Laissez-faire, laissez-faire! That has been The whole hallmark of your government. Do nothing to upset the private investor. Do nothing to get a fair price for our resources. Do nothing to relieve those people who need jobs out there.

Do nothing to help the small businesses that are going belly up after you said you were going to do everything. "Just give me the chance; work with Bill." Humbug, Mr. Speaker, plain humbug. I want to deal with another area about politics in general. Nobody is absolute;nobody is totally correct or totally wrong. But the first era of absolutes in politics was brought into this province under Social Credit. The first time this House was reduced to simplistic absolutes , as under the first

Social Credit administration. When people talk about the atmosphere in this Legislature, they say it's different and it's changed. It's never changed. I say they are wrong. There was a time in this province when debates took the form of philosophical exchange based on the sharing of opinions, the sharing of attitudes and the exchange of ideas. During our administration we tried to encourage opposition participation in the formulation of legislation. We took amendments from across the floor of the House. We took amendments in the form of committee stage of bills. We never felt threatened or insecure that because a good idea happened to come from the opposition, it shouldn't be included in the bill. We picked it up and we used it. All of the vilification we took, 1 think, was more focused around one issue more than anything else, and that was the natural gas issue. It would do no harm at all; it would serve the communities of this province well if once in a while this government could say the petroleum corporation was a good idea, the land bill as a good idea, Pharmacare was a good idea,

Mincome was a good idea, Consumer Affairs was a good idea, law reform was a good idea,

Can-Cel was a good idea, Plateau Mills was a good idea, Ocean Falls was a good idea, the

Royal Hudson ~ a good idea, the Princess

Marguerite was a good idea and, yes, there were some good things done by the NDP.

When Hubert Humphrey was being buried, Mr.

[ Page 44 ]

[illegible] President of the United States, [illegible] honourable man, made a moving [illegible] in the times of recorded history, [illegible] are fortunate enough to have lived during the lifetime of one of the most remarkable human beings ever to grace this earth. That human being was Mahatma Gandhi, a man of simple love and simple ways that transcended all philosophies and all governments and all cultures of this whole universe of ours that we know of. No one was more revered, even by the British while they were fighting him, because they understood the role of opposition. No one was more quoted or appreciated by other struggling peoples when they wanted to lead themselves free to control their own destiny. No one was more admired when it came to simple philosophy and simple approaches from Mahatma Gandhi.

President Carter quoted him. I want to read the quote that President Carter used. And when I read this quote, Mr. Speaker, I'm not pointing at anyone. I'm not passing any judgments, because those will be passed on me when my day comes. But 1 think these words are well worth listening to, as Gandhi gave them in his simple form. This is what President Carter quoted. Mahatma Gandhi once wrote that there were seven sins in the world: wealth without work; pleasure without conscience; knowledge without character; commerce without morality; science without humanity; worship without sacrifice; and politics without principle. Most appropriate, Mr. Speaker. Most appropriate. I'll mail everybody a copy. It might do us all good just to think about it.

Mr. Speaker, this is the worst throne speech I have ever heard. This is the first time that I have ever used that expression on any throne speech. It is the worst 1 have ever heard in my 18 years. It shows no hope, it shows no leadership, it has no courage, it has no direction, and it is full of platitudes. As a consequence, Mr. Speaker, I an forced, regretfully, to inform you that 1 intend to amend the motion in reply to the opening speech of His Honour the Lieutenant~Governor by adding the following words: "...but that the House regrets that the speech of His Honour fails to show any economic thrust towards solving unemployment in the province and fails to provide any indication that the government will change its policy of hiring non-Canadians in key posts in the public service or Crown corporations. It is seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) .

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the motion would appear to be in order. Would the member for Burnaby North like to second it?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement on a grave matter of importance to this assembly.

Leave granted.

HON. T~R. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce the resignation of the member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Hon. Mr. Davis) as a member of the executive council, and as Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. I was advised last weekend of an investigation touching upon the member. Accordingly, at the first opportunity, I met with the member. Under these circumstances, I requested the resignation of the member from the executive council. This action is not a prejudgment of the matter by me, nor is to be taken as an admission of any matter by the member. It is, however, in accordance with the requirements for membership on the executive council. I understand that the investigation is continuing, and I can make no comment on that matter until the investigation is complete. To do otherwise might compromise the investigation or its eventual outcome. I have so advised His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

MRS. DAILLY: First of all, I would like to extend my congratulations and welcome to the new member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) , and also to you, Mr. Speaker, in your attainment of the position of Deputy Speaker, and to our new Speaker, who has also attained a move into the Speaker's chair.

I sincerely do rise with regret to second this motion, and I say that in all sincerity. I think people of all parties today are aware of the very serious condition of our economy, both provincially and nationally. There was some hope, I believe, until this throne speech was presented, that perhaps the present government would be able to come to grips with some of the problems on a provincial basis. But unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, they have not. That is why I am supporting this amendment to the throne speech - a throne speech which does not, Mr. Speaker, give any real hope to the citizens of British Columbia that the present condition of our economy in this province will be improved, by this government's proposed policies.

I don't intend to spend too much time in a battle of statistics. I think the people of British Columbia are tired of politicians hurling statistics at each other. I think what they Aunt is action. But, Mr. Speaker, the throne speech does specifically mention to

[ Page 45 ]

some degree, under the title of "Job Creations, " some rather nebulous policies which don't appear to show too much imagination, unfortunately, or anything new to improve the economy.

There are some facts that should be put on the record when we're discussing job creation in this province. Now the number of jobs created by the Social Credit government ~, us first brought up in the Premier's State of the Province speech last January. At that time, the Premier proudly stated that his administration had created 27,000 new jobs in 1977.

MR. BARBER: All for members of the Social Credit Party.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes. If we really analysed it, quite a number went if you were a member of the Social Credit party.

He of course failed to mention that the number of jobs created when the NDP was in office was at a rate of 46,000 per 12-month period. As a matter of fact, Statistics Canada reported that the NDP created jobs in excess of 3,500 per month during its 39-month term of office.

Now, Mr. Speaker, those are the facts and they should go on the record, particularly when w all remember that the present Premier of this province and many of his cabinet stumped this province during the last election campaign stating the NDP's unemployment figures were a disgrace, and if elected, he would put the B.C. economy back on the track. Well, after 29 months in office, he and his government have completely derailed the economy of this province.

You know, Mr. Speaker, what value is there in any government today trumpeting aloud throughout the province that they have a surplus, or that they are going to have a surplus, or that they are going to be able to balance the books? What value is there in that statement? I've heard the backbenchers use this too. How can you stand up and use that when at the same time you know that the economy which your government presides over is shattered and that unemployment is at an all~time high? Despite those facts, we hear the Premier, his backbenchers and his cabinet saying: "Ah, it doesn't matter. There may be unemployment and so on, but we're going to balance the books."

The people of this province are not going to buy that any longer, because this is the time for a British Columbia government to take every means possible to get money circulating in this province, and you don't achieve that with phony surpluses and forever- increasing taxes on the people of this province.

You know, the Social Credit obsession - it appears almost to be an obsession with balancing the books and with imposing unnecessary taxes on the people of this province - has proved a complete failure, if they had at any time thought that this was going to bring the economy back into a stable position, which of course w question it ever was. As a matter of fact, what have they achieved? What have they achieved with their financial policies, because obviously they have no economic ones? Social services have been drastically cut in almost every area, and at the sane time, higher taxes are being imposed upon the citizens.

And then, Mr. Speaker, the fancy manoeuvres that have been used by this government to create a surplus are indeed disgraceful. What have they involved? They have involved some of the things which the hon. Leader of the Opposition just referred to when he 'was speaking. They have sold our ferries. The ferries that were built by the people of British Columbia and paid for by British Columbians have now been sold so that some money could be put into general revenue so it will assist them when they try to point out to the people of British Columbia that they can handle the revenues and the financing of this province.

Special funds - of course, we know they also have pulled those out and they're using them to make some attempt to balance the books; $30 million, cancelling special funds that were established not only by the NDP, Mr. Speaker, but by the former Bennett government.

But, of course, the most tragic thing of all that has happened - and I feel it is necessary to discuss this in the throne debate because it all ties in with the inability of this government to be able to produce anything concrete in their policies for economic development - is that they have also, as we are well aware, pushed through the House legislation which has sold out the investments to the resource investment corporations of companies which had a book value of approximately $140 million, and which already were owned by the people of this province, and which were producing income which could have been used, if still carrying on as the NDP wished, to help pay for government services.

It is also interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that for a government which talks about trimming costs, even before the Resources Corporation acquired any assets, it started running up expenses by ~, ;ay of directors' fees to the tune of four individuals at $5,000 each

[ Page 46 ]

per year. That was just the start-up cost for another level of an agency which is going to do a disservice to this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, if I could just interrupt you for a moment, please. If the other bon. members of the House would keep their conversations a little quieter we might be able to hear the member for Burnaby North.

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's interesting to notice a specific statement in the throne speech, and I'd like to quote it. It says:

"My government, along with the private sector, has a role to play in establishing the infrastructure and the environment which will generate the necessary confidence in the private sector. Working together on the problem of job creation, both public and private sectors will achieve real results in the creation of permanent jobs."

Now I find that a most interesting statement from the Premier of British Columbia and from his government because from the time the Social Credit took office, again they were expounding during their campaign that they believed in a hands-off government policy, a non-interventionist policy. "We don't want government interfering." We heard this over and over again. Isn't it interesting now that we have this statement?

Does it mean that their version - the version of the Social Credit Party, the Social Credit government, their so-called free~enterprise philosophy - has not worked? Because for years, through theory and through practice, the New Democratic Party has advocated government leadership and direction of the economy. Now it appears that almost in desperation, after making a shambles of their two years in office, under this laissez-faire attitude, suddenly there seems to be a small half-hearted attempt at some economic planning and direction. Is that what it means? Well, if it does, it's really too little and too late. If the government is thinking of moving into an interventionist policy, I would suggest that they turn it over to the New Democratic Party which, in practice and theory, understands leadership and understands economic planning.

Not only are we lacking good financial policies from this government - and these have been outlined over and over again by the members of the opposition; the disastrous increases in taxes - but there's nothing coming from the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . Now surely the Minister of Economic Development is the one that should be giving the leadership to the government and to the Premier in getting the economy moving in this province. Yet when we look at the record of the Minister of Economic Development, which we'll analyse in detail, of course, when his estimates cane up, it's a pretty sad record. But it must be discussed today, because the Premier is always talking about getting the economy on the move in this province. Words, words, words!

Well, let's see what's happened, Mr. Speaker. To date there's been nothing forthcoming from this ministry. We don't even have good research and development coming out of his ministry to point the way to perhaps the development of good secondary industry in this province. It's a ministry that seems bereft, through its leadership, of giving to the citizens of this province any hope that moves are being made to develop secondary industry in this province.

Let's take an example of what happened just recently, Mr. Speaker, through this minister. I wonder what the Premier of this province thinks of this situation. Whether he's discussed it with the minister or not, I don't know. For example, the Premier and his Minister of Economic Development, I think, have a considerable amount of explaining to do to the Legislature, at the right time, on the mishandling of the proposal by a European group of investors who were willing to build a coal gasification plant costing $1.5 billion. Now because of the inaction of the government, and in specific the minister in charge of economic development for the government, I'm going to quote exactly what has been said, apparently, by one of these investors. He said:"Because of the. inaction by the Minister of Economic Development in reference to the interest shown in building a coal-gasification plant in British Columbia, potential investors are now quite wary, and they will think twice before considering B.C. as a potential investment area." Now what kind of bumbling is that from this government?

We've listened to that Minister of Economic Development speak hour upon I-our when he was in opposition about the bumblings of the NDP, with no basis. Mr. Speaker, I'm laying out a basis here to point out that that minister and the Premier have bumbled this excellent opportunity in this province for investment to come and to bring jobs. At a time when B.C. is plagued with unemployment, this minister has given up a golden opportunity for this government to move in on a new industry. I think the Premier and the minister must be held responsible to the House at a serious

[ Page 47 ]

time like this in our province for an explanation of why they let something like this slip through their fingers.

I think it was stated very well by the business editor of the Sun in reference to governments running peanut stands, where he stated: "This present government can neither operate a peanut stand, but what is even worse, they can't even make up their minds what brand of peanuts to sell."

So, Mr. Speaker, there's the situation we're faced with as far as economic development and planning go in this province. Even when the opportunity is given, it is not taken. So I hope we'll have some answers from the minister, and I'm sure the people of the province want to know what happened.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the throne speech refers specifically to the importance of the travel industry, and predicts even further promotional programmes for this industry. I notice that the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) spent considerable time extolling that ministry when he spoke the other day. Now no one denies the importance of this industry to the economy of our province. However, what we do question, Mr. Speaker, are the priorities of spending in that ministry during the last two years. They raise some very serious questions that will be raised at the appropriate time during the budget debates and estimates. But I do wish to make one point at this time with reference to priorities in this ministry.

You know, it's become increasingly obvious that the impact of unemployment in British Columbia and across Canada is being felt most strongly by young people and by women. Discrimination against women in the work force is once again beginning to surface openly. This is a time in particular, Mr. Speaker, when women need to be equipped more than ever with the tools to fight this discrimination with knowledge and information, and when education programmes , are sadly needed, unfortunately, still for employers in this province, and obviously for this government. Yet what has happened? The Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , who happens also to be in charge of dispensing grants, has seen fit to give at this crucial time for women only half of the required annual budget to the Vancouver Status of Women, an organization that is needed at this time, Mr. Speaker, more than ever before. It was a shameful decision when, at the same time, we find that this same minister has spent $80,000 on hospitality certificates. That's only one questionable promotion that we will wish to discuss at a further time.

The point in bringing up this specifically, Mr. Speaker, is: where are the priorities of this government? Before I leave this matter of concern over the situation of women today in the work force, Mr. Speaker, I would like for the record to make a few more points on discrimination against women today in times of high unemployment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are actually on an amendment. During the throne speech, of course, we're wide open on debate. But on this amendment, I will listen to your argument. Please continue.

MRS- DAILLY: I think, as a seconder, 1 am allowed a certain latitude, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please continue.

MRS. DAILLY: Really, when I'm talking about unemployment, particularly with women, it all fits in with the amendment which is suggesting and pointing out that this government doesn't have any adequate policies in this area. I, for the record, particularly want to dispel some myths about the unemployment situation for women and the attitude today that is becoming prevalent regarding working women.

I think very few people realize, Mr. Speaker, that unemployment is indeed hitting women more than it is men. Women in Canada make up 36.9 per cent of the total Employed labour force, but, Mr. Speaker, they make up 44.2 per cent of the unemployed labour force.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, if you would allow the Chair some indulgence, I would apologize. You are quite correct and you are unlimited in your speech as the seconder to the motion. Those people speaking after you, there is....

MRS. DAILLY: A further....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: No, I must agree with you. I hope there isn't, Mr. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , but, as I say, we always get into statistics. But I hope I've made my point: more women are unemployed than men, and are hit harder whenever the economy reaches this point.

A further breakdown of unemployment in sex shows that women who are 25 years of age and over are most likely to experience unemployment. The unemployment rate for women 25 years and over was 7.4 per cent for Canada as a whole. as compared to 4.9 per cent for

[ Page 48 ]

men in this same age category. So , Mr Speaker, the unemployment rate among women was 51 per cent higher.

The other point 1 wish to make is that there is a myth abroad which always comes about in times of insecurity and times of high unemployment, and that is that working women don't really have to work, and if they are unemployed it's really nothing to worry about. Now, Mr. Speaker, the idea that women today are working for frills and luxuries - all women - and are therefore only secondary earners, is increasingly being perpetuated by governments, media and right-wing elements in our Canadian society. This pressure on women to return to the home has been exerted throughout Canadian history whenever jobs are scarce.

If I may recall a personal experience, Mr. Speaker, I remember that when 1 first started teaching it was a time of not too good employment. I remember that if you were married at that time, you could forget about getting a job in the Vancouver school system. I'm afraid that we perhaps seem to be coming back to those days again. 1 don't think we can afford to and 1 hope society has progressed more than it was - 1 hate to say - back in the Forties when 1 was teaching.

Mr. Speaker, governments that cannot deal with unemployment always seem to need scapegoats and women are usually the primary target. There's an excellent article in the Canadian Forum written by a Mr. R.H. Robinson, who makes this point, Mr. Speaker, that working women wanting to work are coming more under attack with rising unemployment. There are multiplying signs of a drive like the one that followed the second world war to make women believe that their true place and role is not at work. Instead of being marginally attached to the labour force, they would be completely detached from it. That is the intent of some forces in our society today. And this is like treating an illness not by curing the patient but by denying that she exists. Mr. Speaker, the myth that women work for luxuries rather than necessities can easily be refuted. There is ample data available which clearly indicates that the majority of women in the labour force today do not freely choose to work but are economically compelled to do so. I'm putting this into the record now, Mr. Speaker, because after looking at the throne speech I realize that there's no hope at the present time from this government for any great increase in Employment. I'm laying out the facts that we all have to be very very careful that we don't allow this discrimination against women in the work force to take over in times of insecurity. We can see signs of it already, and I hope that this government will give leadership to stop it wherever they see it arising.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I notice in the throne speech that there is particular reference to an examination, ministry by ministry, of a proliferation of boards, agencies and commissions that have a questionable public purpose. Now I'm sure that the people of the province are glad to hear that, because they are certainly told themselves to pull in their belts and restrain, and they certainly hope the government is setting an example. But may I humbly suggest to the Premier that when he starts this examination he starts with the Ministry of Education, which, since the advent of this new coalition government in the province of British Columbia, has under the present Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , developed a huge, centralized bureaucracy with a myriad of boards, agencies and commissions. The interesting thing is that the hon. Premier himself, and many other of the Social Credit candidates, campaigned to decentralize the Ministry of Education, which, of course was based on wrong information to begin with, because it was moving towards great decentralization. Now that we have this new ex-Liberal Minister of Education, we find that he is building up a huge bureaucracy. The Premier of our province says that he is going to investigate this. So may I suggest he start with that department? I think questions should be asked about the myriad of agencies, commissions and boards which have been set up by the Minister of Education at the same time that that minister and the Premier are telling those involved in education - in colleges, universities, et cetera to restrain their spending.

You know, it's the height of hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, for government to stand up and consistently say, over and over again, that the people must accept the fact that we're living in tight budgetary times and they must restrain themselves, when every day we see examples of non-restraint in the Social Credit government. The Leader of the Opposition has specifically mentioned the hiring of non-Canadians to begin with; he's mentioned the matter of excessive salaries being paid. We just have to look at the Premier's office alone to see the proliferation of relative salaries, et cetera, that seem to be abounding. It's not only in the Premier's office, but in others as well. Apparently your only way to get into some of these offices, of course, is to have had something to do with the Social Credit Party at one time or

[ Page 49 ]

another. Now if this government, in a time of great economic trial in this province, wishes to give leadership, I would suggest they straighten things up in their own ministries to begin with.

You know, Mr. Speaker, there is a sense of alienation in this province today, there is a sense of hopelessness and there is a sense of insecurity. It's pervading our whole province. I know in my own riding of Burnaby North, when I'm meeting constituents in my office and around the riding there is this sense of hopelessness. I have to say that we can't just say it's all over the world today, because this province has aided and abetted the poorer provinces that we have. They themselves could have taken action when they first came into office to make the lives of the people of this province have some hope again, to give them some security, but instead we're now well into the end of the term of this government -hopefully - and there is no confidence in this government across this province.

Mr. Speaker, I have no confidence personally and that is why I've started off here today, supporting the motion of non-confidence in this government.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I just have to stand and speak against the amendment to this motion, Mr. Speaker. I have to do that because it would appear that some members opposite have not been reading the facts in British Columbia.

It seems to me I heard the Leader of the Opposition just a few moments ago say that no new jobs had been created in British Columbia, the man, who.... While the economy of Canada was increasing, the economy of British Columbia was going downhill. There is the man who said we had created no jobs in British Columbia. He fails to realize that under this administration and under the great policies of this government, we turned this economy around from going downhill. We turned the finances of this province around from a province facing economic disaster to one of showing a surplus in our first year. That's the type of management you're getting under this government.

But let's take a few moments, Mr. Speaker, just to talk about a few facts, not political rhetoric which we-'ve heard from the Leader of the Opposition who's fighting for his very life in his party.

AN HON. MEMBER: And losing.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: And losing.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you the facts. The number of persons in the British Columbia labour force increased by 16,000 persons from last month ~ these are the February stats ~ to a total of 1,172, 000 persons. The new level represents an increase of 4.9 per cent or 55,000 persons over last year, he had the audacity to stand up in this House and say we hadn't created any jobs in this province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the member who just took her seat said something about there being no increase in women employment in this province. Compared to last month - and I'm quoting from the official statistics - the absolute increase has been similar for both men and women. However, over the year the increase of women is considerably more pronounced - an increase of 42,000 women or 10.2 per cent, compared to an increase of only 1.8 per cent or 13,000 for males. You see, Mr. Speaker, this is why the people of British Columbia have lost faith in those people over there, because when they were government they had none of the answers. They nearly ruined the economy of this province and we, under a very difficult world situation, under a very difficult situation in Canada, have indeed turned it around and are making progress, make no mistake about that.

Now there was a talk here a little while ago by the Leader of the Opposition about bankruptcies in British Columbia and companies going broke. Let me give you some facts and figures.

In 1972 there were 9.024 new companies established in British Columbia; in 1973 the figure went up to 9,412; in 1974 we had an increase of 300 up to 9,766; in 1975 there was hardly any increase at all - it went up to 10,267. But in the first year of this Social Credit administration we- had 12,355 new companies established in this province, and in 1977 that figure went up to 13,209 new companies established in the province of British Columbia.

Now they say there are no extra~ provincial companies coming into the province, no external investment. Let me tell you the story of external companies coming into the province.

In '71, before there was any thought of that group over there coming to government, there were 575 extra provincial companies registered in British Columbia. In 1972, it went up to 644. But when the world looked at that administration and realized what was happening in this great province of ours under that administration. in 1973 it dropped to 573 companies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[ Page 50 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In 1974, it went down to 540 companies. In 1975 - and this was because of the last two months' of operation - it went up four to 544. But look what happened in '76! Six hundred and fifty seven extra provincial companies established in the province of British Columbia; 745 in 1977. And that's confidence, ladies and gentlemen; that's confidence, my colleagues in the province of British Columbia.

MR. MACDONALD: How many went bankrupt?

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They say we're not helping the small businessmen. Well, I'll tell you when they were there, Mr. Speaker, they went down to Ottawa and I think that the Premier was then called a buffoon. And how much money did he bring back of our taxpayers' dollars to the province of British Columbia? Zilch! What have ~, ;e done? A $110 million DREE agreement, a $60 million ARDA agreement, money for the railroad, money for the ferries. I could go on and on, but I just want to talk about the one, and that's our DREE agreement, where w put money up front to help the small businessman.

MR. LAUK: We signed that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You signed nothing, and you know it. You were a disaster when you were Minister of Economic Development. You were an absolute disaster, an absolute, positive disaster, and that's why you took your files home and hid them in the basement! That's why you hid your files; you were such a disaster by then, and you know it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Please address the Chair.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, from

September I until February 28....

MR. LAUK: If I table them, will you resign?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please. The Minister of Economic Development has the floor.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The new industrial development subsidiary agreement, signed by the government of British Columbia and the government of Canada last July, is a new agreement and a breakthrough in co-operation with the federal government, a breakthrough in new DREE agreements in Canada.

The minister of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in Ottawa said it is indeed the best agreement that he signed with any province to date, and other provinces are taking a look at it. That's breakthrough, that's research, and that's progress.

Now there's the minister over there yakking away who used to be the ex-Minister of Highways (Mr. Lea) . What did he tell the tourists? He said: "Go home, tourists, go home!"

I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that from September I until February 28 we had 1,721 inquiries under this agreement. That's helping small businesses, that shows an interest, and we're doing the job.

Now I just want to talk about a few job-creating policies that this government has created. We talked about coal. They went over to Japan and they played rugby. Did they talk to the coal industry? No. What ~, us their attitude? Leave the coal in the ground, what's the hurry? They were in no hurry because everything was supposedly going well. Now they chastise us for not being able to sell when they lost contracts to practically every other country in the world. They lost the contract.

Our policy is, Mr. Speaker, that even though the demand for metallurgical coal is not increasing like it was when they were in power, increasing by tens of millions of tons a year .... They let the contracts go out the door. What did we say? We said we have to fight twice as hard to get a larger share of the existing market. They had it so easy, they blew it. They didn't even try and sell it. Today, Mr. Speaker, we are fighting for a market that they let go out the window. We are fighting contracts that were signed when they were in office because they didn't know what they were doing. They said: "Leave it in the ground; we don't need the jobs, " and today they have the audacity to stand up and say we're doing nothing to create jobs. We have to work four times as hard as they worked in office, because they blew it.

What did they say about the Grizzly Valley? I'll tell you what they said. They said there' s no gas there, a hoax on the people of British Columbia, an announcement of economic activity when none will take place, a stock manipulation. I'll tell you, we've had to work twice as hard to get the jobs in this province because that outfit over there blew it. Every country w travel in - what is the first question they ask? They say: "We won't invest in British Columbia because you've got socialists over there, and they'll take it over." They don't want development. We have to spend hour after hour after hour in every

[ Page 51 ]

country w- travel in trying to sell investment in British Columbia, because they blew it and you don't turn it around overnight. But 1 want to tell that we have turned it around and it is coming.

Oh yes, Mr. Speaker, they talk in great terms about the development of the north. What did they do with the oil and petroleum industry? They drove it out of this province, directly out, at a time, Mr. Speaker, when there .as the greatest demand for oil and gas the world has ever known. After the energy crisis hit in 1973, what happened in British Columbia? The oil wells left, the exploration money left and we created a false shortage. In two short years, Mr. Speaker, in two short years, the investment by the petroleum industry in British Columbia has gone from $18 million to $196 million. That may not have too much to do with confidence but now the people of British Columbia can look forward for many, many years in the future to a good, constant supply of petroleum industry in this province.

They talk about jobs, Mr. Speaker. What have we done with the tourist industry? One of the greatest promotions ever put on by any province in Canada increased tourism in British Columbia by a greater percentage than in any other province of Canada, but what did they tell the tourists?

AN HON. MEMBER: "Go home, go home!"

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They said: "Yankee go home." They packed it up by leaving potholes in the highways. What has our Minister of Highways done?

MR. LEA: Overrun.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: One of the greatest highway building projects that this province has ever known. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, if you want the people of a province to have confidence in the government and if you want investment in the province, the first thing you've got to do is to provide them with an adequate highway system. That's exactly what we've done and it's paying off.

Mr. Speaker, what has our great Minister of Labour done to restore confidence in this great province? He brought down the man-days lost in this province by strikes from 1.8 million lost in 1975 to less than a quarter of a million last year. That brings confidence to the province of British Colombia, that brings confidence in this great government. It's brought confidence to the workers of this province and, Mr. Speaker, it' s brought confidence to the investment world, because decisions have been made in the last two years on behalf of our lumber industry. We said: "Listen, you're not going to be threatened with take-over." What happened? Decisions that had been pending for the previous three years during that administration were not made. The lumber industry was growing old, it needed remodelling. What has happened in the last two years? Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in plant modernization and expansion to ensure that the workers of this province and that the goods and services of this province will be competitive to maintain those jobs in the long run. That's confidence.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, I just happen to be the man who works with liaison between the government and the great British Columbia Railway. When we took over from them, that railway had the lowest morale that it had ever known in its history. There was no morale among the workers, there , as no morale among the management and the railway was practically on the rails.

MR. LEA: No more than it is now.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What has happened? Oh yes, you laugh there, Mr. Ex-minister of Potholes. Today the British Columbia Railway is running like a tap, the morale in management is high, the morale of the workers is high and last September we achieved the greatest number of car loadings in the history of the railroad. It just shows a continual up-grade, and what have we- done with our operating losses? I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, last year alone we reduced the operating losses on that railway by $13 million. And that just didn't happen, that took management, that took ability, that took business acumen, that took business experience by a dedicated board of that railway. There is the man over there who said: "The Grizzly Valley pipeline will never be built, there is no gas." You don't even deserve to be the ex-Attorney-General, let alone deserve to be the Attorney--General when you were.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have turned the economy of this province around. Once again there is faith by the investors. What did we have last year? A 22 per cent increase in investment in secondary manufacturing in the province. Shipments of our manufactured exports are up, shipments of our ores are up, shipments of everything is up, more people Employed, good business, sound financing. An education minister who has had to revitalize the entire education system. We are working on high-technology industry, we 've got a research park underway. I want to tell you, Mr.

[ Page 52 ]

Speaker, I could go on and on all day, but the one thing I want to leave with you is that this government has turned it around; it is doing a great job.

I want to tell you, before I take my seat, that in these two short years, you've just seen the beginning. Our policies haven't even really started to show results yet. I want to tell you, British Columbia, I predict, will be the brightest spot in all of Canada, and not only in Canada, because, Mr. Speaker, our policies are good, solid policies and they are working. We will be the most successful government in a very difficult world. We will be greater than any state in the United States when our policies have time to bear fruit. I have great confidence. So have the workers of this province, and so, Mr. Speaker, have investors who will invest hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, creating new jobs in our province.

MR. LAUK: I was wondering where I was going to get a speech from this afternoon. I want to thank the hon. Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) for taking his place during this debate, if for no other reason than it's given the new member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) an example of what the House used to be like when the majority of the members were like him. If ego and promises could create jobs, Mr. Speaker, well then, there would be no unemployment in this province.

Promises based on misinformation - the misuse of statistical information in this chamber is no more protected than the misuse of statistical information outside this chamber. I'm shocked, indeed, Mr. Speaker, that a minister of the Crown would get up and use figures in a manipulative fashion to give the impression to the public and to the members of this chamber that a certain conclusion can be reached from them.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think the member is aware that we cannot impute an improper motive to any member of the House, whether or not he be a member of the cabinet. Please withdraw.

MR. LAUK: I won't impute an improper motive, Mr. Speaker, because I really do believe that the hon. minister does not know what he's talking about.

MR. SPEAKER: But we cannot use language which would indicate that that's what we are doing, so I'll ask the member please to withdraw "manipulative."

MR. LAUK: Withdraw what?

MR. SPEAKER: The reference to manipulating.

MR. LAUK: Manipulating. I'll withdraw that word, Mr. Speaker, and insert instead that the minister, I really do believe, does not understand what he's saying. For example, he discusses the general development agreement. Not only was that general development agreement negotiated between the NDP administration and Don Jamieson, who was then the minister of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, but the very figures were discussed. Memoranda and agreements are available to the minister, and he knows full well that it's not true that his administration negotiated that agreement. They were just around in time to sign it.

The minister also has the nerve to mention the Grizzly Valley pipeline. He has the nerve to stand up in this House and mention it. I'm surprised to see that a minister under investigation today....

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: Double-sided what?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The first member for Vancouver Centre is trying to make a speech.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) , Mr. Speaker, had the honour to resign while under investigation. Nb one on this side of the House knows why, and we'll [illegible] further announcements and events. But I should recall, Mr. Speaker, for you that when the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) was under investigation by a royal commission he kept his cabinet portfolio, and to this day we still don't know who told the truth before that commission...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: ... the minister or Arthur Weeks, his executive assistant.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. This is the second warning. Would you please withdraw the reference to an untruth before a commission?

MR. LAUK: ND, I will not, Mr. Speaker. I said we do not know who told the truth before that commission. There were two totally

[ Page 53 ]

contradictory statements under oath, and no resolution to that, and no comment by the minister has been made in this chamber.

MR. SPEAKER: You are not impugning any member of this [louse?

MR. LAUK: No, I'm not.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: I'm stating a fact, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of I-can't-recall. Well, Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia recall very clearly his role in that sordid affair.

Now let's deal with some of the statistics, Mr. Speaker, that the minister had the audacity to bring forward to this honourable chamber. He's discussing the increase in the number of persons, I imagine, and, Mr. Speaker, he ~, ;as discussing and reiterating what the Premier stated to the public on the electronic media the other day. The Premier said that during the NDP administration there were more people leaving the province than coming in, and they had an easier time with the economy. That was totally and manifestly incorrect. The very publications from the Department of Economic Development reveal that. Is this a government that says whatever it pleases with impunity, expecting that the opposition will not reply, or that the people will accept what they say at face value? The lowest year of growth from 1972 to 1975 was 60,000 in the province of British Columbia on in~migration. The highest in the last t~, ;o years in this administration is a little over 50,000.

That doesn't sound like what the minister is claiming or what the Premier claimed on television the other day. Unemployment, Mr. Speaker, was never as high as it is today.

Bankruptcies are another alarming feature of this administration. You can talk about all the new companies in the world; it doesn't mean a thing. All you have to do is go down and incorporate a company for a few bucks and that's it. That doesn't mean a thing. It has no basis to point to as an economic indicator in a positive way - none whatsoever. But going concerns that declare bankruptcy are an indicator.

I'll tell you something about the figures that the hon. Leader of the Opposition mentioned. They were will under. They were conservative figures for bankruptcies, because what is not included in those statistics are receiverships. I think that hon. members know that 90 per cent of receiverships don't recover. They are, for all purposes, a bankruptcy.

There's been a phenomenal increase. In the Vancouver supreme court chambers in the 1960s and early '70s, the average number of foreclosures per week was less than a half a dozen - six on the average. Today - and these are family homes as well as commercial enterprises; the majority of them are family homes - there are no fewer than an average of 80 per week. That is a disaster, Mr. Speaker. These are ordinary ~working families that are going under because they are unemployed and overtaxed and overburdened, and there's no relief and economic plan coming from this government.

Well, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of points that should be raised. I will support the amendment to the motion. I will support it for a number of reasons. This government is devoid of industrial strategy. They have expressed no concern for getting involved, even in a planning way, in the economy of this province. As was stated by the Leader of the Opposition in his address this afternoon, administrations in the past had no hesitation to become actively involved in the planning of the economy of this province.

In the late 1940s, shortly after the war, an all-party committee of this chamber called 'the reconstruction committee" traveled the province, heard briefs from experts and ordinary citizens, and provided an economic plan for the future for this province, which W.A.C. Bennett followed. He built the roads that were required; he encouraged the resources that were required; he invested in the railroad. This government has thrown up its hands and said that the government should not become involved in the economy. It is the first government in this province that has ever done so and the results have been disastrous. What we need, Mr. Speaker, is a bold stroke - a government that realizes that when it is elected to govern, it indeed will govern.

What are the issues in the economy? Certainly they must include taxation. You've heard how this government in the last two and a half years has raised taxes to cost ordinary working families at least $1,200-$1,300 a year in extra payments to the provincial coffers that they ~, would not otherwise have to make. In this year alone, there' s a most startling example. When enrolment in schools is down, this government is placing its burden and its responsibility on the backs of ordinary homeowners in the city of Vancouver, for example, by tens of millions of dollars that they don't need. We're paying 10, 15, 14 and 20 per cent more in taxes this year because of

[ Page 54 ]

that very factor alone, and the Marie Antoinette Minister of Education couldn't care less because it won't come out! of his pocket. It comes out of his poor homeowner constituents in Vancouver-Point!Grey.

The nerve centre of the government is the Ministry of Economic Development. After all, I sat on the other side of the House and I heard the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) say that on several occasions. He said: "You are the nerve centre of the economy and the government." So I waited for great things when he assumed that office. I expected to see a new economic and industrial strategy for British Columbia - a prosperity mentality, not the depression mentality that we get from him these days, but having to do with prosperity, having to do with looking into the future, encouraging confidence.

MR. MACDONALD: He said we lost contracts.

MR. LAUK: As the bon. first member for Vancouver East points out to me, in the Minister of Economic Development's remarks, he said we lost contracts. Now he didn't have the intestinal fortitude to say which contracts or to name them, because there weren't any. If he meant coal contracts, then what he .m s suggesting is totally untrue. We increased the coal contracts.

M~y I remind this chamber that in the speech I made last spring to this House I warned the Minister of Economic Development, who had returned from Japan, having lost our impetus for new coal contracts in Japan? I warned him. I said: 11 The Japanese are presently negotiating with China for natural gas and oil." I had heard through the embassy of the federal government that this was taking place. And I also heard that the quid pro quo would be that the Japanese will use metallurgical coal from China.

Mr. Speaker, the other day the Japanese government signed an agreement with the government of China: 1. To use their natural gas and oil and 2. In exchange they would purchase metallurgical coal, reaching five million tons per annum, the very figures we're talking about for the northeast. If ego and promises could create jobs, we would have no unemployment in this province today. The minister ignored my remarks. He did nothing about them. He took no directions. He sought no advice. Again, we 've lost an opportunity.

Now rather than lose contracts, we gained them. We were going to build a steel mill, and with this steel mill, either in Prince George or Kitimat, it would have provided a new industrial base for the interior of this province. Again, a prosperity mentality, Mr. Speaker, not a depression mentality. A steel mill [illegible] sure, at the time, came under some criticism - maybe it's too soon, maybe it costs too much, shouldn't we wait? Well, we waited so long that under the new administration we lost the opportunity. We lost the opportunity to supply steel for the pipeline that's going to be built. We lost the opportunity to build ships for this province, using our steel right out of Prince George or out of Kitimat. We lost the opportunity to put rail lines up to Alaska. Why? And here is the MBA from Harvard who thinks it's very amusing, Mr. Speaker, the man that's going to bolt out of this House, who has sat here unable to provide solutions of his own; and now he's going to go to Ottawa, equally unable to provide solutions.

MR. SPEAKER: To the motion, please.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, if we had the mentality in the NDP administration that this administration had, this economy would be totally bankrupt. There's still time left, brother; there's still time left. Develop your industrial strategy. Try and turn the corner on this thing. The government must be the catalyst where the private industry is too fearful to become involved. The rail line, the steel mill, all were proposals of the NDP administration, that if alive today and proceeding today, B.C. would still be ahead of Alberta and other provinces of this country instead of falling far behind.

The Social Credit government is a depression party. They came in in 1975 on the threshold of a depression. They have overseen a depression, they've administered it and they're going to continue a depression, because they do not have the vision and the sense of prosperity that most British Columbians have in this province.

Look at the minister of mine closures, Mr. Speaker. tie's overseen the worst period of mining in the history of the province of British Columbia. It's little wonder; we knew him as Minister of Labour. But here is the Minister of Mines traveling around the countryside, explaining to the people of Stewart, British Columbia, that the universe is unfolding as it should, that the free-market system is taking its logical and inevitable course.

We all know what the free-market system is for Granduc - that's so that they can invest the profits from our Labour and our resources in Brazil and Peru, those grand, wonderful, democratic states like Chile. That's what's

[ Page 55 ]

happened under this administration, Mr. Speaker. And what do you tell the people of Stewart? What do you say to them now? We've had our fling. I wonder how much severance pay they are going to get for investing their lives, their work lives, their social lives, putting their families in Stewart, British Columbia. Soon there'll be empty streets, empty schools; grass will be growing over the sidewalks. And this Minister of Mines is presiding over that disaster.

Can he claim that the international marketplace is at fault? No. Copper prices are going up - they're over 60 cents a pound now. He can' t claim that. Can he claim that he doesn't understand his portfolio? Well, certainly we do. He has not taken the opportunity, as one of the key ministers in that government, to bring about the proper economic development that we require during a time of recession.

The other minister who is part of the nerve centre of the economic administration of this government - the Minister of Forests (Bon. Mr. Waterland) - is completely out to lunch. The industry is attacking, the IWA is attacking, the public. is attacking. They are inquiring of the minister when we are going to get some fairness in forestry management and in the forest industry in this province. When are we going to get efficiency imposed upon the large multinational corporations that are running our first industry?

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) spoke earlier of the Vancouver Plywood's plant closure. And I predict, Mr. Speaker, that there will be others because they feel free under this administration to do what they darned well please - and this, after receiving at the hands of the public, through public largesse, their forest management licences and sustained yield units and all the rest of it that come out of this chamber on behalf of the public to these major companies. Is that the attitude that is going to be taken by Americans running our corporations - the example we're given in ~McMillan Bloedel? What are we going to see with ICBC? Perhaps the head office of ICBC should be moved to New York.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hartford, Connecticut.

MR. LAUK: Because everybody knows - as the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) knows -that Americans can do better. Everybody knows that Canadians are bush league.

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

MR. LAUK: That's right - that we can't do anything. I think he's projecting. He took a look at his cabinet and he drew that immediate conclusion.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What about Mason Caffney?

MR. LAUK: I understand that at the head of the new Grizzly Valley pipeline they are going to have a five~foot bronze statue of Arthur Weeks.

MR. SPEAKER: To the motion, please, hon. member .

MR. LAUK: With a plaque: "From oil to sterling." (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, back to forestry. We've waited patiently for the implementation of the positive recommendations of the Pearse report. The industry is on its knees, Mr. Speaker, it's on its knees. It is chaotic, it is out of control and the minister is out of control as well.

Rail transport - another key to the economic strategy that should be a part of this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'll bet your little hearts are jumping down there today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: I'm just covering briefly, Mr. Speaker, what I intend to speak about later in this chamber during this session. We're going to try and sketch out - those of us on this side of the House - an industrial strategy that will be able to assist this government to bring us out of the depression that they've helped create. But I'm covering the major points now - taxation, economic development, forestry, mining and the next one, probably the most important, the British Columbia Railway.

No one could ever accuse the NDP administration, or the previous Social Credit administration, of abdicating its responsibility to a royal commission. We always took it upon ourselves - and should, as any elected government - to govern. We've had nothing but excuses. And when a difficult decision needs to be made, instead of making it, they form a royal commission. What does that royal commission say? Well, we don't know. They filed an interim report on the Fort Nelson line, but it's secret. They won't tell us What it says . The whole area up there is waiting to see whether their economic lives are going to continue to be cut of f like a guillotine.

[ Page 56 ]

What we need, Mr. Speaker, is a bold plan for the railway to create the economic development - and I'm sorry it wasn't mentioned in the throne speech; it should have been - because through transportation comes economic development.

I hear from some of the members opposite: "What's going to support the railway? There are no mills or mines or pulp mills on the railway." Well, before they built the CPR there weren't any farms; there weren't any towns; there was nothing. That's why they built the railway. It would be the first time in history that you built a railway after there was economic development, but that's what they argue: build the railway after there is economic development.

AN HON. MEMBER: It makes sense.

MR. LAUK: What utter nonsense! We need an energy policy, Mr. Speaker. There is absolutely no thought by that government on how we're going to handle energy resources in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Their energy policy is Geritol.

MR. LAUK: "Their energy policy is Geritol." Quite right, Mr. Member. No thought. You've got Rhodes scholars over there, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not at the moment.

MR. LAUK: Oh, he'll be back. You've got Rhodes scholars over there, Mr. Speaker. You've got economic geniuses from South Peace River; you've got the brain surgeon from Point Grey; and yet we've not been able to come out with an energy policy for this province. B.C. Hydro is still proposing to build a transmission line across to Vancouver Island, Mr. Member for MacKenzie, doubling, perhaps even tripling, the power that will go into Vancouver Island, which W.A.C. Bennett and ourselves always contended wa s a light industrial area. What for? What have they got planned for that region? It's amazing the kind of haphazard planning that goes into Hydro. The chairman, Mr. Bonner, that well-known, non--partisan, industrial genius who presided over an economic disaster at MacMillan Bloedel, is going on to greater heights with B.C. Hydro. Well, at least he is a Canadian.

Mr. Speaker, Robert Bonner said before a committee of this House that they wanted a load growth projection for B.C. Hydro electric and other power for that corporation of something like 9.5 per cent. What was the figure, about 9.5 per cent? The Department of Economic Development said 7.8 per cent; B.C. Energy Commission said something less. He came before that committee and said: it's absolutely essential that w have 9.8 per cent otherwise, instead of moving forward, w will decelerate backward. The economy Will collapse. We'll all have to roll up our rail lines and our carpets and go home." Two years later.... By the way, he was asked by members other than myself, but I asked him as wall, and the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) asked him: " Isn't it a self-fulfilled prophecy? When you say 9.8 per cent, won' t there be an automatic use of 9.8 per cent?" And something that was unsaid but should have been said is: "Are you not projecting so high a growth rate to meet your debt burden ratio?" That is to say, of every dollar that w pay in our rates to B.C. Hydro, 48 cents of that is to meet interest charges on the tremendous capital outlays for the Peace River and the Columbia River projects.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the member soon be showing how this relates to the motion?

MR. LAUK: I am saying that an energy policy, if properly designed, leads to healthy economic development within this province. It wasn't mentioned in the throne speech and it should have been. I was quite surprised at His Honour for not even mentioning that.

Two years later the chairman of Hydro admitted that it wa s a self-fulfilled prophecy, that he's going to tone it down a bit. In other words, the policy there is like pinning the tail on the donkey. There is no scientific evidence to prove a 9.8 growth rate. There was no investigation or research. He was just pinning the tail on the donkey; he thought it sounded good, so that's what he's going to stick with. But he changed his mind. Well, at least he had a second look and I hope he has several more.

lastly, Mr. Speaker, I on disappointed that this government has failed to mention in specific terms in the throne speech an urban transportation policy, particularly for the city of Vancouver and the greater Vancouver district. Another Empty promise. As it was pointed out on television the other day, we had a more specific promise in last ~ear's throne speech debate. We're going from the particular to the general, and that's exactly what's happening. This government is letting the people of Vancouver down by a silly commitment to bridge traffic across Annacis Island, an insane commitment that commits this government to hundreds of millions of dollars

[ Page 57 ]

for the use of the automobile and completely ignoring the urban transit needs of the city of Vancouver. By ward-heeling political pressure, this government has succumbed to building highways and more bridges in an area that simply doesn't need them. One month after that bridge is open, if it's ever built, it will be chock full of automobiles again, and still the core of the city of Vancouver will be dying, Mr. Speaker; the core of the city of Vancouver will be dying because the transportation needs of the city are being completely ignored. And what are the members for Point Grey saying? Nothing. Nothing. I'm not going to say another word to the people of Point Grey. I won't mention that they are not holding up their own in the Legislature. The Attorney-General's former partner, though, has a few words to say about it. I guess the present Attorney-General can't recall his former partner. The bright lights and glamour and so on - he's forgotten about his past life. Back to the amendment.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the mayor of the city of Vancouver and most if not all of the citizens of Vancouver and the greater Vancouver district want to see a realistic commitment with dollars and cents to urban transportation, and that does not mean highways; that means public transit. They do not want to see any more tinkering. They want to see a substantial plan, and just establishing a bill, a piece of paper, is not going to solve the problem.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman) is speaking up. It's the second time in the 31st parliament. Well, I'll tell that bon. member what we did about it. The Minister of Municipal Affairs can tell you. We started a transportation plan which he gutted, and he lost the poker game to Hydro.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. To the motion.

MR. LAUK: Now I understand they have recanted. I congratulate you on a success even though it's two and a half years late. But, Mr. Speaker, on this amendment - those are the areas that I would have liked to have seen covered in the throne speech that ware not. It was a lengthy throne speech but nothing of any substance.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You know, the hon. Minister of Labour has been remarkably quiet these days.

Remarkably quiet. He was the designated hitter for the Indian policy of the government. He was the man who had to take the heat for the complete reversal of their stand during the election campaign and that's why he's been so quiet these days. Well, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you something.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I follow in your tradition, Mr. Member. The throne speech was thin and I admit freely that throne speeches quite often are thin. But this is the thinnest of them all. This is a throne speech that really is a harbinger of doom for throne speeches. I'm just wondering how long wa're going to carry on with throne speeches when they say so little. Now we on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, will have more to say about industrial strategy and economic development as this very long session unfolds.

MR. GIBSON: I will stick to the amendment but I wonder if you would ....

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I'm going to speak to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will relax the rules of relevance just long enough for me to say to you, sir, how very much I support your appointment and wish you very well in your duties in this House. I want to say the same thing to the Deputy Speaker, who will have many long hours to work as Chairman of committees. I want, in addition, to very warmly welcome the man sitting beside me, the new member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) . Welcome to this House.

I will just have one comment on the employment-creating capabilities of the throne speech, before I suggest that the House Leader notice the clock. That comment is as follows. I was wondering over the weekend what to say about it, and a friend gave me a suggestion. He told me a story which I think must have come from the Arab caucus of the Social Credit Party. The story concerns an oil sheik who had just brought in his one~thousandth oil well. He had three sons. He said: "Boys, you can have anything you Aunt to celebrate this occasion." Son No. 1, who was a bit of a playboy, said, "Dad, I would like a fleet of Mercedes automobiles, " and it was given unto him. The second son, who was an adventurer, said, "Dad, I would like a fleet of F-16s, " and it was given unto him. And the third son, who was a bit slower and younger than the

[ Page 58 ]

others and had more modest wants, thought for a long time and he said, "Dad, I'd like a Mickey Mouse outfit, " and, you know, they bought him a Social Credit government. (Laughter.) Mr. Speaker, that's my capsule comment on the Mickey Mouse approach to unemployment.

With the concurrence of the hon. House Leader, I will move the adjournment of this debate to the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Presenting reports.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the annual report for the Milk Board for the year ended December 31,1977.

Mr. Bawtree from the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture presented the committee's second report, which was read as follows and received:

Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Agriculture begs leave to report as follows:

The Committee has worked diligently to carry out the instructions which this Legislative Assembly gave nearly one year ago. Under Phase I of our instructions, we have ascertained what agricultural land resources are available in this province and have compiled this information for each of the nine agricultural reporting regions. From this information, we are compiling data to determine what production capabilities are possible in each area of the province.

Under the second phase, your committee has identified what the agricultural production costs are in this province and has compared these costs with those in the province of Alberta and in other areas of the Pacific northwest.

We will be reporting where the greatest strengths and weaknesses are in the cost of production for each commodity in each of the agricultural reporting regions. We have reviewed current operations of all marketing boards.

In the third phase, we have identified and explained the cost factors of food processing, distribution, retailing and food service in the province, and are now comparing them with Alberta and pertinent parts of the Pacific northwest. Vie will be reporting in detail B.C. strengths, weaknesses and potentials in this sector. We have also examined the degree and effects of concentration of market-power in this sector. We shall also report to you, by agricultural reporting region, the opinions and perceptions of the consumers of the agricultural and food system in British Columbia.

Although w have been delayed to some extent in each phase of our study, we are approximately 90 per cent complete in Phase I and 80 per cent complete in phases II and III. Phase IV has now commenced and work is progressing favourably. We anticipate the publication of approximately 100 detailed reports on various aspects of the food system. Many of these reports are complete and have been reviewed by the Committee.

The Committee wishes to acknowledge the contributions made by many individual citizens and groups who participated in public hearings and by answered questionnaires. There were 242 presentations made to the Committee during the public hearings, which were conducted in many areas of the province. There were 382 questionnaires sent to the commercial sector of the food industry, and a total of 10,501 consumer questionnaires mailed in two series with a 58 per cent return on the second series of 7,618.

As the final phase of the study that this House instructed the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture to undertake is not completed, this Committee recommends that it be reconstituted at the earliest possible opportunity so that the work can be continued with minimum delay.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House .

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.